wrote:
On Friday, January 18, 2019 at 9:12:12 AM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 11:12:57 AM UTC-5, RichA wrote:
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46862486

And the US could still build such a thing, except for all the wasteful
projects such as the "bullet train," for example:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fed...t-bullet-train

It would save a few hours over driving on a trip from LA to SF but won't
go from San Diego to Phoenix. If you're in THAT much of a hurry, you can
fly, at a cost to the environment, but not your conscience, if you are a
hypocritical greenie.



Travelling by high speed train is a much more pleasant experience than
flying or driving.

[anecdotal opinions deleted]

Absolutely not. Flying is faster for long hauls, and for short or medium
hauls driving gives great flexibility along the route and at the
destination. Trains have the inflexibility of flying and the time savings
are only somewhat better than what a car can manage if the train doesn't
go to your destination.

That train is going to cost each Californian $2500 even if they never
have reason to ride it at all.



Have you ever travelled by high speed train in Europe? Have you even been
on the ridiculously slow trains in the USA? Flying is not a good experience
and the waiting to fly, even in a first class lounge is tedious. If you
haven’t been on a high speed train in Europe you can’t have any idea of how
the journey goes.
If an aircraft doesn’t go to your destination you need transfers from the
airport. This could be train, bus, tram, underground, hired car, taxi.
You have one less option if you go by train.