YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP

This made me chuckle.

You mean lobbyist will "donate" some millions to keep away the competition? This would never happen in the heavens of the free market...

@@noinfo5630 where had US and free market ever crossed roads? I'm sorry, I can't see it under the pile of subsidies, bailouts, tax breaks and fake bankruptcies that you forgot to mention in your sarcasm...

​@@noinfo5630Ah yes, the free market of [checks notes] government-mandated security checkpoints.

It has nothing to do with lobbyists. It has to do with freight. America has more railroad by length than most countries in the world, we just use it to carry our goods and materials. 80-90% of goods in America travel by train for the majority of their journey through the country. Moving all that takes a lot of trains running around the clock, which takes up rails that passenger rail used to (and still) uses. Ironically, the biggest barrier to high speed rail isn’t cars, but trains.

I agree the resoan HSR is not in America is because of frieght rail traffic but your wrong on what caused passenger rail road demise in America. If you look you will find a documentary that speaks on how the lobbyists for airplane, automotive, petroleum and rubber industries, got the US Government to start taxing the train companies and using that money to subsidize the building of highways, bridges and airports. Those same companies also began buying up all the trolley companies in the cities and letting them fall into decay so they could sell buses to the cities. They purposely tore up the trolley tracks in most major cities for bus contracts with the cities. They bought up railroad companies and let them go defunct until they were not profitable and then the US government stepped in and sold it to the major frieght companies. So now those lines are owned by frieght companies and they have the right of way. Amtrak only owns 8-10% of all tracks in America. In order for America to have HSR it needs to build new ones and honestly the only 2 new rails are owned privately by Bright line East and West.. and only 1 will truly be HSR. Maglev would still be the safer, faster, less nosey, and cheaper option for HSR but no one has 5he guts to build one

​@@DeltaEntropyand something ironic is by US law passenger trains are supposed to have the right away on those rails but the only thing that can enforce that is fine so it's legal for a fee to not give them the right away.

Bro it has nothing to do with lobbyists

@@AStewSr The train companies were on the verge of bankruptcy in 1917, when the federal government nationalized the rail lines to prevent the collapse of American rail during the war. After WW1, it became very obvious that trains were a liability, not a great infrastructure powerhouse. They couldn't compete in a free market, too many competitors were creating too much duplicate infrastructure to be profitable, and there were not enough customers. Air travel was not seriously being built yet, but roads were, and they were much easier to deal with economically and were much more versatile, so the choice to allow rail to decline was an easy one to make. American rail's failure can be blamed on nothing but American rail.

well, Spain does do security checks for trains, but yes, they are uh more basic

@@kkon5ti really? Those must be new. I lived there a decade ago. Europe is a far more dangerous place now.

I'm going back to Spain soon, an I'm excited to try the new Ave trains that they just finished installing (they also just finished digging a new tunnel to Asturias, cutting the travel time in half, so I'm extra excited for that).

​​@@kkon5tiSpaniard here who has taken this line many times. We do have security checks but that's just passing your luggage through a scanner and taking off your coat. No metal detector, no waiting times. It literally takes you 30 seconds. Besides, while Spain is far safer than the US, we did have a big terrorist attack that happened precisely on a train from Madrid in 2004 and killed several hundred. It was basically our local 9/11. The difference is that European countries don't tend to go all paranoid after terrorist attacks so we don't force people to endure ridiculously long and invasive security checks when taking a train or plane. Security in a plane is longer but no nonsense like taking your shoes off or scanning your body with x-rays. Most safety experts think that such extreme measures aren't really effective to prevent terrorism anyway.

​@@jmiquelmbyou mean you don't have geo warrants, and taking your pictures/finger prints, and civil forfitures?

That's not true in America. Depending on where they want to build the HSR ( HIgh Speed rail) line, new land acquisition would need to be paid for and the cost raises exponentially if you have to change the grade substantially to go up instead of through a mountain. The reason trains do not work in America is because of commericial frieght ownership of over 85% of all rails, politics, the cities infrastructures and the death grip 9f automobile, truck and Airline companies on Politicians. You should look at these 10 Myths about Maglev rail. faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/dispelling-myths-blow.pdf

Yeah. Also the only thing slowing regular trains down is the power cable. Otherwise, the TGV would have gone even faster than its (still unbeaten) record.

Yh, would be a 12 hours trip, so if there's an option to do it overnight it would be very interesting indeed, but when they do plan on making a high speed train connection between cities, elon musk arrives and convinces the government to make an hyperloop project instead (even though it's not a viable option)

Long-distance maglevs are stupid, a stupid waste of money. That's what planes are for.

Clearly you never went on a train​@@hg2.

Don't worry, this one was almost unreadable for non-colorblind as well...

I'm not colorblind and I had a hard time distinguishing planes from trains

Even for me, who is not colorblind, the vertical video and short time period made it difficult to read initially. I had to full on pause the video to understand the graph. It’s not only bad for color blind people, but kind of bad for everyone.

im not even colorblind and i almost couldn't tell the difference.

hmm im personally colorblind (deutan) and didnt have much issues reading or decoding

And you have to go tru the boarding when flying.

Trains have stops to pick up people. When I lived in Connecticut it took twice the time to go by train to nyc than driving because of stops. It was just cheaper.

Many high speed trains even have restaurants! Sit down, have some coffee or beer, lean back and watch the world zip by with 250 kph - or continue working on your laptop.

Some people find the activity of driving to be an enjoyable experience in and of itself. I am one of those people.

​@@brofist1959most don't, tho

Actually the key to that chart on breakeven distances says "high speed rail" for one plot. Probably would have helped to add another line for maglevs, and use more pronounced colors to help illustrate their points.

Maglev isn't necessary for high speed. We drive 300 km/h or faster in many European countries on regular tracks (Germany, France, Spain, etc). According to the graph, a car is faster for distances up to about 250 km. Here in Germany I can get a train to the next two big cities within 35/45 minutes - driving takes about double that time. Down town to down town.

It doesn't have anything intrinsically to do with maglev. This video is really about high-speed rail in general. I don't know why they're talking about maglev specifically, tbh.

This short was cut from a video on mag lev train technology, but concludes by pointing out that high speed rail is more viable. Worth watching the whole video.

Problem is Amtrak would have to lay new rails to have true HSR.. Commercial frieght rail have all the rights of way on American rails. Congress won't allow new land acquisition

No we don't

@@lordzuzu6437 ?

​@@Luakszmaglev trains exist with current technology, so...

​@@lordzuzu6437 yes that's true but the cost of Japan's new maglev is going to be insane with current technology.

​@@lordzuzu6437 And? It'll run even better. Why settle?

Juding from Traffic, many people want to move between SoCal (los Angeles) and the Bay Area. Same for the corrider between Boston, New York and Washington. The example of New York to los Angeles comes off as a bit silly to me.

You can not travel in one day between LA en Nyc even not with a Maglev train. But you can cut the time if you have high speed trains with sleeping acomodation. Correct me if I am wrong now you travel 4 or 5 nights and 5 or 6 days on a train between LA and NYC. Maybe with HST it will be 3 nights and 4 days.

​@daylightdaylight06612 LET ME CORRECT YOU. 😅😅. Todays Maglev trains.. the German (Transrapid) AKA Chinese ( SRT) 431 km - 268 mph, the new Chinese prototype (EDS Maglev) 623 km -387 mph, and the Japan (Chūō Shinkansan) 603 km - 374 mph can travel for more than 10 consecutive hours at one time. Even the slowest high speed Maglev on this list can make the 3200 mile trip from NYC to San Francisco or the 3500 mile trip from NYC to LA in 13hrs - 3 min, 9 hrs - 2 min, and 9hrs 21 min respectively. Even Amtrak trains that make that trip daily are not changed out, the employee train crew change but the engine and cars are rarely swapped out.

@@AStewSr 13 hours and minutes is it for non stop and in a straight line. There will be no Maglev who will be going fron NYC to SFO/LA non stop. There will be always multiple stops. In that point of view you can not travel with even a Maglev in one day or 24hours from NYC to LA/SFO.

@@michaeldunne338 i imagine it’s just to illustrate its potential, 7 hours is nothing for a cross country train ride.

them japanese be cookin somethin up tho

Maybe not every public service needs to profitable also imagine how much we spend on the US interstate system every year

​@bobbybowen9489 we are currently $34 trillion in debt because of people like you. We need to spend LESS money, not more.

@@kellzter spend less on wars and more on US infrastructure/services then

@Madderthanjoker wow dude what a revolutionary thought. Hey I'll just write that legislation now because I'm not just some guy on the internet, I'm actually a US senator.

Every new highway and even old ones destroy thousands of houses, trains only need like 40 feet wide space to carry the same people as a 12 or more lane highway

Can't the government sanction this project? That way, the costs might be reduced. Just speculating here.

The real problem is just car companies not allowing competition and bribing the government

And how many buildings and communities were destroyed to make all your highways?

@@Usuario-wr2kw That's not why. American rail was dying long before the automotive industry became as powerful as it is today. It was a case of too many competitors making too much competing infrastructure with too few users.

But it has a much larger environmental impact in the long term, which is something to be considered.

​@@thatoneguy611public air traffic is a drop in the bucket compared to private jets.

@@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandlecan you cite a source for that

Who’s going to pay for it? L.A. to NYC would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to build, and the operating costs are not trivial either. And that’s just one line. To connect every major city it would take trillions of dollars. So either the taxpayer is on the hook for a major tax increase to fund the upfront cost, or ticket prices will have to be astronomically uncompetitive (vs flying). As Brian says in the video, the economics work best from 200-800 KM, which tops out around 500 miles. Any longer than that and it makes no sense. And that kind of by definition means it doesn’t make sense to go much past the Mississippi River from the east coast. Going to Dallas or Houston might be viable, but Denver, Phoenix, Vegas, Seattle, and all of California is not going to be economically viable.

Why? Most of the major cities can't even provide a safe life for their own residents. US needs to worry about having a functional culture before going on infrastructure megaprojects just to distract the public from problems.

Why? Major cities can't even take care of their own residents. What we need first is a functional culture

@@benjaminlynch9958 we're not building these sub 500k either. And i'll gladly pay taxes for this over defense

@@AGW99-df3yg building infrastructure is literally taking care of citizens

Only to build the infrastructure. Once the Maglev is built. It can make its money back in many different ways. Here is an easy one. Maglev trains cannot derail, nor can they collide with one another. They ride on a guidway so collisions with animals, people or vehicles will be non existent. Bad Weather does not affect their operations in any way. Planes cannot fly in inclement weather, many HSR trains have issues with snow and ice. However Maglevs do not rely on friction to move. 1.A Maglev train can easily add more cars to carry more people, so a plane is 350 passengers. A Maglev car can carry 500. If you have 14 cars 8 for passengers, 1 for baggage, 2 sleepers 2 observation and a dining car. Your still moving 4000 people at once. Electricity is exponentially cheaper than jet fuel even over a 3500 mile trip. 2. There is much less maintenance. Maglev trains do not TOUCH the gudeways. So there is no friction, resistance or vibrations to cause wear and tear on the train or the guideways. In turn less maintenance on switches, electronics and o physical components of the guideway and the trains. Definitely cannot say that about planes or Steel wheel trains. HSR trains need to change both wheels, trucks and rails constantly to avoid flat spots. Plane engines and flight surfaces need inspection before and after every flight. Advertising can also be a way to recoup monies. You basically have captive audience for 7 to 8 hrs. With Flat-screen TVs added on the walls of the train and in rest rooms the ad revenue would be enormous. Those Ads can be tailored to every city that the train stops in. So add revenue is consistent. Maglevs can also carry up to 80 tons of frieght. Frieght cars can also be hauled with passenger cars and over night delivery for companies like Amazon, UPS, Fed Ex and USPS or specialty items like fresh seafood, perishables and fragile frieght can be placed in specialized cars. If car carrier maglev cars are designed, people can travel with their cars to their destinations, eliminating the need to drive or rent a vehicle when they arrive. Expenses can be easily managed because the cost of fuel is lower. In the future solar, wind, fusion and even hydrogen will only become common place, cheaper, environmentally friendly and efficient. While Jet fuel will only become more expensive, polluting and cost prohibited.

@@AStewSr Yeah, and one day, we'll all have cheap personal electric aircraft that can travel 1000 miles in 15 minutes and recharge in 5. We're never getting car storage on maglev. Overnight is irrelevant. I don't want to be advertised at when I can't just leave and go somewhere else in the first place. None of this matters because the trillions it would cost to build the rail will never pay back the opportunity costs, especially since we have passenger jets already, we don't need to build them all again.

The irony is that he shows a graph that is SF to LA where it shows planes are the best option from NY to LA.

​@@AStewSrDo you have any proof for your claims, I'm pretty sure the maintenance is equally or more expensive

​@@AStewSr About a year ago the Southwest Chief hit a truck on an at-grade crossing in Missouri. Obviously it wasn't good for the people in the truck, but it also killed three people on the train, and it was "only" going about 60 MPH. What do you think would have happened had it been going the average of 400 MPH needed to go from NYC to LA in 7 hours?

Then build rails lines there!!! We stupidly let car companies buy and then dismantle so much cheap and profitable rail infrastructure so they could make cars the only viable option Letting car companies destroy infrastructure is not a "defect of the passenger rail system", it's a malevolence of the car industry

“High speed rail isn’t feasible because we currently don’t have any high speed rail” well why do you think it’s up for discussion in the first place?

Because trains already exist and well… the security for them is not as overbearing and intrusive as it is for air travel. It’s kind of a lot harder to fly a train into a building after all.

TSA exists to prevent someone from using the plane as a weapon to use against important infrastructure. They're not actually there to protect YOU. You can't steer a train into the pentagon.

Well for one thing, when a train crashes it tends not to kill everyone on board. And for another thing, it's kinda hard to crash a train into the World Train Center.

Yes probably for intercity travel of 500 miles or more. I assume there would be x-ray machines for body search and carry on bags for weapons, ticket check for ID, but after that straight onto your platform. Checked baggage would go into aame bomb proof containers that airplanes use. No shoe removal, no need to remove sprays, liquids, sizable items or sharp objects. No long walk to gates. I would say get to the trains station at least 1 hr before departure.

@@hux2000 you get a buncha people in a cylinder and they can't leave, what could go wrong? Nobody would use the lax security as a means to travel with various weapons either. Will these happen? Probably not. Would it be an excuse to have TSA get their shitty fingers on it? Absolutely.

It would be double the cost

A 3500 mile trip on a Maglev train would still only be 8 to 10 hrs nonstop, at 325 - 385 mph. It would still be cheaper, on time to the second and less nerve racking then taking a plane. No long TSA checkpoint, freedom to have an alcoholic beverage, REAL FOOD, I bring on board or buy on board. SLEEPER CABINS, cheaper first class. Freedom to walk around, not worry about crashes or derailments. When you add in the TSA checkpoint, taking off the shoes, over crowding, kids crying, ear popping, noisy passengers, rude and annoying passengers, drunk passengers, fights over seats, turbelance, lack of food, lack of being able to take extra baggage. People with those damn comfort animals, people on the no- fly lists, people afraid to fly, people who can't fly for medical reasons. When all of those "OTHER" things are factored in. I'd jump at the chance to travel in a cheaper, calmer, relaxed, non air crash, scenic environment. Where I can walk away from ignorant, loud, angry, drunk, crazy passengers and retire to my room.

@@AStewSr Sounds delightful!

A maglev coast to coast is financially impossible. In China just few much shorter lines turn a profit, the majority lose a lot of money. They did it anyway because want to burn local coal instead imported oil.

​@@AStewSrimpossible speed at theses distances. And the energy cost is even bigger then in a plane because low atmosphere air density

Train tickets are $20-$50

@@MSCCAnot in the US.

@@MSCCAnot for that kind of distance they aren’t.

@@benjaminlynch9958 true. They are for the distance where trains are faster than air: about sub 500km

@@benjaminlynch9958 also overnight trains at longer distances cost a little less than air, but they are much better to sleep in

keep in mind plane ticket pricing will go down aswell the better train service gets

Exactly, also in these comparisons they add an hour or two to total transit time cuz “it’s customary to arrive an hour or two before a flight” and they don’t add that time for trains. If airlines offered free standby on popular routes you can throw that out of the calculation too along with less security time. Then instead of wasting money on high speed rail you invest that money in city transit benefiting both normal residents and people getting to the airport further reducing transit times. What you’ll find is a lot of people who care about faster intercity travel actually have a different goal in mind…. Something airplanes don’t quite fit into.

@@TheVortexGaming what different goal though? how much time does your tsa and luggage and walk to the gate usually take?

@@kkon5ti Climate. If I actually timed it, TSA is probably 30 mins realistically. Bags I have timed from door open, well under 20 mins if you have seat selection. So I agree it’s mostly stigma.

Strike baggage fees too! Stop letting companies make temporary disaster fees into permanent ones!

No it wouldn't. Just another waste of money. Even worse than they already are wasting with Amtrak. A total failure since 1971 that has never made money but keeps getting funded.

So why are highways being made again and again and expanded on ? It ain't profitable ? I can name multiple things that arent profitable ​@@Baalphus

@Sailed_away Because highways are used by millions of people everyday, locally, statewide and cross country. Highways have been around since the 1940s or 50s. There are thousands of miles in the US that anyone can use to go anywhere at any time. The system has been built out over decades. The total cost was spread out over that time. States have a role in building and maintaining, too. The government doesn't lose money every time a car uses the highway. You aren't limited either to only going to and from certain points. Building a high-speed rail, say from LA to NY, is going to cost a minimum of $500 billion, probably a hell of a lot more when all is said and done. Japan is expanding theirs from Tokyo to Nagoya and then to Osaka. That's a distance of about 250 miles. They started in 2014. Nagoya stretch will be completed in 2027. Osaka in 2045 at a cost of $60 billion. For 250 miles!!!!! That's not including the stations in between and whatever else. And they are experienced at this. NY to LA distance...2,800 miles. Think about that. 60 billion for 250 miles in Japan. So what do you think the cost in the US would be for 2800 miles? And how long do you think it will take if it takes them 13 years to go 160 and then 18 to complete the rest? An entire system in the US would cost trillions and take decades.

@@Baalphus USA was built on rail. Rail is older and is more efficient. Thousands travel by rainway because there's no functional rail service if America, if China can do it . What's your excuse ?

@@Sailed_awaylmao “China, with a population 4x the US, on a landmass smaller than the US, with labor and material far cheaper, and no property rights can do it, so the US should be able to.” It’s just sad to see the level of ignorance people these days have. You chief among them.

Why? Cross country trains already exist, and no security is required. And the worst you can do to a train is derail it.

Ever been to Europe and traveled by train???

@@MSCCA The worst you could do to a train moving at 300 mph is derail it, with hundreds or thousands of passengers aboard. Get real.

@@RogierYou yes. And I've been to Europe and travelled by airplane too. And America performs ridiculous security theater anywhere the bureaucrats can get away with it, while European societies do not. So European airports are much more sane than American ones. Which means that if trains ever become as popular in America as they are in Europe, expect American security theater culture to ruin the time savings argument for medium distance train travel.

​@@sheldoniusRex I can see your point here, but I'm not sure it's true in practice. The NY subway, which is still a type of rail system, was carrying as many as 5.5 million people per day prior to COVID. That was more than twice as many people as were flying every day in the entire US, yet they do not bother with typical security theater measures seen in American airports. Amtrak is pretty popular on a per-train basis. A lot of long distance trains only run once per day, but they're often full when they do run, so the security concerns would theoretically be the same. Nonetheless, Amtrak doesn't bother with the kind of stuff you deal with at airports. So I'm not sure this is inherently true, though I understand the argument.

well, at this point in time in the us they dont. but they did and they can.

Lol. Lmao. I'm not doing a 1 hour long commute, let alone a nearly 2 hour one. It would barely change anything about how we live, because there would be almost no demand for it.

@@brofist1959 But you're still going to do 1 hour long commutes in cars though, would you rather spend 1 hour driving than 1 hour sitting back relaxed on a train reading or watching videos?

@@rhodokartilleryakaafrika3794 I'm actually not going to do 1 hour long commutes, thanks. My commute is 30 minutes and I will not allow it to be much longer. But in a car, because I wouldn't be relaxing in a train, and schedules would be more rigid, and presumably my office isn't in a train station.

@@brofist1959 Well, it may be your case but it doesn't mean others shouldn't have that option. I personally take the train everyday, the trip takes 15 minutes in train and 15 walking, which could even be cut two thirds if I took a bus, while in the car it takes me more than half an hour because of heavy traffic leading into the city.

@@rhodokartilleryakaafrika3794 I live in the United States, we have suburbs here. Car based infrastructure provides a dramatic increase in flexibility of where things can be, and I don't want to restrict myself to living next to a train station, so kindly don't make me pay for such things, thanks.

Since when would you have a 7 hour daily commute? It's obviously so that the travel would be more comfortable and economic, not so people can have two jobs across the United States

Bro why do you people not think about train stops

@@bigbubba0439if you’re gonna complain about comfort, you better be doing so after flying exclusively in first class and not being satisfied. But we both know you buy the standby tickets at a discount for spirit airlines because you don’t wanna spend more than $250 on a ticket across the country, so you voluntarily get yourself stuck in the middle seat by the rear lavatory.

@@bigbubba0439 The whole point for a high speed train is for daily commute. Not for occasional leasure

@@Yanramich Where is the train going to stop between New York and LA? It makes more sense to do Boston to Miami and connect to Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, DC, etc. Than to go from New York to California and pass through corn fields, desert, and forests.

You already have Amtrak, which does its job serviceably. Talk to them about upgrading their locomotives, or just suck it up and take a 3 hour trip instead of a 45 minute trip. Or get on a plane like most people do.

Just because he is educated enough to not use an outdated measureing system, doesnt mean that system is his kryptonite

Bro likes feet lol

@@QueueWithACapitalQ metric was invented to appeal to illiterate peasants in revolutionary france who couldn't do math, this is the worst argument you could possibly make. Should just say he's not american so why would he use american units

@@QueueWithACapitalQ metric was made for peasants in revolutionary france who couldn't do math, that's a very weak argument

@@AGW99-df3yg I know the US education system is bad but holy fuck is that a bad take on the metric system. There is a reason all but 1 other country uses metric as standard AND that even scientists in the US use metric. Its objectivly. It would take me far longer than i am bothered to list ever advantage metric has over imperial. Siriously, look into it. Do some actual research on why people use metric.

dfficult but not impossble

Rail,on average, is more comfortable and cheaper

Exactly. For the majority of the US the cost is prohibitive (families, lower class, and middle class). They can’t reasonably afford the ticket prices, but they can afford the time cost of slower travel.

@@warrenpeace9314 , no, if it was, more comfortable and cheaper then more people would choose it. Also, the rail system today is catering more to people who can afford to travel rail for leisure rather than necessity. Just look at the prices attached to the tickets for new extended rail lines and upgraded train cars. People can do without more comfort if the time having to endure it is less on an airplane for a similar price. Rail is only cheaper to other modes of travel over short distances. And that price difference is rapidly decreasing, not getting better. Now, imagine the rail prices when the rail system would transfer to maglev trains and the new railways built for them to travel on in a country that would practically have to start from scratch in today's economy. It would not be feasible unless highly subsidized by taxpayer funds who would only infrequently be able to afford a ticket, wether more comfort included or not. People can travel cheaper on Greyhound if they don't mind discomfort over any distance compared to rail right now.

@@warrenpeace9314 in a clean and cohesive culture

When the government finally gets serious about climate change and requires airlines to use efuels instead of fossil fuels, the cost of air travel will increase significantly. Electric rail will be more cost competitive then.

There are electric short haul planes in use now. You can't use electric for long distance though as you can't carry enough energy. Those planes will have to run on synthetic fuel which will significantly increase the cost.

Most long haul ships in planes are all ready electric in the sense they use electric motors powered by diesel generators.

@@joeyjojojrshabadoo7462 trains do, but ships and planes don't. Cargo ships use direct drive Diesel engines fur propulsion. Generators power other systems in the ship, but not the actual movement. Planes mostly use jet engines which are mechanical.

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 there are ships where they use electric moters driven to propulse the ship powerd by diesel engines.

I feel like the US rail system tends to gravitate between 2 extremes: "We should build transcontinental HSR routes to criss cross the nation. If we build it, people will ride it. Spare no expense!" and "We don't need any new lines. Just stick the passengers on the freight lines and hope they make it eventually." I feel like the real answer lies in-between. What we need are regional routes connecting major cities that are close enough that a train (not even necessarily a high speed one) could beat a plane and a car. Once several networks of regional rail lines are established and utilized, then comes the time to make targeted connections between the networks with HSR, possibly upgrading the existing track to make it happen. I wonder how far along California's project would be if they weren't so dead set on high speed rail, and just built rail that could beat a plane from LA to SFC (ie 100 mph instead of 200 mph).

Space efficiency? Rail is far less space efficient than airports…

@@DeltaEntropy denver airport is 52.4 sq mi, Manhattan is 22.82 sq mi Is that space efficient?

@@Usuario-wr2kw ​​⁠The distance between New York and Chicago is about 780 miles, or 4,118,000 feet. Multiply that by the average single track exclusion width of 14 feet, and you get 57,652,000 square feet. LaGuardia airport is around 1,300,000 square feet. Add that to the 1,400,000 square feet of Chicago O’Hare, and you get 2,700,000 square feet. 57,652,000 - 2,700,000 is a difference of 54,952,000 square feet. So yes. Trains are not more space efficient than airplanes. They’re far, far more inefficient.

@@DeltaEntropy but most of that space is in rural and low density areas, you can't have an airport to far from the city because people wouldn't fly there and workers couldn't get there, so they got to use high value terrain and also lower density around the airport so that planes don't hit skyscrapers and they also need highways that also use a lot of space, trains can even be put underground if the terrain is that valuable and a train track is easy to cross unlike an airport which can only be crossed underground So even though trains occupie more space it affects it far less

Maybe, probably not. Airport security isnt cheap. Trains cost less then aircraft and you cant hijack a train and crash it into a skyscraper to cause more casualties. Less risk all round.

​@@QueueWithACapitalQDoesn't matter, terrorists don't only choose targets they can chain reaction into larger targets, they also choose targets which are expensive and where a lot of people are. One bomb goes off on one of these maglev trains going 300 mph and suddenly all train stations now have exactly the same TSA requirements as airports.

why would they

Let not act like TSA is stopping terrorists 24/7. They're just security theater.

They already do for some train routes, for example the Brightline in Orlando already requires you go through the TSA at KMCO.

valid and worth it

From new york to la?

@@QueueWithACapitalQ Chad yes.

The fact that you don't seem to know the history of Amtrak is even more telling. Run by the government and like almost everything else they touch, a complete failure.

that is the result of free enterprise for everything and anything. I am not against free enterprise but some things have to be done by the state and railways in the USA have been neglected since the late 1950's and too many subsidies have been given for the construction of highways and airports. In the 60s and 70s, traveling by plane was a real experience, but since the 90s it is no longer fun to take the plane.

@daylightdaylight6612 Amtrak has been subsidized since 1971. Has lost money for the government every year since. You are seriously deluding yourself also if you think any such high speed rail system isn't going to cost hundreds of billions if not trillions for an entire system and that it won't be a money losing proposition for the government like virtually everything is that they touch. Just the cost to build the thing out is going to bankrupt them even more than they are now. Oh, have you heard we're $35 trillion in debt? And people complaining about sending money to Ukraine. Lol. That's a drop in the bucket compared to what they will spend on this boondoggle. The main issue with all this is ridership and population density. The US doesn't have the same type of situation as China, Japan or Europe does regarding this. Multiple cities and metro areas with 25, 30 or more million are quite different than cities with 2.5, 4 or 8 million. The return on investment doesn't justify the cost of this.

If I had a billion and access to Trump Id tell him to make this part of his campaign. He could be the Pres8dent that TRULY CHANGES HOW AMERICANS LIVE everyday in this. Country. Imagine going from Chicago to NYC in 2 ½ hrs. I could leave CHI at 7 PM go party in NYC by 10 PM leave the club at 6 AM and be back in my bed in CHI by 11 AM.. I could commutte to work from. OH TO NJ in 1 hr. Or fro Alabama to Disney World in 3 hrs. it would make having a good paying job with real benefits a reality for many. He'll it would make the abortion argument a moot point. A woman could get up in Tennesee at 5AM be in NJ at 8. Have her procedure and be back home in Tennessee by 7 PM.

We have Miami to NYC trains, but no Miami to Boston trains sadly. Missed opportunity

Not really. A bomb in a train @ 200 mph is not that much more dangerous than a bomb in a train @ 50 mph. And in many cases it's the opposite way around. A bomb in a slow, crowded subway train is going to be a lot more deadly than a bomb in a fast intercity train. Whilst a bomb in any plane is disastrous.

@Gfynbcyiokbg8710 Hold on... you're saying a 300% increase in momentum is gonna negliably affect the amount of causuties and destruction when a bomb causes a sudden derailment? I'll grant you it will take more explosives to cause a derailment than it would to take out an aircraft at 30K ft alt, however, that's irrelevant if no one is checking for explosives.

@@RoDo26EOD No what I'm saying is that a bomb in a train with 3 or 4 times more people is going to be more deadly than a train that's going faster. That's why bombers rarely ever target high speed rail. From wikipedia's list of terrorist attacks on railways, only one bombing has occured on HSR compared to about 50 on slower trains and in stations (since the 1st HSR line started) Plus if you use the Japanese maglev design a 'derailment' isn't really possible. All you'd feel is a quick jolt as the train hits the one of the walls either side of it.

@@RoDo26EOD No i'm saying that a train with 4 times more people is going to be more deadly than a train going faster.

@Gfynbcyiokbg8710 why would faster trains have less people? To recoup the costs of building a high-speed train, the amount of people aboard will have to be maximized. Japan's bullet train has a capacity of 1323 passengers. 50% filled and 50% causulty rate is still some horrific #s and comparable to taking down and aircraft.

I think the idea was "lots of people talk about maglevs in _this context_ (cross country) but let's talk about the context where high speed rail is _actually_ viable (

Not if you include the recommended getting to the airport 2 hours before the trip.

200-800km is based on current high speed rail. Even though the time spent in the sky is less than the time spent on the maglev, you have to get to the airport (which is usually further out from where people want to go than the train station) and get to the airport 2 hours early for security and all that, and also just navigating the endless corridors adds a lot of time even if there's no passport control

Weak sauce my friend. First, how many people who hate/fear flying would gladly give up an hour, than fly on an Alaska 737 max from NY to LA? How many would gladly avoid the horrors of the airport, for the penalty of losing 1 hour? Or would prefer not to sit in the torture devices that modern coach seats are, but rather enjoy first class levels of comfort (with much better/cheaper food/ drink options) & room? Weak. sauce.

​@@johnmc67If you fear flying that much, there is always Amtrak. Might be slower, but solves the problem.

It's one of the most traveled destinations. Also so many people pass through DC on their way to other states.

DC is the tenth biggest city in the country when factoring for it's metro area.

I don’t think American love car more any other I more that we don’t have public transit and those that do is garbage compare to what you get in Europe or Japan even the worst place do better than America it because politicians don’t even try we did have more public transit before and the NY was the best in the world before the 1950s

Cars are garbage

Cars are cheaper for families and the lower income classes. I love trains, but the cost is prohibitive for the majority of the country.

@@USSAnimeNCC- what happened after the 1950s and is it the same problem that would inevitably plague highspeed transits between cities?

​@@USSAnimeNCC-We've had Amtrak since 1971. Loses money every year. Government funded. Total failure. What makes you think this will be different? The speed? Speed costs way more money. Convenience? You already don't have enough people taking the train. There simply aren't enough riders between major cities in the US.

Everything is controlled by politics everywhere. What are you talking about

Maybe. But there is also cost (to build), population density, number of expected riders, etc. Look at Amtrak. A complete and total failure. Started in 1971 and has been losing money ever since. Nothing but another government boondoggle.

@@Baalphus Yes of course the monetary aspect of it.

And the politics are controlled by Israel

Ever been to Europe?

@@RogierYou yes. Airplanes are a thing in Europe despite high speed rail. Because at a certain distance, they’re faster.

@@RogierYou I have. Did you know airplanes are still used there? I never said trains 'will never work'. I was saying that one can't compare a 'perfect theoretical train scenario' vs 'realistic modern air travel.'

What? Never heard of the transcontinental railroad? Or the hundreds of airports that popped up before Ike became President? Or all the seaports that go back to colonial times? And the dirty little secret (okay, not exactly a secret) is that the Interstate Highway system came about out of military necessity. Ike was tasked with determining how long it would take to move a division from the west coast to the east coast before WWII. He initially thought it would take a few days. It ultimately took several WEEKS because the roads were so bad. The military had no way of moving people and weapons across the country at any significant speed or scale, and the solution was to copy the German Autobahn that Eisenhower saw first hand in WWII. Today there is no pressing need for high speed rail, and nobody wants to pay for the astronomical cost of developing it. It’s an economic loser of a policy, and also a political loser.

the japanese did it with less money and similar terrain, why cant you

@@kkon5ti There isn't the same demand or practicality, and since the US is considerably larger, the scale of the project will be much larger as well. This isn't the 19th century, where you can just lay track wherever you want and civilization will follow. After surveying the route (which is itself a challenge; people just draw straight lines between cities, or, if they're actially trying a bit, trace the Interstate Highways, but a high speed line will need minimal curves and grades, and will require its own alignment independent from existing infrastructure), you need to acquire the right of way, conduct surveys on feasibility and enviornmental impact, and work things out the the government and existing railroad companies to avoid conflicts with existing infrastructure. It'll take decades and cost billions, and could very potentially end up as a boondoggle. The ability to cross the country at a speed somewhere between a plane and a car just isn't worth the effort, but it is worth it to provide better short and medium-distance connections between cities, and to restore long-distance low-speed passenger trains. You could make rail a cheaper, though longer alternative to flight, and let more people appreciate the sheer scale and diversity of the land to dispel the myth of "flyover country."

japan did it and china even in the himalaya, though at a smaller scale. are you less capable?