Re:America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
by closeparen on Saturday May 20, 2017 @08:25PM
(#14385123)
No. A handful of city pairs have reasonably popular rail service (Milwaukee-Chicago, Boston-New York) which you might use becasue the freeways tend to be congested. The duration is comparable to a drive in clear traffic.
For any other route, a family would fly and then rent a car if upper class or drive if middle/lower class.
Amtrak sometimes serves these routes, but costs more than flying and takes days instead of hours (3 days Chicago to SF, 24 hours Chicago to New York or New Orleans, and if Chicago isn't on the way, you'll need to detour through Union Station). The max flight time here would be ~6 hours.
Re:America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
by irixusr on Thursday May 18, 2017 @11:03PM
(#14372744)
Too far apart does mean that A to B is so much further than A to B in Europe. It means that there's nothing in between them, so it would be insane to build a passenger rail line (i.e. high speeds, high priority on the queue, locomotives, ect). A 1000 km length of track in Europe serves 10, 15 cities. In the American west it serves the passengers of 2.
>too far apart to reasonably take trains between them //
It's way nicer IMO doing inter city travel by train. One of my favourite journeys ever was from Wales, via England to South France.
Aren't railways one of the main ways to do long journeys between cities?