I want high speed rail in America. Automobile traffic in are

>>1018766
Nuking China and India would help the world in general desu.

>>1018767
This. Asian style of overcrowding simply can't happen with European and North American urban planning and density. Not even NYC during rush is this bad.

>>1018766
That wouldn't happen. LA is as big as Berlin and the metropolitan area is as populated as the Rhein-Ruhr area in Germany, and nothing like this occurs in either of those places. Asian cities are so densely populated and overcrowded that something like in your video can happen. But it would not occur in sprawling, car friendly, spaced out American cities.

File: e0725a53c6812d8efa8b29f69b11a569.jpg (402KB, 2048x1974px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 2048x1974px

>>1018916

What are these asian cities supposed to do, hypothetically?

>>1018766
Overcrowded rail ultimately means overcrowded destination. There's only so much room for anything to expand its system. The Japanese government has tried to make an example and the lead the move out with half effort, reaping a quarter success. Something like that.

>>1018767
I lament the density of USA.

>>1018916
OP only wants a decent rail system and asking on, not expecting this.

>>1018766
Your vid is a subway so that level of overcrowding wouldn't happen for a HSR with limited capacity. HSR will have a limited number of tickets based on the seats whereas a subway car is only limited by how many humans you can squeeze in it before the windows burst out of their frames. At HSR stations like the Amtrak section in NYP you do get a lot of people waiting around like in that video but then they funnel down an escalator and onto the train in single file. Since NYP is a shithole you get the mobs forming at the stairs but the risk of trampling is no where close to that of the vid. At better stations like PHL they have you form orderly lines and there is tons of space to prevent these mobs from forming at the stops of stairs. So basically if they build HSR stations correctly this sort of problem won't happen. NYP could do queues but in my experience the passengers leaving from NYP are assholes compared to the ones who expect a calm line when bordering the train at PHL.

File: 20140709_ACS64_ACELA_BaltimoreTunnel__0331.jpg (603KB, 1080x807px)

603KB, 1080x807px

>>1018766
As a resident of LA I think the LRT is a good start. But regional rail (electrified) with it's own right of way, and expansion of the subway are key. We're supposed to get High Speed Rail by 2030 but I think Amtrak needs to build something like NEC on the West Coast to augment CHSR, possibly between Seattle and Sacramento. Due to the fact that CHSR is flawed and has gaps in it's service.

>>1020224
Die.

>>1020309
A lot of off base stuff to unpack here:
a) The NEC and Acela are synonymous. They both begin in Boston and end in Washington DC. The NEC simply includes regular intercity rail along the same stretch.

b) Seattle and Sacramento are much too far apart to justify an HSR connection, roughly 750 miles by land. Even Portland is outside the useful range being ~580 by land from Sacramento. But even just aside from the distance, the fact is that there are no metropolitan areas between Sacramento and Portland. That's why there has been talk of a separate HSR line in the Pacific Northwest between Vancouver, BC, Seattle, and Portland with a possible extension to Eugene.

c) There are not gaps in the phase 1 route of CAHSR. It will go from downtown SF to Anaheim via downtown LA. If you want to split it up, "phase 1a" technically goes from San Jose to Burbank and "phase 1b" extends from SJ to SF and from Burbank to Anaheim via downtown LA. There is nowhere along that route where there will be a physical gap in separating different sections of HSR service. Phase 2 will extend to Sacramento via Merced in the Central Valley and from LA to San Diego via the Inland Empire.

>>1020329
I should expand a bit on point a) here. The Capitol Corridor and San Jaoquin lines of Amtrak between the Bay Area and Sacramento/Cental Valley are also getting upgrades to make service better, faster, and more frequent. And the ACE commuter train from San Jose to Stockton is getting improved and extended. So this whole idea that the feeder system isn't going to get attention to better compliment CAHSR is just wrong.

>>1018766
I think the East coast would be a good start. Is there really enough people going between LA and San Francisco to justify building one like they plan to?

>>1018766
>HSR
>automobile traffic around a large city
you just went full retard. HSR is useful for long distance travel, and 90something% of traffic is just commuters. You need commuter trains and other rapid transit if you want to se traffic reduced. Dumbass.

>>1020346
Is that a joke? The Bay Area to LA flight path is one of the busiest in the world.

>>1020394
It doesn't feature very high in the list though. It has less than half as many passengers as the Sydney to Melbourne route.

>>1020298
> not waiting on the platform
fucking amtrak

>>1020298
Last time I rided Shinkasen from Osaka to Fukuoka at night when a long Japanese holiday start. Didn't made advanced booking as that trip were not planned beforehand, all reserved seats are fulled so the only option is non-reserved. Hundreds of people crowded on Shinkansen platform waiting to board shinkansen especially in non-reserved section, but even that was only a fraction of what happened in the video.
As those trains are down from Tokyo so they're almost fully seated, so passengers get on the train without reserved tocket have to stand on the train.
It wasn't fully packed as in you can still use your mobile phone on the train as almost everyone board the train carry a luggage so that freed up some space but even the entrance/exit section between two cars are filled with people.
At least quite a few people drop off at Hiroshima/Okayama and freed some seats up so it's not needed to stand 3 hours straight...

>>1018766
Japan used to have some double deck shinkansen but the demand does not keep up and double deck mean slower boarding/drop off thus that is abolished.

>>1020224
I read that back in 1970s some trains are so fullu packed that passenger's safety is threatened by it. They said there are so many passengers that train windows could be broken by the pressure of passengers. Not sure about is that hypothetical or have that actually happened.

File: b-shinkansen-a-20141220.jpg (379KB, 1384x866px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 1384x866px

>>1020329
>Seattle and Sacramento are much too far apart to justify an HSR connection, roughly 750 miles by land. Even Portland is outside the useful range being ~580 by land from Sacramento. But even just aside from the distance, the fact is that there are no metropolitan areas between Sacramento and Portland. That's why there has been talk of a separate HSR line in the Pacific Northwest between Vancouver, BC, Seattle, and Portland with a possible extension to Eugene.

Well there would be more stations (connections) than just Seattle-Portland-Sacramento. It would most likely be Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia-Portland-Salem-Eugene-Redding-Sacramento.

The goal of CAHSR isn't only to connect and serve the major cities of San Francisco,Los Angeles,Sacramento, and San Diego. But also to service the cities of the Central Valley and help their economies grow.

>There are not gaps in the phase 1 route of CAHSR. It will go from downtown SF to Anaheim via downtown LA. If you want to split it up, "phase 1a" technically goes from San Jose to Burbank and "phase 1b" extends from SJ to SF and from Burbank to Anaheim via downtown LA. There is nowhere along that route where there will be a physical gap in separating different sections of HSR service. Phase 2 will extend to Sacramento via Merced in the Central Valley and from LA to San Diego via the Inland Empire.

The main gap in service I was talking about was the Central Coast (Ventura,Santa Barbara,San Luis Obispo etc). Any good rail plan would include these communities in their scheme. The state needs to buy/build an electrified right away on the coast for Amtrak;or the Feds need to do it themselves.

>>1020451
>It has less than half as many passengers as the Sydney to Melbourne route.

That's because most people take the Interstate 5 between the two, and part of the purpose of the High Speed Rail Plan is to reduce the number of people that would drive.

>>1020663
Nothing you said changes the fact that there is no market large enough to justify HSR between Portland and Sacramento. Fresno and Bakersfield metro area are both multiple times largest than anything between the aforementioned, and they happen to already be along the north-south CAHSR route between the Bay Area and LA.

And the Surfliner has already been the subject of talk about improvement as a feeder line, so you're wrong to imply it's being neglected. Not to mention, the coastal route will never again be the primary north-south rail route in CA once HSR is done.

>>1020451
It has the 9th most flights in the world.

China is just starting to build subways, I think. Compared to other Asian cities Shanghai and Beijing do not have extensive subway systems. At least that was how it seemed ten years ago, and I doubt whatever they've built has kept pace with growth since I was there. Taipei is a much better example of a mature metro rail system. As to the legendary Chinese holiday rail crowds that's something peculiar to mainland China and its migrant population of urban workers.

File: Capture+_2016-10-24-21-19-08.png (2MB, 1440x2392px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1440x2392px

>>1020767
>Shanghai and Beijing do not have extensive subway systems
???

File: SHM_evolution_mid.gif (48KB, 599x537px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 599x537px

>>1020770
Before 1999 or so the Shanghai metro was literally one line. All those lines are incredibly new by rail system standards. Pic related. Beijing is a fair bit older.

>>1020767
>10 Years ago
>>1020775
>20 years ago

Please.

>>1020767
Well, same problem in smaller scale also occur in Taiwan, Japan, Korea.

File: autism_intensifies.jpg (14KB, 502x417px)

14KB, 502x417px

>>1020775
>practically one full line per year starting in early 2000's
>several lines per year in the late 2000's-early 2010's

>>1020775
>2007
>Three completely new lines pop into existence

damn.

>>1020775
Boston's been trying to build the green line extension (with like 3 new stops) since the 80s, and they're building multiple complete lines in a single year?

>>1020978
No, they're *opening* multiple lines in a single year. There's a huge difference.

>>1020309
The subway is being lengthened. It's just taking them 10+ years to do it.

>>1018766
Why can't they just add more trains.

>>1020775

They are like fucking termites.

File: TGV_Atlantique.jpg (302KB, 1200x1600px) Image search: [Google]

302KB, 1200x1600px

>>1020682
>Nothing you said changes the fact that there is no market large enough to justify HSR between Portland and Sacramento. Fresno and Bakersfield metro area are both multiple times largest than anything between the aforementioned, and they happen to already be along the north-south CAHSR route between the Bay Area and LA.

It's not the markets between Sacramento and Portland that are the sole justification for expansion. The number of people that travel via the train to Portland or Sacramento and or San Francisco would justify construction. And by the time any line would be completed these markets would have grown significantly.

>>1021501
This is completely and totally wrong. Do you seriously not know anything about demography or geography?

>>1021024
Human nature - they announce a 2nd train is arriving in 1 minute for overflow pax but people will still try to cram onto that first train anyways.

>>1020604
>I read that back in 1970s some trains are so fullu packed that passenger's safety is threatened by it. They said there are so many passengers that train windows could be broken by the pressure of passengers. Not sure about is that hypothetical or have that actually happened.
I could believe that. There are at the very least, plenty of recorded fatalities from human stampedes. Any sufficiently dense crowd is a danger to everyone in it, on a train or no.

File: Amtrak_Coast_Starlight.png (519KB, 441x800px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 441x800px

>>1021525
>>1021525
>This is completely and totally wrong. Do you seriously not know anything about demography or geography?

The line would link 8 million people via rail if it ran between Seattle and Sacramento

Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA
4,199,312
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA MSA
2,226,009
Salem, OR MSA
390,738
Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA
351,715
Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Yuba City, CA-NV CSA
2,471,905
Chico, CA MSA
220,266
Redding, CA MSA
177,774

Geographically the route could be challenging,especially between Eugene and Sacramento. However between Seattle and Eugene the route could run parallel to the 5 or on its own right of way along existing track. Between the Eugene and Sacramento the route could be tunneled and bridges can be built to bypass mountain,rivers and valleys. It's not impossible.

>>1021546
> Salem, OR MSA 390,738
> Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA 351,715

Which isn't even remotely close to enough people to justify building hundreds of miles of HSR line to reach them. You're not even attempting to counter the simple fact that these markets are far too small, and more importantly, far too remote to act as an acceptable "bridge" for HSR. Portland and Sacramento are far enough away from each other that HSR cannot even approach the point of adequately competing with flying. There's a reason that nobody who is serious about HSR in the US is looking to build an HSR line along that route.

>>1021554
And even though the Sacramento-San Diego route is roughly less than 100 miles less than the Portland-Sacramento route, the line former runs through a metro area of ~1.1 million (Fresno), one of ~850k (Bakersfield), one of ~12.9 million (LA), and one of ~4.25 million (Inland Empire). And that is of course not even counting the beginning and ending points in metropolitan Sacramento or metropolitan San Diego and also doesn't include 2 other metros of 500k+ along the route, and ignores the fact that the whole thing would also be connected by the same system to the Bay Area's 7.7 million people.

So again, your pointless little route doesn't even compare. What you're suggesting is like saying it's worth building an HSR line between Salt Lake City and Denver, a 521 mile trip on the ground despite the fact that there's nothing of note between them along the route.

>>1021554
>>1021556
>Which isn't even remotely close to enough people to justify building hundreds of miles of HSR line to reach them

Youre not building a train to reach them you're building a train that would pass through those places connecting a Seattle-Portland route to a Sacramento/San Francisco-San Diego/Los Angeles route.

>far too remote to act as an acceptable "bridge" for HSR

How are they too remote you have a major interstate running between the two. Which following your logic would not be built because those places are far too remote to need an interstate. Because flying would be faster.

>>1021559
Also following you logic the Trans-Siberian railroad would have never been built because theres nothing between Moscow and Vladivostok.

>>1021560
The Trans- Siberian Railroad was built primarily for moving resources, not people.

Interstates were also primarily built for moving military assets and resources long distances.

Think before you speak you dumb fucking cunt. Again, there's a reason why nobody who is even slightly serious about HSR in the American advocates for HSR along the idiotic route you've suggested.

>>1021559
>>1021546
>>1021501

This is embarrassing. Please stop. You're obviously not serious about this topic, so don't continue wasting your time or the time of anyone else here.

>>1021537
Maybe Chinese nature. When the conductor says "there's a train right behind this one" everyone backs off in NYC.

>>1021572
>>1021574
Oh please I just want to be able to take a train from San Diego to Seattle. So do a lot of people, sure a plane is faster but have you been to the airport lately it's a pain in the ass. However Amtrak is so slow that it's a turn off. I'm sure that many people who would drive such a route would take a Shinkansen or TGV like train service instead, if the option were available.

>>1021738
No, lots of people don't want to take a train from San Diego to Seattle or vice versa. Many times more people would rather fly that distance. It is, by definition, a niche overland route with a lacking customer propensity model.

>>1021738
The longest Shinkansen line is only 419 miles long and exists in an extremely densely populated country. The longest TGV line is only 254 miles, again through a much more densely populated region than the route from California to Seattle.

So in two separate market metrics, the two most important actually, both Shinkansen and TGV have significant advantages or a west-coast spanning HSR route.

>>1021748
>>1021749
>Maybe if I wasn't an autistic intj who's obsessed with politics, I would become a trap. But otherwise I probably won't

You're basically saying it's never been done before so let's not. Which is what the enemies progress have said forever.

>It is, by definition, a niche overland route with a lacking customer propensity model.

Thats the argument against High Speed Rail as a whole.

>No, lots of people don't want to take a train from San Diego to Seattle or vice versa. Many times more people would rather fly that distance

Your making an assumption. There are polls,focus groups and market research that need to be done to determine if such a statement is true.

>>1021754
Literally nothing in your post is correct and you haven't made a single fact-based argument for your position. Every single thing you've said has been based on your personal feeling and emotions. Pretty telling, not to mention utterly fucking pathetic.

>>1021754
So your solution is to build an HSR line that data suggests won't be successful, which in turn contributes to poisoning the well against HSR projects which data suggests do have a legitimate shot at being successful.

And yet somehow you're the one who isn't an "enemy of progress"? How adorably delusional.

>>1021754
> >Maybe if I wasn't an autistic intj who's obsessed with politics, I would become a trap. But otherwise I probably won't
What? That's a non-sequitur at best.

> Thats the argument against High Speed Rail as a whole.
No, it isn't. Not by any rational interpretation. Regional high speed rail would work fine in the US. Long distance HSR, especially when it has to go through hundreds of miles of sparsely populated areas would not.

> Your making an assumption. There are polls,focus groups and market research that need to be done to determine if such a statement is true.
This is based on decades of observation of HSR systems around the world. Even in Europe, air travel dominates HSR for long distance travel.

>>1021662
It doesn't stop anyone from trying to shove their way into somewhere they clearly can't fit in Boston, but we also have realtime countdown clocks so everyone can see that there isn't actually another train right behind it.

>>1018766
>the solution would be to overcrowded rail lines?
More trains.
More often.
Longer trains.
More reliable.

It's not rocket surgery.

>>1021759
>So your solution is to build an HSR line that data suggests won't be successful, which in turn contributes to poisoning the well against HSR projects which data suggests do have a legitimate shot at being successful.

Whose to say that someone in the San Francisco,Portland,or Seattle market wouldn't forsake this route over flying. Unless youre living in one of these places I dont think you could say.

>>1021024
Most likely already at max density

If you want to build a route from San Diego all the way to Seattle, you might as well extend it North to Vancouver and South to Mexico

>>1021812
Not only do I live in one of those places, but the entire motherfucking history of HSR globally proves you wrong.

>>1021812
1. The market is not enough even if everyone choose HSR over flying/driving
2. Japan experience prove that if a HSR journey take more than 4 hours to complete then people would fly instead

>>1021981
> Japan experience prove that if a HSR journey take more than 4 hours to complete then people would fly instead.

Sacramento to Portland takes 2.5 hours at 198 mph.

>>1021895
>If you want to build a route from San Diego all the way to Seattle, u might as well extend it North to Vancouver and South to Mexico.

I would say so,but a connection to Mexico would involve serious security concerns.

>>1022370
Except that's not fucking true because that doesn't take into account stops or lower speed sections. Get it through your head: no advocate or expert in HSR has suggested the route you describe because there is overwhelming evidence that it's a bad idea.

>>1021554
The route through the Willamette would actually be one of the cheaper routes to develop, because unlike the gap between Eugene and Redding, or the Cali central coast, it's literally all fucking flat. If you build a HSR line through the Willamette that connects Portland with Eugene, you provide HSR access to ~3/4 of Oregon's population.

Also the distance between Portland and Eugene is only 110 miles, not "hundreds of miles". It's a comparatively short distance across flat terrain in a populated region. It's literally one of the few ideal HSR routes on the west coast.

>>1018767
Nuke everyone on the planet, except for me of course.

>>1022394
Nobody said it was hundreds of miles between Portland and Eugene you illiterate nigger. You keep concocting horseshit arguments based on this nobody said because you're a fucking autistic moron that can't figure out that his ideas are bad and unsupported even by HSR backers.

>>1022394
It's about 472 miles by land from Sacramento to Eugene. That is the hundreds of miles being referred to.

File: 0e9.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>1022550
>It's about 472 miles by land from Sacramento to Eugene. That is the hundreds of miles being referred to.

Which takes 2.38 hrs to cover at 198 miles per hour.

>>1022547
>Nobody said it was hundreds of miles between Portland and Eugene you illiterate nigger. You keep concocting horseshit arguments based on this nobody said because you're a fucking autistic moron that can't figure out that his ideas are bad and unsupported even by HSR backers.

That's a different guy.

I'd say the proble is intrinsical to the urban planning, especially zoning. On top of that they have the ridiculously high density habitational high rises

too many people having to use the same routes because they all work in the same place is your problem i believe

The solution is to have people live in time zones not by the zone, but by assigned designation. So some of the population would go to work 9am-5pm some would would go to work 2pm-10pm, etc. We'd just have to solve the lighting problem and figure out who gets to live their life at what shift.