you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 7 points 23 hours ago* (8 children)

Only because US train system is biased toward freight.

Not complaining, it is what it is.

That said, I don't see any pragmatic way to build passenger high-speed rail across the US. Every state would want it to run for them - otherwise they won't support it. Then every city, etc.

Edit: for straight shots (point-to-point) across vast distances I don't see train ever matching planes (like NY to LA)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

    The US rail network is already kind of a disaster. A lot of major cities don't even have passenger rail stations at all. There are entire STATES that don't have a single amtrack station lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 20 hours ago* (1 child)

    It would be most feasible to have like three high speed rails in the US. Up and down both coasts, and then east coast to west coast through the midwest, Denver, SLC etc.

    That alone would be enough to replace a ton of car and plane trips, even if it didn’t provide service everywhere

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 19 hours ago

    We can't even build a single HSR line anywhere in the US

    We're a long ways away from being able to even think about trans-continental HSR

    We simply do not have the competence to do it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 hours ago (2 children)

    NYC to LA is 4000km, so a dead straight non stop rail route operating at the current peak of high speed rail (200mph) would still take 12 hours. As soon as you pick a real route and stops and account for that speed being unrealistically expensive you're looking at over 24h I think.

    The annoying thing is that rail infrastructure is also expensive to maintain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments