16 ms·

Uhm, LA alone has more people than DC and Boston combined. Plus another 9 million living in the Bay Area. This is far and away the most obvious candidate for di

Uhm, LA alone has more people than DC and Boston combined. Plus another 9 million living in the Bay Area. This is far and away the most obvious candidate for direct HSR in all of North America.

Locke1689 13y ago
No, the Northeast corridor is the clear winner for HSR in the United States.[1] The difference is, we already have the Acela, so it just needs a speed upgrade. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Megalopolis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Megalopolis
- hyperbovine 13y ago
  Unless you'd like to go from Boston to DC without making four stops along the way. In California you have two of the largest metropolitan areas in the country separated by 400 miles of nothing (with apologies to the Central Valley). HSR wins big when it goes fast without stopping, which is exactly the case out here.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    NYC CSA is bigger than LA CSA, and DC CSA is bigger than "Bay Area" CSA. It seems weird, then, to argue it makes more sense to connect LA and SF just because in the northeast you can also hit two additional CSA's (Philadelphia and Boston, which are each about the size of the Bay Area), while you're at it.
rayiner 13y ago
The core cities on the DC BAL PHL NYC BOS route total 11.5 million, while LA + SF is only 4.5 million. Thats arguably the more important figure because the relative advsntage of rail diminishes if you have to drive in from the suburbs. Also, four of those five cities have well developed public transit systems centered around the rail station. Metro area total for the five cities is not including any other regions in the path is almost 40m versus about 20m for SF and LA.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > arguably the more important figure because the relative advsntage of rail diminishes if you have to drive in from the suburbs. A major premise of the California HSR plan is that it isn't just about the main HSR lines, but upgrades, improvements, and new lines for connecting conventional regional and commuter rail, light rail, and other public transit.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Ah, our light rail network is a bit more extensive than you seem to imagine.
thegranderson 13y ago
Perhaps, but with New York and Philly in between, you're hitting four major population centers: Boston (4.5M metro area) New York (8-20M depending on how far you stretch the metro area) Philadelphia (6M metro area) Washington D.C. (5.7M metro area)

Uhm, LA alone has more people than DC and Boston combined. Plus another 9 million living in the Bay Area. This is far and away the most obvious candidate for direct HSR in all of North America.

Locke1689 13y ago

No, the Northeast corridor is the clear winner for HSR in the United States.[1] The difference is, we already have the Acela, so it just needs a speed upgrade. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Megalopolis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Megalopolis

hyperbovine 13y ago
Unless you'd like to go from Boston to DC without making four stops along the way. In California you have two of the largest metropolitan areas in the country separated by 400 miles of nothing (with apologies to the Central Valley). HSR wins big when it goes fast without stopping, which is exactly the case out here.
- rayiner 13y ago
  NYC CSA is bigger than LA CSA, and DC CSA is bigger than "Bay Area" CSA. It seems weird, then, to argue it makes more sense to connect LA and SF just because in the northeast you can also hit two additional CSA's (Philadelphia and Boston, which are each about the size of the Bay Area), while you're at it.

rayiner 13y ago

The core cities on the DC BAL PHL NYC BOS route total 11.5 million, while LA + SF is only 4.5 million. Thats arguably the more important figure because the relative advsntage of rail diminishes if you have to drive in from the suburbs. Also, four of those five cities have well developed public transit systems centered around the rail station. Metro area total for the five cities is not including any other regions in the path is almost 40m versus about 20m for SF and LA.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> arguably the more important figure because the relative advsntage of rail diminishes if you have to drive in from the suburbs. A major premise of the California HSR plan is that it isn't just about the main HSR lines, but upgrades, improvements, and new lines for connecting conventional regional and commuter rail, light rail, and other public transit.
anigbrowl 13y ago
Ah, our light rail network is a bit more extensive than you seem to imagine.

thegranderson 13y ago

Perhaps, but with New York and Philly in between, you're hitting four major population centers: Boston (4.5M metro area) New York (8-20M depending on how far you stretch the metro area) Philadelphia (6M metro area) Washington D.C. (5.7M metro area)