3 ms·
> There isn't many people in the USA that love the idea of driving their car to ride a train so that they can then rent a car to get where they are going. You'
by Judgmentality 4y ago
> There isn't many people in the USA that love the idea of driving their car to ride a train so that they can then rent a car to get where they are going.
You've just described airports, except with trains instead of planes. If I could take a train instead of fly I would.
- katbyte 4y agoEven if it’s more expensive and twice and long I will take a train over flying. Flying is awful and trains and nice.
- deepdriver 4y agoI wouldn’t. PTO is precious to me and planes are many times faster than trains.
- occz 4y agoHSR beats flying every time in medium-distances, which is where anyone is really pushing to build it.
- bigDinosaur 4y agoPlanes are technically faster once they get going, but the processes related to security, boarding, and the location of airports often being very far from city centres negates this for HSR train journeys <= 4 hours long. In theory you could replicate all the worst features of airports with rail, too, I suppose, but for obvious reasons it's easier to build a train station in a city centre than an airport.
- pengaru 4y ago> planes are many times faster than trains California's HSR trainset requirements specify sustained 220MPH. Your statement applies to the current dysmal US freight-prioritized train situation, not any respectable modern HSR implementation. A modern HSR in the USA not shared with freight should have no trouble beating ~500MPH air travel door-to-door. It should emit less co2 and cost less to boot. Plus good luck affording an entire room with a bed and private toilet on a plane, that's private jet amenities territory. Observation and dining cars are also nice experience enhancers trains easily offer but planes can't afford the space for.