2007-02-02 06:11:07 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Cars & Transportation ➔ Rail
If fuel costs ever make air travel prohibitively expensive, it will probably happen.
It certainly would be nice. High speed rail is MUCH more pleasant than flying. Cheaper, more room, better air, less noise. There's no contest.
2007-02-02 06:15:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's see...NYC and Chicago are about 1000 km apart. Conventional wisdom says that customers prefer high-speed rail to flying for distances of under 800 km (or 3 hour travel time). Above that, they quickly switch to the plane. So the two cities are probably a little out of reach. Unless you use maglev trains.
2007-02-02 06:25:34 · answer #2 · answered by bergab_hase 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, but definitely not! Yes, it may be nicer, cheaper, and more convenient than flying, but the two cities are pretty far apart. Also, American has flights from LGA-ORD every hour (I'm pretty sure of this) and back; my Dad flew on American when he went there every week on business. Also, Delta has just started service to MDW from the Marine Air Terminal with Delta Connection (Shuttle America); they're using Embraer E-170's on that route.
2007-02-02 07:55:45 · answer #3 · answered by Joshua Z 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes thers the metroliner services on the eastern states why a high speed link does;nt exist is a qeustion i would like to know myself.
2007-02-02 07:56:24 · answer #4 · answered by accomacgeo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on who "they" are. If you are referring to the federal government, or their friends at Amtrak, then no. I do not want my tax dollars spent on any more wasteful projects. If you mean private industry, then I would be all for it. If the investors have done feasibility studies, and think it would be a profitable enterprise, then it's a great idea.
2007-02-02 06:20:29 · answer #5 · answered by J.R. 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely. That is a wonderful idea!
2007-02-02 06:18:49 · answer #6 · answered by Kaoso 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋