21–30 of 171 posts
High speed rail is a non-starter in the US, except for in certain regions. It's 2000 miles from Chicago to LA. Optimistically, if you had a train that averaged 200 miles an hour, it would still take 10 hours. That's just not competitive.
Security lines are shorter, and the beginning and end of a train trip both happen at a literal train station, so it's usually easier to get into and out of the city center.
High speed rail is a non-starter in the US, except for in certain regions. It's 2000 miles from Chicago to LA. Optimistically, if you had a train that averaged 200 miles an hour, it would still take 10 hours. That's just not competitive.
100% spot on. Many don't realize just how large the us is. Going from SF to ATL is longer distance than Portugal to Belarus.
We have $2/gallon gas, from massive domestic production (and similar or lower prices for Jet-A). There are traffic congestion reasons for mass transit in cities, but we're pretty sorted for inter-city.
You can do a lot better than that with even decently upgraded "legacy" rail, never mind a Shinkansen/TGV type system. For example, London-Manchester is 210 miles, and trains take only 2 hours.
We have $2/gallon gas, from massive domestic production (and similar or lower prices for Jet-A). There are traffic congestion reasons for mass transit in cities, but we're pretty sorted for inter-city.
High speed rail is a non-starter in the US, except for in certain regions. It's 2000 miles from Chicago to LA. Optimistically, if you had a train that averaged 200 miles an hour, it would still take 10 hours. That's just not competitive.
100% spot on. Many don't realize just how large the us is. Going from SF to ATL is longer distance than Portugal to Belarus.
High speed rail is a non-starter in the US, except for in certain regions. It's 2000 miles from Chicago to LA. Optimistically, if you had a train that averaged 200 miles an hour, it would still take 10 hours. That's just not competitive.
Make it an overnight train with a real bed and the train sounds more appealing to me. Do a days work in Chicago, go to sleep, wake up, do a days work in LA.
Cue the zealots hailing second coming of the lord savior Musk who will cure all of the US from it's transportation problems by digging a dumbass service tunnel
Tunnels in cities and trains between cities are not at odds with each other. Let’s not be zealots about that. The tunnels seem fine to me within cities, but I am all for trains between cities.
We have $2/gallon gas, from massive domestic production (and similar or lower prices for Jet-A). There are traffic congestion reasons for mass transit in cities, but we're pretty sorted for inter-city.
Cue the zealots hailing second coming of the lord savior Musk who will cure all of the US from it's transportation problems by digging a dumbass service tunnel
This is at least as bad as what you're scorning.