undefined | Better HN

0 pointsNaac5y ago0 comments

>> It's hard to justify investing in rail. At best, in most parts of the US it is slower, more expensive, and less convenient

But that's because we haven't invested in it! Before the 1960s most roads in the US were also terrible, so by that logic we shouldn't have invested in the Highway/Freeway Interstate system.

0 comments

ethbr05y ago

Seriously.

Here's the Amtrak network: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Am...

Here's the US freight rail network: https://i.imgur.com/4TYsU_d.webp?maxwidth=1024&fidelity=medi...

You can't tell me we can't do better.

rootusrootus5y ago

We could definitely have a beautiful, big, fast train network. But most people still wouldn't use it.

ashtonkem5y ago

Evidence from Europe and Asia shows that this is probably wrong. People in those areas strongly prefer high speed rail for trips that are less than 3-4 hours long, and begin to switch over to airplanes beyond that.

2 more replies

ulfw5y ago

Why not?

There's tons of routes in the US that could make sense if there wasn't so much NIMBYism, corruption and the oil and auto lobby, let's be honest.

SF-Sacramento, SF-LA, LA-San Diego, LA-Vegas, Seattle-Portland, the whole Northeast Corridor (a better truly high speed Acela), Houston-Dallas, Orlando-Miami, Pittsburg-DC and and and. There's lots of large cities in the US in the high speed rail sweetspot of 400-800 miles (2-4h travel time) apart

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse