4 ms·
The amount of space needed is indeed tiny, but you still need to cut a fresh line through areas where buildings exist, and it can't follow the road network gene
by mlindner 4y ago
The amount of space needed is indeed tiny, but you still need to cut a fresh line through areas where buildings exist, and it can't follow the road network generally and has to take gradual curves, which increases the amount of buildings that must be destroyed rather than going around them.
- panick21_ 4y agoIf you are not building for high speed and super long trains, the curves aren't that crazy. And lets not pretend the US is some incredibly densely populated place. Lots of those areas are filled with cheap single family home subburbs, not skyscrapers. If we are not willing to move a few houses for climate change, then how are we ever gone solve anything? Somehow most nations of manage this without that many issues. And again, remove money from highway, to trains and you remove less houses.
- mlindner 4y agoTrains go best in those few densely populated areas though. That's kind of the catch 22 with trains, they're best in dense areas, but dense areas tend to obviate the ability to build trains.
- panick21_ 4y agoTrains are great for populated and less populated places. Lots of not so densely populated places can be connected to more densely populated places with trains.