# Article: Why Can't US Build HSR?



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 14, 2014)

Another article on HSR, this one from the folks who publish The Atlantic.

Why Can't the United States Build a High-Speed Rail System? The problem isn't geography, demographics, or money—it's federal will.

The article starts:



> Virtually every wealthy nation in the world has invested in a high-speed rail network—with the striking exception of the United States. From Japan to France, even from Turkey to Russia, trains travel through the country at speeds of 150 miles per hour or above, linking city centers and providing a desirable alternative to both air and automobile travel. Meanwhile, outside Amtrak's 28 miles of 150-m.p.h. track in rural Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the American rail network is largely limited to speeds of 110 m.p.h. or less. There are few reasons to think the situation will change much in the coming decades.
> 
> So why has the United States failed to fund and construct high-speed rail?


What follows is a good read about the building of the Interstate Highways, how people's attitude towards the Federal Government has changed from positive to negative in the intervening years, the resulting devolvement of many former Federal responsibilities to the states, and the need for more efficient transportation modes for future growth.

The article concludes:



> The planning and funding of the interstate highway system was premised on the fact that the travel needs of Americans occur irrespective of state lines. Indeed, the 50 largest metropolitan areas, representing more than half of the country's population, are located in 31 separate states and 15 of them actually straddle state borders. Given this reality, it would be ridiculous to plan an intercity transportation system at the state level. California's high-speed rail progress—its proposed San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line remains the only truly fast train project in the country—is the exception that proves the rule; that state's size makes it no example for the rest of the nation.
> 
> It's time for the United States to commit to national planning, funding, coordination, and prioritization of rail investment. Intercity transportation systems require active federal engagement to guarantee the development of routes that reflect national needs and national priorities. Yet without political consensus on the need to develop national goals and focus investments, high-speed rail will remain a pipe-dream for decades to come.


IMHO: I find it interesting that, according to this article, our current national political mood makes implementing a national HSR system impossible, as it was the need for an improved transportation system, primarily canals for interstate commerce, that conviced George Washington, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, to name a few, that we needed to scuttle the Articles of Confederation for our present Constitution.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 15, 2014)

Australia doesnt have one. New Zealand doesnt have one. Canada will never get one.

No, US is far from being the only developed country not to have one.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 15, 2014)

You may be right, Shawn. But if I were you I wouldn't list third world countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Kauckistan as "developed" countries. Having three mid size cities in a country does not imply developed.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 15, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> You may be right, Shawn. But if I were you I wouldn't list third world countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Kauckistan as "developed" countries. Having three mid size cities in a country does not imply developed.


You must have failed Political Science, History and Sociology Lion! Australia and New Zealand are Very Civilized, Modern Countries, members of the British Commonwealth! For comparison, see Canada!!!


----------



## jis (Aug 15, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > You may be right, Shawn. But if I were you I wouldn't list third world countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Kauckistan as "developed" countries. Having three mid size cities in a country does not imply developed.
> ...


What has being member of the British Commonwealth got to do with being first, second or third world country, other than having been a British Colony at some point in the past?

To see what I mean take a look at http://thecommonwealth.org/member-countries


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 15, 2014)

Jis: Poorly worded, sorry! I was pointing out to "Get off my Lawn" GML that Australia and New Zealand are civilized, prosperous, First World Countries like the US and Canada in spite of being former British Colonies!

The member of the British Commowealth comment was made in the spirit of the reality that most members aren't, as your list shows!


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 16, 2014)

Canada is not civilized, and it is certainly not prosperous. Pet penguins, and they live in igloos. And they still have a queen.


----------



## XHRTSP (Aug 16, 2014)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Canada is not civilized, and it is certainly not prosperous. Pet penguins, and they live in igloos. And they still have a queen.


All true. I'm in Montreal at the moment, everything is super expensive and I'm surrounded by Frenchies. And if the fridge magnets they sell are to be believed, fast food here involves bears chasing people.



Shawn Ryu said:


> Canada will never get one.


Why do you say this, is there a history of failed HSR attempts or does no one here give a crap?


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 16, 2014)

I think GML meant civilized as in population/civilization, not civilized as in having modern manners and customs.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 16, 2014)

Montreal and Quebec are NOT Canada! They are a wanna be French Provence with bad weather, high prices and unfriendly people if you don't speak French!

Canada is Ottawa to Vancouver Island, what's not to like except the Cold Winters! YMMV


----------



## Eric S (Aug 16, 2014)

XHRTSP said:


> Shawn Ryu said:
> 
> 
> > Canada will never get one.
> ...


Yes. Many attempts, both in the Ontario-Quebec Corridor region and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. However, I am just commenting on the number of HSR proposals, not on the likelihood of HSR in the future.


----------



## The Davy Crockett (Aug 16, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> Montreal and Quebec are NOT Canada! They are a wanna be French Provence with bad weather, high prices and unfriendly people if you don't speak French!


Is that why it once was called Lower Canada? :wacko: :wacko:



> Canada is Ottawa to Vancouver Island, what's not to like except the Cold Winters! YMMV


To the people in BC, Ottawa to Thunder Bay is known as "Uppity Canada!"


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 18, 2014)

XHRTSP said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Canada is not civilized, and it is certainly not prosperous. Pet penguins, and they live in igloos. And they still have a queen.
> ...



For a politically progressive country, Canada is anti-transit as they come.


----------



## jis (Aug 18, 2014)

Canada is politically progressive? :lol:


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 18, 2014)

jis said:


> Canada is politically progressive? :lol:


They are when the Tory's aren't in power! Most of Canada's political parties would be considered Socialist and Communist by the average know nothing American!


----------



## Ryan (Aug 18, 2014)

They have universal health care, doesn't that make them progressive?


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Aug 18, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Canada is politically progressive? :lol:
> ...


Torys there are left wing here.


----------



## jis (Aug 18, 2014)

jimhudson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Canada is politically progressive? :lol:
> ...


Yeah, basically when they have a Quebecois PM they have a progressive government.  But you just said earlier that Quebec is not Canada.


----------

