• 𝕾𝖕𝖎𝖈𝖞 𝕿𝖚𝖓𝖆@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    If it takes more than 4-6 hours to drive there, high speed rail is the clear choice. I’m someone who has been on several 10+ hour road trips, and driving for more than a few hours at a time sucks. You waste up to an entire day just driving. Even if it does take the same amount of time, it’d be nice to nap or read a book in that time instead of focusing on just driving. It’s mentally and physically exhausting.

    Especially I-70 in western Kansas and eastern Colorado.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The problem with trains is that they are expensive to maintain and slower (at least the traditional trains are)

    • tlou3please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The furthest I’ve driven in one day was about 9 hours to Edinburgh. Our trains over here are stupid expensive so it worked out much cheaper. But damn I regretted it big time around hour 4 when I realised I wasn’t even half way.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        No way man, I’ve ridden the train London to the UK. It’s expensive in the sense that a first class ticket for me was … 200 pounds I believe? Amtrak is gobs more for a much worse experience. We’re fighting tooth and nail over here in the states to try to have something close to your system

        • tlou3please@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not tried rail in the USA so yeah, fair enough. But I’ve been to Italy a few times and I’m always jealous of their rail.

          • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Fair, although while my ride in Italy was faster, I vastly preferred the overall vibe of the UK’s system.

            It’s honestly hard to explain because it’s so much different compared to your guys’.

            So we have exactly one route that can go up to 125, in a couple of places. So taking that one out of the equation, the next highest speed in our entire system is 90mph.

            I live in Seattle, about 4 million people, about 1.8x of Manchester. We have 3 rail lines, that take you to 3 places.

            • Portland, 5 times a day, 4 hours away
            • Vancouver BC, 3 times a day, 3 hours away
            • Chicago, 1 time a day, 36 hours away.
            • LA, 1 time a day, 24 hours away

            We have what you would call a “well connected” city in the states too. Outside of the northeast corridor, this is in fact a “train city” here in the states.

    • ramble81@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Except in most of the (non-New England) US. San Antonio to Dallas by car is 4-5 hours. By train it’s 10-11 because it has to constantly pull over for the freight trains that own the tracks. The US only has about 100 miles of HSR for the whole country.

      • edgemaster72@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think they meant it more in a “high speed rail would work better in these situations if we had it” rather than “we totally have that infrastructure in place let’s use it”. That was my read anyway. Plus, my understanding is that what we consider HSR here barely even qualifies as such in other parts of the world.