369
Fear Mongering About Range Anxiety Has To Stop — CT Governor Calls Out EV Opponents
(cleantechnica.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2024
369 points (92.8% liked)
Technology
59390 readers
2617 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There are spots where it's much brighter - for example, between Boston and Washington, DC, there is quite a bit of rail service, with departures frequently from each endpoint and cities in between (Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, etc.). It's higher speed than most passenger rail in the country, but not "high speed" in the sense of Europe or Japan.
I've gone from Baltimore to Philly that way a few times, and it's pretty nice...and it's busy.
A private company recently introduced service in Florida with semi-high speed trains that runs from Miami to Orlando. That seems to be pretty popular as well. And some cities (New York and Chicago, for example) have an extensive network of commuter rail.
I've used the NY subway before. It's the kind of thing you'd want for all cities. I've passed through Chicago and saw the trams, but didn't get to go one. They looked great at least. Most US cities I've been to have just felt like sprawl where driving is only option. Often where it seamed there was no real centre to go to anyway.
The US is so big it's amazing it doesn't have good fast rain connecting it all. A wave of rail building could do wonders. Cities without a centre would end up growing one at the rail hub. You could then de-car that centre, make it somewhere to go.
Well, keep in mind some of those cities are thousands of miles apart - New York to Los Angeles is about 2,800 miles (4,500 km). While I believe we should have a robust rail network, it's tough to justify it for that kind of distance given that planes are so much faster.
In my mind we'd have a three tiered approach - cities would have subways, busses, and commuter rail options. Nearby cities, say, less than 500 miles (800 km) apart, would have high speed rail connections. Longer trips would be handled by airliners. Because, lets face it, no one is going back to land transportation between New York and LA - even at 250 km/hr, a train would take 18 hours - and that's nonstop, whereas a flight is 6 hours. Few people are going to be willing to triple the travel time like that.
So, in my world we'd have a cohesive transportation plan that focuses each mode for what they are best at. I'd still want a good nationwide rail network as a fallback (in case of, say, a 9/11 type event where the airline network is shut down), but I think it has to be bigger than just rail.
This would reduce the issue of a busy air traffic network as well, by removing short haul flights in favor of trains.
All sounds good and a real improvement to now.