Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

300 mile sweetspot

Yet again, Southwest.com is $200 from Philly to Pittsburgh, and Amtrak is $110. Except then I'm spending 14 hours on a train round-trip. If I'm going to spend 14 hours on my trip, then I might as well drive to Pittsburgh which takes me 10 hours round trip and about $30 less, not to mention I have a car to get me around.

Of course we could build the high speed network and subsidize the benefits to cut that down to ~5 hours, but then we get to pay the additional cost anyway come every April 15th. Trains are still a lose-lose. The highway system is already subsidized and we lose money on that, there's no reason to subsidize more transportation.

Pardon me for trying to cut the fat when I'm going to be paying my country's debt for the next 20 years.



Do you not understand what highspeed means? The train you're booking today goes really slow. That's not being argued. The trains they want to build go much faster. There are other up sides too, such as internet access and phone service, not having to go through the TSA, being able to take your car for an added fee, etc.

It won't work for all routes, but considering how well Amtrak already does in NE, there's demand out there.


"Except then I'm spending 14 hours on a train"

HIGH. SPEED. RAIL.

TGV does that distance in 2 hours.


Let's count the cost of trains against the cost of airport expansions and highway expansions. We're already spending billions down in Tucson to move to four lanes, and we'll have to move the entire highway between Phoenix and Tucson to 3 lanes from two soon. We are trading costs in a case like that.

Remember, our population isn't going down in this country anytime soon. Highway expansion, without an alternative, is a given.


I have yet to see a transportation system that can pay for itself, stay profitable and still be useful. Measuring real benefits of transportation with current economics seems to be very hard. Almost everything has to be subsidized or accompanied by something that is, otherwise it doesn't work. And you're certainly not going to propose abortion of every transportation, as then you would maybe have less debt, but also no country, so it wouldn't matter anyway. Trains are a real thing that is going to work for 100 years or something, that n billions are mostly some meaningles number flying around... (well, yes, that's only my point of view)


You don't think high speed rail will move more people, more efficiently than continued expansion of air traffic and highways?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: