3 ms·
> How does the geographic context explain how the US was (apparently) an excellent fit for passenger rail until the 1920s-1930s, but not anymore? Simple answer
by throwaway2037 2y ago
> How does the geographic context explain how the US was (apparently) an excellent fit for passenger rail until the 1920s-1930s, but not anymore?
Simple answer: Cars and aeroplanes and gov't money for both, and lack of gov't money for passenger trains.
> Even in Japan, where you can ride the bullet train all the way from Kyushu to Hokkaido, almost anyone would book a flight for that unless they really hated flying.
To be clear, the purpose of a bullet train between Kyushu and Hokkaido isn't to serve end to end. Rather, it is to serve region to region: Kyushu to Osaka/Kyoto, then Osaka/Kyoto to Nagoya, then Nagoya to Tokyo, and Tokyo to... Sendai(?). Honestly, I don't know why Japan is wasting money to build the bullet train to Sapporo, Hokkaido. It will never get enough passengers to make economic sense. After 800-900km of distance, it hardly makes sense to ride a bullet train. Get on a short flight instead. (Tangent: We really need electric aeroplanes to service these 90 minute routes in most countries.)
- wpm 2y ago> Simple answer: Cars and aeroplanes and gov't money for both, and lack of gov't money for passenger trains. That has nothing to do with geography and everything to do with politics.
- throwaway2037 2y ago> How does the geographic context explain Let me summarise further: It does not. That was the point of my answer.
- mitthrowaway2 2y agoExactly! That's exactly my point. That is why the geography and the size of the contentinent are mostly irrelevant, and trains don't have to be competitive with flights for trips between terminus stations, because most travel takes place between stations a shorter distance along the lines.