3 ms·

Is there anywhere else that is dense enough to connect besides the bay, la, andnthe dc to boston strip? Thats probably getting close to a quarter of the populat

Is there anywhere else that is dense enough to connect besides the bay, la, andnthe dc to boston strip? Thats probably getting close to a quarter of the population so even that would be a good deal. A lot of smaller cities could use better bus systems, but they take hours to get anyi with all the stops amd switchovers.

Jtsummers 6y ago
The southeast US is not as dense as the northeast, but TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, and FL have 55 million or so people in them, the majority living in or near major metro areas. Connecting those major metros using the existing interstate corridors as the general path, you'd get most of the remaining population within a short distance of this intercity railway. If the metros themselves invested in better intrametro (I'd say intracity, but it would be a misnomer) transit systems that connected to the intercity system it could be effective for the region.
jcranmer 6y ago
The Midwest region (centered on Chicago) is very much within viable HSR range--as I point out in a nearby comment, it actually contains larger cities within the same general distance as the French TGV network. Texas triangle would also be a viable region. As my sibling comment points out, southeast US is marginally viable. The Pacific Northwest (Portland-Vancouver) is also on the margin of viability. The other parts of the northeast--Boston-Toronto and NYC-Montreal--are very definitely viable HSR routes. You might find some more strap-on routes to the main Northeast Corridor that I haven't included (Scranton, maybe?), simply because the NEC is such a phenomenally powerful generator of traffic. Connecting the Midwest to the Northeast and the Southeast may also be viable, but again it's somewhat more marginal because the big city in the Midwest is on the wrong side of the region.
- ativzzz 6y ago
  Having done a lot of driving through the Texas triangle, I can tell you that the biggest detriment to HSR would be the fact that you still need a car after you get off your train. I've taken the greyhound/megabus between cities, and it's pretty decent, but then I either need someone to drive 30 mins one way to pick me up or shell out $30+ for an Uber to get to where I need to go, and then more Ubers if I need to get around afterwards. To make the intercity transport really compelling, the cities themselves need good public transport coverage, and the triangle cities are too damn big for that to happen in the foreseeable future. They have some, but it takes forever and the reach isn't that high. I'd rather have a mostly self driving car that can take me 80% of the way on the interstate highway between the cities.
  - rizzom5000 6y ago
    A mostly self-driving car could work and I can't speak for the Texas Triangle, but most of the south has horrible public transit. An interesting example, perhaps, is Raleigh, NC to DC. Raleigh has awful public transit options. The public transit in DC is pretty great actually. Driving (in the best case) is six hours, and Amtrak is about 7.5 hours. Still, who in their right mind would ever willingly want to drive in DC traffic? If you are going to DC for the weekend, the Amtrak wins every single time in my opinion; even with a mostly self-driving car.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Right, it's important that cities getting HSR stations are compelled to do some sort of metropolitan public transit and upzoning. We should be very cleareyed that the sunbelt cities are built all wrong, but also underestanding that they can be fixed.
    - galangalalgol 6y ago
      How do you fix them? That seems really hard!
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        As long as they are still growing, it's mainly a matter of redirecting the growth. Only a stagnant city is "too poor to change"; everything else is just cowardly politics looking for excuses. Per https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-trains-urbanism/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-train... we have a lot of bullshit compromise, when the ugly truth is both cars and non-cars are positive feedback loops for which there is no reconciliation. But this is also an opportunity, provided the government has guts. Do what Barcelona did, and overnight "guerilla urbanism" block roads. Bikeshare, including some cargo wagons to signal a commitment to more people other than single yuppies is also good, and is so much cheaper than subways it might as well be considered tactical urbanism. Do congestion pricing. Tax parking lots. When property values adjust as everyone tries to get at the high foot traffic, high job density hot area, you are winning. Finally, we need a national carbon tax / quotas. And as opposed to trying to ration gas to people we should just give them a carbon dividend. That will also suck people out of the suburbs like turning on the electromagnets!

Jtsummers 6y ago

The southeast US is not as dense as the northeast, but TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, and FL have 55 million or so people in them, the majority living in or near major metro areas. Connecting those major metros using the existing interstate corridors as the general path, you'd get most of the remaining population within a short distance of this intercity railway. If the metros themselves invested in better intrametro (I'd say intracity, but it would be a misnomer) transit systems that connected to the intercity system it could be effective for the region.

jcranmer 6y ago

The Midwest region (centered on Chicago) is very much within viable HSR range--as I point out in a nearby comment, it actually contains larger cities within the same general distance as the French TGV network. Texas triangle would also be a viable region. As my sibling comment points out, southeast US is marginally viable. The Pacific Northwest (Portland-Vancouver) is also on the margin of viability. The other parts of the northeast--Boston-Toronto and NYC-Montreal--are very definitely viable HSR routes. You might find some more strap-on routes to the main Northeast Corridor that I haven't included (Scranton, maybe?), simply because the NEC is such a phenomenally powerful generator of traffic. Connecting the Midwest to the Northeast and the Southeast may also be viable, but again it's somewhat more marginal because the big city in the Midwest is on the wrong side of the region.

ativzzz 6y ago
Having done a lot of driving through the Texas triangle, I can tell you that the biggest detriment to HSR would be the fact that you still need a car after you get off your train. I've taken the greyhound/megabus between cities, and it's pretty decent, but then I either need someone to drive 30 mins one way to pick me up or shell out $30+ for an Uber to get to where I need to go, and then more Ubers if I need to get around afterwards. To make the intercity transport really compelling, the cities themselves need good public transport coverage, and the triangle cities are too damn big for that to happen in the foreseeable future. They have some, but it takes forever and the reach isn't that high. I'd rather have a mostly self driving car that can take me 80% of the way on the interstate highway between the cities.
- rizzom5000 6y ago
  A mostly self-driving car could work and I can't speak for the Texas Triangle, but most of the south has horrible public transit. An interesting example, perhaps, is Raleigh, NC to DC. Raleigh has awful public transit options. The public transit in DC is pretty great actually. Driving (in the best case) is six hours, and Amtrak is about 7.5 hours. Still, who in their right mind would ever willingly want to drive in DC traffic? If you are going to DC for the weekend, the Amtrak wins every single time in my opinion; even with a mostly self-driving car.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Right, it's important that cities getting HSR stations are compelled to do some sort of metropolitan public transit and upzoning. We should be very cleareyed that the sunbelt cities are built all wrong, but also underestanding that they can be fixed.
  - galangalalgol 6y ago
    How do you fix them? That seems really hard!
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      As long as they are still growing, it's mainly a matter of redirecting the growth. Only a stagnant city is "too poor to change"; everything else is just cowardly politics looking for excuses. Per https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-trains-urbanism/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/09/18/cars-and-train... we have a lot of bullshit compromise, when the ugly truth is both cars and non-cars are positive feedback loops for which there is no reconciliation. But this is also an opportunity, provided the government has guts. Do what Barcelona did, and overnight "guerilla urbanism" block roads. Bikeshare, including some cargo wagons to signal a commitment to more people other than single yuppies is also good, and is so much cheaper than subways it might as well be considered tactical urbanism. Do congestion pricing. Tax parking lots. When property values adjust as everyone tries to get at the high foot traffic, high job density hot area, you are winning. Finally, we need a national carbon tax / quotas. And as opposed to trying to ration gas to people we should just give them a carbon dividend. That will also suck people out of the suburbs like turning on the electromagnets!