5 ms·

The center of population in the US is still just barely to the west of the Mississippi, whenever people point out how vast and largely empty the US is, the leav

The center of population in the US is still just barely to the west of the Mississippi, whenever people point out how vast and largely empty the US is, the leave out that the population itself is actually generally fairly close together for a majority of the country. You could easily have HSR all over the south, Midwest and NE, and then between population centers on the west coast, just likely not in the desert and western Great Plains.

madcaptenor 4y ago
See for example Alon Levy's map of proposed HSR for the Eastern United States: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/02/10/high-speed-rail-for-the-eastern-united-states/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/02/10/high-speed-rai... They've actually done serious investigation of what's viable given typical costs and ridership of high-speed lines elsewhere in the world. The high-speed bits they propose are basically a Boston-Atlanta-Chicago triangle with some ornaments (Chicago - KC, Chicago - Minneapolis, Cleveland - Pittsburgh - Philadelphia, and connections to Toronto, Montreal, Quebec), and separate networks in Florida and Texas. Connecting the Florida and Texas networks to the main one is marginal. I'm not sure of their opinions on separate networks in the Pacific Northwest and in California, but I'm sure they have looked at it. I do recall them saying that it doesn't make sense to connect, say, Portland to San Francisco - there's just not much in between.
- wbsss4412 4y ago
  It doesn’t make sense to connect Portland and SF, but there’s a lot of value to be gained in connecting Portland and Vancouver BC, and San Diego to SF/possibly Sacramento. We would definitely want to have a “constellation” of networks rather than one interconnected system given the geography of the US, and that’s fine. There’s never going to be a time when it makes more sense to travel from LA to NYC by rail instead of flying. The biggest takeaway is that there is a specific role that HSR can play, but it’s not going to take over all long distance trips. Given where we are starting in the US, however, there is a massive mine of untapped potential.
  - madcaptenor 4y ago
    Right. You don't want a line down the entire West Coast, even though it's tempting to draw. But a line from Vancouver to Portland makes sense, as does a "greater California" system - roughly lines from Los Angeles to SF, Sacramento, Vegas, San Diego. The latter is basically the California HSR system that's under construction, plus the proposed privately built line from LA to Vegas. (Levy also proposes LA to Phoenix; Phoenix is further than Vegas but also bigger, so maybe it makes sense.) Even in the east there are some gaps. It's obvious that a midwestern network centered on Chicago and a southeastern network centered on Atlanta make sense, but it's a bit more of a stretch to connect those to the northeast.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      Why not? The great advantage of high speed rail is that with intermediate stops along the route you can service smaller cities which previously, or as you just did, would be considered flyover country. Thus making the value of the system greater than just the end terminuses. Just looking at the towns between Portland and Sacramento Salem, Eugene and Medford exist. Neither would themselves ever be valuable enough for HSR, but as part of a larger system they definitely would bring value. Especially since you would get 3.5 hour trains Bay Area <-> Seattle and 4.5 hour trains to Vancouver. That is right at the limit of when flying starts to make more sense from a time perspective. Edit: Here's a good video on the concept. From a comment (by the author) he says that France and Spain has many lines in the range of 4 given his scoring. It just seems miniscule compared to the enormous potential of DC <-> Boston corridor. "U.S. High Speed Rail: What's Next? Analyzing Extensions and Expansions, and What Makes Sense" https://youtu.be/zxiGY8p2rCo https://youtu.be/zxiGY8p2rCo
      - madcaptenor 4y ago
        I'm sure they bring some value but my understanding is they don't bring enough value. But I could be wrong!
        Gwypaas 4y ago
- madcaptenor 4y ago
  or Levy's 2021 version for the whole US and adjacent bits of Canada: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rail-followup/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rai... , which follows They did the math and decided to connect Florida to the main Eastern component (based on there being enough demand for Atlanta-Florida travel), so there are four components - the main Eastern component, Texas, California (+Vegas, Phoenix), Pacific Northwest (Portland to Vancouver)
  - Kon-Peki 4y ago
    I don't think you can take any national plan seriously if it doesn't include Chicago/Memphis/Jackson/New Orleans. Passenger rail service has been in almost continuous operation on that route since a little after the Civil War. It has to be there for the symbolism alone.
    - TylerE 4y ago
      An industry with incredible capital overhead and razor thin margins is no place for symbolism. Times change. In 1860 New Orleans was the 5th largest city in the country. Today it is 52nd.
      - madcaptenor 4y ago
        Levy addresses this, and agrees with you: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rail-followup/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rai... Basically, Amtrak started out with the existing rail network, which is going to be oriented to early-20th-century population centers, and so New Orleans is well-served by Amtrak standards. But a modern network in the South would be oriented more towards those parts of the South that have grown - Texas and the Piedmont - and less towards New Orleans, Memphis, and St. Louis.
        Kon-Peki 4y ago
        Levy is wrong. There, I said it. American growth of the last 80 years is incompatible with the future of the world. You won't save a sprawly mess by putting a high speed rail station in the center of it. If it was an important city before the age of the automobile, it has a chance. Put the "future" rail network in the cities that have a future. Point number two, and probably even more important than the first, is the fact that you have to get your plan through a million committees, and through Congress, etc. You need support. His plan won't get it. Too much of it goes through places that hate trains and "socialism". And then it tells the people that have nostalgic memories of a railroad that lifted their family out of the Jim Crow south to go pound sand. His plan will never go further than his blog :) Would you like an analogy to this situation? Everybody in tech has incredible ideas for the future. But the startup world is littered with companies that have had no success at all getting from point A to point B despite billions in VC money.

madcaptenor 4y ago

See for example Alon Levy's map of proposed HSR for the Eastern United States: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/02/10/high-speed-rail-for-the-eastern-united-states/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/02/10/high-speed-rai... They've actually done serious investigation of what's viable given typical costs and ridership of high-speed lines elsewhere in the world. The high-speed bits they propose are basically a Boston-Atlanta-Chicago triangle with some ornaments (Chicago - KC, Chicago - Minneapolis, Cleveland - Pittsburgh - Philadelphia, and connections to Toronto, Montreal, Quebec), and separate networks in Florida and Texas. Connecting the Florida and Texas networks to the main one is marginal. I'm not sure of their opinions on separate networks in the Pacific Northwest and in California, but I'm sure they have looked at it. I do recall them saying that it doesn't make sense to connect, say, Portland to San Francisco - there's just not much in between.

wbsss4412 4y ago
It doesn’t make sense to connect Portland and SF, but there’s a lot of value to be gained in connecting Portland and Vancouver BC, and San Diego to SF/possibly Sacramento. We would definitely want to have a “constellation” of networks rather than one interconnected system given the geography of the US, and that’s fine. There’s never going to be a time when it makes more sense to travel from LA to NYC by rail instead of flying. The biggest takeaway is that there is a specific role that HSR can play, but it’s not going to take over all long distance trips. Given where we are starting in the US, however, there is a massive mine of untapped potential.
- madcaptenor 4y ago
  Right. You don't want a line down the entire West Coast, even though it's tempting to draw. But a line from Vancouver to Portland makes sense, as does a "greater California" system - roughly lines from Los Angeles to SF, Sacramento, Vegas, San Diego. The latter is basically the California HSR system that's under construction, plus the proposed privately built line from LA to Vegas. (Levy also proposes LA to Phoenix; Phoenix is further than Vegas but also bigger, so maybe it makes sense.) Even in the east there are some gaps. It's obvious that a midwestern network centered on Chicago and a southeastern network centered on Atlanta make sense, but it's a bit more of a stretch to connect those to the northeast.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    Why not? The great advantage of high speed rail is that with intermediate stops along the route you can service smaller cities which previously, or as you just did, would be considered flyover country. Thus making the value of the system greater than just the end terminuses. Just looking at the towns between Portland and Sacramento Salem, Eugene and Medford exist. Neither would themselves ever be valuable enough for HSR, but as part of a larger system they definitely would bring value. Especially since you would get 3.5 hour trains Bay Area <-> Seattle and 4.5 hour trains to Vancouver. That is right at the limit of when flying starts to make more sense from a time perspective. Edit: Here's a good video on the concept. From a comment (by the author) he says that France and Spain has many lines in the range of 4 given his scoring. It just seems miniscule compared to the enormous potential of DC <-> Boston corridor. "U.S. High Speed Rail: What's Next? Analyzing Extensions and Expansions, and What Makes Sense" https://youtu.be/zxiGY8p2rCo https://youtu.be/zxiGY8p2rCo
    - madcaptenor 4y ago
      I'm sure they bring some value but my understanding is they don't bring enough value. But I could be wrong!
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
madcaptenor 4y ago
or Levy's 2021 version for the whole US and adjacent bits of Canada: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rail-followup/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rai... , which follows They did the math and decided to connect Florida to the main Eastern component (based on there being enough demand for Atlanta-Florida travel), so there are four components - the main Eastern component, Texas, California (+Vegas, Phoenix), Pacific Northwest (Portland to Vancouver)
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  I don't think you can take any national plan seriously if it doesn't include Chicago/Memphis/Jackson/New Orleans. Passenger rail service has been in almost continuous operation on that route since a little after the Civil War. It has to be there for the symbolism alone.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    An industry with incredible capital overhead and razor thin margins is no place for symbolism. Times change. In 1860 New Orleans was the 5th largest city in the country. Today it is 52nd.
    - madcaptenor 4y ago
      Levy addresses this, and agrees with you: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rail-followup/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rai... Basically, Amtrak started out with the existing rail network, which is going to be oriented to early-20th-century population centers, and so New Orleans is well-served by Amtrak standards. But a modern network in the South would be oriented more towards those parts of the South that have grown - Texas and the Piedmont - and less towards New Orleans, Memphis, and St. Louis.
      - Kon-Peki 4y ago
        Levy is wrong. There, I said it. American growth of the last 80 years is incompatible with the future of the world. You won't save a sprawly mess by putting a high speed rail station in the center of it. If it was an important city before the age of the automobile, it has a chance. Put the "future" rail network in the cities that have a future. Point number two, and probably even more important than the first, is the fact that you have to get your plan through a million committees, and through Congress, etc. You need support. His plan won't get it. Too much of it goes through places that hate trains and "socialism". And then it tells the people that have nostalgic memories of a railroad that lifted their family out of the Jim Crow south to go pound sand. His plan will never go further than his blog :) Would you like an analogy to this situation? Everybody in tech has incredible ideas for the future. But the startup world is littered with companies that have had no success at all getting from point A to point B despite billions in VC money.