The rails we need for a real rail network are the long-haul rails, and those are much harder than highways.
Yeah, i10 is like 20 lanes forna few miles in Houston, but just a few miles out of town and it’s 2 lanes wide for the next 200 miles to San Antonio where it gets a few more lanes, and is then 2 lanes for the next 500 miles to El Paso, then gets a bit wider, then is 2 lanes for 300 miles to Tuscon, and so on.
And along those 2-lane stretches the roads are very flexible in their placement. It’s why they’re not straight. They constantly turn left and right to avoid splitting properties, cities, etc in a way a train (especially a high-speed train) simply cannot. And they’re built largely at grade. When there’s a hill the road can follow the hill, wheras a train needs a tunnel, bridge, or trench.
Rail’s requirements for flat, straight paths and the extreme braking distance of trains combined with their inability to turn independently or operate off track makes them a much more difficult project in terms of engineering, logistics, politics, and legal issues.
Outside of town is high speed rail also less of a headache to build. Sure, you need more tunnels and bridges but for example the LGVs in France have surprisingly high gradients, so they can follow the landscape better than many people believe.
I am not saying that HSR is easy to build I am merely saying that they are not such an existential challenge as US Americans make it out to be. Even developing countries manage to build them, highly developed ones manage it and everyone in between. The problem in the US is not that that the technology is so challenging. The problem is legislation that is extremely hostile towards such projects, creating overhead costs that are multiple times the entire project costs in other high cost countries. The problem is a lack of political will and the problem is especially ideology, the idea that rail infrastructure has to be profitable to be justifiable (road infrastructure interestingly is not having that requirement more often than not).
PS: “extreme breaking distance” and “inability to turn independently or operate off track” are not an issue at all, why would they be?
The braking distance and inability to turn is why greater physical barriers are required to separate rail. If a cow walks onto a road, the car drivers can stop or swerve. And even if they hit the cow, the entire network isn’t shut down during the cleanup because people can drive around the wreck.
The inability to operate off track means the system is less flexible because it requires rail everywhere, and the rail spec has to match the train.
Cars operate better on nicer roads, but they’re capable of driving on any pavement, on gravel, dirt, and more. A car has no issues transitioning from one type of road to another, can be more easily re-routed, and is just generally more adaptable.
Rail is great. It can move a lot at once between designated points, and as long as that’s all you want to do and it’s all working that’s great. It works really well in specific circumstances that happen to match the needs of much of the world. But the thing with a lot of the US is that it wasn’t really settled until there were air conditioners and cars, and so it was development with both in mind, and is very difficult to adapt rail to those developments. For rail to work in the South, the whole system from first mile to last must be solved at once because none of it works in isolation.
Houston tried. They put in a light rail system and it super duper sucks because you still have to drive to Houston, pay to park in a giant lot, pay to board the rail, then walk the last 3/4 mile in 110° heat or wait 20 minutes to pay to take a bus in 110° heat. The alternative is just to drive to your destination and pay to park in the garage for less money. And even that shitty system uses up half of Houston’s sales tax.
The system needs commuter lines going into and out of the city, but those need the light rail. There also needs to be a way to get from your house to the commuter train. It’s a 4-part system (first mile, commuter train, light rail, last mile) that ALL needs to be in place for any of it to make sense, and that’s extremely difficult to implement.
The rails we need for a real rail network are the long-haul rails, and those are much harder than highways.
Yeah, i10 is like 20 lanes forna few miles in Houston, but just a few miles out of town and it’s 2 lanes wide for the next 200 miles to San Antonio where it gets a few more lanes, and is then 2 lanes for the next 500 miles to El Paso, then gets a bit wider, then is 2 lanes for 300 miles to Tuscon, and so on.
And along those 2-lane stretches the roads are very flexible in their placement. It’s why they’re not straight. They constantly turn left and right to avoid splitting properties, cities, etc in a way a train (especially a high-speed train) simply cannot. And they’re built largely at grade. When there’s a hill the road can follow the hill, wheras a train needs a tunnel, bridge, or trench.
Rail’s requirements for flat, straight paths and the extreme braking distance of trains combined with their inability to turn independently or operate off track makes them a much more difficult project in terms of engineering, logistics, politics, and legal issues.
Outside of town is high speed rail also less of a headache to build. Sure, you need more tunnels and bridges but for example the LGVs in France have surprisingly high gradients, so they can follow the landscape better than many people believe.
I am not saying that HSR is easy to build I am merely saying that they are not such an existential challenge as US Americans make it out to be. Even developing countries manage to build them, highly developed ones manage it and everyone in between. The problem in the US is not that that the technology is so challenging. The problem is legislation that is extremely hostile towards such projects, creating overhead costs that are multiple times the entire project costs in other high cost countries. The problem is a lack of political will and the problem is especially ideology, the idea that rail infrastructure has to be profitable to be justifiable (road infrastructure interestingly is not having that requirement more often than not).
PS: “extreme breaking distance” and “inability to turn independently or operate off track” are not an issue at all, why would they be?
The braking distance and inability to turn is why greater physical barriers are required to separate rail. If a cow walks onto a road, the car drivers can stop or swerve. And even if they hit the cow, the entire network isn’t shut down during the cleanup because people can drive around the wreck.
The inability to operate off track means the system is less flexible because it requires rail everywhere, and the rail spec has to match the train.
Cars operate better on nicer roads, but they’re capable of driving on any pavement, on gravel, dirt, and more. A car has no issues transitioning from one type of road to another, can be more easily re-routed, and is just generally more adaptable.
Rail is great. It can move a lot at once between designated points, and as long as that’s all you want to do and it’s all working that’s great. It works really well in specific circumstances that happen to match the needs of much of the world. But the thing with a lot of the US is that it wasn’t really settled until there were air conditioners and cars, and so it was development with both in mind, and is very difficult to adapt rail to those developments. For rail to work in the South, the whole system from first mile to last must be solved at once because none of it works in isolation.
Houston tried. They put in a light rail system and it super duper sucks because you still have to drive to Houston, pay to park in a giant lot, pay to board the rail, then walk the last 3/4 mile in 110° heat or wait 20 minutes to pay to take a bus in 110° heat. The alternative is just to drive to your destination and pay to park in the garage for less money. And even that shitty system uses up half of Houston’s sales tax.
The system needs commuter lines going into and out of the city, but those need the light rail. There also needs to be a way to get from your house to the commuter train. It’s a 4-part system (first mile, commuter train, light rail, last mile) that ALL needs to be in place for any of it to make sense, and that’s extremely difficult to implement.