USA Will Invest in High-Speed ​​Train to Fight Climate Change::The USA Will Invest in High-Speed ​​Train to Fight Climate Change - US President Joe Biden announced in a speech on December 9, 2023 that they are carrying out the first high-speed train projects in US history. These projects are across America

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The US is extremely far behind the rest of the developed world and even much of the developing world at this point. It will take decades to catch up, let alone become a leader.

    • Colonel Sanders@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Even then it’ll probably just be from one town to another very close by thus really only useable for a small subset of people. We need trans continental high speed railways not puddle jumpers

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, really not. It would be great for those of us who prefer that solution but let’s pick the right tool for the job. I believe the current rule of thumb is high speed rail beats flying for cities up to 500 miles apart. Let’s focus on those. Hopefully we end up with an interconnected system as the preferred way to travel between those cities and so some of us can do long distance rail, but there will always be a threshold where flying is cheaper, easier, faster

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    These projects are part of an $10 billion investment

    California’s HSR system come in at $80 billion for 520 miles, or $154 million per mile. Amtrak estimates that it would cost $500 million per mile to turn its Northeast Corridor route into a true high-speed system. source

    For $10 billion, we are talking an additional 20 to 65 miles of high speed rail to be built. This is basically nothing…

    • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Most of this is to fund studies and the rest is probably to cover overruns. Is it political for election season? Yes, but still a step in a positive direction. We’re not talking infrastructure week here.

      • mondoman712@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s ~$34 million in there to study new routes. The $3 billion of this going to CAHSR will:

        • Fund six electric trains for testing and use
        • Fund design and construction of trainset facilities
        • Fund design and construction of the Fresno station
        • Fund final design and right-of-way acquisition for the Merced and the Bakersfield extensions
        • Fund construction in the Central Valley

        See https://hsr.ca.gov/2023/12/05/news-release-high-speed-rail-authority-to-receive-record-3-1-billion-from-biden-administration/

        • mean_bean279@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          1 year ago

          The HSR going through the Central Valley of Cali is INSANE. the bridge and strip of it is infrastructure that area and region has legitimately never seen. I keep telling all of my friends and family here in Cali that once you can travel from Stockton to Bakersfield in 45-1 hour it’ll completely change the region. The massive economic boom from just the construction alone will be huge, but then the effect after will be felt for generation.

          • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            1 year ago

            Because it’s wasting money.

            And we seriously doubt the claimed positive impacts.

            • Habahnow@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah HSR is cutting edge and unproven technology that hasn’t been successfully implemented in Europe, Japan and China.

    • qooqie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Drop in the bucket, I’m curious how much it would take to make most of the US/NA traversable by high speed rail

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Depends on what you mean by most.

        • most of the population is quite achievable. Send a little time at https://www.ushsr.com/
        • most of the geography, trillions, and we couldn’t afford to keep it operating

        I really think that confusing this is a common mistake. People claim high speed rail is impossible in the US because we’re big (and ignoring China, eu), but we have plenty of cities, and most of them are clustered. High speed rail is great for cities within a few hundred miles of each other. We got those, and that’s most of the population

        It’s specious to take scenarios high speed rail doesn’t do well at and claiming that it means it can’t work. Let’s apply a little intelligence here’d and use the right technology for the right scenario

    • dezmd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Jacksonville FL to Mobile AL is not included even though old rail and established railway right of way is already in place. Its an incomplete plan out of the gate before even looking at the realities of the funding equating to near goddamn nothing. We need real Trillion dollar funding plans at this point for high speed rail on a national level, use the long range east west/north south interstate cooridors to build over/under to connect coasts and Mexico to Canada on 4 or 5 major lines each.

    • ChillPenguin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thank you for this. Looked up all the proposed changes for my state. I really hope these get implemented. In MN I’ve been waiting for a twin cities to Duluth train connection.

    • makyo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      The 2000 election was such a massive turning point for the US. So many branching consequences, but imagine if we had had an environmentalist in the White House instead of Mr. Buy and Drill Our Way Out of This? At the time of 9/11 I believe it was Tom Daschle of SD on record calling for a Green Manhattan Project which obviously fell on deaf ears quite quickly as the bombs started raining down on Baghdad. Sure there’d still be cries for vengeance, but I also think if POTUS had been saying at the time ‘we win this war by getting ourselves off foreign energy’ it just might have been persuasive enough to embark on some major developments.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s like a hundred years late. The US was built with invented trains, we should have the best train network in the world.

      In fact we did until we also invented cars and fucked the world up by favoring highways and essentially single-person metal boxes.

      • MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US did not invent trains. Trains were invented in the UK with the first public railway being between Stockton and Darlington.

      • ccunix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US invented neither trains nor cars.

        It is true the US was basically built on railroads, so I agree that it should have an awesome network, but it is just too big. Even if France ships you all a bunch of TGVs it will take days to go from NYC to LA. Something that takes hours by plane.

  • Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Until the Republicans shoot it down and instead use that budget to give their rich chums more tax breaks

    • ieightpi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way the US shows more progress is if the Democrats can stay in power for a long enough period of time. But the last time Dems had that kind of power was as far back as 2008. It makes you wonder if the only way Democrats can ever get into power is when a recession hits.

      • PopOfAfrica@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but with climate change in front of us, we actually don’t have time.

        I’m incredibly nihilistic right now.

        • Kage520@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Eh, it was predicted we would die because the population growth was exceeding our ability to farm food, but then out of necessity the industrial revolution happened.

          I think we are predicting we will die but out of necessity we will make the necessary changes to save ourselves just in time. Not just stopping emissions (this will only help slow the worsening, since we might be past the point of no return by the time we do this), but also carbon capture to remove the CO2, while simultaneously seeding extra clouds with something like the salt water canons running on cargo ships, and other such tech to reflect the sun while we get to work on CO2 capture.

          The CO2 will have to be sequestered back in the ground, so a method will have to be made to liquify and pump it back in, but it’s theoretically possible.

          • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The CO2 will have to be sequestered back in the ground, so a method will have to be made to liquify and pump it back in, but it’s theoretically possible.

            Not theoretical, they’re doing this as proof of concept at cement plants in Norway, they’re planning on pumping it into an aquifer under the artic ocean

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    1 year ago

    United States will never be able to achieve something like this because tiny ass governments of little weird counties all across the country will complain about having tracks run through their stupid shit hole

  • ColorcodedResistor@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    i want this to be real. I’ve loved trains since i was a toddler. and as an adult Trains are some thicc power chungus

    unfortunately the only trains left are either subways or commercial rails, yes there is Some passenger trains. But can you get to anywhere in americs on one? Not today, Not the infrastructure that will take decades to build and Not the follow up on promises made promises. kept…coughthebigdigbostoncough

    (F40PH gang gang) back in my day we memed about objects, zoomers be all meta n shit. get out of my my head charles!

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Amtrak is still a thing for passenger trains. It’s just that it’s slower than flying and just as expensive.

      https://www.amtrak.com

      Flew my wife to L.A. for her birthday, easy peasy. Couple of hours by plane.

      Amtrak?

      Fastest is 26 hours and 13 minutes for $230 coach tickets. Private room for $580.

        • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I just punched in a random 7 hour drive in the US. Amtrak would take 16 hours and cost 3x as much as one would spend in gas to take oneself and their SO on a trip. This isn’t even accounting for costs and time associated with getting to/from the station; whereas the car is door-to-door, faster, and cheaper.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah, the LA flight I used as an example is 20 hours by car, I’ve done it, can’t say I’d do it again.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Amtrak is still a thing for passenger trains. It’s just that it’s slower than flying and just as expensive.

        This is the core reason passenger rail has not become dominant in the US. The country is so physically large that planes do passenger rail’s job, but faster and at the same price point.

        Instead, rail in the US is almost entirely bulk cargo as that makes a ton of sense. Cargo trains are cheaper than trucks/aircraft and the slower speed can be easily planned for.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Acela is useful. We have one intercity rail line that is useful, has high ridership, is profitable, people choose to use, arguably faster than driving or flying, demand far outstrips supply. also the fastest but it’s not really fast enough to be called “high speed”

  • Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wildly misleading title, USA has not made any concrete plans for the investment, and has a history of lying about everything.

  • Oaksey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hasn’t this happened yet because of issues getting enough land in a relatively straight path between destinations? If the curves are too great either the G forces are too high for the passengers or the train isn’t able to travel at a high speed. Elon had his boring machine but I’m guessing the lack of news around that means it isn’t progressing as hoped?

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Elon’s hyperloop was just something to delay and boondoggle the whole California high speed rail project, he even admitted as much.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just an excuse.

      Yes, it is more time consuming and expensive to acquire land than would be ideal, but protecting property owner rights is also important.

      However most of the land needed was protected by freight rail and Amtrak. We already have most of the track right of way needed, at least in the Northeast and Midwest, and the expensive part is mainly little bits of land to straighten out curves. It could be worse

  • nutsack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    as soon as the Republicans are elected with a full house they can shut this down and throw away all of the money that was put into it