3 ms·
Except that sputnik was a proxy for a nuclear weapon. "Look what we can put up above your heads, and there's not a thing you can do about it." High-speed rail d
by chancho 17y ago
Except that sputnik was a proxy for a nuclear weapon. "Look what we can put up above your heads, and there's not a thing you can do about it." High-speed rail doesn't have the same overtones.
Also, connecting 1.5 billion to 700 million is a lot more lucrative than connecting, what, 150 million to 50 million? Nevermind the fact that there are existing high-speed networks to connect with in Europe and China. What a fucking bummer it would be to take a 6 hour train trip from NY to LA then a 6 hour bus from LA to SF.
- Xichekolas 17y agoTo get from NY to LA in 6 hours would require a train that averages 410mph. This is exactly the type of route that trains will not take from planes any time soon. The fastest train in the world is China's maglev that does almost 270mph. But a trip from LA to SF, or St. Louis to Chicago, or NY to DC, or between any major city in Texas and any other one... that is the kind of route that rail would excel at, provided we had the motivation to build it. All that said, I don't see the motivation to take a two day train trip from China to London when you could fly it in much less time. I understand the comfort factors and all, but when you are talking that length of time, I think the customer demand is going to be very limited (unless it's significantly cheaper than airfare).