Why are you providing trips that are 1000 miles rather than ones that are less than 500 or 600 miles? Everyone already knows that jets are better for 1000 mile trips.
Because most of the economically important trips in the US are more than 600 miles apart, except for the part of the country that is already well-served by rail?
To which trips are you referring? Do you have any data to support your statement? I created a quick list of cities where high-speed rail should fit the distance metric.
Here, for your reading pleasure, are the ground travel distances between all of those cities:
New York
Los Angeles 2475
Chicago 790
Washington D.C. 226 **
Houston 1416
Dallas 1389
Philadelphia 94 **
San Francisco 2907
Boston 215 **
Atlanta 750
Los Angeles
Chicago 1745
Washington D.C. 2288
Houston 1379
Dallas 1235
Philadelphia 2401
San Francisco 380
Boston 2611
Atlanta 1947
Chicago
Washington D.C. 696
Houston 1083
Dallas 924
Philadelphia 759
San Francisco 2130
Boston 983
Atlanta 716
Washington D.C.
Houston 1400
Dallas 1328
Philadelphia 136 **
San Francisco 2816
Boston 437 **
Atlanta 639
Houston
Dallas 239
Philadelphia 1544
San Francisco 1927
Boston 1848
Atlanta 792
Dallas
Philadelphia 1464
San Francisco 1726
Boston 1791
Atlanta 781
Philadelphia
San Francisco 2876
Boston 307 **
Atlanta 783
San Francisco
Boston 3099
Atlanta 2472
Boston
Atlanta 1099
I have, I hope helpfully, starred the sub-700-mile routes that are already served by the Acela.
The average ground distance between these cities is (wait for it) 1,356 miles.
Later
You edited your comment upthread to include specific routes.
My response --- apart from wondering why taxpayers in Arizona should fund a rail linkage to Orlando, the 30th biggest economy in the country, to Tampa, the 27th --- is to suggest that adding Florida to this graph would not improve the average cost of the edges.
what does the average distance have to do with anything? Build between the cities where the distance makes sense. looks like there are several options. What about other population centers? Why is the gdp your criteria? Tampa and Orlando and Miami wouldn't make your list.
most of the economically important trips in the US are more than 600 miles apart, except for the part of the country that is already well-served by rail
You disputed this and asked for data.
I provided data.
If you would like to change the argument to "most of the important theme parks in the US are poorly connected to second-tier Florida cities by rail", I will happily concede that point. :)
In the graph of the 45 trips between top-10 US cities, only two --- LA to SF, and Houston to Dallas --- fall under your "less than 700 mile" criteria. Just 4% of the most economically important trips not already served by the Acela are amenable to rail transit.
Once again: most of the economically important trips in the US are more than 600 miles apart, except for the part of the country that is already well-served by rail.
Incidentally: if you think "top 10" is unfair as a threshold, consider that the 11th city would be Seattle, and the 12th Miami. The average would go up if we included them.
The average distance is irrelevant. Do the distance and population warrant the high-speed train service? Are there lots of flights between any two of these cities?
The population of Spain is 50 million, for example. They've made high-speed rail work effectively.
That's why my data is based on the top US cities by GDP. You can also find the busiest domestic airport pairs to back the analysis up. Oddly, the busiest air route in the US is NYC-Miami --- which is not amenable to rail travel.
I'm simply trying to identify the markets where HSR would work. For some reason, you identify as the critical factor. Then you identify NYC to Miami as the busiest air route, and Miami isn't on your gdp list. So, perhaps we only need one city from the list to another highly populated city?
At any rate, we've both identified a handful of US cities that meet both our criteria. Shouldn't we agree that's where to start building?
So, look: you've lost the context of the thread a little. Skim from the top:
* Someone commented that freight right of ways were impeding passenger rail in the US.
* I said geography had more to do with rail's status in the US than freight.
* You asked, "why are you talking about trips of 1000 miles or more"?
* I said "because those are the most economically important trips in the US".
* You said "no".
* I said, voluminously and conclusively, "yes".
Now you seem to think I'm opposed to SF-LA high speed rail. I am not, nor have I said that I am.
Where rail makes sense, it makes sense. If there's a cost effective way to get passenger rail rights of way from SF to LA, we should do that. We should get 200mph service from Chicago to MSP and to STL. We should get 200mph service from Houston to Dallas.
But even after we do that, rail is going to be a second-tier mode in the US, far surpassed by air, which will through economies of scale also be cost-competitive with HSR even in places where HSR is viable. The tactical routes we're talking about, the under-700-mile routes, will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to deploy, and will probably never recoup their costs or meaningfully change patterns of transportation in the US. HSR between SF and LA isn't going to make SF-NYC any less economically important, and SWA alone is going to remain more important to the economy than Amtrak.
Shit, I think I talked myself out of Chicago-MSP a little there.
It's also irrelevant. NYC-Miami is a popular air route. Tampa-Miami is not. The inclusion of Miami in the list I gave upthread would, as I said, make the numbers worse for his argument.
los angeles to san francisco 400 miles
los angeles to san diego 150 miles
NYC to Philadelphia 92 miles
NYC to Boston 220 miles
NYC to Washington DC 226 miles
chicago to St Louis 260 miles
dallas to houston 240 miles
dallas to austin 200 miles
austin to houston 170 miles
tampa to orlando 85 miles
miami to orlando 235 miles