That feel when your country's infrastructure is shit and even Africa is building high-speed rail now

That feel when your country's infrastructure is shit and even Africa is building high-speed rail now.

Attached: index.jpg (290x174, 8.12K)

Still slower than airplanes.

American cities were built for cars which is unfortunate because I like walking

i dont understand this high rail meme, why would we pay for very inflexible routes when you can just hitch a ride on a plane for way cheaper?

Eh you're wrong there. For regional trips it's faster.

Not to mention more comfortable and you get better views

Airplanes are definately not cheaper. And it doesnt make sense to waste all that money on a plane when you could just take a train for less than half the price and just a little more time.

I'm glad so many cities are building light ral systems now.

Even places like LA and Houston (sprawled out places built for cars) are expanding their rail networks.

>Eh you're wrong there.
Dumbass. Cruising speed of a 747 is 644 mph. The fastest train in the world goes 267 mph. Go be a nigger somewhere else.

Attached: planes better than tranes.png (1499x561, 221.84K)

also trains go from city center to city center, much more convenient than planes.

high speed rail would only accommodate a very small portion of America's population along the East seaboard and just maybe along the west coast. Why would we so such a thing when universal use of planes keeps prices down?

Trains are slower for long distance travel but faster if you're going to nearby cities.

With a plane you have to drive all the way to the airport, get to the airport an hour in advance, then once you land you sit on the tarmac for 15-20 minutes then drive to your destination.
With a train you just go from city center to city center.

Republicans will never allow it because they're owned by the oil companies.
Oil companies want everyone to take a car or plane.

>city center to city center
Chicago is 2,014 miles from LA. NYC is 2,789 miles away from LA. People that suggest US should build rails for travel have nigger brains.

They're currently funding a LA - LV railway which is based

It’s just another thing for misanthropes on Zig Forums to bitch about. You’re reading into it too much.

Nice I heard about that.
I wish the Texas GOP would stop blocking the private HSR line from Dallas-Houston.

>not having an airport in the middle of the city

LMAO

Attached: file.png (1200x797, 2.29M)

it's useless for those long distance of course, but there's a lot of towns on the east or west coast that would benefit from it.

Yeah that kid's just a dumbass.

We have a lot of regions where cities are the optimal distance for HSR. Trains could get up to speed and stay there.

What I like about rail is it reduces traffic for the people who want to drive cars. So even if you don't ride the train you benefit.

>Still slower than airplanes.
What.
Only if you count the actual time in air
If you account the bullshit you have to go through at every single airport + the fact you hav to show up considerably earlier at the airport to actually have a chance of making it to the plane AND the bullshit baggage after the flight it's not that big of a difference.
With a train you arrive 5 minutes before arrival, get on the train, stow your baggage and take a seat. Noone goes through your shit, you don't have to take the belt from your pants, and theres no bullshit process that takes 30 minutes on a good day

And even if we compare 8 hours of travel by plane and 10 hours of travel by train at a train the train is still a better deal
>you can actually do some work
>internet connection is either free or your cellular modem works since you're not actively jammed
>on any intercity or international (europe) railway connection you get a restaurant car where you can get a normal deal, prepared on the spot (rather then re-heated) and get a beer larger than those shitty 125ml ones you get on a plan

Attached: 1598465728202.jpg (500x628, 65.1K)

Fuck airports

With exception for the Washington line, nobody rides Amtrak. I've ridden it before because Pittsburgh to Chicago left at midnight and got me there at 8 am. It was a comfy ride during my sleeping hours. I saw less than 20 people in the whole train. Even if you add high-speed rails, people are going to take the fast route to travel, and that means airports. City-to-city travel is a meme. Bullet trains suck ass traveling short distances. They aren't commuter trains -- they are distance vehicles. Planes are superior.

>People that suggest US should build rails for travel have nigger brains.
speaking of which: high-speed trains wouldn't make sense coast to coast, but it would make sense North to South.

like this.

Attached: 789056767.jpg (500x400, 13.55K)

They don't have to be national lines, just on the state or regional level, they actually end up being faster for medium distance travel because you don't need to go through the whole airport hassle.
Size isn't a problem because China is doing it, even Russia is doing it but not to the same degree because of financial issues.

>amtrak
Dumbass. I already explained several times already. Nobody rides it because flying is faster. Seattle to LA is 1,135 miles. The fastest train in the world won't be a plane.

Yeah. Our regional lines get good ridership.
Also we need a Los Angeles-Phoenix line.


>Amtrak
>high-speed rail
pick one lol.
Do a little research before spreading your shitty single-digit IQ opinions all over the thread, thanks.

>The fastest train in the world won't be a plane.
You're seriously underestimating the time it takes for a plane to land, be prepared for take-off and the boarding time in the average american Airport. And that's without counting the time in customs and all the other shit.
Bullet trains are much much faster, even if your plane lands half an hour earlier you're still stuck inside the airport.

>is shit
Wat?

Attached: nonoring our veterans.png (1448x965, 1.75M)

god damn you're one-dimensional. no one who buys a train-ticket is thinking "wow I know planes are faster but I'm just dumb so I took the train. oh well."

high speed trains benefits the whole transportation system because it opens up more options and it's more practical because it's usually cheaper and there's no check-in process. there's a reason trains are popular everywhere except America, and it's not because of speed.

When you see euros smugly talking about trains they are talking about using trains within their own "countries". Euros still fly planes to travel from one country to the other just like we fly to travel from one state to the other.

>god damn you're one-dimensional. no one who buys a train-ticket is thinking "wow I know planes are faster but I'm just dumb so I took the train. oh well."
Nigger brains detected. 35 HOURS. It takes 35 hours to go from Seattle to LA by train. You can do it in a couple hours by plane.

Attached: 35 hours.png (698x529, 236.67K)

Why is this one obsessive autist incapable of thinking about regional travel.

He's gonna spaz all over the thread, I can already tell.
HSR gives faster trip times than planes for regional travel.

I took a train from Germany to Poland (no, I didn't end up in a cc)

>HSR gives faster trip times than planes for regional travel.
Nope.

Actually europeans will pay more to take a train instead of a plane because the train's more comfortable.

>what is getting to the airport 45 minutes prior
>what is commuting to the airport that is generally away from the city center
for long distances, airplanes do btfo HS rails in both speed and costs
but on short trips planes can't compete

How long was that, less than 500km?

Attached: california vs czechia.png (1437x834, 341.72K)