Why we don't have them ???

[F6B1911]

... BTW---have you checked AmTrac prices lately? They are not especially cheap. The subways in the big cities are partly funded by many of the cities to make them affordable. Considering all of these things, it has been determined that there is not a market for this type stuff in the USA.

Good point, so.... if one of these mismanaged projects were ever to be completed, it would end up costing $7,233.86 for a trip from LA to San Francisco, or $12,552.39 for a trip from LA to Seattle.
A beer would cost $29.99 + tax + service fee + cooling fee + delivery fee.

[Kurare79]

The answer is that the USA is just too darn big. Japan and many of the countries in Europe are smaller than a lot of states in the US.

Exactly. Just for comparison: You can put nearly two times the size of Germany into Texas - but germany got more than three times of inhabitants than Texas (That's always one of the most amazing things for me, when i travel your country -> the enormous space you have).

[srt8-in-largo]

And we stole it all... fair and square

[edgeman55]

And we stole it all... fair and square

LOL ain't that the truth.But out here in the west the Mexicans are taking there land back!!

[stroguy]

I thought the Vikings had it first.

[Limoles]

Beside all speculations about distance and cost , Maglev train would be a good . or even best idea .
In a maglev train the primary coil assembly lies below the reaction plate. There is a 1–10 cm (0.39-3.93 inch) air gap between that eliminates friction, allowing for speeds up to 500 km/h (310 mph). An alternating electric current is supplied to the coils, which creates a change in polarity of the magnetic field. This pulls the train forward from the front, and thrusts the train forward from the back. A typical Maglev train costs three cents per passenger mile, or seven cents per ton mile (not including construction costs). This compares to 15 cents per passenger miles for travel by plane and 30 cents for ton mile for travel by intercity trucks. Maglev tracks have high longevity due to minimal friction and an even distribution of weight. Most last for at least 50 years and require little maintenance during this time. Maglev trains are promoted for their energy efficiency since they run on electricity, which can be produced by coal, nuclear, hydro, fusion, wind or solar power without requiring oil. On average most trains travel 483 km/h (300 mph) and use 0.4 megajoules per passenger mile. Using a 20 mi/gallon car with 1.8 people as a comparison, travel by car is typically 110 km/h (72 mph) and uses 4 megajoules per passenger mile. Along with this there are no carbon dioxide emissions and the running of the train is significantly quieter than other trains, trucks or airplanes.

[srt8-in-largo]

The technology has been around for quite some time... probably floating around University labs for 30 or 40 years... and commercially viable for the last 20 years or so.

Not sure if I buy the cost per mile, these thing have to suck a LOT of electricity to create the magnetic fields, and then to propagate that field for hundreds or thousands of miles. Like most "green" technology, the TRUE carbon footprint is swept under the rug; how about electric vehicles that actually have LARGER carbon footprints than gas vehicles due to the toxic process of battery manufacturing and disposal.

[ths61]

The PRK has no water, but it can go into debt on the backs of the taxpayers for a $100 Billion bullet train to nowhere.

[srt8-in-largo]

Oh c'mon THS, I'm sure they'll do better if they could have just a little more of your paycheck

[ths61]

Oh c'mon THS, I'm sure they'll do better if they could have just a little more of your paycheck

Unfortunately, my pockets are not deep enough to support the PRK's politicians lavish lifestyles and insatiable spending habits.