LA is a bottleneck if you assume every single line and dot is perfectly equal. If we’re already imaging a well built system then that green line would have a higher frequency of train to accommodate what you’re talking about and it’s station(s) would be large enough to handle the fact that it would absolutely be a major hub.
Efficiency is not always about perfection for every single trip. Cars(in a car-centric hellhole, at least) will take you from your driveway to your destination parking lot but they are vastly inferior to the overall efficiency of a metro that you walk five minutes to and is then five minutes from your destination. This is highspeed rail, there’s not much extra time being taken if you don’t go direct direct, it’ll be fine.
exasperation@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
The problem is that population distribution means that almost nobody is going to be getting on or off the train between Minneapolis and Seattle. The population of North Dakota is 800k, South Dakota is 925k, Nebraska is 2 million, Montana is 1.1 million, Wyoming is 590k, Idaho is 2 million. That’s nearly a whole quadrant of the country with less population than the Houston metro area. If we’re building trains, let’s build trains in Houston and serve the same number of people with like a tiny percentage of track that it would take to serve the upper plains states.
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 22 hours ago
exactly. even under communism/socialism, a business must still operate at least somewhat meaningfully. it can’t just be “trains for the sake of trains”. there has to be a meaningful number of people served per km of rail. that’s why it makes sense near the coastlines.
also, short reminder that even if a rail goes at 200 mph, it would still take around 15 hours to travel the 3000 miles from east to west coast. almost nobody is willing to sit in a train for 15 hours straight. at that distance, most people prefer an airplane. it’s significantly faster.
i did some quick maths and calculated that at least in europe, for distances greater than ~800 km, an airplane is mostly faster than a train, at least in western europe.