The balance falls somewhere between the two. To achieve European or Japan like efficiency you need equivalent population. "Trains" don't replace cars... subways do. But to get to the point of subways you need incredibly high population density.
The high speed city-to-city routes continued to develop after the war because the Asian and European post war economies couldn't afford mass car ownership until the 70's or 80's.
Meanwhile the US was flying high with a postwar economy that saw basically the top 75 population centers get jet service with 707's.
To make high speed work in the US, you have to make it work between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and between Boston and Philadelphia. Until that works, there's nothing to build off of.
I don't see high speed rail being viable for the heartland. Unless we force everyone into two or three cities. It is financially inconceivable to run high speed rail between every little town out here.
The current generation of small town residents will not be replaced. They'll simply die off and create ghost towns. If a midwestern "town" doesn't now have a medical center, a community college, a proper grocery store, a Walmart, and a chain hardware store, in fifty years it'll probably be abandoned.
This will really accelerate if states institutionalize online primary education in an attempt to get in front of home schooling. In many small towns the school is the last remaining big employer.
In parallel, if a high speed network is established in the east and west coastal areas, it will begin to grow inwards to reach more top-25 cities.
The balance falls somewhere between the two. To achieve European or Japan like efficiency you need equivalent population. "Trains" don't replace cars... subways do. But to get to the point of subways you need incredibly high population density.
The high speed city-to-city routes continued to develop after the war because the Asian and European post war economies couldn't afford mass car ownership until the 70's or 80's.
Meanwhile the US was flying high with a postwar economy that saw basically the top 75 population centers get jet service with 707's.
To make high speed work in the US, you have to make it work between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and between Boston and Philadelphia. Until that works, there's nothing to build off of.
I don't see high speed rail being viable for the heartland. Unless we force everyone into two or three cities. It is financially inconceivable to run high speed rail between every little town out here.
You're correct, but there's more to it then that.
Rural counties are experiencing population loss.
The current generation of small town residents will not be replaced. They'll simply die off and create ghost towns. If a midwestern "town" doesn't now have a medical center, a community college, a proper grocery store, a Walmart, and a chain hardware store, in fifty years it'll probably be abandoned.
This will really accelerate if states institutionalize online primary education in an attempt to get in front of home schooling. In many small towns the school is the last remaining big employer.
In parallel, if a high speed network is established in the east and west coastal areas, it will begin to grow inwards to reach more top-25 cities.