Ray Delahanty | CityNerd
3 HN recommenders · recommended in 4 months, 2024–2025
18:35 · 527K views · Jan 24, 2024
CityNerd lays out a data-driven method for deciding where high-speed rail should be built in North America and identifies 56 city pairs that justify it, based on population and distance.
HN recommends it as a methodical argument that many US city pairs make economic sense for high-speed rail.
4 comments from Hacker News
The CityNerd youtube channel recently did a list of city pairs ideally suited for high speed rail based on Spain's own network. spoiler alert: the northeast corridor plays a pretty heavy part, but it's not the only place in the US high speed rail makes a ton of sense. Highly recommended. this video
Mixed answer. One driving factor in the creation of the interstate system was military - we wanted the ability to easily move troops/supplies across the US without airlift or rail. Not sure that's still a valid need (as in, I don't know - would need to ask a general). Also, the US is huge. We do need some sort of road system to get across it. Building rail to everywhere is prohibitively expensive. That said, we should/could have good high speed rail in the densest areas. Like expand the Acela corridor CityNerd does a nice summary of city pairs that should have high speed rail based on population and distance... this video tl;dr - DC-NYC tops the list (and include Philly and Balt). LA to SF is near the top. Chicago-DET-Toronto is up there. And on down the list. Basically, there's no good reason (other than momentum/history) to not build out solid rail networks over parts of the US. I don't think anybody reasonably expects an LA-NYC link any time soon because flying is a better option for now.
CityNerd identifies 56 train segments that should be built, using data and reasonable, precedented criteria: this video His video description: "Nothing that exists in North America fits the definition of true high-speed rail. If we actually ever started building a network, where would we start? And how would we know when we were done? This video details a methodology for answering all those questions, then counts up 56 city pairs we really should've had high-speed rail service between long, long ago."
> there are vast stretches of the country where trains just do not make economic sense There are plenty of city pairs where high speed trains do make economic sense and America still doesn't have them . [1] is a video "56 high speed rail links we should've built already" by CityNerd. And that's aside from providing services for the greater good instead of for profit - subsidizing public transport to make a city center more walkable and more profitable and safer and cleaner can be a worthwhile thing. The US government spends a lot subsidizing air travel. > So no, I don't think Europeans who haven't been in America have quite absorbed just how vast America is China had some 26,000 miles of high speed rail two years ago, almost 30,000 miles now connecting 550 cities, and adding another couple of thousand miles by 2030. A hundred plus years ago America had train networks coast to coast. Now all Americans have is excuses why the thing you used to have and tore up is impossible, infeasible, unafordable, unthinkable. You have reusable space rockets that can land on a pillar of fire . If y'all had put as much effort into it as you have into special pleading about why it's impossible, you could have had it years ago. [1] this video