15 ms·
The passenger rail coverage [edit: service] in most of North America is basically pathetic, for systemic reasons.
by ska 3y ago
The passenger rail coverage [edit: service] in most of North America is basically pathetic, for systemic reasons.
- gosub100 3y ago> systemic you misspelled "union"
- ska 3y agoIf it were that simple, it would be much easier to fix.
- rgmerk 3y agoIntercity passenger rail makes little sense over most of the USA, outside the existing northeast corridor. In a sane world Amtrak would shut down most of the long-distance routes, fix the northeast corridor, and focus on gradually expanding that, but the politics of that are unattractive so it bumbles on with trains that only train nerds would ever consider actually riding on.
- hattmall 3y agoIf you ride them most of the people don't seem like train nerds. Properly done rail would be viable for most of the US. A cross-country trip not really. But anything from about 800 to 1200 miles could be competitive with commercial flights and have extrinsic benefits as well. A 1200 mile flight takes about 3 hours. Add in a minimum of one hour on each end for airport transit and moving about within the airport and your at 5 hours, and often times much more. High speed rail moving 200 mph with 6 to 8 stops may take a couple more hours in the most advantageous to air comparison. Also consider than many of those 6 to 8 stops would be serving places that may require connecting flights or where people are driving to the major airport from. It has the potential to be nicer, safer, cheaper and more environmentally conscious. There's no good reason America doesn't have top tier rail transit.
- sofixa 3y agoThere are plenty of locations in the US where fast intercity regional rail could easily be useful and work. Florida, Portland - Vancouver, Alabama/Georgia/Carolinas/Virginias, Midwest. Yeah, few people will take a cross-country train outside of for the novelty and the attraction itself (which are still not to be dismissed), but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of <4-5h trips that can be made via train if there was good, reliable and fast service.
- red-iron-pine 3y agospecifically, that freight has right of way at all times. they basically get what they want and tell amtrack to stuff it.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoCoverage is actually surprisingly wide, just the service level is something out of the 1870s for a lot of stations. The siting for a lot of stations is usually pretty poor as well with terrible/nonexistent walkshed considerations (see the Palm Springs station, try walking to your hotel from that).
- ska 3y agoFair enough, I was using "coverage" for actual trips, not nominal rail extent. "Service" is a better description. Your point about siting is very true.