It is about economic interests, in the case of Brazil, the Government does not want to make transport for citizens more accessible, leaving us only with outdated public transport called “BUS”, all this to favor Petrobras.
There is no interest on the part of Governments in improving public transport Infrastructure, as the oil industry itself makes a lot of profit selling gasoline. I say this from a Brazilian point of view, using Petrobras as an example.
Similar to why high-speed rail is not a thing in the US, Canada or Australia. Most Latin American countries have low population density compared to European and Asian countries, so high-speed rail is less cost-effective, added to other factors like geography and economy.
I feel like geography is a big barrier in a lot of countries. In the Andean nations, big population centers are separated by massive mountains. Makes building infrastructure difficult and has served as a big barrier to development since independence.
Everything is about interests, in the case of Brazil, the Petrobas Oil industry profits from the sale of Gasoline, so it is not in the interest to build locomotive infrastructure, so we have to be content with buses and cars powered by GAS ⛽️
There is not a massive amount of people that travel far from their work to do something like that. Our highways are enough for the demand. A high-speed rail wouldn’t be profitable or cost-effective. There are other priorities than a rail like that, like health or education.
Umm you can’t even flush toilet paper down the toilet or drink the water in many countries in LatAm why the hell would they have a high-speed rail like Japan? Here comes the downvote warriors LMAO
Regular rail was largely dismantled or left to rot here. If we can’t get that, we won’t get high speed one either. I think the fastest we have in Chile is like 160-170km/h
Rail in the modern world is only cost effective for countries with populations packed like sardines. Doubly so for high speed rail. Highways are also way more flexible
Why would you want high speed rail when you can take a train that does 1150 km in just under 32h, at a bullet-train-like speed of THIRTY SIX km/h on a good day
Geography. The routes with the greatest potential from Bogota are too long to compete against air travel (Barranquilla, Cartagena), or have to deal with extreme altitude changes that kill their economic feasibility (Cali, Medellín).
I don’t know about any other country but at least here, probably the country that would benefit the most from a high-speed rail, we don’t have one because truckers and bus owners have our politicians by the balls apparently.
Comments
It is about economic interests, in the case of Brazil, the Government does not want to make transport for citizens more accessible, leaving us only with outdated public transport called “BUS”, all this to favor Petrobras.
$.
And distances are way too large compared to places that do have high speed rail. Which also makes it more expensive.
And terrain does not help either. The Andes, Patagonia and the Amazon are difficult to build in.
it’s cheaper to build airports and it’s faster to travel by plane than train.
Money
Because it’s more expensive than airplanes. There are few high speed rails even in Europe
There is no interest on the part of Governments in improving public transport Infrastructure, as the oil industry itself makes a lot of profit selling gasoline. I say this from a Brazilian point of view, using Petrobras as an example.
We LOVE copying everything bad with the US.
Lots of corruption and those corrupt business that don’t want poor people moving near then in fancy trains
Because it’s expensive
Similar to why high-speed rail is not a thing in the US, Canada or Australia. Most Latin American countries have low population density compared to European and Asian countries, so high-speed rail is less cost-effective, added to other factors like geography and economy.
There is barely rail, let alone high-speed rail.
I feel like geography is a big barrier in a lot of countries. In the Andean nations, big population centers are separated by massive mountains. Makes building infrastructure difficult and has served as a big barrier to development since independence.
The same reason 50% of kids’ breakfast looks like this… lack of money first, followed by geography
https://preview.redd.it/qlajkhqfjave1.png?width=792&format=png&auto=webp&s=069f5699e8fbc2a9de140fff1a29e1cc06afcf18
[deleted]
Everything is about interests, in the case of Brazil, the Petrobas Oil industry profits from the sale of Gasoline, so it is not in the interest to build locomotive infrastructure, so we have to be content with buses and cars powered by GAS ⛽️
There is not a massive amount of people that travel far from their work to do something like that. Our highways are enough for the demand. A high-speed rail wouldn’t be profitable or cost-effective. There are other priorities than a rail like that, like health or education.
Umm you can’t even flush toilet paper down the toilet or drink the water in many countries in LatAm why the hell would they have a high-speed rail like Japan? Here comes the downvote warriors LMAO
Regular rail was largely dismantled or left to rot here. If we can’t get that, we won’t get high speed one either. I think the fastest we have in Chile is like 160-170km/h
In USA and Canada: Car companies killed the rail. I feel that countries like Panama simply copied what USA was doing.
The US paid A LOT of money to force every governament they put in place to focus on roads so they could sell their cars.
Rail in the modern world is only cost effective for countries with populations packed like sardines. Doubly so for high speed rail. Highways are also way more flexible
Why would you want high speed rail when you can take a train that does 1150 km in just under 32h, at a bullet-train-like speed of THIRTY SIX km/h on a good day
In the case of Mexico, neoliberal policies. Before the “Tren Maya”, all existing passenger railways (not even HSR) were undone.
Outside of east Asia and Europe they are not existence elsewhere
Because we believe in the mighty power of CARS
Too many mountains and jungles. And most of the flatlands where it’d be easier to build railways are not populated enough.
A lot of trains were dismantled by the dictatorship for bus companies and others gains.
Today cuz of bus lobby.
Geography. The routes with the greatest potential from Bogota are too long to compete against air travel (Barranquilla, Cartagena), or have to deal with extreme altitude changes that kill their economic feasibility (Cali, Medellín).
Also, we don’t have passenger rail services.
People thought cars were the future(and still think it is sadly)
Mostly because of Geography.
I don’t know about any other country but at least here, probably the country that would benefit the most from a high-speed rail, we don’t have one because truckers and bus owners have our politicians by the balls apparently.
Mountains and railroads don’t mix
USA
Big distances and low human density.
It’s non existent in ALL of America