Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To be fair all the highlighted cities might equal the population of singular cities in the upper part of your post. While point taken with the miles etc. Most of these you posted are not even large cities. For this to work the places have to some form of proximity and also mass. Austin and Abany dont have the mass and are not large cities by any measure
It would be make sense to have high speed rail between Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Washington, D.C (meaning within the Northeast to replace the current slower train service). It might also make sense to have high speed rail connecting the those cities with the major cities along the Eastern seaboard and another system along the West coast connecting the major cities there.
To be fair all the highlighted cities might equal the population of singular cities in the upper part of your post. While point taken with the miles etc. Most of these you posted are not even large cities. For this to work the places have to some form of proximity and also mass. Austin and Abany dont have the mass and are not large cities by any measure
Albany to NYC would be one the most successful corridors. And Austin is a major metro area making up part of the Texas Triangle. Try again.
Albany to NYC would be one the most successful corridors.
Albany to NYC is 150 road miles... and a 2hr 30mi Amtrak train ride.
The variety of station stops along the current route are what make is at the core of it's appeal.
How would you reconcile that with an HSR line?
Better rail beds and more passenger comfortable trains? Sure.
But a completely separate HSR rail bed? I don't see it happening.
Dissagree Austin is not large, less than 2 million and Albany is even smaller
Marseille is 800,000, Munich is 1.3 million. And yes, their American equivalents are less dense, but that is specifically because of development based around the automobile. European cities are denser because they were built for other modes of transportation--not that they don't have cars, but they are part of a matrix of transportation.
HSR can form a backbone of infill urban development, in conjunction with local fixed-rail transit, that will result in denser cities at their urban cores, and less outward sprawl. That's why the auto, oil and concrete lobbies, as well as suburban developers, are scared to death of HSR and are doing whatever they can to derail it. They are convincing suburban residents to carry water for them, although residents of current suburbs will also be better off in the long run with HSR--instead of being leapfrogged by neverending development, they will remain on the edge of development for longer, and development focus will be more towards maintaining and improving the suburbs we have instead of abandoning them for the next wave of greenfield construction. And they will almost certainly remain automobile-oriented, for those who prefer to drive cars.
Dissagree Austin is not large, less than 2 million and Albany is even smaller
You certainly don't need to be 2 million to be a large metro center; Austin has certainly qualified as a major center ( metro area surpasses 1 million); even the Albany-Schenectady-Troy area exceeds a half-million easily..
In general, I don't think anyone really opposes high-speed rail, in theory. It's just that it really isn't necessary for the entire country, and we definately have higher priorities right now.
I don't think anyone really opposes high-speed rail, in theory <-- Agreed
It's just that it really isn't necessary for the entire country... or even remotely practical
to build in the areas where ridership might approach levels that would perhaps make the costs justifiable;
and we definately have higher priorities right now.
Too bad about the existing infrastructure and land costs there...
Too bad that the freight traffic (that actually does earn money) uses that infrastructure
Too bad about the coastal geography issues and land costs there...
Too bad that these can only make sense if the big towns and destinations are already served
Freight only uses a few lines , with many lines declining in service and will be replaced with Subways , Commuter or light Rail over the next 2 decades. What Coastal Geography issues , we have alot of Railways and Highways that serve coastal cities and towns with no issues. We even have tunnels along the coast for these lines....no major issues , there even electrified lines. These destinations are very congested more is needed , the highways and existing Railways are bursting at the seems.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
