Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,388
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Sure there are, in the Midwest, Northwest, West Coast, Southeast. Planes don't fly to all the intermediate destinations, the go to hubs. In the midwest, Cleveland, Toledo, South Bend, Chicago. Four stops. West coast, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, etc... You don't need a lot of stops. You are connecting only the cities, not doing an Amtrak.The viability of high speed rail is a function of passenger volume. Very few places in the US have the sort of passenger volume to support it.
And there are plenty of people that could use high speed rail. Volume isn't the problem.
Property is. The US owns virtually no railway, so means building it from scratch. The Northeast and West are very expensive! Cutting a high speed rail swath through the Northeast from Boston to DC?! Connecticut is a nuts! The Acela needed special designs because of all of the curves that track has. And forget the run from NYC to DC where space isn't... you'd need to bury a lot of the track probably. The Midwest is a bit better as there isn't as much value in property between the cities. But ultimately, I think it is property... and hubbing in the city. The advantage of trains is arriving in the city, not an hour outside of it. Generally, these hubs are also hubs for subways and buses. But you need to be able to have the track get into the city hubs.