If this is so heavily traveled, then maybe rail is a better option. We need to dispense with the idea that auto traffic is the only option, or that we need to optimize for a particular mode.
I'm much more optimistic on solving the energy problem than the public transportation problem at this point. You gotta remember that Arizona and many western states were ratified not too long before automobiles took over. There has quite literally never been a "walkable city" in consideration for these states.
Agreed, but you could start trying to build out that rail system right now and it'll still be decades before it meaningfully changes the need for car traffic (even then, look at Europe, cars are still quite popular and necessary in many places despite a significantly better passenger rail system). EVs are already a huge improvement on the status quo. And there's no reason we can't do both.
I think there's appetite for it to happen. There's a new rail line going in between the LA area and Las Vegas. Amtrak is now running a new route between Minneapolis and Chicago. I'm sure there are more like this.
Certainly there are challenges with rail in some of the more sparsely populated areas, where it doesn't necessarily make sense. I think it will start by building out regional networks. It certainly won't happen by optimizing for NYC to LA.
Neither Phoenix or LA are cities where the average person would be happy without a car. Sure you could take a train and rent a car at your destination, but that’s adding many hundreds of dollars to a week at the beach.
The intercity rail part is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it requires a pretty decent city transit network on each end.
On top of that, cargo and passenger trains don't really coexist that nicely. Nobody really wants to spend bullet train money on cargo, but that's what you need if you want to have bullet train speed for passengers on the same track.
Nice thing about charging infrastructure is that another name for it is "the grid." It already exists everywhere. And in rural areas that don't have enough grid capacity for high peak loads, use batteries (which are getting much cheaper) as a buffer.
> The intercity rail part is the easy part. Getting people to actually use it requires a pretty decent city transit network on each end.
I don’t think this is true. People take airplanes and rent a cars all the time. The same could be true for train travel. All of the ways someone would leave a train station generally exist.
People don’t take trains for two reasons:
1. They take too long.
2. They are too expensive.
For example sf to la takes at least ~9-13h and costs between 50-80 dollars. Versus a southwest flight for ~140 that takes an hour. For most people that extra 60 dollars for 7-11 hours is worth it.
