3 ms·
It could be that the US's high-risk/high-reward/failure-positive ethic means that elastic transportation routings are more economically valuable than fixed-segm
by malchow 12y ago
It could be that the US's high-risk/high-reward/failure-positive ethic means that elastic transportation routings are more economically valuable than fixed-segment trains.
A train is 10% better than a jet from SF to LA. A train is much worse than a jet for SF to NY. All other pairings -- or so one might argue -- are so much lesser in density that the elasticity of roads is vastly preferable.
- hackuser 12y ago> A train is 10% better than a jet from SF to LA. A train is much worse than a jet for SF to NY. All other pairings -- or so one might argue -- are so much lesser in density that the elasticity of roads is vastly preferable. I think there are many other possibilities, and also many people live in cities of hundreds of thousands, all over America, and they'd like to travel too. * The NE corridor, from DC to Boston, of course. Maybe south to NC * Chicago - Indianapolis - Cincinnati - Columbus - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Detroit (- Toronto) (That would include a spur or two, of course.) And what about people in Green Bay and Grand Rapids? * The Florida cities, maybe up to Atlanta or West to New Orleans * Texas cities