Skip to content

Comment on Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

Comments

Outside the NE corridor, any significant amount of rail is a pipe dream. Why spent trillions to provide service that planes are already providing more than enough service to? At least I can take a plane from here to wherever I want in the United States. Rail? Oh, I'd have to travel to the nearest station (potentially hours away) and then hope it goes anywhere near where I want to go. And judging based on that map, it will go near maybe 5% of the locations I'd like to go.

And the linked article doesn't seem to take into account the massive operating subsidies that rail requires. It's a money loser nearly everywhere (except, sometimes, in the NE corridor).

"In 1970, the year before Amtrak took over the nation's passenger trains, average rail fares were about one-third less than average airfares—about 18 cents (in today's pennies) versus 27 cents per passenger mile. Four decades of Amtrak management have reversed this ratio and more: by 2011, average rail fares were 110 percent greater than airfares—about 28.5 cents versus 13.8 cents per passenger mile (see Figure 1)." [1]

[1]: www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA712.pdf

Airfare also relies heavily on subsidies, but fortunately investors keep investing in airlines, so it doesn't cost the public much.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.