- This comparison assumes that both have sliders at the furthest right
- This accounts for both direct and indirect effects
- Increases Productivity the same as the normal speed
- High Speed Reduces Car Usage more (-14 to -7)
- High Speed is almost always more popular
- Equal Productivity to Normal Speed (+5)
- High Speed is cheaper (5.12B to 7.66B)
- Will never cause a rail strike
- Decreases air travel
- Increases Productivity
- Does not Decrease Poverty
- Decreases unemployment less
- More popular if there is an extreme amount of trade unionists
- Decreases unemployment more (-10 to -5)
- Decreases poverty
- Less popular 99% of the time
- Increases Corruption 3%
- Increases Oil Demand
- Also decreases bus usage
- In conclusion high speed rails are more useful almost always. I think to differentiate the 2 policies high speed should focus on productivity / while slow speed focuses on trade unionists and reducing unemployment.
List of Potential Nerfs to High Speed Rail Usage
- High Speed and normal speed should be closer in how much they reduce car usage
- High Speed Rail usage should also decrease bus usage. (Just for balance and consistency)
- High Speed Rail usage should also contribute to the rail strike even more than the slow speed rail because the train is more high tech thus reducing the amount of employees. (That’s the best excuse I could come up with).
- High Speed Rail should make trade unionists slightly unhappy
- High Speed Rail should be significantly more expensive then slow speed rail.
- Maybe the poor could dislike the high speed rail at low spending because they have to pay more for it due to the increased expenses of building new railroads.