3 ms·
That can be true, and we can still be lacking. Passenger rail usage rates are abysmal.
by ketzo 3y ago
That can be true, and we can still be lacking. Passenger rail usage rates are abysmal.
- tptacek 3y agoWe're talking about cargo, not passengers, right?
- SoftTalker 3y agoThe US is too big for long-distance passenger rail. Where density is high enough, local rail mass transit exists.
- jcranmer 3y agoMost of the US lives east of the Mississippi River, where population density is commensurate with Europe. No one seriously proposes HSR from SF to Boston, but HSR from, say, Chicago to NYC is within the bounds of viability. And it's frankly criminal that we don't have 4h travel times from Boston to DC. As I've said in the past, the only cities of the 50 largest in the US that are unquestionably out of HSR range are Denver and Salt Lake City, with Memphis, Birmingham, and Oklahoma City on the fringes of viability (from most to least viable). The other 45 cities? Totally viable.
- philwelch 3y agoIf Amtrak was allowed to ditch its expensive long haul rail lines and focus on reinvesting in Acela we could have those 4h travel times and they would turn a profit at the same time.