3 ms·

It's a little surprising that population density isn't mentioned as a major factor in this video. While it doesn't explain the overall cost or cost overruns, it

It's a little surprising that population density isn't mentioned as a major factor in this video. While it doesn't explain the overall cost or cost overruns, it is a major factor in whether rail makes economic sense. Here's some key statistics: * US lower 48 states: 40 people per square km (km2) * California: 92 people/km2 * DC-Boston (this is hand-wavey a bit): 200+ people/km2 * France: 270 people/km2 * Japan: 330 people/km2 * China: 130 people/km2 * Eastern China: 250++ people/km2 Most of the Chinese high speed rail is in the Eastern part of the country where roughly 400M people live. That's more people than the entire US in a space about double the size of California. Likewise Japan's high-speed rail links Osaka and Tokyo which are among the most densely populated areas in the world. A high speed rail trip between SF and LA could be free and you still couldn't have a remotely full train leave every 10 minutes like you do in Japan. The Amtrak lines that make the most sense are the shorter length ones that connect cities. The video sort of mentions this and that is in line with the Brookings Institution[1] findings. There's no coincidence that most of these lines operate in some of the most densely populated areas in the US[2] (So. California, Northeast). The goal of transit isn't strictly to turn a profit and highways don't turn a profit either. It has other goals like replacing car trips and alleviating congestion but all of these require people to actually ride. To get riders, trains need to operate where people are. Long story short, there are some areas where high speed rail makes sense in the US but the US simply doesn't need as much high speed rail as China does. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/passenger-rail-puentes-tomer.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/passeng... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories...

vardump 7y ago
Always the same story. When it comes to cell networks or whatever, population density blah blah. Sure, it's a factor, but it's hardly the whole story. If you count about 140 mph as high speed train, Finland (pop. density 17/km^2) and Sweden (22/km^2) seem to be doing just fine. (Those countries also manage to provide pretty comprehensive and cheap 4G coverage (with unmetered data!) and cheap gigabit class fiber internet, but that's another story.) The reason U.S. is like it is has only to do with path dependency. How things slowly shaped over time. Politics, generic stereotypes and opinions about things. Culture. That's all. U.S. has more than enough population density and wealth to support all those things.
- davidfischer 7y ago
  > If you count about 140 mph as high speed train, Finland (pop. density 17/km^2) and Sweden (22/km^2) seem to be doing just fine. Citing the population density of Finland and Sweden as a whole is pretty disingenuous. Those two countries have densely populated urban centers in the south with high speed rail yet vast sparsely populated areas in the north with nothing. High speed rail gets built where it makes sense and no amount of hand waving is going to make building a high speed rail line from LA to Chicago or New York viable. With that said, I will agree that politics and culture are certainly factors.
  - vardump 7y ago
    > Citing the population density of Finland and Sweden as a whole is pretty disingenuous. Yet it's perfectly fine when it comes to US? US has densely populated coasts with some smaller density concentrations on the eastern half. So why the coasts don't sport high-speed rail?
    - davidfischer 7y ago
      I wrote that "there are some areas where high speed rail makes sense in the US" and I think that answers your question of "why the coasts don't sport high-speed rail". Specifically I cited the lower 48 density, not the US as a whole (including Alaska would be irrelevant), and I broke out California and the Northeast to show that they are more favorable to rail. I also mentioned that the Amtrak lines in Southern California and the Northeast make sense. Parts of the coasts do support high speed rail and as the video mentions, the coastal areas (California, Northeast, Florida, and even densely populated areas of Texas if you count the Gulf Coast) are building it albeit slower than many people would like.

vardump 7y ago

Always the same story. When it comes to cell networks or whatever, population density blah blah. Sure, it's a factor, but it's hardly the whole story. If you count about 140 mph as high speed train, Finland (pop. density 17/km^2) and Sweden (22/km^2) seem to be doing just fine. (Those countries also manage to provide pretty comprehensive and cheap 4G coverage (with unmetered data!) and cheap gigabit class fiber internet, but that's another story.) The reason U.S. is like it is has only to do with path dependency. How things slowly shaped over time. Politics, generic stereotypes and opinions about things. Culture. That's all. U.S. has more than enough population density and wealth to support all those things.

davidfischer 7y ago
> If you count about 140 mph as high speed train, Finland (pop. density 17/km^2) and Sweden (22/km^2) seem to be doing just fine. Citing the population density of Finland and Sweden as a whole is pretty disingenuous. Those two countries have densely populated urban centers in the south with high speed rail yet vast sparsely populated areas in the north with nothing. High speed rail gets built where it makes sense and no amount of hand waving is going to make building a high speed rail line from LA to Chicago or New York viable. With that said, I will agree that politics and culture are certainly factors.
- vardump 7y ago
  > Citing the population density of Finland and Sweden as a whole is pretty disingenuous. Yet it's perfectly fine when it comes to US? US has densely populated coasts with some smaller density concentrations on the eastern half. So why the coasts don't sport high-speed rail?
  - davidfischer 7y ago
    I wrote that "there are some areas where high speed rail makes sense in the US" and I think that answers your question of "why the coasts don't sport high-speed rail". Specifically I cited the lower 48 density, not the US as a whole (including Alaska would be irrelevant), and I broke out California and the Northeast to show that they are more favorable to rail. I also mentioned that the Amtrak lines in Southern California and the Northeast make sense. Parts of the coasts do support high speed rail and as the video mentions, the coastal areas (California, Northeast, Florida, and even densely populated areas of Texas if you count the Gulf Coast) are building it albeit slower than many people would like.