You're viewing a single thread.
For a reference of scale, the largest high speed rail network in Europe is in Spain. Last year it moved some 33 million people (that's just high speed, not including local slow trains or urban metro) and, while overall revenue data is not widely available (there are multiple operators reporting independently), it generated several billion dollars.
If you want to scale that to what it would do in the US with a similar network you can add a zero to all the numbers and you won't be too far off.
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 :
Iām 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.
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, youād 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 thereās the cost of the land to build it on, because for some reason the existing right of way around interstate highways isnāt available.
I donāt think the U.S. is as perfect of a place for it as you think it is, but god damn I wish weād 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.
Theyāre trying to build high speed rail in California. The costs are ballooning to astronomical levels. Endless delays too. I donāt really understand all of the reasons. I think there are a lot of political fights involving different regional governments along the route.
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 Southāall of these regions have the population density for a HSR network.
Much of the Desert Southwest, the Great Plains, the Great Basin, Alaskaāwe don't have to criss-cross them with HSR routes to make the map look balanced.
I thought it was in France, well done Spain!