Why do we have one of the WORST Railway systems in the world?

avatar33

avatar33

e-Hustler
Dec 5, 2009
3,838
52
48
Calgary, AB
This is something that I simply do not understand. How is it that both the US & Canadian governments don't see the opportunity here?

Flying is such a hassle in this continent and so expensive compared to Europe and Asia yet we buy flight tickets all the time because it's our ONLY option. If there was a Bullet train linking major cities (think NYC to Washington DC, to Atlanta, to Houston, etc...) I'm pretty sure a lot of people would prefer taking the train. Amirite? Especially now that people are pissed off by TSA agents, all the tightened security measures, delays and bullshit that make a simple local 1 hour flight actually take you 4 hours.

I took the Amtrak train from Toronto to New York (roughly 450 miles) => a 15 hour bumpy, noisy and uncomfortable ride! Looking through the window I was honestly thinking that I could bike faster than this. On a 200mph bullet train it would take a little more than 2 hours!

In the meantime, China & Europe are still improving their system & building new tracks...

China tests its high-speed rail link from Beijing to Shanghai | World news | guardian.co.uk

China High Speed Rail Growing, European Line Topped by Solar Panels
 


Have you ever driven in Europe? Literally every 5 - 10 minutes you hit a new town / village. In Canada, you can drive for 4 - 6 hours straight without hitting a single town.

In other words (at least in Canada), we're behind in high speed rail due to low population density, massive land area, and cost. Why lay 800kms of high-speed rail tracks, when it's only going to pass through maybe a million people if you're lucky?
 
PS. And for areas with dense population, we do have good rail service, as shown:

canada-line1.jpg
 
Kiopa_Matt said:
Have you ever driven in Europe? Literally every 5 - 10 minutes you hit a new town / village. In Canada, you can drive for 4 - 6 hours straight without hitting a single town.

In other words (at least in Canada), we're behind in high speed rail due to low population density, massive land area, and cost. Why lay 800kms of high-speed rail tracks, when it's only going to pass through maybe a million people if you're lucky?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying we should build high speed tracks covering all the territory, at least not for Canada! But think of connecting major cities together, like Toronto-Montreal... and Calgary-Vancouver...

who do you think is building high speed trains for Europe and China? Bombardier, a Canadian company!
 
the thing that slows down development in a lot of countries is different types of lines used, plus the maintenence of a line designed for high speed trains would be somewhat more costly than a "normal" one?
 
we need to get out of the plane thing - the TSA is bullshit - they told me " ok im going to pat you down, my hand will go all the way up till it stops" ( talking about patting down my legs)


Well the thing is - when 'it stops' it stops at my balls. :) rails are still laid so might as well put them to work right? I live in Hawaii where they are just starting on a rail system - i dont think we need it, its ONE fucking island. But i mean if Hawaii small ass island has a rail why cant Canada big cities and USA big cities?
 
Let's take NYC to Washington DC for example... (226 miles)

Plane:
On paper: 1 hour 15 minutes
In reality: 4 hours (with the checking in of luggage, TSA crap, delays, weather conditions)
Price: if you're lucky, $100 each way...

Bullet Train (200mph):
On paper: about 1 hour 15 minutes too!
In reality: let's say 2.5 hours maximum (PLUS generally trains drop you downtown, not in the ourskirts, plus you get more legroom, you can walk around and there is a restaurant + bar inside the train!)
Price: I don't know, but it would definitely be cheaper than flying.

FUCK, what's more to say? Wouldn't you take the train every time if it was like this?
 
avatar33 said:
Let's take NYC to Washington DC for example... (226 miles)

Plane:
On paper: 1 hour 15 minutes
In reality: 4 hours (with the checking in of luggage, TSA crap, delays, weather conditions)
Price: if you're lucky, $100 each way...

Bullet Train (200mph):
On paper: about 1 hour 15 minutes too!
In reality: let's say 2.5 hours maximum (PLUS generally trains drop you downtown, not in the ourskirts, plus you get more legroom, you can walk around and there is a restaurant + bar inside the train!)
Price: I don't know, but it would definitely be cheaper than flying.

FUCK, what's more to say? Wouldn't you take the train every time if it was like this?
Click to expand...


Madrid to Barcelona
Sept 9th
Flight time: 1 hour 10 mins.
Ticket (one way) $85 US Dollars.

Madrid to Barcelona on the AVE (Spain's 218 MPH train)
Sept 9th
Train Time: 2 Hours and 28 Minutes
Ticket (one way) $105 US Dollars

That being said, the only time people I know take the AVE is when the weather is bad and the flight might be cancelled.

I know my father flies into Tokyo all the time and takes a bullet train to the north of Japan rather than fly again... to each there own. I did Chicago to NY and it took 20 hours on a slow ass train. I'd rather wish I died.
 
high speed rail will be cost effective in the USA when oil hits $200. it also still won't be time effective for cross country trips. remember all these European countries are like, the size of Wisconsin.
 
070707 said:
Madrid to Barcelona
Sept 9th
Flight time: 1 hour 10 mins.
Ticket (one way) $85 US Dollars.

Madrid to Barcelona on the AVE (Spain's 218 MPH train)
Sept 9th
Train Time: 2 Hours and 28 Minutes
Ticket (one way) $105 US Dollars
Click to expand...
I've been through the Barcelona airport... Admittedly before 9/11, and there was a shitload of line-waiting and x-raying your bags and the whole works...

I can only imagine now they've got add-on baggage fees, full body scanners and a good 2-hour wait making the experience a good 3-4 hours of hell, complete with radiation exposure and meatless, bread-based foods dominant throughout the airport!

I'd take the AVE over that flight anyday. The extra $20 is a bargain!
 
avatar33 said:
Let's take NYC to Washington DC for example... (226 miles)

Plane:
On paper: 1 hour 15 minutes
In reality: 4 hours (with the checking in of luggage, TSA crap, delays, weather conditions)
Price: if you're lucky, $100 each way...

Bullet Train (200mph):
On paper: about 1 hour 15 minutes too!
In reality: let's say 2.5 hours maximum (PLUS generally trains drop you downtown, not in the ourskirts, plus you get more legroom, you can walk around and there is a restaurant + bar inside the train!)
Price: I don't know, but it would definitely be cheaper than flying.

FUCK, what's more to say? Wouldn't you take the train every time if it was like this?
Click to expand...

226 miles? Why would anyone fly such a short distance? If it takes 4hrs time in total, that's an average of 56mph...can you not average at least that speed in a car in this area of the country (never been so I honestly don't know how the traffic is between).
 
avatar33 said:
Price: I don't know, but it would definitely be cheaper than flying.

FUCK, what's more to say? Wouldn't you take the train every time if it was like this?
Click to expand...

Not true. If you want an air conditioned cabin or even a sleeper berth, it's the same price as a plane ticket. Sometimes more. At least in India.

I prefer trains to aircraft because I don't want to die in a plane crash. I've been in some smaller planes and they really made me more aware of the very real risk. Including here:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC_srsUcWCU&feature=related"]YouTube - ‪TAKE-OFF FROM LUKLA AIRPORT‬‏[/ame]

No matter what the statistics are, the odds of surviving a plane crash are definitely lower than a train or car crash. You can't "brake" during a plane crash, you are inside a missile and death is almost certain. On land the velocities are typically lower.

inb4 someone points out that traveling by foot or horseback is even safer :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom