3 ms·
This is exactly the thought that occurred to me, except for New York to Atlanta. I've looked into taking the train a couple of times and balked each time at th
by chucksmash 9y ago
This is exactly the thought that occurred to me, except for New York to Atlanta.
I've looked into taking the train a couple of times and balked each time at the idea of paying the same price for 10-15x the transit time. 40 hours in transit is going to be a non-starter for so many kinds of trips, unless you're specifically doing something like [1] where the transit is the whole point of the trip.
[1]: http://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/rockies-and-pacific/toronto-vancouver-canadian http://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/roc...
- martinald 9y agoThe thing is it is way more expensive to provide a train for 40 hours than a plane for 2. The plane could do 20 journeys in that time, for 20x the nominal revenue. This is why high speed rail is so good: it can actually really decrease operational costs Vs normal rail as your train, crew, station etc does 2-3x the volume of passengers, and therefore revenue, compared to slower alternatives.