3 ms·
Evidence 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 lo
by ashtonkem 6y ago
Evidence 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.