You need to hit major centres and you need to consider common trips to be efficient. You’re talking about the most efficient per station but most efficient per passenger is going to look different. This image doesn’t see too bad and can still have branching lines.
The biggest concern with that setup is how inefficient it is to reach the Pacific Northwest region, LA is a serious bottleneck on top of being a common endpoint in and of itself. A line that goes straight to either Seattle or Portland from the Northeast simplifies things a lot.
LA is a bottleneck if you assume every single line and dot is perfectly equal. If we’re already imaging a well built system then that green line would have a higher frequency of train to accommodate what you’re talking about and it’s station(s) would be large enough to handle the fact that it would absolutely be a major hub.
Efficiency is not always about perfection for every single trip. Cars(in a car-centric hellhole, at least) will take you from your driveway to your destination parking lot but they are vastly inferior to the overall efficiency of a metro that you walk five minutes to and is then five minutes from your destination. This is highspeed rail, there’s not much extra time being taken if you don’t go direct direct, it’ll be fine.
The problem is that population distribution means that almost nobody is going to be getting on or off the train between Minneapolis and Seattle. The population of North Dakota is 800k, South Dakota is 925k, Nebraska is 2 million, Montana is 1.1 million, Wyoming is 590k, Idaho is 2 million. That’s nearly a whole quadrant of the country with less population than the Houston metro area. If we’re building trains, let’s build trains in Houston and serve the same number of people with like a tiny percentage of track that it would take to serve the upper plains states.
I think those are lines with standard passenger train service on them, though I can’t remember the reasoning for that. Might have been the states there refused to cooperate with the company or it could just be a terrain issue with the rail grade being too steep or winding for high-speed rail.
You need to hit major centres and you need to consider common trips to be efficient. You’re talking about the most efficient per station but most efficient per passenger is going to look different. This image doesn’t see too bad and can still have branching lines.
Yeah just get a slime mold to design it for us.
The biggest concern with that setup is how inefficient it is to reach the Pacific Northwest region, LA is a serious bottleneck on top of being a common endpoint in and of itself. A line that goes straight to either Seattle or Portland from the Northeast simplifies things a lot.
LA is a bottleneck if you assume every single line and dot is perfectly equal. If we’re already imaging a well built system then that green line would have a higher frequency of train to accommodate what you’re talking about and it’s station(s) would be large enough to handle the fact that it would absolutely be a major hub.
Efficiency is not always about perfection for every single trip. Cars(in a car-centric hellhole, at least) will take you from your driveway to your destination parking lot but they are vastly inferior to the overall efficiency of a metro that you walk five minutes to and is then five minutes from your destination. This is highspeed rail, there’s not much extra time being taken if you don’t go direct direct, it’ll be fine.
The problem is that population distribution means that almost nobody is going to be getting on or off the train between Minneapolis and Seattle. The population of North Dakota is 800k, South Dakota is 925k, Nebraska is 2 million, Montana is 1.1 million, Wyoming is 590k, Idaho is 2 million. That’s nearly a whole quadrant of the country with less population than the Houston metro area. If we’re building trains, let’s build trains in Houston and serve the same number of people with like a tiny percentage of track that it would take to serve the upper plains states.
And it’s weird, because the map has some faint grey lines where you’d think there’d be routes.
I think those are lines with standard passenger train service on them, though I can’t remember the reasoning for that. Might have been the states there refused to cooperate with the company or it could just be a terrain issue with the rail grade being too steep or winding for high-speed rail.
Why do I feel like inefficient access to the Pacific Northwest suits all involved?
Taking the Seattle Freeze to whole new dimensions lol