3 ms·
>> It's hard to justify investing in rail. At best, in most parts of the US it is slower, more expensive, and less convenient But that's because we haven't inv
by Naac 6y ago
>> It's hard to justify investing in rail. At best, in most parts of the US it is slower, more expensive, and less convenient
But that's because we haven't invested in it! Before the 1960s most roads in the US were also terrible, so by that logic we shouldn't have invested in the Highway/Freeway Interstate system.
- ethbr0 6y agoSeriously. Here's the Amtrak network: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Amtrak_network_map_2016.png/1200px-Amtrak_network_map_2016.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Am... Here's the US freight rail network: https://i.imgur.com/4TYsU_d.webp?maxwidth=1024&fidelity=medium https://i.imgur.com/4TYsU_d.webp?maxwidth=1024&fidelity=medi... You can't tell me we can't do better.
- rootusrootus 6y agoWe could definitely have a beautiful, big, fast train network. But most people still wouldn't use it.
- ashtonkem 6y agoEvidence from Europe and Asia shows that this is probably wrong. People in those areas strongly prefer high speed rail for trips that are less than 3-4 hours long, and begin to switch over to airplanes beyond that.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoHigh speed rail generally goes a bit faster than 300km/h. At that speed a lot of things are less than 4 hours away. Chicago is a bit less than 4 hours from NYC at that speed, as is Seattle from San Francisco. San Francisco to Seattle is obviously not a great candidate for a high speed rail line because it doesn't pass through much of interest, but it gives a good sense of the scale.
- __boos 6y agoWith train you can have the tesla experience i.e. not driving and reading, watching movies, working, eating on train restaurant while moving at 350 KM/h. In Europe we use them because you can go about 10 minutes before a train leave and carry as much as luggage do you need, plus they are usually cheaper.
- rootusrootus 6y agoWe're right back to "remember how big and sparsely populated the US is." 150mph in three hours is good for inter-city transportation in the Northeast, but a lot of other places would have trouble justifying the cost. And that's nothing compared with what a truly high speed train would cost to implement here.
- ashtonkem 6y agoAgain, that's a great reason not to build HSR in Iowa or the Dakotas. But if you look where the population centers of America, this excuse begins to fall down. A huge percentage of America lives on the coasts in fairly dense pockets, far denser than many countries with existing HSR.
- ulfw 6y agoWhy not? There's tons of routes in the US that could make sense if there wasn't so much NIMBYism, corruption and the oil and auto lobby, let's be honest. SF-Sacramento, SF-LA, LA-San Diego, LA-Vegas, Seattle-Portland, the whole Northeast Corridor (a better truly high speed Acela), Houston-Dallas, Orlando-Miami, Pittsburg-DC and and and. There's lots of large cities in the US in the high speed rail sweetspot of 400-800 miles (2-4h travel time) apart