The problem is that population distribution means that almost nobody is going to be getting on or off the train between Minneapolis and Seattle. The population of North Dakota is 800k, South Dakota is 925k, Nebraska is 2 million, Montana is 1.1 million, Wyoming is 590k, Idaho is 2 million. That’s nearly a whole quadrant of the country with less population than the Houston metro area. If we’re building trains, let’s build trains in Houston and serve the same number of people with like a tiny percentage of track that it would take to serve the upper plains states.
exactly. even under communism/socialism, a business must still operate at least somewhat meaningfully. it can’t just be “trains for the sake of trains”. there has to be a meaningful number of people served per km of rail. that’s why it makes sense near the coastlines.
also, short reminder that even if a rail goes at 200 mph, it would still take around 15 hours to travel the 3000 miles from east to west coast. almost nobody is willing to sit in a train for 15 hours straight. at that distance, most people prefer an airplane. it’s significantly faster.
i did some quick maths and calculated that at least in europe, for distances greater than ~800 km (~600 miles), an airplane is mostly faster than a train, at least in western europe.
The problem is that population distribution means that almost nobody is going to be getting on or off the train between Minneapolis and Seattle. The population of North Dakota is 800k, South Dakota is 925k, Nebraska is 2 million, Montana is 1.1 million, Wyoming is 590k, Idaho is 2 million. That’s nearly a whole quadrant of the country with less population than the Houston metro area. If we’re building trains, let’s build trains in Houston and serve the same number of people with like a tiny percentage of track that it would take to serve the upper plains states.
exactly. even under communism/socialism, a business must still operate at least somewhat meaningfully. it can’t just be “trains for the sake of trains”. there has to be a meaningful number of people served per km of rail. that’s why it makes sense near the coastlines.
also, short reminder that even if a rail goes at 200 mph, it would still take around 15 hours to travel the 3000 miles from east to west coast. almost nobody is willing to sit in a train for 15 hours straight. at that distance, most people prefer an airplane. it’s significantly faster.
i did some quick maths and calculated that at least in europe, for distances greater than ~800 km (~600 miles), an airplane is mostly faster than a train, at least in western europe.