Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

Post

Remote status

Context

7666

"why doesn't america just make trains bro" maybe because in order to traverse a quarter of the width of this country it will take eight hours at full highway speed, and high speed rail (>100mph) is expensive as shit to get right. Amtrak is trying but people would rather just have a car because YOU NEED ONE ANYWAY IF YOU ARE NOT SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF A CITY. America is fucking huge. A single state can be the size of a full European country.

the only valid use case for rail here has been avoiding traffic in dense metro areas or specific inter city projects which I fully support because who the fuck wants to drive in NYC or Chicago and deal with parking, and there is a good story for hopping between hubs to travel, plus air travel being shaky here makes a stronger case, but I'd still rather just hop in my car and road trip it because it's more fun.

Replying to @7666@comp.lain.la

Emelia/Emi

@becomethewaifu@tech.lgbt remote

@7666 "Yeah but." The vast majority of the population lives near the coasts in big cities, so while we still have significantly less population than China (one of the common examples of an HSR boom) and thus can't really justify cross-continent HSR, we still have the necessary density (and demand) for much more comprehensive regional service than we currently do.

(It also doesn't help that we don't even try to make tracks for even highway speed most of the time, given that they're almost all owned by freight companies. There's no good reason the Amtrak from NYC to chicago should only average 30-40 MPH with how few stops it makes. Coal doesn't really care whether it takes 3 hours or 8 to get somewhere, but people do. But the freight companies that own the lines don't want to pay for the extra maintenance of the faster speeds if it won't benefit their bottom line. It's a "perverse incentives" problem)

In other words: I agree with almost all your points in certain cases.

Replies

No replies yet.