56 High Speed Rail Links We Should've Built Already

Remember: these city-pairs are the ones that should be connected by high-speed rail first. Those "gaps" jn the network could be (and in some cases, already are) filled in by conventional low-speed rail service.

I’d be interested in learning which cities have the most used bike trails or lanes. Or if there is any interesting data on changes in bike ability in a city over time, and why city bike ability increases

One thing you didn’t mention (which is subjective) is the willingness of the people to take public transportation. Yeah Houston to Austin is bigger market than Portland to Seattle but the ridership % would be much higher in this area of the country than Car/Truck crazy Texans.

@citynerd Austin had a great city rail program approved by voters, but the actual cost quickly doubled and the plan is on life support. You should make a video on what regulations and red tape can be cut to allow cities to quickly and efficiently build modern, green mass transit in our cities.

My wife insists it’s pronounced GWELF for Guelph

Can you do a video on the stadium that will host the upcoming world cup?

This would be sick. Only additions I would make (in an ideal world) are connecting San Antonio to Monterrey through Laredo and Houston to Atlanta through NOLA/Mobile/Bham.

Surprised that Portland to Seattle didn’t score highly with this methodology!

Everyone knows that the downtowns of large cities and university campuses are some of the only places in america where the majority of people to get to work without a car. But most people forget that most us military bases are walkable too. In many states the most walkable part of that state is a base.

Would be amazing to see analysis of the Chinese rail system! It looks mad impressive, but I can’t help but doubt the efficacy and ridership

SHOUT OUT, HARRISBURG!

How about Phoenix to Tucson? Kinda surprised it wasn't included.

This was an amazing video, especially the explanation of you methodology. While its pretty clear that the NEC is the strongest North American corridor, it is nice to see other corridors that have gotten less attention or been more controversial (for whatever reason). For one, rail should be a priority in Texas. Even without high speed, the state becomes stronger when its major cities are well connected. Additionally, the southeast can't be ignored. Charlotte and Atlanta are the sprawl capitals but are making some progress on local and regional transit. Eventually, the suburbs in these areas won't want to be left behind.

HSR is nice, but it is also niche.

Highways and airports can be used for passenger transport, in addition to freight and commerce whereas HSR would really only be useful for passenger travel.

Just something to keep in mind as we push for HSR.

If you're including all of North America, I imagine Port-au-Prince to Santo Domingo would pencil out highly.

This should be a screen saver!

Topic suggestions:
1) Urbanism/transit solutions for more rural areas. We recently took a vacation to Harper's Ferry on Amtrak Capitol Limited and spent the trip wondering how transit would work in the rural, hilly tourist destination.
2) Quality of life improvements for current passenger rail and metro systems (boarding process, noise, vibration, speed etc)

Everyone in North America needs to watch this entire video

As a European, I think that North America’s rail situation is laughable. The standard responses of “you don’t know how big it is” is such a dull retort to my mockery of the US rail network in particular. How can it be so incomprehensible to someone, that their response is the exact reason why intercity travel is better served by rail than any other form of transportation?! The fact that it’s so big, is every reason to do it.
I think the current image that rail in North America has, is the exact reason why it’s not taken seriously. Passenger trains are slow, take winding and meandering routes, run over endless level grade crossings through most towns and get held up by the preferred, mile long freight train, crawling along at 40mph. That’s its unchanged image, burned into the minds of North Americans.

Meanwhile, in Europe and Far East Asia, their railway zeitgeist is a different beast altogether. Rapid suburban commuter transport, exceptionally fast high speed rail lines running at 200 or more miles per hour, slicing directly through, under or over the meandering course that a North American train would take, few or even no level crossings AND faster, smaller, safer freight trains that can run from 60 to even 100mph.

Once one corner of North America gets it right, the mindset might begin to change and the rest of the continent may follow suit. The North East Corridor route comes close, but no cigar. There are 20mph station approach junctions that affect all lines on that route, which all trains need to traverse. That’s pretty ridiculous and not very high speed.

Like I say, it’s all about the mindset, but that can only be altered with an intensive investment at one or more location, just to make an example for others to follow.
Until then, cars and air travel will dominate, at least until rising fuel costs make it uneconomical.

Already after only having watch the intro, i want to add that not only has almost every developed country done this math, but many/most middle-income countries has also identified it as a key stepping stone to reach that developed status.

Why do all Americans pronounce Tijuana so wrong?

Super interesting. Really like the methodology. Next step would be to score implementation cost against "attractiveness". Not all routes created equally....

Lol, the fact Seattle / Cascadia didn't show up on the list at all, makes me question the credibility of the analysis, especially considering some of the other city pairs mentioned have significantly less of a regional population compared to Cascadia's 16 Million or so people. Talk about outright dismissing a major urban/metro region that not only has strong demand for HSR, but would benefit immensely from it. Extremely disappointing and seems like a skewed / biased analysis, especially when so many of these "city pairs" overlap and would be served by the same HSR lines. Didn't particularly like the antagonizing joke about Cascadia "breaking away" either and spending our own "money" on it, makes it sound like we're a low-population region of political wackos underserving of any sort of national/federal HSR attention or investment. If we don't make your list, that's cool... but no need to make a joke out of it when there's so many people living here who, just like everywhere else, would greatly benefit from HSR investment.

Columbus, OH: 👁💧👄💧👁

China built most of it in just under a decade! That’s the benefit of having no red tape or opposition and generally favoring the benefit of the whole over profits and the rights of the individual

The U.K. Government are nearly as inept in building HSR.

i'm surprised SF-SAC didn't make the cut

I'm not sure I agree with the decision to use metro areas that span several cities. If there's going to be a stop in Baltimore, I think that has to be considered separately, because NY-BAL will be a shorter trip than NY-DC, but there'll also be a time penalty for serving an extra stop in Baltimore. Not having point-to-point transport like air and car is a consideration.

I'm very curious as to why Rochester is a spot over Buffalo? especially when Buffalo is in a much more prime location and could connect south to your Cleveland line? It's also just bigger lol

Glad to see MSP-Chicago making the cut
I wish we could have these!

I'm surprised that continuing south out of St. Louis basically just following either the Mississippi or I-55 didn't make the cut but Hartford and Albany made it as distinct destinations (not just places that are "on the way" between bigger metros). St. Louis - Memphis - [Jackson and/or Baton Rouge] - New Orleans seems reasonable because of how the cities are spaced out, but currently doesn't even have slow passenger rail along that whole route without a non-Amtrak "connecting service".

Just a note, from someone who knows the VT/NY/BOS situation. Right now there is a train from Boston to Burlington VT that will eventually go on to Montreal. Bizarrely it does not go through Manchester/Concord NH. If Amtrak wants ridership this routing will definitely interfere with that goal. Now I’m going to try to figure out why this is the case.

One thing this Adirondacker would LOVE to see would be meaningful intermodal connections to airports. Being able to take a train to the airport in Montreal, Boston or NYC would make a hellava lot more sense than flying out of Albany, Burlington or Plattsburgh NY(yeah, they turned the old air force flight line into an airport that is supposedly international and has maybe 2-3 flights a day.)

This population gravity model seems to be forecasting a reasonable set of city pairs. It would be interesting to get actual ridership data from Amtrak (where rail service exists) and compare it to your rank-ordered list of city pairs.

Calgary to Edmonton?

Did you put Peterborough and/or Kingston, and then Ottawa in the Toronto to Montreal line?

The way you pronounce Guelph 😅

As a Detroiter, I'm dying for the day that I can hop on a high-speed train and head to Chicago or Toronto. I wish it can be built

Well done, I take Amtrak from Burlington VT to NYC a few times a year, and it's a long ride, but I'd rather that than driving to NYC and deal with parking.

President biden sent all the commuter rail funding to Ukraine.

I don't know if this has been suggested already, but I would be interested in seeing you do a video on the most affordable/best beachfront cities (or cities by the ocean if there is no beach). These places are popular and so very expensive to live there, however they also give access to many things that have value that you can't get locally living inland, like fresh seafood, more fun in the sun (depending on the latitude), etc.
Instead of doing a worst of, you could project into the future and leave a message for your (great)grandkids of the best cities to live that WILL be beachfront in however many years when the oceans rise however many feet.

I appreciate your work!

I traveled the French TGV. You board according to the car you’re assigned. You have max 5 minutes to get on board. No loitering. The train will not wait. All rails are traveled with no auto grade crossings, so no crashes and no whistle horns as no crossings. Average 180 mph in transit. No stop between Lyon and Avignon. Smooth and fast. Another thing….they do not stop at every town/city……that increases efficiency.

Australia failed to do the math, unless you consider 160kph on a few segments of track "high speed".

San Antonio - Monterrey MX has been proposed a bunch of times.

I'm in Japan and traveling through the country is so damn easy! I would highly recommend everyone coming here since the yen is so weak.

Hotels are cheaper than a motel 6 in the US and they're really nice

As I am watching this video… I can hear the high speed train passing by on its way to Orlando. Near my house in West Palm Beach.

Miami to Orlando exists as you said. And is wonderful. Orlando to Tampa is being built. So
Miami To
Tampa is on its way.
As is LA to LV.
Thank you Brightline!

Bro, Orlando to Atlanta??? To connect it all???? Dawg.

Not only do high speed trains cost billions to build, they will never compete with airfares without billions more dollars in subsidies. They are a boondoggle, beloved of politicians who like to waste our money to keep themselves in office.