HSR doesn't work so fine there. Its a very expensive solution per passenger mile.
Also Europe is denser than the US.
Pop per square mile
Netherlands 1,039
Belgium 919
UK 660
Germany 593
Liechtenstein 583
Italy 518
Luxembourg 502
Switzerland 487
Andorra 477
Czech Republic 347
Denmark 332
Portugal 298
France 295
Slovakia 287
Albania 287
Armenia 280
Hungary 280
Slovenia 264
Serbia 262
Austria 259
Spain 236
Romania 233
...
US 83
secure.wikimedia.org
Of course specific regions are higher than that, and HSR may may possibly make some sense in some of those regions, at least under the right conditions, perhaps DC to NYC (or maybe DC to Boston with Baltimore, Philly, and NYC on the way), maybe some of California's cities could be connected as well.
But as far as a network across the US, our population density, and the physical distribution of our major cities makes it a rather poor investment. If aircraft didn't exist, then high speed rail would make a lot more sense, but aircraft do, and are faster and more flexible. At the other end cars are much more flexible, and taking a car gives you a vehicle to get around in at your destination. In between there is some scope for HSR (and lower speed rail as well), but the amount of people it makes a lot of sense for is not generally enough to make the cost per passenger mile reasonable compared to the alternatives.
Your earlier post talked about cultural reasons for opposition to HSR, but I think support for it is more of a cultural thing. To some it seems really cool, so they want it whatever the actual economic and financial realities would suggest. |
