• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A tale of two trains: Brightline vs California high speed rail

It’s not impossible though
True but is the expenditure worth it I don't think that it is. We're talking about a Victorian era relic. Maybe it works in Europe where they had a lot of population to move around during the Victorian era I don't think it's going to here.

Also if the expenditure of doing this makes it cost five times more than an airplane you just wasting money because people are just going to fly it'll be the cheaper option and it will be quicker.

No doubt if we have some sort of rail system some imbecile president will try and create a incompetent organization to be in charge of its safety like with airports. Now we have the TSA and the biggest problem with traveling by air is something the government imposes on you I'm the benefit is absolutely nothing.
 
And about a thousand other regulations that they put in place just to stop this sort of development or to milk the developers for every penny they can get out of them.

Then figure out a way to make it not elevated are the people in California just too stupid to figure this out?

I've been to Washington DC I've been to New York I've been to plenty other places more populated than most of California they don't have elevated trains and they just smarter than people in California?

We have built trains here in Houston Texas they're not elevated. LA and Houston Texas are pretty close to the same size.
High speed rail must be elevated in populated areas silly. The French have elevated most their their high speed rail for safety at 180 MPH
 
This argument isn't backed up with reality. The issue Americans in general have with high speed rail is that it seems to be managed mostly by kleptocrats like we see in California who dump endless billions into a high speed rail project that hasn't laid a mile of track in 10 years, or the Amtrack system that is entirely public owned and charges insane fees for low service.

The EU system is less publicly owned than Amtrack at this point. The problem is that the Party that pushes for high speed rail wants it to be government run, which is what the opposing party doesn't want. This is why Florida has Brightline and California has a boondoggle.

In the end, what the US needs in order to start a High Speed Rail network is to deregulate and open interstate rail to more private companies, and allow for private construction of interstate rail lines.
LOL No country in the world has private high speed rail service. It is far too costly to build and profit from passenger service is poor. It needs to be cheap enough for people to use it. Europe subsidizes all their passenger service and justify its cost by the savings from building less super highways. BTW Brightline Florida lost $550 million in 2024 despite increased riders.
 
Why?

For me France is tiny.
FYI It would only take 7 hours to go from NY to Miami at 180 MPH. The US is not to large for REAL HS Rail. The newest models are now going 220 MPH and more.

 
LOL No country in the world has private high speed rail service.

Seriously, took 15 seconds, dude...


You can also try searching "List of Public-Private partnerships in European High Speed Rail" for a list.
 
Ours work okay. I enjoyed a couple Amtrak trips I made in a sleeper between Illinois and Texas.

Do a lot of people ride our long distance trains?
Not really as Amtrack can be slow as freight trains have priority on the tracks, which are not oened by Amtrack.
 
Not really as Amtrack can be slow as freight trains have priority on the tracks, which are not oened by Amtrack.

Yeah, I recall having to sit on sidetracks and wait on freight trains a couple times.
 
Not really as Amtrack can be slow as freight trains have priority on the tracks, which are not oened by Amtrack.
Yeah moving freight and people on the same rail is not a good solution. They're probably can be a little overlap but the reality is you have to have separate rails.

Iron ore doesn't care if it's in a car for 3 Days waiting to be unloaded people might get a little anxious sitting in a car for an hour waiting to get unloaded.
 
California’s high speed rail is just like the bathroom in San Francisco. There needed to be lots of consulting and surveying done by the friends of politicians.

Doing it for too little means there’s not enough for skimming.
 
California’s high speed rail is just like the bathroom in San Francisco. There needed to be lots of consulting and surveying done by the friends of politicians.

Doing it for too little means there’s not enough for skimming.

California's HSR is the Big Dig of the West Coast.
 
Why the beef about publicly funded trains? Europe’s seem to work fine.
OP is just trying to show that here in 'Murica only private enterprise is blessed by Jesus. Publicly funded anything is Satanic kommanysm.
 
OP is just trying to show that here in 'Murica only private enterprise is blessed by Jesus. Publicly funded anything is Satanic kommanysm.

You're just demonstrating your ignorance. Communism is extremely hostile to religion, because leftists want you to worship the state, not God.
 
You're just demonstrating your ignorance. Communism is extremely hostile to religion, because leftists want you to worship the state, not God.
I SAID kommanysn is satanic and capitalism blessed by Jesus. What more do you want?
 
Florida's Brightline and California's high speed rail show the difference between capitalism and socialism when it comes to providing infrastructure. Yes, the market can and should provide infrastructure.

Brightline is:

1) Privately funded
2) Cost about 20 - 50 million dollars per mile
3) Was built in under 5 years.
4) Is fully operational, runs to 125mph, is profitable, and expanding.

California's high speed rail project is:

1) Government funded
2) The current projected cost for the full system is now over $200 million dollars per mile - over four times higher than brightline.
3) Voters approved the train in 2008 with a promise to connect san francisco to LA by 2020. But construction didn’t even begin until 2015, and nearly two decades later, not a single train is running. Meanwhile, cost overruns have pushed the price tag past $100 billion.


The results speak for themselves: one train serves the people, the other serves bureaucracies. One didn’t cost taxpayers a dime, the other cost them a fortune.


As usual America lags way behind Europe in high-speed rail. The French TGV, for example, regulary travels at 200mph. The world speed record was achieved in 2007 at 356mph.

 
As usual America lags way behind Europe in high-speed rail. The French TGV, for example, regulary travels at 200mph. The world speed record was achieved in 2007 at 356mph.



If you had that train in England, you could cross the country in like 12 seconds.
 
If you had that train in England, you could cross the country in like 12 seconds.
We still have the IC125 (diesel) which has been around since 1975. Design speed is 125 and we could do better if it were not for the fact that our rail infrastructure is essentially Victorian and not designed for very high speeds. In that respect we're lagging behind much of Europe. We still hold the steam locomotive speed record achieved in 1938 (126mph), and never beaten.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom