I would love if we lived much denser as a society and used rail more, but we don’t and likely never will. So there’s no use chasing it as if it would be used.
It's a great idea that's been around for fifty years that I know of, and it can be done. The question is can it be done at a cost that makes sense?Something boring, something hyperloop, someone Elon.
I would love if we lived much denser as a society and used rail more, but we don’t and likely never will. So there’s no use chasing it as if it would be used.
Probably not too concerned with eminent domain, at least in China.When Taiwan and China can do it but US can't, there is something seriously fucked up.
Definitely, not going through any areas where the wealthy would be impacted.Yes. We in America usually build infrastructure in seriously demented ways with an army of consultants and swampy contractors who only live to drive up the price. This isn't remotely limited to rail projects either.
Definitely, not going through any areas where the wealthy would be impacted.
80% of Americans live in urban areas. We don't use more rail because we've usually just decided not to because reasons.
That 80% is dispersed over a large land mass with only 3 major city clusters (NE corridor, SD-LA-SJ-SF, and DAL-HOU-Austin) where HSR even makes sense to serve a large enough addressable market (as CA example shows, no one is lining up for HSR from Fresno to Bakersfield or similarly sized cities in Nebraska or wherever). None of the 3 clusters are realistically connectable to the others via HSR due to distance (it's over 1,300 miles from DC to Dallas for example). That negates the network effects of somewhere like Europe where some from a central point like Lyons or Zurich you're within 600 miles or so (the sweet spot of HSR) from any major continental city in a landmass that is the home of 400+ million people. Compare that to around 50ish million in the northeast corridor, 28mm in all of Texas, and maybe about 30mm or so in coastal CA? At best the CA HSR project would serve about the same population base as lives in Greater Tokyo itself in a country roughly the size of California but with a population of 126mm.
The cost isnt a problem with HSR, the cost is a problem with the way you do things in the US (and us as well unfortunately).
That 80% is dispersed over a large land mass with only 3 major city clusters (NE corridor, SD-LA-SJ-SF, and DAL-HOU-Austin) where HSR even makes sense to serve a large enough addressable market (as CA example shows, no one is lining up for HSR from Fresno to Bakersfield or similarly sized cities in Nebraska or wherever). None of the 3 clusters are realistically connectable to the others via HSR due to distance (it's over 1,300 miles from DC to Dallas for example). That negates the network effects of somewhere like Europe where some from a central point like Lyons or Zurich you're within 600 miles or so (the sweet spot of HSR) from any major continental city in a landmass that is the home of 400+ million people. Compare that to around 50ish million in the northeast corridor, 28mm in all of Texas, and maybe about 30mm or so in coastal CA? At best the CA HSR project would serve about the same population base as lives in Greater Tokyo itself in a country roughly the size of California but with a population of 126mm.
When Taiwan and China can do it but US can't, there is something seriously fucked up.
Probably not too concerned with eminent domain, at least in China.
...so you support the model for HSR that nearly everyone that supports it proposes?
That's great! So then, why do low-thinking conservatives around here only ever argue about this phantom desire of liberals building HSR from coast to coast and nearly every other place where it doesn't make sense, if only to argue against it?
china and taiwan dont have independent states and all the legal bon fires that come with crossing state lines.
Who the fuck wants a high speed rail going through their backyard?
Agree, I think the fact that we are sue happy - and able to sue so easily is the real reason why. Bureaucracy, etc...
Really it just boils down to governments that are overpowered that can say "No fuck you, I'm building it anyway"
I've gone on the high speed rail in Japan from Tokyo all over - You see tons of places where you're basically going through a neighborhood. Who the fuck wants a high speed rail going through their backyard?
I'm not disagreeing, but that doesn't translate directly to "lol fuck your property value lolol"Tokyo station is like right outside Imperial Palace ground in Tokaido... Japan doesn't have a lot of usable land and they have a lot of people.
I'm not disagreeing, but that doesn't translate directly to "lol fuck your property value lolol"
That is why all rail in and out of Taipei is underground.
...Okay? I was talking about Japan? Wee bit bigger than Taiwan
We did most of that prior to NEPA. Of course, that was exactly why Congress passed NEPA.
Actually it does. NEPA requires that the government consider the full scope of the impacts of its actions and possible alternatives prior to taking action. Of course for border walls, f' that, just do it.*Which doesn't bear on the issue of eminent domain.