• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I see what you’re saying, but the advantage of intercity rail, not necessarily high-speed, but rail that goes from one city to another at commuter speeds, that is definitely worth having where I live. I’m in Terre Haute, IN. There isn’t a ton of work here. A lot of people here make the 80-90 minute drive to either Indianapolis or Bloomington to their jobs. There is already a bus line here if people need that and, yes, it could go to more places, but Indiana used to have a robust rail network that linked the entire state and doing something like that today would have a lot of advantages. Not just the job issue, but both Indianapolis and Bloomington are desirable destinations for things like restaurants and shows and people from all over the state drive to them (and a few other small cities) very regularly because of that.

    The way I see it, a lot more CO2 emissions would be reduced with intercity rail in this state and the public bus transportation in various Indiana cities is already decent.

    • stoy@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry, I think you missunderstand me, I didn’t mean that the US should abandon any existing rail project, but that the local public transport system if often forgotten in the talk about HSR

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not talking about existing rail projects either. I’m essentially agreeing with you that HSR is a distraction, but I’m also saying that intracity rail that is not HSR can be more important than public transportation inside a city, so it depends on where you are in the U.S. on which should be focused.