4 ms·
It's not clear if you're saying mass transit within the metros or also to other metros. It sounds like you're trying to imply the later by a way of using the fo
by soheil 4y ago
It's not clear if you're saying mass transit within the metros or also to other metros. It sounds like you're trying to imply the later by a way of using the former as a reason. The distances in the US between major population centers are vast, far more than what the average person from other regions of the world would likely imagine them to be.
- dumpsterlid 4y agoI am so bored of people repeating the "but... trains will never work for rancher joe out in North Dakota! The US is too big for mass transit and trains". Yes there are very empty places in the US, turns out though that the vast majority of people don't live in those places. The dense places in the US are dense and massive like anywhere else in the world, and if suburban sprawl makes them somewhat more spread out that is just pointing out how bad the status quo is with city planning/mass transit. Also.. ok so the distance between two cities is vast... a highspeed train is far more efficient at transporting people (at absurdly higher volumes) over a distance than aircraft are. If it is a popular route between cities I dont see how distance negates this inherent advantage. Yes, if we we talking hugeeee distances that means a massive infrastructure investment but there would still be a major advantage in the end?