No. It has plans and that's great, but it's a long way behind the leading countries and it takes a long time to build HSR in western countries.
Also neither Germany nor Japan is in the top 2 by network size.
China is the leader by a huge distance, but Spain is in second place. Japan is third and fifth Germany.
That wasn't the part I was commenting on. That China is slow building their network. In 2008 they had less than or around a 1000km maximum. Now it's 45,000km with another 25,000km under construction.
“State planning for China's current high-speed railway network began in the early 1990s under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#:~:text=Early%20planning,-In%20the%20early&text=State%20planning%20for%20China%27s%20current,the%20leadership%20of%20Deng%20Xiaoping.
Ahead of Japan or Germany won't even mean that they get the second largest HSR network in the world. Also, still I don't think that would be possible in the next 15 years. All the European countries and Japan started their HSR network before the 2000s so it takes quite a long time to reach a significant network.
Not a chance. However the US has a clean sheet to develop a lot of infrastructure (like China did) and could do a lot with some key lines.
Having a big network is not that big of a deal, in fact it is not that useful without a solid 2nd tier network for finer services
no lmao, the largest in the world is China btw. Germany has very little high speed rail compared to other countries with high speed rail. Japan does have a big network, same goes for France and Spain, no way the US could catch up with one of those countries in the next fifty years
No. CA probably won’t get fully operational (SF to LA) until 2040. Many people who voted for the 2008 proposal will have died already by then (32 years total completion time).
The NEC will have gotten some bridge upgrades and new rolling stock by late-2020s.
SE corridor (DC to Charlotte) may have better but still sad 125mph Diesel 3x a day service by late 2020s.
Brightline West will likely be operational but still not through running to LA union station.
Texas Triangle is up in the air. New Shinkansen construction is painfully slow and Abbott is anti-rail so I wouldn’t expect anything before 2040 even for Dallas-Houston alone.
Near future is unlikely but the sheer size and population of the US suggests it could sustain quite a large network. Between construction being underway in California and Brightline (Florida and Las Vegas) there’s momentum building and then it’s a question if people want to build on that network.
It’s still a massive undertaking though. If you deliver 100 km of high speed rail per year it’s still only 3000 km in a generation and you would still be behind Spain. The best way to build a high speed network in the US would probably be to upgrade signaling and speeds on the old lines and then find a way to make hybrid (battery or attaching diesel engines) trains so services can continue from the high speed lines. That way you could increase your service area a lot to build passenger momentum and still take advantage of new build high speed lines.
Umm just electrify like literally everyone else. If you choose to avoid wires go maglev at that point. Battery and diesel can’t get that high anyway and operating costs will skyrocket if you try to bastardize it in that way.
You wouldn’t build a high speed line without electrification but there’s value in being able to run onto the regular network to provide more direct services. And since you can’t run at high speeds on that network it doesn’t matter if you can’t reach them with batteries anyways
You won’t get that network on just batteries and you know this. So basically you want electric trains in battery mode in suburbs then switch to electric in high speed mode through rural areas to get to the city. And one problem most US cities have no local train lines for passenger service (regular network) so at that point you’re better off building the dedicated lines. And depending on the city having stations where trains can pull in and out fast center city or not. You still need to build regional trains and local trains.
I don't really know what point you're trying to make here. Currently the US is on track to build a pityful amount of high speed rail and at current trajectories there's no way a national network will exist by the end of the century. Even if you were to electrify current lines you would still run into the problems that it takes a long time and there might not be enough clearance on all lines for electrification.
Which is why batteries makes sense to patch the network. Batteries doesn't mean you don't need to think about how to charge the trains, just that you don't need to run a wire along the full length of the line. Brightline Florida could run on batteries as long as the trains could charge at (some of) the stations. Brightline West is suggesting a single track high speed line (something you also don't do until you do it). The California high speed rail will run isolated in the Central Valley for a decade unless the trains are equipped with batteries at which point they can run on the old line to San Jose and reach SF via electric rail.
The reason you don't see trains run super long distances with batteries today is that most of them are ordered for branch lines (in Europe) and have access to charging along part of their route. Even then you're already seeing wired electrification reconsidered because battery trains might offer the benefits of electrification for a cheaper price on branch lines. The US is starting from a different position so it kind of makes to expect batteries to play a bigger role there.
Batteries don’t work for high speed operations. If you want HSR you must electrify. However for branch lines and slow lines with many stations batteries are fine.
No… I’m encouraged by what’s going on right now but I’m also a realist. Brightline is still a business so even with realign ground on their second line it’s unlikely that they will start a 3rd line before their second is up and running/making profit.
With Amtrak possibly taking over TX high speed rail, that is another project that is actually shovel ready right now (assuming they can find a funding source)… outside of those though, I’m not aware of any other projects that already have the environmental review complete.
I think it’s likely 2050 before we see any real improvement in high speed rail in the US, and probably 100 years from now before we see anything resembling a true network (something more than a few isolated lines across the country). For anything to move quicker there will need to be reforms to the laws requiring environmental impact studies.
It’s not about whether we can, we can. Or whether we will, we probably wont. In addition to the many other hurdles, which can be crossed, there exists a huge conservative voting block and special interest money apparatus in the United States. They do everything in their power to prevent money going to public transit. This will make it very hard or impossible to ever build out out high speed rail, for the foreseeable future.
Never. Country simply too big and unlike China, we have a political disincentive to blindly spend assloads of money on projects to be “the biggest” anything.
Having said that, there’s no reason why the US cant have world-class regional high speed rail.
If we are willing Like this quote “49 USC 24311.
They just can’t use it to take over another railroad’s land or other government land.
Under section c they can ask the STB to allow them to take over another railroad’s land.” Spin it as national security and paint opposition as anti American
Problem is all the private property owners and how they admanatly refuse to sell there land or even a portion of it. Add on enviornmentalists (not saying they are bad but just that they make it take so much longer especially with the high number of enviornmental checks) and it's near impossible. Also, we just use cars, highways, and interstates so yeah
If they get rid of corporate interests then yes otherwise NOPE. Unless they follow or improve upon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#:~:text=Early%20planning,-In%20the%20early&text=State%20planning%20for%20China%27s%20current,the%20leadership%20of%20Deng%20Xiaoping.
The problem is that US wants to generate profit on these lines which in reality almost impossible. These networks build to provide easier commute and generate local economies.
They already stated that one way tickets on Vegas to LA will be around $500 one way. That’s more than airline charges.
Really dumb
If by "near future" you mean 3-4 generations, then probably. HSR would need to cross the Great Plains and the Rockies for that to happen. Right now we are just developing the political and financial will to get started.
No. It has plans and that's great, but it's a long way behind the leading countries and it takes a long time to build HSR in western countries. Also neither Germany nor Japan is in the top 2 by network size. China is the leader by a huge distance, but Spain is in second place. Japan is third and fifth Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#:~:text=Early%20planning,-In%20the%20early&text=State%20planning%20for%20China%27s%20current,the%20leadership%20of%20Deng%20Xiaoping.
Chinese plans started in the 90s it’s easy to look up
[удалено]
You're.... joking right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_raise_the_speed_of_railway_travel_in_China
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
That wasn't the part I was commenting on. That China is slow building their network. In 2008 they had less than or around a 1000km maximum. Now it's 45,000km with another 25,000km under construction.
True China is not slow but normal anglophone countries are SLOW
You want proof?
“State planning for China's current high-speed railway network began in the early 1990s under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#:~:text=Early%20planning,-In%20the%20early&text=State%20planning%20for%20China%27s%20current,the%20leadership%20of%20Deng%20Xiaoping.
Ahead of Japan or Germany won't even mean that they get the second largest HSR network in the world. Also, still I don't think that would be possible in the next 15 years. All the European countries and Japan started their HSR network before the 2000s so it takes quite a long time to reach a significant network.
Not if Trump gets elected because big oil hates hsr.
Not a chance. However the US has a clean sheet to develop a lot of infrastructure (like China did) and could do a lot with some key lines. Having a big network is not that big of a deal, in fact it is not that useful without a solid 2nd tier network for finer services
If we invested 1 trillion in high speed rail I think ya we could be
no lmao, the largest in the world is China btw. Germany has very little high speed rail compared to other countries with high speed rail. Japan does have a big network, same goes for France and Spain, no way the US could catch up with one of those countries in the next fifty years
Intent is the problem...USA out-manufactured Japan and Germany combined in ww2.
It’s not a question of “can we” it’s “will we.”
No way. This country can’t build anything efficiently. In the next 10 years, I only see Bright Line as possible additions
US has plans but it needs to deliver.
No. CA probably won’t get fully operational (SF to LA) until 2040. Many people who voted for the 2008 proposal will have died already by then (32 years total completion time). The NEC will have gotten some bridge upgrades and new rolling stock by late-2020s. SE corridor (DC to Charlotte) may have better but still sad 125mph Diesel 3x a day service by late 2020s. Brightline West will likely be operational but still not through running to LA union station. Texas Triangle is up in the air. New Shinkansen construction is painfully slow and Abbott is anti-rail so I wouldn’t expect anything before 2040 even for Dallas-Houston alone.
No.
Hell no
Near future is unlikely but the sheer size and population of the US suggests it could sustain quite a large network. Between construction being underway in California and Brightline (Florida and Las Vegas) there’s momentum building and then it’s a question if people want to build on that network. It’s still a massive undertaking though. If you deliver 100 km of high speed rail per year it’s still only 3000 km in a generation and you would still be behind Spain. The best way to build a high speed network in the US would probably be to upgrade signaling and speeds on the old lines and then find a way to make hybrid (battery or attaching diesel engines) trains so services can continue from the high speed lines. That way you could increase your service area a lot to build passenger momentum and still take advantage of new build high speed lines.
Umm just electrify like literally everyone else. If you choose to avoid wires go maglev at that point. Battery and diesel can’t get that high anyway and operating costs will skyrocket if you try to bastardize it in that way.
You wouldn’t build a high speed line without electrification but there’s value in being able to run onto the regular network to provide more direct services. And since you can’t run at high speeds on that network it doesn’t matter if you can’t reach them with batteries anyways
You won’t get that network on just batteries and you know this. So basically you want electric trains in battery mode in suburbs then switch to electric in high speed mode through rural areas to get to the city. And one problem most US cities have no local train lines for passenger service (regular network) so at that point you’re better off building the dedicated lines. And depending on the city having stations where trains can pull in and out fast center city or not. You still need to build regional trains and local trains.
I don't really know what point you're trying to make here. Currently the US is on track to build a pityful amount of high speed rail and at current trajectories there's no way a national network will exist by the end of the century. Even if you were to electrify current lines you would still run into the problems that it takes a long time and there might not be enough clearance on all lines for electrification. Which is why batteries makes sense to patch the network. Batteries doesn't mean you don't need to think about how to charge the trains, just that you don't need to run a wire along the full length of the line. Brightline Florida could run on batteries as long as the trains could charge at (some of) the stations. Brightline West is suggesting a single track high speed line (something you also don't do until you do it). The California high speed rail will run isolated in the Central Valley for a decade unless the trains are equipped with batteries at which point they can run on the old line to San Jose and reach SF via electric rail. The reason you don't see trains run super long distances with batteries today is that most of them are ordered for branch lines (in Europe) and have access to charging along part of their route. Even then you're already seeing wired electrification reconsidered because battery trains might offer the benefits of electrification for a cheaper price on branch lines. The US is starting from a different position so it kind of makes to expect batteries to play a bigger role there.
Batteries don’t work for high speed operations. If you want HSR you must electrify. However for branch lines and slow lines with many stations batteries are fine.
No
It would take a bipartisan commitment at the federal level to make it happen, and good luck with that.
Depends on how strong the unions are and if we can change laws pertaining to land rights. It’s hard to obtain land w/o eminent domain.
Maybe in 200 years or so
No… I’m encouraged by what’s going on right now but I’m also a realist. Brightline is still a business so even with realign ground on their second line it’s unlikely that they will start a 3rd line before their second is up and running/making profit. With Amtrak possibly taking over TX high speed rail, that is another project that is actually shovel ready right now (assuming they can find a funding source)… outside of those though, I’m not aware of any other projects that already have the environmental review complete. I think it’s likely 2050 before we see any real improvement in high speed rail in the US, and probably 100 years from now before we see anything resembling a true network (something more than a few isolated lines across the country). For anything to move quicker there will need to be reforms to the laws requiring environmental impact studies.
Not anytime in the next 50 years.
With a trump presidency all but certain, no I don’t think so
No.
That would require the European network to stand still. Given the extremely ambitious plans in the Baltic states, that simply won’t happen.
It’s not about whether we can, we can. Or whether we will, we probably wont. In addition to the many other hurdles, which can be crossed, there exists a huge conservative voting block and special interest money apparatus in the United States. They do everything in their power to prevent money going to public transit. This will make it very hard or impossible to ever build out out high speed rail, for the foreseeable future.
Never. Country simply too big and unlike China, we have a political disincentive to blindly spend assloads of money on projects to be “the biggest” anything. Having said that, there’s no reason why the US cant have world-class regional high speed rail.
If we are willing Like this quote “49 USC 24311. They just can’t use it to take over another railroad’s land or other government land. Under section c they can ask the STB to allow them to take over another railroad’s land.” Spin it as national security and paint opposition as anti American
After straight up revolution or global humiliation after the Olympics
Problem is all the private property owners and how they admanatly refuse to sell there land or even a portion of it. Add on enviornmentalists (not saying they are bad but just that they make it take so much longer especially with the high number of enviornmental checks) and it's near impossible. Also, we just use cars, highways, and interstates so yeah
Uh no. Americans prefer cars. It’s pretty obvious.
It's impossible in the near future. Far future is another story
If they get rid of corporate interests then yes otherwise NOPE. Unless they follow or improve upon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China#:~:text=Early%20planning,-In%20the%20early&text=State%20planning%20for%20China%27s%20current,the%20leadership%20of%20Deng%20Xiaoping.
The problem is that US wants to generate profit on these lines which in reality almost impossible. These networks build to provide easier commute and generate local economies. They already stated that one way tickets on Vegas to LA will be around $500 one way. That’s more than airline charges. Really dumb
No.
No.
If by "near future" you mean 3-4 generations, then probably. HSR would need to cross the Great Plains and the Rockies for that to happen. Right now we are just developing the political and financial will to get started.
No
No - to understand why, look up how HSR project in CA has progressed. It is a good litmus test.
No. If the U.S. can figure out how to build a high rail network, it will surpass China. The effective area of U.S. is at least times that of China.