3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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.