I’m not even from USA to be clear, but my limited image of USA is that it lacks efforts of building public transport, especially compared to other developed countries. Heck, compared to developing countries even.
One of the example, US seems like a perfect place to build a high-speed rail network. Yet, CAHSR seems to keep getting delayed. In comparison Morocco has a HSR. Even Indonesia has one opened last year.
A politician COULD approve a project like this, and his area will see improvements in 2-7 years, and everything connected to the network improves in 4-10 years, and if the politician personally invests and things go well (they would, but yOu nEvEr KnOw) then the politician could stand to gain a decent chunk of ROI in a few years.
OR
The politician accepts a bribe listens to lobbyists from the automotive industry, kills all competition to ICE vehicles and more roads, the area stagnates for the third decade in a row, and the politician is $10,000 richer today.
Honestly the politicians hands are completely tied here. Their net worth is only $18 million, do you really think they can afford to wait a few years???
Overall low population density likely means even with high usage, you’d still be serving fewer people per mile of track than pretty much anywhere in Europe. A mile of HSR has to be more exact and defect free than a mile of road, and costs a hell of a lot more in labor and materials. Then there’s the cost of the land to build it on, because for some reason the existing right of way around interstate highways isn’t available.
I don’t think the U.S. is as perfect of a place for it as you think it is, but god damn I wish we’d at least try.
Spain’s average population density is on par with California. It would rank as the 10th most densely populated state in the US. And it is about the same size as California, too. Its GDP per capita is about one third of the US or California’s, and the whole infrastructure for high speed rail is 100% publicly funded. Private operators pay a fee to use the public tracks.
So yeah, no, that’s no excuse. Even at the state level pretty much any state with significant urban centres could pull this off.
Yeah, the D.C.-Bmore-Philly-NYC-Boston corridor is notorious for the tumbleweeds blowing forlornly down empty main streets at high noon, because of low population. /s
C’mon, that tired, old trope is so busted. Obviously, we build HSR where the people are/want to go, and not where the people aren’t/don’t want to go. The Northeast, the Great Lakes region, the West Coast, the East Coast, the South—all of these regions have the population density for a HSR network.
Much of the Desert Southwest, the Great Plains, the Great Basin, Alaska—we don’t have to criss-cross them with HSR routes to make the map look balanced.
![[image] Sometimes it feels like folks in US would build anything but efficient transit 🤦](https://slrpnk.net/pictrs/image/9fee6912-22f8-44a0-b34c-75dd59e25f54.png){kind=link}
Yeah, I’ve said this before, but USA seems like a perfect place to build a HSR right? It seems like an ez money too now that I think about it.
Copying my comment on !publictransport@slrpnk.net :
Well think of it this way:
A politician COULD approve a project like this, and his area will see improvements in 2-7 years, and everything connected to the network improves in 4-10 years, and if the politician personally invests and things go well (they would, but yOu nEvEr KnOw) then the politician could stand to gain a decent chunk of ROI in a few years.
OR
The politician
accepts a bribelistens to lobbyists from the automotive industry, kills all competition to ICE vehicles and more roads, the area stagnates for the third decade in a row, and the politician is $10,000 richer today.Honestly the politicians hands are completely tied here. Their net worth is only $18 million, do you really think they can afford to wait a few years???
Overall low population density likely means even with high usage, you’d still be serving fewer people per mile of track than pretty much anywhere in Europe. A mile of HSR has to be more exact and defect free than a mile of road, and costs a hell of a lot more in labor and materials. Then there’s the cost of the land to build it on, because for some reason the existing right of way around interstate highways isn’t available.
I don’t think the U.S. is as perfect of a place for it as you think it is, but god damn I wish we’d at least try.
Spain’s average population density is on par with California. It would rank as the 10th most densely populated state in the US. And it is about the same size as California, too. Its GDP per capita is about one third of the US or California’s, and the whole infrastructure for high speed rail is 100% publicly funded. Private operators pay a fee to use the public tracks.
So yeah, no, that’s no excuse. Even at the state level pretty much any state with significant urban centres could pull this off.
Yeah, the D.C.-Bmore-Philly-NYC-Boston corridor is notorious for the tumbleweeds blowing forlornly down empty main streets at high noon, because of low population. /s
C’mon, that tired, old trope is so busted. Obviously, we build HSR where the people are/want to go, and not where the people aren’t/don’t want to go. The Northeast, the Great Lakes region, the West Coast, the East Coast, the South—all of these regions have the population density for a HSR network.
Much of the Desert Southwest, the Great Plains, the Great Basin, Alaska—we don’t have to criss-cross them with HSR routes to make the map look balanced.