3 ms·
> Why? Because (ignoring the middle of the continent for a moment) "LA" is actually a very large area where having a single stop erases many of the advantages
by runako 2mo ago
> Why?
Because (ignoring the middle of the continent for a moment) "LA" is actually a very large area where having a single stop erases many of the advantages cited for trains. LA does not really have the sort of city center of most train-centric cities, and LA has poor public transit. On the other end, "NYC" has the same property, mostly because you would want to include people from other parts of the densely-populated region around NYC and not just make everyone schlep into Manhattan.
The Shanghai<->Beijing HSR has 24 stops over 819 miles, for example. Similarly, it would only make sense for a US HSR to stop in e.g. Dallas or Chicago or other cities in between.
> I'd rather sleep during my travel and enjoy the destination than waste time recovering in my hotel room. The alternative is to waste your day flying out so you don't lose sleep.
Yeah, like I said individual preference. I don't normally want to do back-to-back redeye flights, but I have done it and am glad it was an option.
- triceratops 1mo agoIf we're talking about a replacement or alternative for flying between NY and LA, a non-stop train makes perfect sense. Planes don't stop. A high-speed train can carry more passengers than a 737.
- runako 1mo agoThis would make sense if the US only had two major coastal cities, but that's not the case. From another of my comments: A realistic HSR network in the US will also involve changing trains in the midwest because there are too many pairs of big cities involved. Miami<->SF, Atlanta<->LA, DC<->SF, Philadelphia<->Phoenix, etc.