3 ms·
I didn't say the US isn't dense enough for high-speed rail. My focus isn't limited to high-speed rail, but all manner of public transit. I also mentioned dist
by Goladus 11y ago
I didn't say the US isn't dense enough for high-speed rail. My focus isn't limited to high-speed rail, but all manner of public transit. I also mentioned distribution of density as well as raw density.
Most importantly, I was not addressing whether it can work or cannot work. That is not the question. The question is whether shared transit is and has been more convenient and cost-effective than roads, highways and automobiles.
I am explaining why a simplistic comparison between the US and Europe is misguided. I am countering the point "I lived in Europe and their public transit was so great why can't we have that in the US?" Which everyone upvotes because they're starry-eyed idealists who haven't thought through the economics and messy details.
Furthermore, I went beyond describing density as simply a number, but also referenced distribution of the density. The shape matters.
Your article compares Spain to California. But their situations are far different. Spain is a less-dense adjacent to a dense region. A couple connections into France and a ferry to Italy and you've got bandwidth into the heart of the existing network in central Europe. California, on the other hand, is a denser region on the opposite side of deserts and mountain ranges. They could build a rail system for themselves, but unlike spain they wouldn't have the huge advantage of a cheap and easy connection into a large existing network. This all helps to explain why the US and Europe did not evolve the same manner of public transit systems.
I see that China is looking to build a high-speed rail between Moscow and Beijing. [1] The relevant points: it does not exist yet; and China is booming.
[1] http://rt.com/business/225131-russia-china-speed-railway/ http://rt.com/business/225131-russia-china-speed-railway/
- m_mueller 11y agoI think your arguments against HSR are valid. That's not to say that I think HSR couldn't be effective in the US, but I do see there is a bigger hurdle compared to Europe/Japan, which either means you have to make it cheaper per mile of railway or the ROI will be further out. What I still don't see is how this all applies to local transport. If I understand you correctly, you claim that local transport options in Europe and the US cannot be compared. Why is that? And if so, how is it not an urban planning policy problem that was mostly produced in the post war era? Isn't it worth it to think about what could be improved?
- Goladus 11y ago> What I still don't see is how this all applies to local transport. If I understand you correctly, you claim that local transport options in Europe and the US cannot be compared. Why is that? In some cases it can be, but that's where the issues of density and context/surroundings really come into play. In order for a transit line to be viable, you have to a critical mass of people willing to use it. It's inefficient to run trains and busses with no passengers, so schedules are reduced, which makes things less convenient for users. In my experience, there actually ARE local public transit systems in the US. Most of them use busses, but they exist. Most people don't use the public transit unless they have to, though, because cars are so much easier and more convenient. And while more investment into transit could make it more attractive, there are still issues and limits on how much it would actually be used due to the generally fewer number of people with access to any one transit line, as well as the destinations available from the pickup spot.