marvin martian
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #41
I think the senile old fuck missed a diaper change or something.
Whelp, first off your quote says "close to", not "as fast as". Second, the TGV (Train de Grand Vitesse) in France has been clocked at over 350 mph; and third, airports are always located well outside of cities, which adds all the time, assuming no schedule delays, of commuting to one airport and from the other, the security lines, check-in, waiting for baggage carousels, all of that, resulting in the fact that I could drive from here in the sticks of North Carolina to downtown Nashville in the same time the company's plane ticket would get me there, and that's simply easy car driving and not a TGV. Even a slow train would beat the plane there.
Trains, in contrast to airports, rarely ever fall out of the sky and therefore bring you right to the center of town.
The average speed is 173 MPH. An airliner can go anywhere and doesn't choo choo tracks.
But it does need a yuge airport that is maybe an hour from where you are, and another one maybe an hour from where you're going, and lots of seats to sit around waiting, and long long security lines, and a system that holds your baggage hostage, or maybe sends it to Dubuque. While all that's going on, the train is training.
Actually no. Medium size and regional airports can handle most airliners.
Hell I can fly from my midwestern Airport direct to my Condo in Punta Cana Dominican Rep in 4 hours. Rail just doesn't make sense in USA except for the NE Coast. Cali already phucked up their boondoogle bullet train.
Also, the carbon footprint associated with constructing railroad track is ENORMOUS, something the Dems never mention (probably because they don't know about it).