The High Speed Rail Network of the Future

[mquiroz90]

@4izm0v I mean like hover 4 feet by the time comes there won't be no wheels on trains

[ljmanor14]

@mquirox trains have been hovering for years /watch?v=weWmTldrOyo

[mquiroz90]

Have a feeling trains will fly and hover in the 2030s or 2040s

[4izm0v]

@mquiroz90 They already do. It is called Maglev.

[MrThoreros]

@nigelholland3 for further information to high speed train system take a look to my video on my you tube channel

[MrThoreros]

@nigelholland3 in my opinion, a high-speed train on rail can't be profitable above 320/330 km/h . because of the cost of electricity and the attrition of the infrastructure. In France on commercial trip the max speed is 320 km/h. Even the Chinese had to decrease the speed of their trains, to decrease the price of the ticket ( 350km/h -> 300km/h

[youngian]

Having travelled on internal US airlines, HSR we be welcome to America. The vast empty distances make much more technically feasible than Japan or Western Europe as well.

[FGsGFdG2]

The US does not have the population density of Japan, South Korea, or Europe to require a system. Even in China, there are thinly populated areas where having high speed rail wouldn't make sense.

Maybe in the Northeast and Bay Area to LA path, but a national network is certainly not necessary.

[4izm0v]

@FGsGFdG2 I agree. A national network doesn't make much sense but connecting the major cities on the coasts does and should happen.

[slhone]

Its the wave of the future. The more you fight the future the more you suffer in the long run. Whether its this or something better if we (the USA) don't do something soon were all gonna need to learn to speak Chinese.

[MELegion1]

waste of money

[visini14]

@MELegion1 No it isn't. It is way cheaper for the average citizen to use a bullet train than use a car. It is also way cleaner too.

[MrThoreros]

I have made almost the same video for France! i spent all my life with high-speed trains. i'm 21 years old. The TGV system is 31 years now. I can say, it works. it's really a stimulus for economy as you can see in the city of Reims in France. But your maps is a bit optimistic, A trip in high speed train is profitable less 4 hours. So you can't build high-speed railway everywhere.it's not necessary to build it everywhere on the route because high-speed train can run on traditionnal railway too.

[adrianroam95]

But the US makes up by having a world class interstate highway system.

[fastestbird]

@adrianroam95 HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

[Bruce1949919]

Not going to happen. Sorry it's a waste of time and Obama knows that too.

[lilrog0909]

@Bruce1949919 suburbia is a waste of resources

[Bruce1949919]

@lilrog0909 Just another Union job Obama want's to push for his Union suck up campaign.

[EasyEs]

Ahhh ha, high speed rail is a total boondogle. The USA has the worlds most efficent freight rail system because it is exposed to market forces..those things that prevent high speed rail from taking hold. The high speed rail system in China is bankrupting that nation slowly. They were able to build it with that good ol communist throwing people out of the way and grabbing land. Yeah USA go bankrupt trying to impress France.

[whotolduso]

@EasyEs actually it doesnt bankrupt anything unless we hire foreign firms and workers to build it. Historically, infrastructure improvement has been used many times to stimulate the economy. And if you ask me, investing hundreds of billions of dollars into extremely efficient oil free transportation is way smarter than into a war to secure more cheap oil. China not only realizes this, but they have plans to build self sustaining cities. A country built on a model of efficiency will dominate.

[EasyEs]

@whotolduso You could hire local workers to dig and fill ditches and it would bankrupt a nation buecause they don't gain productive capacity from it. High speed rail isn't efficent which is why all over the world it must be subsidized. China's debt from running their high speed rail is a quater trillion $. Not to mention the cost of building. Big grand plans just piss away real wealth. Stimulas effects are imaginary just like in WW2

[whotolduso]

@EasyEs I wouldnt call them imaginary. It gave people jobs. And the things that we have from that era (really good freeway system, national landmarks like GG Bridge) are the real wealth you are talking about. What really does make countries poor are trade deficits. We spend about $24 million/HOUR on foreign crude oil. This is up from 13 million since 2004. That's only 8 years!! Add the huge profits foreign companies like Shell, BP reap from us. Rail is by far THE most efficient way to move.

[EasyEs]

@whotolduso No it was imaginary. People had jobs but they lived in a shortage economy and could not buy goods and services with the money they earned. Production went towards ships, ammo, tanks etc. The reason America has a trade deficit is because it refused to adapt quickly to the reality of a global economy once their industrial monopoly began to errode. Rail is efficent for freight but not for people in the USA and high speed rail isn't efficent or it would turn a profit.

[whotolduso]

@EasyE Well I was referring to the recession during which our freeways were built. Unemployment was rampant and it was the government's way to give people something to do. So you think that our insane increased expenditure on oil is sustainable? That it doesn't contribute to the trade deficit? The way I see it our government is already subsidizing our cheap oil by spending trillions on policing the world. We could have the world's best infrastructure and education if we spent our money wisely.

[SailorBarsoom]

If it doesn't do at least 322 KmPH (200 MPH), don't bother. People will only take the train instead of driving or flying if the train is MUCH faster than driving, and comparable to flying.

In fact, it probably isn't worth the investment unless it breaks 402 KmPH (250 MPH).

And since we'd be building that from scratch (you don't get 250 MPH by tweaking Amtrack a little), we might as well shoot for 483 KmPH (300 MPH).

But anything less than 200 MPH? Don't bother; it'll fail.

[SagaciousSilence]

If only the US could get rid of all that dead space in the middle. We'll keep Texas because it makes us good money, but just get rid of those worthless middle and southern states. Everyone knows the only good places in US are on the coasts.

[slobbybobby83]

It's harder to crash a train into buildings. And it's cleaner. I say go for it.

[jtjr26]

I the US anything you can transport by rail instead of truck you are saving a lot of monney.

[akkifans]

i doubt rail network will be successful because bus rides are not even making profit in my city..only few people and school students use bus and very few college students use bus. also mostly senior citizen(for free) ride in the bus.

[whotolduso]

@akkifans ever taken a subway?

[rippinsteo]

The United States already has a high-speed "Air" system that is the envy of the world. :-)

[crazy3641]

beautiful dream. it's shame most America dont interest HSR system

[Snipe4261]

If the US had a decent high-speed rail network I would prefer traveling by rail to both flying and driving; however, since there isn't one, I don't. It won't happen if there aren't people willing to use the system and many people don't favor the idea because the current system isn't any good. Its an economic conundrum that must be solved for this to be viable.

[whotolduso]

@Snipe4261 the current system is not used because its not a realistic alternative. and it is this way because nobody uses it. You can see how well it works in Europe. Airports are a pain in the ass and if you include the extra time you waste at airports, rail becomes faster and much more pleasant.

[AZ09astrophysicist]

in reality the USA will always be the alpha male on earth, simply because it can and it will!! countries can try to overtake, but ti just wont happen; that's why many people hate the states, but that is just envy!!!

[MidnightFapper69]

China has a population four times the size of the United States (of FAR from affluent people). How is the United States ,,falling far, far behind" again?

There are 40 cars per 1,000 citizens in China. There are 850 cars per 1,000 citizens in the USA.

[WbA124]

look a tthe second top comment us a economic state?how come they are broke then?

[ymhktravel]

I have recently just came back from a trip to China's various cities. And I find myself using their hi speed trains getting from city to city. So do their locals and other tourists. I realise that if one talsk about viability and profitability of high speed rail (like USA does), then the project is destined to the dust and won't take off.Detractors might protest initially for various reasons, but once you build the infrastructure, people will see the convenience and start to use it. Like I did.

[CamNM1991]

just keep burning oil america!

[FoxEnyuron]

Because nobody cares about the rocky mountains..

[TheDemand24]

AIRLINERS AND CAR MANUFACTURERS WOULD LOOSE ON THIS ONE

[Smeller7]

If this is such a good and necessary idea why isn't the private sector putting money into it?

[Mehtaphorical]

@Smeller7 People really only want to use the train if there's a big network already. Private enterprises only have the capital to build small pieces of the network themselves, which alone aren't worth it to people. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts and no private enterprise is big enough to take on a project of that proportion by itself, especially considering what a long term investment we're talking about. It'll become really worth it as oil prices increase, but if someone...

[Mehtaphorical]

@Smeller7 doesn't start on it soon, the lagtime between the old transportation model becoming outdated and the train systems emergence as a more efficient system will be very long and it'll cost the American economy a fortune. America's densely populated enough today that a train system can become very economical if it gets a push (because of economies of scale, it's not worth it at it's current puny size). As such, the American government should invest in the trains and make the money back.

[bweazel]

@Smeller7 Because it's not a good and necessary idea.

[bweazel]

Waste of money. If it won't be done privately, it shouldn't be done.

[givepropstotherich]

Greensboro, NC??? YAY!!!

[mabutoo]

We need to press our politicians to stop thinking so short-sighted on this project. It could cut our oil consumption, increase mobility of our workforce thereby reducing the cost of living, reduce the strain on air traffic; in short save America trillions of dollars a year when its finished.

[bweazel]

@mabutoo Cut oil consumption to increase coal consumption? Ya, great idea, smart guy. Increase mobility? Decrease cost of living? Ummm, how exactly? Are you trying to say that people will live in Oklahoma and commute to New York every day? Sorry, not going to happen. If anything, it will raise the cost of living, since they're paying for this with tax dollars. Oh horray, more government intervention into what should be our choice as consumers and business people. Not a politicians.

[mabutoo]

@bweazel Yes, it will cut oil consumption. More rail commuters means fewer cars in traffic jams. Oklahoma to NYC, that is an exaggeration, if you think about it realistically it will make better sense to you. Personally, I prefer to take the train over flying on long trips; it is much more comfortable and less stressful. I don't fear my government, I control it by participating in it. (i.e. I VOTE). Don't let the media scare you, its our government.

[bweazel]

@mabutoo And increase coal consumption. No real net benefit there, bro. I didn't say Oklahoma to NYC, I asked why we in Oklahoma should have our federal income tax spent on things that do not benefit us in Oklahoma. Why should New Yorkers be able to take our money and spend it on something that Oklahomans will never use or benefit from?

I'm not letting the media scare me. You're clearly letting them lead you though. You haven't answered a single question I've asked yet.

[bweazel]

@mabutoo Are you under the impression that this thing will be free for all? Sorry, come back to reality. Subways aren't free, this won't be either. And when you reduce air traffic, what do you think that's going to do to those companies bottom lines? You may just end up putting tens of thousands of people out of a job, because you wanted to tax people for something that is really not necessary. Double trouble. Think please. Use your head before you hop on board with government intervention.

[mabutoo]

@bweazel Actually, I have some personal experience in the matter since at one point I use to work in DC. Ever try to make that commute when its 2 hours away? By car with all the traffic, you will fill up 3 times a week. The cost of a train ticket for the week is the same as 2 fill ups. Cities like DC, NYC, and LA have hi-tech well paying jobs but expensive cost of living and congestion. High speed rail would allow people to get those higher paying jobs and spend less on living cost.

[bweazel]

@mabutoo Well, that's all well and good, brother, but you're ignoring the costs to build this new rail network, which I think would give you a couple more fill ups to your equation. Wouldn't you agree? Well that's nice, then DC, NYC, and LA can pay for these networks on their own. There is no reason federal money needs to go to this. Again, wouldn't you agree? If not, tell me why we in Oklahoma need to pay for people in DC and NYC to get to work faster or save one fill up a week. Why?

[mabutoo]

@bweazel Not at all my friend. Firstly, I believe America has long neglected to invest in itself and the cost benefits I think will come over time. I also believe that federal tax dollars go to increasing the welfare of the nation (not just any one state) that's what state taxes are for. Oklahoma benefits from federal tax dollars like everyone else and eventually the rail system should connect us all. And you right, it wont be free but it will pay for itself over time.

[mabutoo]

@bweazel It's not just about getting to work faster, but being able to work in locations that would otherwise not be cost-beneficial or allow a small business owner a way to conduct commerce in locations they could not afford yet to operate in. It only takes a little imagination to find positives to something like this and make them a reality. I am many others have thought this a good idea long before the media caught wind of it (just fyi).

[mabutoo]

@bweazel I think its a fair question you ask with regards to Oklahoma which is not just a farm state. You too could benefit from having a high-speed rail system. Increase tourism, more buyers for crops can come in and bid (i.e. a family grocery store in Florida, Maine, or Washington). Hell, they have great hunting in Michigan, but bringing a hunting rifle on a plane is such a pain these days I haven't been since 2001.

[Mehtaphorical]

@bweazel Train systems and air transport coexists easily in Europe and East Asia. And for jobs lost in the aerospace, jobs are created in the train industry. If it's more economically efficient to have the two systems, one for shorter distance, the other for farther distances and over seas, I'm all for it as that'd create more jobs in the end.

[bweazel]

@Mehtaphorical Yes, but who are you to make that call? We are not like them, our cities are not built like theirs. Who are you, or a small group of people in government, to determine what industries succeed and fail in this country? Who are you to put tons of people out of a job, in hopes that they'll be able to find jobs in your tax payer funded train industry.

Bottom line, if these states feel they need a new train network, they can pay for it themselves, and split connection costs.

[bweazel]

@Mehtaphorical You can try to make whatever excuse you'd like. It doesn't change the fact that you, nor any other human should have the authority to change an entire economy at their whim. You get what I'm saying? You may agree with this one, but what happens when this same behavior is used to jam something down your throat you don't agree with? You going to be so naive and happy then? Hmm?

[1elgalle1]

Spain has become the European country with more miles of high speed lines

Spain is building high-speed train in saudi arabia

and you do not name Spain, you are a bit stupid reporter to rely on their data, when hides reality by hiding this information? perhaps envy, the United Kingdom high-speed trains is crap compared to Spain xD

Anglo-Saxon fucked up the world believe that there is only the UK and U.S.

[stratocaster1986able]

Feel sorry for those guys living up in North, South Dakota,Wyoming and Montana.

[295g295]

Chinese trains are faulty.

youtube.com/watch?v=wl9zFHTVmP­g

[295g295]

0:25 Portland and Western Railroad ...is Class 2 short-line, a part of Genesee & Wyoming Inc.

[Jiffypistol]

This can't happen. The interstate railway is not for transportation... It's for transporting political prisoners who dissent from Dictator Obama's plans and opinions.

OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT EUROPE, THANK GOD!

[MenwithHill]

In France, I believe we've most dense network of rail. We kick your arse, if you want.

[drunkalfuzzyness]

why not make more magnet trains!! they are incredible and quite clean.

[TheRekcabOfTheD]

I have never really understood the necessity for high-speed rail in the US. It seems that only New England and major cities have the population that make it economically fesable, and cross-country travel is just a well done by plane. I admit I am not the most informed person on the subject, and would like some clarity. Thank You.

[MrDelusionalPenguin]

Behind the UK on trains?

Seriously?

[Mixarenan]

an excerpt from Fast Food Nation that talks about the oil, tire and automobile industry against railroads in the first half of the XX century: (ok... YouTube won't let me link it) — search on google books for the book aforementioned and go to page 16, or search for General Motors within the book. There's 3 or 4 paragraphs about the topic.

[troglodyte3344]

BS, you cant make predictions on rail travel 100 years into the future. We will most probably have hover transport by then.

[OnThatPowder]

who gives a shit. Get a car, fucking lefty fag bags

[sideslide23]

@OnThatPowder 30 years from now, a spanking new car like a Kia Rio will start at $120,000 and a 2 bedroom house would start at $1,200,000.

[OnThatPowder]

@sideslide23 man that aint shit, my S-class cost $140,000

[sideslide23]

@OnThatPowder hope you enjoy it because 30 years from now the newer S-Class will cost $1,400,000

[rob0is0god]

america's entire rail network for passengers is pathetic in total your entire network carries about 30 million passengers a year... thats two weeks of the uk system (and ours isnt great) your government needs to invest massively in rail transport... but since your government is soooo useless it will never happen, have fun being 2nd/ 3rd/ 4th largest economy in 40 years time...

[TheRekcabOfTheD]

@rob0is0god First of all, I see no reason for all the hate, secondly high speed rail in the UK is very different than what it should be in the US. The UK is a much smaller country geographically and population wise (by number and density), and a very differrent approach to its structure is needed, whether we even need a train that connects some major cities is an issue, and the American economy (while having some issues) has still demonstrated itself to be the most...

[immikeurnot]

@TheRekcabOfTheD No, UK population density is much higher than it is overall in the US.

[TheRekcabOfTheD]

@immikeurnot which is why it is less feasible to have a rail system.

[immikeurnot]

@TheRekcabOfTheD Less feasible for who? For the UK? Only in terms of acquiring the land you need. Otherwise, it makes a rail system a lot more feasible. People generally won't be traveling as far (in fact, you simply CAN'T travel as far in the UK as you can in the US).

Higher density makes all forms of mass transit more practical. A couple weeks ago I drove through West Texas where there are towns of 500 and less. Not practical for passenger rail.

[TheRekcabOfTheD]

@immikeurnot Sorry, I think we agree but I mistyped. Yes it is much less feasible to have a rail system in the US, because, except in New England, the population isn't dense enough. Sorry about that.

[immikeurnot]

@TheRekcabOfTheD I might have misread. But yeah, it looks like we agree.

For those who don't get it: If one place has 10000 potential customers per 5 rail miles and another has only 1000 per 5 rail miles (these are random numbers to illustrate my point)... The latter isn't a good place for high speed rail, sorry. The latter much better describes most of the US.

[TheRekcabOfTheD]

technologically/ scientifically advanced, and one of the safest places in the world to invest. The credit rating dropped, but our credit is still cheaper than the UK's because we are slightly safer to invest in. I'm not saying this to try and fan the flames of international anamosity, but to blatenly say that the US economy will suffer just based on rail-travel is not accurate. P.S. If the US can create the greatest highway system in the world I'm sure we can create the greatest rail system.

[immikeurnot]

@rob0is0god Because the population density in the US is nowhere near as high as it is in the UK. Mass transit is not very useful in the US because of that.

Just look at a state like Texas. It's got almost as much landmass as all of Europe, but not even half the population of the UK. Before we go diving into mass transit projects, we need to see if they're going to work.

One important thing the video neglected is that the rail system in the US wasn't built by the government. It was private.

[amarinaccio514]

@rob0is0god

u mad, bro?

We live in suburbs. our cities are not built for trains. our cities are too spread out for trains to have a positive return on investment.

and dude, China will NEVER pass us in terms of Per Capita GDP, which is the only statistic that matters. We are 8 in the world in this aspect, the largest country in front of us: 5.1 M people. China is 95, India is 130. I mean, sure these 2 might pass us cumulatively, but as a whole, our economy will still be stronger.

[rob0is0god]

@amarinaccio514 ummm i dont know who you have been talking to but per capita is only important to see how rich the people are the gdp determines a countries economic power and its ability to spend... on military and other things that then make the richest country the most powerful hence china will over take the USA in power soonish

[AGenericAccount]

@amarinaccio514 per capita doesn't really mean much, I mean the yuan really does not reflect its current worth, and that per capita that the US has does not include its atrocious GINI coefficient. Look at things like public works programs, money spent on social and infrastructure programs. These things really dictate growth and how a country progresses. Your cities are about as spread out as Chinese cities, which gives even more reason to construct a high-speed rail network.

[beattles93]

@rob0is0god Eh, i dont mind being here in america. I just enjoy having freedoms and rights i guess. I'm just happy I'm not in a 3rd world country.

[munib1000]

@rob0is0god Yeah don't get too happy there. the UK has huge connections with the states so if they fall we fall.

[bweazel]

@munib1000 Ummm, no, not at all actually. If the Euro fails, the Euro fails. It really has nothing to do with our entire economy, only those invested in it. And really, only an idiot would invest in Europe, and we were not that exposed to European debt (especially sovereign debt) before this crisis started. The reason MF Global collapsed is because they tried to call the bottom in a scenario that won't have a bottom. Do not let the globalists tell you were are connected to them. We're not.

[coollikeyodais]

Poor Montana, apparently no one goes there or are they still working with steam engines.

[sideslide23]

@coollikeyodais Montana there nothing but too many mountains, they legalize hunting, and Montana is as worse as Arizona, there no theme park like Lagoon in Ogden Utah.

[journeyer58]

The problem with an American High Speed Rail System, too many cities and towns will be left off the map of service. The map shown at the end of the piece is woefully inadequate for the needs of the rest of the country, it has very few cities in what is now "fly over country." If America truly wants to make a High Speed Rail line come into existence, it would need to include a greater amount of cities located beyond those depicted. To spur economic growth, towns must be included that aren't yet.

[dangerouslytalented]

Its not going to happen, too many rich people stand to lose too much money.

[sideslide23]

@dangerouslytalented the Rick people who owns Airlines and Greyhound Company would lose money but the Cargo and Trucking company there shouldn't be any problem.

[dangerouslytalented]

@sideslide23 With cargo and freight, they will adjust over time. And the Greyhound company will not suffer much, because outside a narrow corridor, all the passengers have to actually GET TO the train. The airlines will have a problem though, as a lot of their business is regional.

[sideslide23]

@dangerouslytalented the Airliners would have to invest on International and overseas Flights, or other place whare high speed rail wouldn't exist like Mazula Montana.

[dangerouslytalented]

@sideslide23 Mazula Montana would hardly be lucrative though...They will need to invest in smaller planes for places like Mazula, and larger planes for the international flights.

If America does not invest in this high speed rail network, I see Americans going to Canada or Mexico (whichever one makes a network first) and taking trains across the continent in those nations.

[LurkerPatrol5]

@dangerouslytalented You mean "Job Creators"? :P

[dangerouslytalented]

@LurkerPatrol5 The nations that create jobs will be the ones who are dominant in this century.

[Viktir666]

I would ride one of those. I feel safer on that than on a plane (I hate terrorists).

[johncrwarner]

As a European with no car and no love of flying - I like trains and I live in a town which has the high speed line between Köln and Berlin - so we have high speed trains in both directions. We have had them for 20 years and the first trains that went into service then are being decommissioned.

[DJMight]

Paying $20-$50 to go cross country on rail for 1/10th the time vs paying $200-$800 on plane...yes please!

[mlhupp]

@DJMight look up rail road rates right now. its not going to be 20-50 to go cross country.

just looked up amtrack

69 hr, 45 min

$338.00

[waltermh111]

@mlhupp lol, why are you looking up amtrak?

thats too funny actually, he said in 1/10th the time. Amtrak is slow and inefficient. Its ancient tech. It is so bad it is barely used relative to most of the worlds train systems. Well, probably any of the worlds.

With a rail system thats useful to people, it will be used more, bringing down price. Being more efficient to operate will also bring down price.

You cannot compare high speed rail to amtrak.

[EricBoisen]

If only the plan were to go through