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.
There is no direct correlation between track miles and population density. At the beginning of the 20th century, the USA had the MOST track miles in the world - and we're certainly more densely populated than 110 years ago. Thanks to taxation pressure, mainline RRs pulled out tracks - INSANE - but that's what happens when government meddles.
America was always the "odd man" with respect to RRs. Most track rights of way and rolling stock were privately owned and operated for profit.
Before they were taxed and regulated into less profitability, RRs, AND streetcars, interurbans, etc, were expanding nationwide, providing most transportation.
You misunderstood. Passenger trains work the best in densely populated areas and not so good in less densely populated. Since Europe is much more densely populated than the US trains serves as a good choice for travel between cities. Not so much in the US where distances between cities make train travel impractical.
You misunderstood. Passenger trains work the best in densely populated areas and not so good in less densely populated. Since Europe is much more densely populated than the US trains serves as a good choice for travel between cities. Not so much in the US where distances between cities make train travel impractical.
The Northeast is denser then Europe and Trains are integrated into daily life in the Midwest...and Northwest...hench why they work there and are popular modes of transportation there.
You misunderstood. Passenger trains work the best in densely populated areas and not so good in less densely populated. Since Europe is much more densely populated than the US trains serves as a good choice for travel between cities. Not so much in the US where distances between cities make train travel impractical.
I'm not sure this is true.
Distances between cities in the north east are not that great. Same is true for the Cleveland to Chicago corridor or Cleveland to Cincinnati. Then Pittsburgh-Columbus-Dayton-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City would make a good train route. LA to San Diego is also a great route which I have traveled.
You misunderstood. Passenger trains work the best in densely populated areas and not so good in less densely populated. Since Europe is much more densely populated than the US trains serves as a good choice for travel between cities. Not so much in the US where distances between cities make train travel impractical.
There are few other places in the world with a series of large metro areas are in a short distance from each other as the Northeast Corridor.
Los Angeles to San Francisco isn't that far apart, either.
High-speed rail is quite successful in Spain, where the trains pass through large sparsely-populated areas in between big cities. It's a bit like California in terrain--Los Angeles to San Francisco is about 400 miles, a bit less than from Boston to Washington DC, but with few population centers in between. Too long for easy car travel, too short for efficient air travel.
The Northeast is denser then Europe and Trains are integrated into daily life in the Midwest...and Northwest...hench why they work there and are popular modes of transportation there.
There are few other places in the world with a series of large metro areas are in a short distance from each other as the Northeast Corridor.
Los Angeles to San Francisco isn't that far apart, either.
I have no idea what you area talking about. In EU density is 300/sq mile in the US 87/sq mile.
The three times higher overall density of Europe (EU) makes train travel much more practical.
Northeast maybe a great example where trains could help in commuting to work but that is all.
In Europe trains carry tourists and business travelers not just commuters but only because due to density distances are much shorter.
Have you ever been to Europe?
High-speed rail is quite successful in Spain, where the trains pass through large sparsely-populated areas in between big cities. It's a bit like California in terrain--Los Angeles to San Francisco is about 400 miles, a bit less than from Boston to Washington DC, but with few population centers in between. Too long for easy car travel, too short for efficient air travel.
When you say quite successful you mean profitability?
Distances between cities in the north east are not that great. Same is true for the Cleveland to Chicago corridor or Cleveland to Cincinnati. Then Pittsburgh-Columbus-Dayton-Indianapolis-St. Louis-Kansas City would make a good train route. LA to San Diego is also a great route which I have traveled.
Why do you think it would make a great route?
Do you think there is enough demand for travel on that route?
I don't think so.
Why do you think it would make a great route?
Do you think there is enough demand for travel on that route?
I don't think so.
Well, we know there is demand in the North East on the Boston-NYC-Philly- Washington route.
We also know the demand is there on the LA to San Diego route
So it should not be too hard to estimate demand on the other routes.
But the other factor is the cost of upgrading road and air infrastructure. For example, between Pittsburg and Kansas City, I70 is mostly four lanes. Upgrading to six lanes and maintaining the road could be a lot more expensive than building a rail corridor which would link the six cities (Pittsburg, Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City). Some years ago, the cost of upgrading I 70 just in Missouri was estimated at $3.5 billion.
The distance from Pittsburg to Kansas City is around 850 miles. A TGV style HSR would do that in around 6-7 hours. Right now, it takes almost 14 hours to drive it. In addition, it would provide service to smaller towns such as Wheeling, Columbia or Effingham. The population of the six cities is well over 5 million and that is before you take into account the metro areas and smaller cities along the route. When you start looking at the size of the market and the time gain then that is going to attract a segment of people who might have otherwise flown or driven.
It is not a question of replacing one form of transport with another. Rather, it is about smart public investment in an integrated transportation system which gives travelers the ability to choose the best option for them.
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.
