>>13481676>>13481670>muh long distance trainsWhile Amtrak's lack of ownership makes long distance passenger rail a lot worse in the US we shouldn't pretend that the US has (or could reasonably expect to have) long distance passenger rail as a suitable alternative for modern people to flying or driving or taking a bus.
Plenty of people who make this argument love to point out how good American passenger rail was in the 19th century. They tend not to note that back then long trips took weeks, and that even now a trip at top speed without avoidable delays by rail from NY to LA would take 2 to 3 days of constant travel. Under current economic conditions trips of similar length as those between American regions in developed countries (especially the EU) aren't generally done by train: they're done by plane. The market for slow, cheap transportation of people between faraway places is already served by buses, which have the benefit of being able to use existing road networks to go essentially anywhere.
They also tend to dismiss freight rail as unimportant. The US ships more tkm of freight than all of the EU combined. Freight rail is the most environmentally friendly way to transport cargo long distances overland, and unlike people most freight can be transported slowly and still have the trip be worth making so long as the arrival and departure schedule is predictable. People and industry need stuff, and the US rail system is set up to move stuff really well. We should be wary of any proposal to convert freight infrastructure into second rate "high speed" passenger rail infrastructure.
Which gets us to the last major problem with high speed intercity rail in the US: the tracks. Most American railroad lines between cities close enough together for high speed rail to make sense aren't straight enough for high speed passenger trains to reach and stay at the high speeds that make them competitive, and the land to create those tracks would be prohibitively expensive.
