people who want to go across a continent have plenty of planes to take; people who want to get around their own cities without driving, on the other hand, could really use more trains https://twitter.com/TiredGuyReturns/status/955187164098256897 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread
-
I've talked in the past about the 6-hour rule...if a trip will take more than 6 hours by one mode, and there's a faster mode available, people will generally pick the faster mode crossing the USA takes *less* than 6 hours by plane, air will dominate coast-to-coast market
1 reply 3 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
This isn't really a problem for trains tho, because the overwhelming majority of travel in the USA is over shorter distances than this. I maintain that conventional urban/suburban rail is a higher priority, but let's look at some of the longest distances that work for HSR:
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
Chicago to NYC takes something like 2 hours by plane--by high speed rail, it could take as little as 5 hours. Driving takes about 12 hours. This is similar to the situation between Tokyo and Fukuoka: 2hr flying, 6hr high speed rail, 13hr driving.
3 replies 2 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
I don't recall the exact mode share, but I know that flying remains very popular in Japan between those two cities. Plenty take the train too--trains depart more frequently than planes, which is a likely factor--but trains don't dominate that market.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likesShow this thread -
Other American city pairs that fall into this approximate range include: - NYC to Atlanta - Houston to Orlando - Dallas to Denver - Seattle to Salt Lake City - Seattle to San Francisco ...you get the idea; roughly 750~900 miles
5 replies 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Shorter distances work out better for high speed rail, because over these distances, air passengers will likely spend more time at airports than flying: - Boston to DC (3hr) - NYC to Toronto (3hr 20m) - SF to LA (2hr 30m) - Dallas to Houston (1hr 30m) etc etc
2 replies 0 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
But as I said at the outset...urban and suburban rail is the real prizepic.twitter.com/59OAdDpMUG
4 replies 1 retweet 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @AeschylusAASB
In Boston, cities like Lynn and Brockton have no urban rail, just suburban rail--but are poor and overrun by crime. Newton and Cambridge both have urban AND suburban rail, but Newton is wealthy and very safe, while Cambridge has high crime.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Framingham is on the same suburban line as Wellesley, but the latter is much safer than the former. Arlington has no rail service at all, but has a lot more crime than neighboring Winchester, which does have rail service. I would love to see time series data tho
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.