zlacker

>>amathe+(OP)
> The fact that it takes six hours to get from Baltimore to Boston, when a faster train can cover the longer distance between Paris and Marseille in four, does not move us to protest the obvious failure of ambition.

By this logic, since planes can cover longer distances in shorter times than trains, should we quit trains in favor of planes?

>>joseph+C9
We largely did. The long distance passenger train in North America is mostly a curiosity.

Virtually no one is taking the train from Chicago to Seattle, even when the train is full, its to get on the train, go 4-5 stops and exit.

>>Aloha+TJ1
In the US, passenger takes lower priority to freight. This is why I rarely go by train.

>>r00fus+7N1
Isn't the Acela the big exception to that rule? And it just happens to run between the very two cities in the sentence I quoted, and still slower than air travel.

>>joseph+PN1
The USA has TONS of intercity rail that nobody knows or cares about. Here's some by name: Pacific Surfliner, Cascades, Brightline. And that doesn't count things like Metrolink and other commuter rail.

There are more and I don't know them because I don't live near them. Acela isn't the only one.

Surfliner is about 3.5 hrs from LA to San Diego; ain't nobody gonna fly that, but lots of people drive it.