• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you look at the various proposals, you’ll see they start like that. You start with focus areas where cities are close together, such as connecting cities in the Midwest to Chicago. You have similar opportunities in southeast, Texas, California, northwest, and of course the northeast where we already have Acela.

    However, once those are established, neighboring cities naturally want to be extended to. You can easily imagine that process eventually turning into a connected map - except maybe Great Plains and Rockies

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah I definitely support that model. I’m just not convinced very many people would want to go coast to coast by this method. It’s likely to be more expensive and slower.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A bunch of years back, I remember reading about 500 miles as a rule of thumb for that tradeoff. Between two cities less than 500 miles apart, high speed rail could be the preferred travel choice, while air travel clearly wins for longer distances.

        Obviously the exact distance depends on the details, but we would do well to present high speed rail for the trips that it can be better.

        For me personally, I love travel by train and hope some day to travel long distance at least once. I live near Boston, one of the few US cities with pretty good transit, and one end of Acela, the closest we have to high speed rail. From the time Acela opened, it was immediately the best choice to travel Boston —> NYC. However I’ve been to DC every year and never tempted to take the train. Flying is better for that distance, given how slow Acela is: sure enough, close to 500 miles

        • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah Acela isn’t really true high speed rail though. Many sections are slower. Boston to DC would be workable with the right infrastructure. But coast to coast is over 3000 miles which is a whole different beast, barring some technological advancement.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Acela isn’t really true high speed rail though

            Last time I looked, it could only achieve its top speed of 150mph for 35 miles!

            However the whole idea of Acela is incremental improvement. They did enough initially to make it viable, then Every year they knock a minute or so off the trip. The new train sets have a higher top speed so that should help, when they get into service. I recently saw a project announcement for replacing a tunnel near Baltimore where it was stuck under 30 mph. The new tunnel won’t be high speed but clear enough of a bottleneck to be a nice trip time improvement

            • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I actually like Acela. You have to work with the infrastructure you start with, but eventually I’d like to see a faster and more subsidized line there.