4 ms·
The problem is the equivalent driving times aren't crazy on those routes either though. When you factor in that you need a car in both your departing city and
by pembrook 2y ago
The problem is the equivalent driving times aren't crazy on those routes either though.
When you factor in that you need a car in both your departing city and destination city (except for NYC), AND the fact that nearly every household in those regions owns one or multiple cars (which is not true in higher density/higher urbanization countries)...it begins to not make sense especially given the massive upfront cost of construction.
- mnky9800n 2y agoYou highlighted it. The real problem is when you get somewhere you still need a car.
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoIt's possible that would gradually start to change, starting around rail stations.
- mnky9800n 2y agoThat requires the area around rail stations to be built for pedestrians and bicycles, not cars. That doesn’t seem to be the case in many places in America.
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoPlaces can change! American cities were built for pedestrians in the '20s, and Dutch cities were built fir cars until the '90s.
- ghaff 2y agoI do take Acela from Central Massachusetts to NYC but mostly because I hate driving into NYC so much. (And don't need a car when I get there.) It basically involves driving an hour in the wrong direction to south suburban Boston. I could drive to New Haven and for a longer drive I'd get a shorter/cheaper trip.