‘pre-1950’s population estimates’
Here’s why it doesn’t make economic sense.
The only Shinkansen that makes money in Japan is the Tokyo-Yokohama, and it makes a fist load of cash.
It carries 151 million passengers a year, and serves 35 million people in Greater Tokyo + 19 million in Shin-Osaka over 300 miles of track.
The result is a population density of 180k per mile of track.
Now, compare this with San Fran/La.
LA has 17 million people in Greater LA. The Bay area has 7 million people. The distance is 375 miles from LA to San Fran. This gives us a population density of 45k people per mile of track.
You’re looking at about a 5th of the Japanese population density in California.
Now, to blow your mind, the BoWash corridor,
452 miles of track with about 55 million people. Better, but still, at about 121k people per square mile, or about 2/3rds of the Tokyo Shinkansen.
Texas is even worse, at about 30. It’s simple not economically viable in the US, because even in the most densely populated regions, you don’t approach a population similar to Japan.
Texas is even worse, at about 30. It’s simple not economically viable in the US, because even in the most densely populated regions, you don’t approach a population similar to Japan.Population density alone does not determine the market for mass transit. One must also look at current travel volume and modes of transportation against which mass transit would compete.
For instance, how many people currently travel each day Houston - Dallas, or Houston - San Antonio, or Dallas - San Antonio. How many by highway? How many by inefficient short-hop air? And what percentage of that market can be captured by high-speed rail?
And frankly, waiting until population density reaches "packed in like sardines" levels like in Japan would be STUPID because it would make acquiring right-of-way next to impossible. It's much better to identify areas of population growth and build the infrastructure BEFORE projected population densities reach their peak.