A lot of those flights could be replaced with high speed rail. Maybe not New York to LA, but a lot of people live in the cities in the northeast and travel between those cities would be very feasible at reasonable travel times with high speed rail.

[–] jscummy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Okay let me just lobby the government to build long distance high speed rail before I take my trips.

High speed rail makes more sense for sure, but it's not available in most of the country. There's only two stretches in the US, in the northeast corridor and surprisingly in Florida

[–] Redscare867@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

I know how pitiful our rail networks are. I take Amtrak regularly. It’s faster to drive. It shouldn’t be, but it is. Obviously I’m not talking about today, but building improved rail infrastructure over the next decade is very realistic and a worthwhile investment. Unfortunately the investment Amtrak has gotten isn’t enough to modernize our rail network, and a lot of that money is being used to improve privately owned rail lines that Amtrak leases for their passenger service.

My point was that the US doesn’t have distances that are insurmountable that can only be traveled via plane. It’s an investment issue.

[–] neo@lemmy.comfysnug.space 1 points 1 year ago

That would require investment in infrastructure, and our govt would rather get us into another 9 forever wars than do such a thing.