• buckykat@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Wrong, good intercity high speed trains are so much faster that they beat cars even accounting for last mile trips by other methods

    • Uprise42@artemis.camp
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m gonna reveal more than I’d like to, but I think geographies play a big role here. I’m in America. Rail sucks. It’d take massive investment to make them remotely viable for regular intercity transportation.

      I live in Johnstown PA. I frequently travel to Pittsburgh PA because Johnstown is a shit city and offers nothing. But shit cities are were most of the focus is needed. Many people around here don’t understand how much of a difference that would make because what we have now is abhorrent. I need to walk over a mile to my nearest bus stop down a hill with a 10% grade and no sidewalks to be safe on. And that’s if it shows up. Half the time our buses are broke down and non-functional. Of course no one wants to invest more in it when they don’t see the use of it.

      But I punched in a train ticket to Pittsburgh. It only leaves 1 time per day at 3:45 PM. It requires a bus connection. It takes 2 hours and 25 minutes. It costs $45 per person. It takes me an hour to drive to Pittsburgh and with my EV that is within a full charge so I can charge at home where I will never notice the cost

      Trains are economical, but are not faster for intercity travel. Maybe in Europe but cities are more progressed there and have the funding to do quick travel. In the United States trains are not going to become viable for a very long time unless your on a subway and staying in the same city.

    • PrettyFlyForAFatGuy
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      wrong yourself

      over double the time to get to my destination if i take public transport.

      This includes high speed rail