>>1605477I've spent some time overseas in Europe and SEA, and I think I get the point of why this sub never stops talking about passenger rail lines. In Europe for example, at least in Norway, towns seem relatively close together, at least in the south, and even around Trondheim in the central coast(?). In SEA, Malaysia as my example, there was this beat up old engine and two box cars with benches that ferried people back and forth in and out of the country to the city. I get that, they're poor, there's no roads, so take the train.
In the states, at least farther away from the east coast, cities are more spread out, and a 3-4hr drive between cities isn't out of the question. So my question is this:
1: Is there enough movement between two cities to justify a rail line, and would people use said rail line? San Diego to LA or SF gets brought up a lot, but there's already a commuter line that runs that. How many people regularly travel from LA to Denver? Is there enough of a demand for a cross-country rail line? Yes, infrastructure already exists, but that's currently used by freight trains that usually run through BFE, and good luck arguing with them for space.
2: If the above answer is yes, is it worth the cost? Let's say you're able to use 60-75% of existing rail lines, is it worth the price of building that extra 25%? Viable coast-to-coast transport already exists. I'd venture to say that most people flying from NY to LA are either A: On vacation or B: Businessmen doing business. Why would either of those groups want to spend time on a train, when they could enjoy their vacation where they're going, or do business and come back?
I'm not against it, I just don't see how it's something that could be implemented on a national scale. Pic unrelated.
