Asklemmy

55535 readers

559 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

Does this explain why there are no bullet trains in the USA? (piefed.social)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by Shadow79@piefed.social to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Short answer: cities are too far apart and the USA is large. However, how much funding is there to really implement the same thing that exists in Japan but in the United States? Also, is there an incentive for that in the first place? What about population density? Japan is more compact regarding their population density while that's not the case for America plus both Osaka & Kyoto aren't too far from each other (but Miami & Washington DC are distant).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jacksilver@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I feel like people forget how much infrastructure is required to keep high speed rail running. Not only do you need the stations, but the tracks (bridges, tunnels, etc.) all need to be maintained. Additionally, when doing maintenance you can't run the line, so you either need extra capacity so you don't disrupt service or you end up with times you have to shut lines down.

In comparison, planes just need a strip of flat land at takeoff and landing (you technically don't even need an airport). You're primary bottleneck is how fast you can get planes on/off the tarmac.

One of the other big issues in rail vs plane is that high speed rail only works at certain grade levels and turn radiuses. So for example, I believe you couldn't convert the existing northeast corridor in the US to 300mph rail from end to end simply due to the geography. You'd need to create a new route. Looking it up there are speed limits around 30-40mph for Amtrak around Baltimore and Wilmington.