2 ms·

People have been saying the same thing about a route between DC, Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston for as long as high-speed rail has existed. Great population dens

People have been saying the same thing about a route between DC, Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston for as long as high-speed rail has existed. Great population density, and the distances look good. But it never seems to pan out. My pet theory is that frequent air travel is not nearly as miserable for people who are wealthy enough to be decision-makers as it is for most of us, so the political will never reaches a breaking point. Plus, the existing rail transport options are already viable options for people who have time. It takes about 9-12 times longer to go across the whole country (72 vs 6-8 hours), but rail is already competitive between major East Coast cities on both time and price. And it's worlds ahead in comfort. So you'd wind up spending a ton of money for...what? Trimming 45 minutes off of a trip which is already fairly pleasant? How about a case for three high-speed rail lines belting the North, Center, and South of the nation? Maybe connections between them could pass through Denver or St. Louis.

serbrech 7y ago
Trim 45 min? That would barely account for the commute to the airport in most cities. Most train stations are right in the city, as opposed to airports. in France high speed rail between Paris and other cities has pretty much killed the local plane routes.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Yes, exactly. Amtrak is already an option that gets you between city centers, and it's fairly quick and cheap between nearby coastal cities. It's not "high-speed", but passenger trains do exist in the US, and any proposed high-speed rail project will have to compete with them. "We get you there an hour quicker, but still slightly slower than an airplane" is not necessarily a hugely appealing differentiator which would justify charging much more.
  - crooked-v 7y ago
    Amtrak is wildly unreliably because of how much it shares rails with freight trains, which is the real problem with it more than just travel time.
  - ShinTakuya 7y ago
    Most of the time high speed rail wins out vs planes for short to medium distances due to travel time to the airport, the need to arrive early to the airport and the amount of time it takes to get past security check points and so on in airports. Typically as far as I've seen it's only once the travel time exceeds 3 hours by high speed rail that the plane starts to win.

serbrech 7y ago

Trim 45 min? That would barely account for the commute to the airport in most cities. Most train stations are right in the city, as opposed to airports. in France high speed rail between Paris and other cities has pretty much killed the local plane routes.

leggomylibro 7y ago
Yes, exactly. Amtrak is already an option that gets you between city centers, and it's fairly quick and cheap between nearby coastal cities. It's not "high-speed", but passenger trains do exist in the US, and any proposed high-speed rail project will have to compete with them. "We get you there an hour quicker, but still slightly slower than an airplane" is not necessarily a hugely appealing differentiator which would justify charging much more.
- crooked-v 7y ago
  Amtrak is wildly unreliably because of how much it shares rails with freight trains, which is the real problem with it more than just travel time.
- ShinTakuya 7y ago
  Most of the time high speed rail wins out vs planes for short to medium distances due to travel time to the airport, the need to arrive early to the airport and the amount of time it takes to get past security check points and so on in airports. Typically as far as I've seen it's only once the travel time exceeds 3 hours by high speed rail that the plane starts to win.