Comment on Is America's quest for high-speed trains finally picking up steam?
bilb@lem.monster 1 year agoFlying is such a miserable experience from start to finish that I would opt for rail every time if it was viable, even if it took 3-4 times as long.
The problem today is that it’s an order of magnitude longer. Chicago to LA by airplane is 4 hours. Chicago to LA via Amtrak is about 56 hours. I don’t know that high speed rail is going to fix that problem, sure it might get it down some, but even a 24 hour train is six times longer than flying.
I say this as someone that takes Amtrak at every opportunity because I enjoy trains and want to see them become viable for more people.
You’re looking at it from a coast to coast perspective when it should really be an intra-state one.
People aren’t regularly traveling from Chicago to La on a daily basis, even by plane. They are traveling within the same state or to nearby states instead.
Dallas-Houston, SF-LA, Miami-Orlando are all distances that people have to drive/fly to on a daily basis that could easily be replaced by hsr.
Puzzle_Sluts_4Ever@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I mean, the good news is that you basically already can
Quick check says amtrak from NYP to LAX is 67.5 hours long. Or about 2.79 days
Which is a lot more than a six hour flight. But… that is six hours plus an hour or so on each side (at least) AND is a direct flight, so “one day” is how I would classify that. You aren’t doing much in a day when you fly from NY to LA.
Which… is the 3-4x as long that you were asking for.
But hey. Maybe you are cool with spending the vast majority of a week long holiday in a train. I doubt your employers are fine with you spending three days to go to a conference on the west coast.