Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, Amtrak67 of America, Tadman, gprimr1
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:31 am
The idea behind this is that we need to connect East-West and North-South, based on population. The lines are thick to get across the concept of where it should go, not to specific locations. The North-South corridors are:
A: The coasts clearly each need a corridor - which looks a lot like they do now. East coast is really tough because there's a lot of density, but we end up in Florida.
B: There should be a corridor along the Mississippi, given the density. "Unfortunately", Chicago is a very high density city, so I swung the corridor that way, then back to the River.
C: There needs to be at least another corridor between the MIssissippi and the West Coast. I stuck one along the eastern side of the Rockies (the blueish line) but I was struck by the lack of population density. So I created another line (the greenish line) between the two lines that captures a lot more people.
East-West: the US is "narrow" enough between north and south that three corridors seem to work.
D: North: East Coast to West Coast along the Canadian border. The Great Lakes get in the way, so we have to dip down to Chicago. I wanted to terminate in Boston, but the line is wide enough that I decided to terminate in NYC. This looks much like the existing lines.
E: Central: From somewhere in the middle of the East Coast to around San Francisco. Since it's pretty close to DC, I terminated in DC. The line passes through St. Louis and Denver. Between DC and St. Louis, the line could really dip south toward Tennessee.
F: Southern: From somewhere in the middle of the South to Los Angeles. Atlanta's a big population center, so it would make sense to make it the termination point, but that would miss the East Coast corridor - although that could be swung west to hit Atlanta. Note that the corridor misses New Orleans to hit central Texas.
The idea behind all of this was to give each region of the US equal access to every other region. It basically ignores existing infrastructure and geography. Also it was interesting thought exercise. I'd encourage others to submit their own maps!
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 4:34 pm
Imo the biggest hole in the current long distance network is a line from Cleveland south to Akron, Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville, Nashville, Huntsville, Birmingham, Montgomery and Mobile, connecting to New Orleans. That would be a goldmine with a major city every 50-80 miles or so.
- Posts: 8781
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
- Location: New Zealand
- Posts: 3653
- Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:25 pm
- Posts: 362
- Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:22 am
- Location: Philly Area
- Posts: 936
- Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:27 am
- Location: Terre Haute, Indiana
I like the idea of looking at population and travel demand to figure out where routes might go. I don't think it's the only question (the CZ's slowest segment probably attracts a lot of its pax because of the views in the Rockies) but it's a big question, especially for where there could be multiple trains a day. If we're going to have real train service that people will choose to use, we need it to connect big cities and tourist destinations in a way that makes it easy to go by train. Morning, noon and evening departures from most bigger towns on a route start to make the service flexible enough to use. Get to hourly and stop penalizing people for buying at the last minute, and you've made it flexible enough to be convenient for people who don't know quite when they want to come back. To get there, we need a whole new look at what we're trying to do with our trains, and probably also a whole new look at the way we expect train travelers to get to and from the station, and even at the way we build our cities and our suburbs. We don't need to fight over a few scraps or about which of a dozen LD routes should be moved or eliminated to allow some other one-a-day LD route (compared to the whole Amtrak appropriation, or to the total road construction and maintenance spending, the costs of the LD network are scraps). We need a strong case for a whole network of frequent trains along busy travel routes. We need to demonstrate that funding those trains really could reduce the need to expand roads and airports -- that it could save public money -- and that it could do it in a way that made people's lives easier. Americans tend to think that a car is freedom and mass transportation is not freedom. When the service is good enough, mass transportation can free people from parking, free people from traffic, free people even from owning a car. We need to persuade people -- a lot of people -- that it can work for them. And that means the high-population corridors, but it probably costs more to build them up than can be saved by shifting the LD trains around.
- Posts: 387
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:32 am
There are some obvious ones from the density map: (1) "Northern Keystone" running from Scranton to NYP, (2) Louisville to Cleveland via Cincinnati and Columbus, (3) further buildout of Florida (Miami to Orlando to Tampa to Naples), and (4) Texas Triangle.
- Posts: 6217
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:59 am
- Location: the Manassas Gap Independent Line
- Posts: 4576
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:22 pm
And you can't really blame SEPTA for the gap between Lansdale and Bethlehem; it's outside SEPTA's service area and when the county involved was asked to support continuance of the service they declined.
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2004 7:31 am
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:53 am
- Location: New York Hudson Valley
Try US traffic density map
- Posts: 5487
- Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2008 8:51 pm