3 ms·

Surely the point of using a super-fast transport method is in order to traverse long distances. Say for example that the 40 mile journey could be done by a 60mp

Surely the point of using a super-fast transport method is in order to traverse long distances. Say for example that the 40 mile journey could be done by a 60mph train in 40 minutes, whereas this new train will take 15 minutes. That's only a saving of 25 minutes. If the train is only running once every half an hour or once an hour, people will end up waiting around for a train for longer than sitting in it. Run this over a 400 mile journey, and yes I'd say it was worth it.

fennecfoxen 12y ago
There's already a super-high-speed transit route between two major cities about 400 miles apart (e.g. Washington and Boston). It's called an airplane -- takes about 75 minutes, plus airport-related overhead on either end. This is the would-be 400-mile maglev's competition, not existing train service. And yes, I'm sure the maglev would be more convenient and nicer and otherwise objectively Better in a variety of ways, but the capital expenditures needed to make these incremental gains happen is huge. > If the train is only running once every half an hour or once an hour, people will end up waiting around for a train for longer than sitting in it. No, people don't generally treat commuter trains the same way that they treat subway services and the like. They try to show up for a specific train at a specific time.
- mnw21cam 12y ago
  > No, people don't generally treat commuter trains the same way that they treat subway services and the like. They try to show up for a specific train at a specific time. If they come in on a connecting service, they sometimes don't have a choice. Agreed about the airplane, although airport-related overhead is usually quite a bit more than train station-related overhead.
imgabe 12y ago
If you think you're going to drive 60mph the entire way from DC to Baltimore, you're going to be sorely disappointed.

fennecfoxen 12y ago

There's already a super-high-speed transit route between two major cities about 400 miles apart (e.g. Washington and Boston). It's called an airplane -- takes about 75 minutes, plus airport-related overhead on either end. This is the would-be 400-mile maglev's competition, not existing train service. And yes, I'm sure the maglev would be more convenient and nicer and otherwise objectively Better in a variety of ways, but the capital expenditures needed to make these incremental gains happen is huge. > If the train is only running once every half an hour or once an hour, people will end up waiting around for a train for longer than sitting in it. No, people don't generally treat commuter trains the same way that they treat subway services and the like. They try to show up for a specific train at a specific time.

mnw21cam 12y ago
> No, people don't generally treat commuter trains the same way that they treat subway services and the like. They try to show up for a specific train at a specific time. If they come in on a connecting service, they sometimes don't have a choice. Agreed about the airplane, although airport-related overhead is usually quite a bit more than train station-related overhead.

imgabe 12y ago

If you think you're going to drive 60mph the entire way from DC to Baltimore, you're going to be sorely disappointed.