4 ms·
> rural voters who don't want high speed rail, even though they would benefit from it greatly, It's not clear to me how a rural voter (I guess the 'voter' part
by kingsuper20 5y ago
> rural voters who don't want high speed rail, even though they would benefit from it greatly,
It's not clear to me how a rural voter (I guess the 'voter' part is because these are publicly funded works) really benefits. Once a year vacations to the beach? Shopping trips where you are limited to what you can manage on foot? Visits to a specialist doctor?
Since the sense of rail depends on regular use, I guess all that's left is commutes from a dispersed area to a central one. You have to wonder how much telecommuting will decrease the need for that over time.
One good thing about rail is that you are allowed to do it piecemeal. There's bound to be somewhere that needs a point A to point B bullet train.
- bombcar 5y agoA practical step that would not be excessively costly would be to standardize the three types of rail in the US - local tram, commuter, and intercity/high speed (fun fact - depending on your definition of high speed rail current Amtrak trains can hit that, as on correct track and with positive train control they can do 125+ MPH). If it's standardized it will be easier to make sure you can develop it piecemeal.
- bluGill 5y agoAmtrak is higher speed rail. HSR needs to average 140mph - including stops at any station between where you want to go.
- darksaints 5y agoNobody would consider Tokaido Shinkansen to not be HSR, but it averages ~125mph.
- bluGill 5y agoThey should. Back in the day it was built that was high speed, but technology has marched on and it shouldn't be called high speed anymore.