If there were high speed trains in the US would you use them over jets?

Question

More specifically if they connected two relatively near cities such as New York to Cleveland or Detroit to Chicago would you take the train over another mode of travel assuming the price was competitive?

Answer 1

Absolutely.

I'd propose a high speed or maglev network on dedicated rights of way, connecting all major cities, such as New York - Philadelphia - Cleveland - Chicago - Denver - Los Angeles, with stops at any such major city along the way. Other lines would include Boston - New York - Baltimore - Washington - Atlanta - Houston, Los Angeles - Phoenix - Albuquerque - Houston, Chicago - Memphis - Dallas - Houston, and so on. Eventually you would get a spiderweb of lines At speeds of 400 mph, you could travel cross country in about 8 hours, which is about what you have with air travel, once you factor in having to be at the airport about 2 hours before departure.

The key would be frequent service, with trains leaving as little as five minutes apart. Larger or smaller trainsets would be used, depending on traffic. No reservations required, just show up and get on, like a city bus. Electric power can come from sources other than fossil fuels.

I don't know how practical this all would be, but it's nice to think about.

Answer 2

a million. severe speed trains at the instant are not as rapid as air holiday. A Boeing 747 has a cruising speed of over 500 miles an hour, and maximum plane actual exceed 200mph. The quickest bullet trains in provider cap out decrease than 2 hundred mph. 2. that's rather genuine, and positively can cut back total holiday time, if extra transportation to downtown from the airport is included. 3. Im no longer so specific thats an excellent earnings. it might desire to be argued that useful trains would desire to positioned greater human beings out of artwork than positioned to artwork. area of all of the stuff that would desire to be affected. human beings in all substitute kinds of transportation might lose jobs, and because trains are the ideal transporation via some distance, that's in all probability each activity that best speed trains create, could be be met with a loss of greater jobs in different industries. 4. this is genuine 5. id elect to work out stats on that. Im uncertain trains are safer than planes. 6. this is genuine 7. this is in all probability genuine. although, interior the U. S., if ridership will advance via the loads, that would desire to no longer be the case consistently. 8. Many acts of terrorism could be executed on a practice. in simple terms via fact its annoying to take out a development, doesnt mean human beings cant be killed.

Answer 3

Absolutely. But here in California I'd even prefer them over the auto when traveling between SF and Sacramento, for example, if I had the choice.

Answer 4

Absolutely. The process for an airplane is getting so painful that you spend more time at the airport than in the air for any trip that doesn't cross an ocean.

Answer 5

When a train gets there as fast as a plane Americans will start using them.

Answer 6

if the price was competetive, i'd probably do it. i like to fly, so i'd fly for longer trips, but for anything less than 400 miles away, i'd probably just take the train.