Yes, a train has some advantages. For those listed above, do
you think that justifies spending trillions of dollars to link
the midwest cities, like harry says? And again, look at the highest
speed train service we have, Amtrak's Acela from Boston to DC.
Look at the ticket prices versus a plane. They overlap. Yet the
train can't make money and the airline does. And that is without
all the billions it would take to upgrade the whole rail system to
make it faster. What would a ticket have to cost then to
make it pay for itself? You would be like the Concorde, which,
come to think of it, was a British idea. A great technological
achievment and a complete commercial failure.
# Obviously they have. Or who would be on the trains?
is this the same China where they have been building whole cities across
that country that are no standing empty ?
What the two segments about China.
Rich people in those two cities. You are giving us an example of two
of the richest cities in the world and then saying the US should build
a train between Fumbeck Alabama and Pig's Knuckle Texas.
The part you ignore is the Chinese are buying cars at a faster rate
than any country in the world. Somebody there doesn't want to ride the
Passenger trains work well in the UK but the scale mitigates against them in
You speak of the midwest. Take two mid-west cities: Chicago and Detroit. The
two are 282 miles apart. That distance exceeds the widest part of the UK!
Train service in the UK more closely resembles that found in US subway
systems - it is no way equivalent to the US train network.
A question (rhetorical, of course).
Let's suppose for a moment there was a high speed train to
Detroit from Chicago.
Or, to Detroit from Cleveland.
Or, to Detroit from ANYwhere.
Seriously -- how many folks want to go to Detroit?
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.