6 ms·
The real solution should be a massive intercity bullet train program that connects major transit hubs, like the interstate highway buildout. The massive infrast
by pm90 5mo ago
The real solution should be a massive intercity bullet train program that connects major transit hubs, like the interstate highway buildout. The massive infrastructure spend would kickstart the US economy and provide thousands of jobs.
- bravoetch 5mo agoWhy do people want to generate jobs? I'd rather generate a jobless utopia where we all do art.
- brookst 5mo agoCheck out the etymology of “utopia”
- HWR_14 5mo agoBecause today the options are "jobs exist" or "people starve in the street".
- Jtarii 5mo agoHate to break it to you but the average guy that does manual labour would more likely become a criminal than a musician if you deleted his job. What's that saying about idle hands. Jobs root people to their communities and give them purpose in life.
- ksherlock 5mo agoScenario: It's Friday night. You don't have to work tomorrow. Are you more likely to pull out your hammer and chisel and work on a classical marble sculpture -or- get shit faced at a dive bar? Hey, maybe the vomit splatters will evoke Jackson Pollock!
- 999900000999 5mo agoSounds good if you live on the East Coast. Even with Japanese level high speed rail NYC to LA still takes much much longer than flying. You need to buy land. Disrupt wildlife, and various ecosystems. The government should of bailed out Spirit instead. They served a public good. Allowing lower to middle income people to travel helps everyone.
- nerdsniper 5mo agoTrains have been proven to be able to go at least 375mph [0]. That would make NYC->SF take 6.9 hours to travel the 4162 km. The current average flight time from NYC to SF is 6.7 hours. So, it's at least technically possible. China is doing R&D on a partial-vacuum train (basically Musk's hyperloop thing) with a target of 1,243 mph[1]. That's probably a pipe dream, but worth mentioning nonetheless. > The government should of [sic] bailed out Spirit instead. I'd be okay with this if all the taxpayers were granted equal shares that their collective money could have purchased at an imputed no-bailout price. 0: L0 Series SCMaglev 1: T-Flight train
- haldujai 5mo ago> The current average flight time from NYC to SF is 6.7 hours. What's your source for this? I take this flight a lot and I find it hard to believe it's more than 5.5-5.75 on average. Looking at the last few weeks for one of them[0] supports my experience. Maybe your number has TSA/airport time included. [0] https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua1777 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua1777
- dml2135 5mo agoIt's probably scheduled times. I find that time in the air ends up being about an hour less than the time on the ticket.
- 999900000999 5mo agoThat's straight math. Not assuming any stops or slow downs. According to Gemini this hypothetical train would take about 18 hours. It would also cost hundreds of billions of dollars and a decade to build. Doesn't do much for seeing Uncle John next Tuesday. I like trains. I like them a lot. But they don't work over long distances. Particular when you have dozens of state and city jurisdictions to cross. Each of them get a vote. Honestly I'd be happy just to have quality HSR on the East Coast. Boston to Richmond takes like 12 hours right now. Maybe the West Coast could get a Seattle to San Diego route.
- Brendinooo 5mo agoBullet trains would be good in tighter networks of cities. Southern Cal, Acela corridor. But I'm just not sure the demand would be there for longer distances unless it's so cheap that it's worth the extra time. Like what's China to Kunmung, a 6 hour flight vs a 12 hour train, at a comparable cost?
- foolfoolz 5mo agoeven SF to LA would have trouble with a high speed rail because the price would likely be the same as a flight
- tecleandor 5mo agoIn Spain, a similar length high speed train route would be Madrid-Barcelona, that's 400miles and takes 2h 30min. If you offer me the same price for flying than for taking the high speed train, I'll take the train every time. In practice it'll take less travel time, no security lines or theater (no problem bringing your water bottle or whatever), you can bring more luggage, you can stand up/walk/visit the bar during the trip, you go from city center to city center so you don't have to spend an extra in taxis... I just arrive there 20-30 minutes before the train leaves and that's all.
- ehremington 5mo agothere will be no theater until a terrorist attacks it and then it will be exactly the same
- tecleandor 5mo agoWe've had terrorists attacks on trains around here, and the only theater we have is a super quick xray scan of our baggage.
- pahkah 5mo agoOh I don't know — I travel the Boston-DC route a lot and fly only because it's significantly cheaper than taking the train. If prices were comparable I would take the train even without it being "high speed", I think there's a market for high speed rail if the prices were as low as flights!
- hnhnhnhnhnhnhn 5mo agoFar too expensive