michael gill wrote:When we're talking about Chicago east to cities in Ohio, PA, and New York, I can't figure out in what sense New York to LA is a more appropriate comparison.
Approximately 700 miles to New York from Chicago is comparable to approximately 700 miles from Paris to Rome. That is an example from the place where we say rail works because cities are closer together. But in the American northeast and these parts of the industrial midwest, distances are comparable. There are major cities at either end and along the route.
In what sense is a trip of four times that length a more appropriate comparison? I appreciate that you don't think we should spend money on infrastructure, and that you have safety concerns because you don't trust American manufacturing. But my point is about the proximity of cities, which between Chicago and New York is virtually identical with the cited european capitals.
In what sense is New York to LA a better comparison? I just don't know what you're getting at.
I think if you don't want to get it, you won't.
If we are talking about a federal project, I think we cannot limit it to a few areas. If we are all going to pay for it, we should all benefit, and it was in the sense of a national system that I feel that New York to Los Angeles is more appropriate than between some relatively close cities you cherry picked. Why not New York to Newark or Philadelphia if you want.
Incidentally, the "high speed" rail you so like takes between 10 and 12 hours to get from Paris to Rome. Assuming your mileages are correct, that is about 65 miles per hour. I drive faster than that. Actually, I would take that train, because I like riding on trains, the stations are right downtown, and I have a lot of time; I would guess that most people would fly.
