3 ms·
Indeed. I had to fly between LA and SF while on holiday earlier this year, because the equivalent rail service takes over 11 hours. I’ve done those London-Scotl
by matthewmacleod 4y ago
Indeed. I had to fly between LA and SF while on holiday earlier this year, because the equivalent rail service takes over 11 hours. I’ve done those London-Scotland routes hundreds of times over the years and they are 4.5 hours end-to-end, and as you say this isn’t even on modern high-speed infrastructure.
I get that it may be impractical to introduce a continent-spanning national rail service in the US, but there are a whole bunch of costal corridors where rail is—from a functional standpoint—objectively feasible.
- midoridensha 4y agoIt's true, there are many corridors and routes, and not just on the coasts, where HSR would be quite feasible in America. The problem is that Americans refuse to see this and refuse to accept train travel as acceptable. You can talk until you're blue in the face about how many people transit regularly between LA and SF, or between DC and NYC and Boston, or between Houston and Dallas, and Americans will simply counter that a train between NYC and LA takes too long, and therefore trains are a completely unworkable solution anywhere in the whole country. There's just no political will to implement true HSR in America and I don't think there ever will be.