• hobovision@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry I'm too used to transit communities where everyone is in the know about big international projects.

      In California they are building the first phase of the high speed rail project through the middle of the state where there is relatively little demand for rail. So we will end up with a high speed line that won't get nearly as much use if they end up canceling the project. In California San Francisco and Los Angeles both are nearly equally as large and ridership will probably be dominated by trips to or between one of those cities.

      I guess the difference in UK is the North has quite a few large cities that are each much smaller than London, so it doesn't have that same "bi-pole" setup. Building starting in the north would improve connectivity between those cities. But I guess my question is, would there be much demand for travel between the northern cities as compared to demand between the north and London?

      • fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That demand is already there - hundreds of thousands of people already attempt to commute by rail between cities in the North every day - but we're cramming 400 people onto a train with capacity for 200, and it's taking an hour to travel 50 miles, and most days there'll be random cancellations scattered about, so it… umm… could do with a bit of work :)

      • byroon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you only ever invest in the southeast, then of course there will be more people and productivity there. That doesn't mean it's a good idea