54 ms·

It's actually a helpful example to support the conclusion. Why would the author provide a "better" example that supports his/her idea less? LA to Chicago may no

by soheil 8y ago

It's actually a helpful example to support the conclusion. Why would the author provide a "better" example that supports his/her idea less? LA to Chicago may not be a commonly travelled route nor one that would lend itself to train travel best, but the author's point still stands, which is in the US on average distances between major cities are much longer than any individual country in Europe, hence the immense cost required to build infrastructure for trains. We might have bit the bullet and done it with highways back in the day for whatever reason, today the reasoning for doing the same thing may not apply and the cost unjustified.

xg15 8y ago
> We might have bit the bullet and done it with highways back in the day for whatever reason, today the reasoning for doing the same thing may not apply and the cost unjustified. So the rational, cost-effective solution would have been not to have any connection at all?
- soheil 8y ago
  I'm leaning towards a yes but then again I wasn't there at the time.
  - xg15 8y ago
    (edit) How would people travel between those cities then?
reindeerer 8y ago
> in the US on average distances between major cities are much longer than any individual country in Europe Have you done the math ? Split US into west coast and east coast populuous regions, and nope, not the case. Also, don't let yourself be fooled by the Mercator projection: https://thetruesize.com https://thetruesize.com
melling 8y ago
The author’s point does not stand. No one is saying build high-speed rail between cities that are extremely far apart. Find the handful of places where it does make sense then build there. If it only makes sense in 4 locations then build there. You can safely ignore the other 20 locations.
- soheil 8y ago
  Then there is the argument why should the rest of the country pay for something that will only be used in the coasts or densely populated areas?
  - melling 8y ago
    1. Who said they would? 2. Also, it appears that many states already get a lot more than they contribute. That subsidy probably isn’t going in the direction you think it is. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...
    - soheil 8y ago
      > 1. Who said they would? That's my question. > 2. Also, it appears that many states already get a lot more than they contribute. That subsidy probably isn’t going in the direction you think it is. Sure, I'm not arguing that the distribution of federal money is 100% fair.
      - melling 8y ago
        “Then there is the argument why should the rest of the country pay for something that will only be used in the coasts or densely populated areas?” This isn’t a real question. You’re making up a reason that you haven’t proven exists. There is no funded HSR outside of California.
        soheil 8y ago

by soheil 8y ago

xg15 8y ago

> We might have bit the bullet and done it with highways back in the day for whatever reason, today the reasoning for doing the same thing may not apply and the cost unjustified. So the rational, cost-effective solution would have been not to have any connection at all?

soheil 8y ago
I'm leaning towards a yes but then again I wasn't there at the time.
- xg15 8y ago
  (edit) How would people travel between those cities then?

reindeerer 8y ago

> in the US on average distances between major cities are much longer than any individual country in Europe Have you done the math ? Split US into west coast and east coast populuous regions, and nope, not the case. Also, don't let yourself be fooled by the Mercator projection: https://thetruesize.com https://thetruesize.com

melling 8y ago

The author’s point does not stand. No one is saying build high-speed rail between cities that are extremely far apart. Find the handful of places where it does make sense then build there. If it only makes sense in 4 locations then build there. You can safely ignore the other 20 locations.

soheil 8y ago
Then there is the argument why should the rest of the country pay for something that will only be used in the coasts or densely populated areas?
- melling 8y ago
  1. Who said they would? 2. Also, it appears that many states already get a lot more than they contribute. That subsidy probably isn’t going in the direction you think it is. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...
  - soheil 8y ago
    > 1. Who said they would? That's my question. > 2. Also, it appears that many states already get a lot more than they contribute. That subsidy probably isn’t going in the direction you think it is. Sure, I'm not arguing that the distribution of federal money is 100% fair.
    - melling 8y ago
      “Then there is the argument why should the rest of the country pay for something that will only be used in the coasts or densely populated areas?” This isn’t a real question. You’re making up a reason that you haven’t proven exists. There is no funded HSR outside of California.
      - soheil 8y ago