Lots of words but I'm not seeing the three main problems:



<2% of the population in a WELL-used well-done public transit area uses the trains/buses

They cost a gozillion dollars

and these trains will also be little-used and will require CONTINUOUS millions/billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidy, for the convenience of people who already have other ways to get there.



P.S. good luck getting environmental approval, landowner cooperation, and funding, all for the same track that you will have to build from scratch . . . the alternative being to buy an old track (that goes from the wrong place to the wrong place, which will need to be refurbished) from a freight company.

 

I know Amtrak is popular here. The PNW is probably the most accepting region of middle distance rail. But, I don't see any real benefit to switching to hsr. People are already taking the regular train that would take hsr. Hsr would go to the same places. I'm guessing it would only gain a few percent higher ridership.



For me, I would never ride it unless it was cheaper, faster, and easier than driving. Easier includes getting to where I actually need to go, not just to a station within a few miles of where I'm going. And it's destined to lose because driving between these places is easy. Your messed up drive would be to and from the urban centers where the stations would likely be located.

 

And roads & highways don't require continuous billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies? What about subsidies to the Airline industry? Amtrak, in its current crappy condition, makes more revenue than Airlines and Buses.



Northeast Corridor ridership last year was 10 million. Nobody uses it?



The California High Speed Rail expects ridership at 117 million per year by 2030 (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ridership.aspx) I don't buy the "little-used" argument. Based on what facts? Other than Acela, we don't have anything to compare that off of because we're still living in the Dark Ages of transportation in this country. If HSR is made as convenient (if not more) as airlines, a lot of that airline ridership will go to HSR.



Of course rail will need to be retrofitted for HSR. With highways you need to build brand new ones, with airports you need to build more runways and terminals, none of it is cheap. When building new rail lines, how is it any different than going through the difficulty of airport expansion or highway widening? They all have their own issues. Plus, most reasonable environmentalists (I know, oxymoron) would support rail over planes, autos, etc.



So I'm a little unclear, the OP said "Bullet Trains" so are we discussing High Speed Rail or mass transit in general?

 

I'll see your anecdote and raise you one local to me. The tools in Austin pushed a plan to buy a freight track through town and nobody rides the trains because it's all decentralized. The track goes from nowhere to nowhere, with stops in the wrong places to be useful. It takes longer to ride the train than to ride a bus, and then you still have to get halfway across down from the track that goes nowhere . . . so nobody rides.



I did a little searching on this topic and changed my mind. The transportation systems in the USA are all heavily subsidized and all of them should not be. I can see a working group coming together to collaborate on the guidelines for road/rail/plane infrastructure so it's uniform across the 50 States and then turn the whole bargain over to the States. Why does the .fed have to fund the unused roads to BFE in your State?



This is stupid.

 

They are upgrading an est coast line that runs through NJ to 170+ mph right now. The track they want to run one on from Chicago to St. Louis is already there they just need to upgrade the track. It would be a viable solution at the right places. The local Amtrack that runs from Chicago to New Orleans is usually packed with college kids going to Champaign. Don't know about further down south.

 

Well if it's any consolation, per that map I linked to, the PNW is marked as "Regional" (90-125mph). To achieve these speeds it would require little track retrofitting. Electrification also won't be necessary and the locomotive they use (EMD F59PH) is already capable of going 110mph. To be honest, I don't know how much airline traffic goes between Vancouver, BC and Portland and 2 hours drive really doesn't seem that bad.





We're in a similar situation here. However, one good thing is the freight line goes smack dab in the center of all cities in the county. The problem is, a majority of residents commute to SF. The proposed commuter rail line would stop 30 miles away from SF, then you would have to take a bus either to the ferry terminal or bus into the city. This to me is very half-assed. Either go big or go home. They either need to have it connect to SF or not build it at all. I just don't think it's going to get the ridership that it needs.



As far as the fed subsidizing roads to BFE, that's a whole different conversation