3 ms·

None. That's the point. Just because something is cleaner does not make it practical. Passenger rail isn't happening in the USA. It would take huge investment,

None. That's the point. Just because something is cleaner does not make it practical. Passenger rail isn't happening in the USA. It would take huge investment, and flying would always win on route flexibility. Once you build a rail line you're pretty committed to it. Flight routes can be changed on demand. Just get over it. We'll never see widespread intercity rail in the USA.

throwawayjava 8y ago
> Once you build a rail line you're pretty committed to it ...sure. But also, once you build a 5+ million person metro area you're pretty committed to it...
- azeotropic 8y ago
  The U.S. has 9 such metro areas. NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Washington DC, Miami, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. You could profitably run high-speed rail between NYC and DC, hitting Philadelphia on the way. Amtrak does run a sort of high speed service on this route. There's a study underway for a privately funded high-speed rail connecting Dallas and Houston. Miami to Atlanta is at the edge of what might make sense. Sizable metro areas can decline, Detroit is now 1/3 the size that it was at its peak in the 1960s. The railway station was abandoned. https://ebow.org/artwork/470141-The-Great-Hall.html https://ebow.org/artwork/470141-The-Great-Hall.html