Yeah, while I’m a huge advocate for an American Shinkansen, there’s really 4 zones of America for train speeds. East of the Appalachians its fast and easy and rail already works easy. West of them but east of the Mississippi, you’re gonna need high speed rail, but it’ll be somewhat similar to Europe. Between the Mississippi and the west coast, you’re gonna need high speed rail and quite a bit of patience. And on the west coast, you’ll hit up small cities, but honestly it’d be a great second high speed line after the New York-Chicago
Comment on Anon likes trains
Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 3 days agoThese small towns would still be an hour+ away from large cities, even with European speed high speed rail.
Like for me, the nearest “big town” is about 100 miles from me, which is about a 2hr drive. And, at least from some quick googling, it looks like most commuter rail in France tops out at about 100mph…
captainlezbian@lemmy.world 3 days ago
piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
You’d be suprised how many people commute more than an hour by car. The prospect of having affordable housing with more job opportunities will certainly bring in more people.
Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 3 days ago
France spends ~$15 million/mile for high speed commuter rail. Which means that line would cost $1.5 billion.
I don’t think it’s bringing in that many more people. Even when you amortize it across all of the little cities it would go through
piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
Implying the line would stop at the town and not carry on to the next. Also, how much is being spent on building and maintaining freeways?
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago
too much, which is why I propose dirt highways with 45mph speed limits. Low initial cost, drivers drive safer, and helps the towing industry grow.
Lv_InSaNe_vL@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Please read the comment in it’s entirety before responding ❤️