u/chrisbaseball7

A lot of rail discussions on Reddit or really anywhere focus on two things with rail: travel time or environmental impacts/cars. A lot of this misses a bigger point in transportation: that rail stitches together cities and regions in a way cars and planes can’t and don’t

Yes, highways and air travel physically connect cities and to some extent small towns together. The thing is though many of these smaller cities or towns become pass through on a drive or flying over by car

With rail, regional rail makes stops at multiple smaller cities and/or towns. That alone connects them to a larger network of intercity high speed passenger service. So instead of operating as individual towns or cities that happen to be in the same region, they function as a connected region.

Key Point: rail isn’t just about destinations, it’s about the intermediate cities and towns in between (that’s why you need both regional, local, and high speed rail together)

thats because of:

Expanded Labor Markets

Expanded tourism along routes

people visiting or considering places they otherwise might not have

Universities and research centers now connected and have easier access to small and large cities

Travel becomes regional: not just point A to B but travel along corridors in a region (travel one stop, two, five…)

rail at its best does not eliminate cars or aviation, it complements congested highways and short haul flights that are inefficient and not always the best mode of transit

strengthens small and mid size cities through developments around stations and greater access to larger job, business, and tourism markets

Supports mixed use and walkable development

Rail fills in a gap in U.S. transportation: places that are too far to drive comfortably or practically but too short to be efficient or practical when you consider door to door time

For example, someone might:

travel Richmond to DC for work

travel Raleigh to Charlotte for school or a job

Travel Charlotte to Atlanta for a concert

travel from Grenville to DC or Richmond without flying

in short, yes cars and planes can connect places but not in the same economic, social ways that rail can

A lot of discussions about public transit or passenger rail tend to focus on what transportation mode is best or can get me from point A to B the fastest. That matters, especially for improving travel times and traffic congestion, but it misses a bigger longer-term point:

The focus currently is on the destination, not as much the places that are in-between.

Take Chicago - Detroit:

People often see rail as serving two major cities with strong business travel demand. Rail doesn't just serve big cities, it serves intermediate mid-size cities in between them like South Bend or Ann Arbor.

These places don't just generate additional ridership or connect universities. These cities become part of a larger economic, social, and cultural corridor.

That changes travel patterns over time because instead of thinking of destinations, people think about what is along the way. Chicago-South Bend-Ann Arbor-Detroit start to function as a region where travel between cities becomes more frequent rather than occasional.

So someone could travel from Ann Arbor-Chicago or Ann Arbor-South Bend anytime - reliably and frequently

The same idea can be applied to corridors like:

Raleigh-Wilmington-Myrtle Beach-Charleston-Savannah OR

DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta

Interstates and air travel made travel easier and more practical, but they also bypassed a lot of smaller cities and towns that are along the way.

Rail does the opposite when done well:

Relieves pressure on congested highways and short haul flights

Connects cities along a corridor into a network of local, regional, and intercity rail

and makes in-between cities matter again instead of being passed through or flown over

A lot of rail discussions tend to focus on what transportation mode is best or can get me from point A to B the fastest. That matters, especially for improving travel times and traffic congestion, but it misses a bigger longer-term point:

Interstates and air travel connect places, but they mostly encourage an A to B mindset. The focus is on the destination, not as much what's in between.

Take Chicago - Detroit:

People often see rail as serving two major cities with strong business travel demand. Rail doesn't just serve big cities, it serves intermediate mid-size cities in between them like South Bend or Ann Arbor.

These places don't just generate additional ridership or connect universities. These cities become part of a larger economic, social, and cultural corridor.

That changes travel patterns over time because instead of thinking of destinations, people think about what is along the way. Chicago-South Bend-Ann Arbor-Detroit start to function as a region where travel between cities becomes more frequent rather than occasional.

So someone could travel from Ann Arbor-Chicago or Ann Arbor-South Bend anytime - reliably and frequently

The same idea can be applied to corridors like:

Raleigh-Wilmington-Myrtle Beach-Charleston-Savannah OR

DC-Richmond-Raleigh-Charlotte-Atlanta

Interstates and air travel made travel easier and more practical, but they also bypassed a lot of smaller cities and towns that are along the way.

Rail does the opposite when done well:

Relieves pressure on congested highways and short haul flights

Connects cities along a corridor into a network of local, regional, and intercity rail

and makes in-between cities matter again instead of being passed through or flown over

Brightline's has been struggling to pay back its debt and lagging ridership expectations. Even though Brightline made improvements to tracks, it still runs on old freight tracks. That is largely because new dedicated passenger tracks are expensive and require large funding (see the Northeast not being able to have high speed rail).

One thing that's also worth pointing out is most transit and infrastructure is never fully profitable - it's at best operationally profitable (think like Delta, United, auto makers). That is because infrastructure is expensive and it's usually viewed as providing broader economic benefits (more businesses, expanded labor markets, traffic relief, faster transportation...)

There are 5 main reasons Brightline has gone off the rails:

1. Ridership lags expectations: Most Florida cities do not have a strong system of commuter and regional rail that can generate sustained ridership - Brightline likely hoped having intercity rail would change this long-term

2. Last Mile Problem getting to and from stations: especially in Orlando, Brightline terminates at the airport. While I understand airports can have high ridership base, most people aren't going to go straight from Orlando airport to Miami

3. Brightline has higher fares because they have to pay back infrastructure costs. Having infrastructure publicly funded is what allow airlines, auto makers, trucking companies to focus on operations, expanding routes, and ultimately keep fares lower. That's why when you pay for an airline ticket or drive, you're never paying the full cost - whether that's airport construction, FAA, highways...

4. Perception Problem: People want Brightline to make multiple stops or go everywhere from Disney to Universal and smaller cities. Brightline is intercity rail service from Miami to Orlando so it can't make a ton of stops

5. Brightline doesn't connect to larger rail networks: right now it is just standalone service, but rail works best in networks when it's connected to commuter rail or to say Atlanta and the rest of the Southeast. That's how you gain the most ridership

If you had to boil it down:

Brightline is a private startup without consistent federal or state funding for infrastructure. A lack of connections to other cities and feeder rail to and from stations (commuter, regional) compounded the problem which is why ridership lag expectations

The business model isn't bad on paper, you're connecting places like Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, Jacksonville and maybe eventually to Atlanta

Brightline for both the good and the bad shows everything that is wrong with passenger rail in the United States.

The good is that it shows operators don’t have to be government - they can be private. Brightline has had high ridership but just not high enough to pay their bills which is what matters. They’re profitable on operations.

This gets to the bad which is most of the last century. I can’t say this is the only reason Brightline has struggled - such as location of stations or lack of development around stations, but it’s definitely a big part of it. Passenger rail service is often expected to fund construction costs for track infrastructure. Unlike highways and airport infrastructure and the FAA that are heavily funded by the government. That allows operators to just focus on service on day to day operations. The same is not true with passenger rail

Imagine If airlines or auto makers were required to pay the cost of construction or maintenance for infrastructure, the costs for travelers would be a lot higher than what they are right now.

Without that funding certainty, ticket prices can cost more, there’s less focus on having frequent trains or doing upgrades. That’s part of the reason why even the Northeast doesn’t yet have the infrastructure to handle faster and more frequent trains when the east coast makes the most sense in the country.

I get Brightline has received some aid or grants from the government but thats not at all the same as separating operations from infrastructure.

I don't Live in Florida so I can’t speak on arguments about where Brightline should’ve gone or if there’s a lack of walkable areas around the stations.

What is frustrating with Brightline though is it’s the story basically of passenger rail in the U.S. - Even when it increases ridership or is profitable on operating costs, it still is required to pay back construction costs or maintenance of infrastructure.

Rail infrastructure should be treated like highways and aviation infrastructure. Not just out being treated the same, but because passenger rail when it’s fast, frequent, and reliable reduces traffic on interstates and puts less pressure on airlines and airports for short haul flights.

Operations can be either private or public but infrastructure its much more difficult. Imagine if airlines or highways reflected the true cost of construction and maintenance? the cost for consumers would be through the roof

California is a shame - not because high speed rail can’t work in the state but because of how it’s been handled. its so over budget that it becomes a talking point for how people say the United States could ever do high speed rail.

It’s a shame because people it’s constantly in the news but for all the wrong reasons: people and news outlets are pointing to this as a reason why the U.S. doesn’t need passenger - even just in regions where it could clearly work.

For the cost of California High Speed Rail alone, we could’ve built corridors and regional networks in the Midwest, the Texas Triangle, and the Southeast which all have more favorable geography or already have rail lines. The issue in those places is more about faster and upgraded rail

The project didn’t fail because of one reason, it failed because of many:

1. California is one the hardest places in the country to build high speed rail because of its geography

2. California never had the funding to begin with when the project was announced that was needed

3. They constantly made changes and that helped lead to souring costs

4. Not consistent funding: this is what happens when you don’t have the funding for a project in advance

5. having to acquire land and legal challenges

6. Environmental reviews that drag on for years

7. building entirely from scratch is harder whereas the East Coast and the Midwest already have rail and it’s more about making it faster and improving

8. Infrastructure in the United States like air travel or highways is at least partially funded by the federal government. Without that source, it makes it harder

High Speed Rail is often seen as impossible in the U.S. or if people do talk about it, it’s often in reference to the idea that it would have to go coast to coast or span the entire country.

its never going to work everywhere and that something that detractors and even some supporters don’t get about HSR.

High Speed Rail works when:

1. You have strong city pairs

2. it’s part of a corridor and combined with regional rail service

3. It has a strong foundation or core

4. This could just as easily be no. 1, but it needs in the United States to be implemented regionally

5. Projects and infrastructure need to be standardized as much as possible - infrastructure is often viewed in the U.S. as standalone projects

6. it pulls in riders either directly or along the route from key major suburbs or intermediate cities. Even the Northeast relies heavily on suburban riders

So by this logic, you would focus on the Northeast, expanding to the Southeast with Atlanta as a hub, and the Midwest. I wouldn’t have touched California until last because it’s geography alone makes it one of the toughest places to build HSR

it is very Viable for routes like where it complements car and air travel

Chicago-Ann Harbor-Detroit

Chicago-Lafeyette-Indianapolis

Chicago-Springfield-St. Louis

Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis