3 ms·
The pre-existing rails are currently at capacity with freight trains, and for good reason. We can't replace that without harming the logistical system that keep
by tomatotomato37 8y ago
The pre-existing rails are currently at capacity with freight trains, and for good reason. We can't replace that without harming the logistical system that keeps the central US at something approximating the first world.
It's better just to build more capacity and reserve it for passenger.
- jcranmer 8y agoHSR for passenger already requires dedicated tracks. Mixing 220mph trains and 75mph trains tends not to work very well. (Not to mention the curvature requirements precluding a lot of existing right of way). The real problem is the lack of demand for passenger traffic. HSR ridership falls off a cliff around 2-3 hours; in practice, you're limited to looking at city pairs within around 500-700mi max, ideally all in a nice line, and outside the NEC, there's just too few of these pairs.
- bobthepanda 8y agoThe pairs are more numerous than you'd think. Put 560 mile circles around Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, and Seattle and you basically cover most major metro areas in the US.
- jcranmer 8y agoA single pair by itself is not enough to make the investment cost worth it. (This is the Midwest conundrum--there's actually a decent selection of third tier cities, but no three of them are close to collinear).
- bobthepanda 8y agoThree of them can be collinear if you consider Chicago a viable third city (e.g. Indianapolis - Milwaukee). Some city pairs are kind of isolated (St Louis, Kansas City). Some have decently sized cities that you can connect in a linear fashion (Chicago > Indianapolis > Louisville > Nashville) And some you can serve in a somewhat roundabout fashion while still being time competitive (Chicago > Indianapolis > Cincinnati > Columbus > Pittsburgh).