I’m not so sure that is a positive. Airplanes are huge emission drivers and our dependence on the convenience of air travel has caused us to cease investment and innovation in other more efficient and environmentally friendly methods of travel.
No doubt there’d be a lot more support for high speed rails if airplanes weren’t as accessible. IMO airplanes should only really be used for intercontinental travel.
Also trains in the US suck. Much slower, and almost comparable in price to air travel.
It doesn’t have to be that way, many other countries have solved those issues. But because we’ve leaned so heavily on air travel to get us to places only a few hours away by land there hasn’t been any incentive to innovate or invest in other forms of long-distance mass transit.
Are you saying a high speed train to your destination wouldn’t also solve that problem? It would likely end up being cheaper to travel via rail considering the lower costs of maintenance and fuel, meaning further accessibility than we have today with our dependence on air travel.
That’s fair, and please note that I mentioned air travel has its place in intercontinental travel in my previous comment. The whole point I’m trying to make is that domestic flights between areas that could support high speed land travel infrastructure are wasteful.
Even within continents, high speed rail is expensive, many cities and towns aren’t large enough or near large enough cities to make it practical. This would mean distant connections on slow trains and very long journeys.
I think you run into the same problem with airports though. Regional airports in smaller cities are often prohibitively expensive to fly in and out of. When I fly home, I fly to the nearest major metropolitan area and then drive two and a half hours to my destination rather than pay hundreds more to fly to my hometown’s regional airport. That doesn’t sound much different from the problem you’re describing with a high speed rail network.
The cost of high speed rail travel will come down with increased utilization since the scale of cost for adding extra seats is a lot flatter than it is for air travel. Travel times by land are always going to be longer than by air but there’s plenty of room to optimize the systems we currently have.
Beyond that, convenience and sustainability are diametrically opposed and if we want to continue to live in symbiosis with our environment then we’re going to have to make some sacrifices to the convenience we now take for granted and that is directly harming our environment.
But on the plus side normal people can use air travel now.
I’m not so sure that is a positive. Airplanes are huge emission drivers and our dependence on the convenience of air travel has caused us to cease investment and innovation in other more efficient and environmentally friendly methods of travel.
No doubt there’d be a lot more support for high speed rails if airplanes weren’t as accessible. IMO airplanes should only really be used for intercontinental travel.
When you factor in the number of people the airplane carries, they are about 3 times more efficient than a car with one person in it.
Note they mentioned rail as the desired alternative, rather than cars.
Just saying, compared to driving, airplanes are usually better. Also trains in the US suck. Much slower, and almost comparable in price to air travel.
It doesn’t have to be that way, many other countries have solved those issues. But because we’ve leaned so heavily on air travel to get us to places only a few hours away by land there hasn’t been any incentive to innovate or invest in other forms of long-distance mass transit.
Seeing as I can see my family and not be homeless, I consider it a positive.
Are you saying a high speed train to your destination wouldn’t also solve that problem? It would likely end up being cheaper to travel via rail considering the lower costs of maintenance and fuel, meaning further accessibility than we have today with our dependence on air travel.
Yes I am, as most trains don’t cross oceans.
That’s fair, and please note that I mentioned air travel has its place in intercontinental travel in my previous comment. The whole point I’m trying to make is that domestic flights between areas that could support high speed land travel infrastructure are wasteful.
Even within continents, high speed rail is expensive, many cities and towns aren’t large enough or near large enough cities to make it practical. This would mean distant connections on slow trains and very long journeys.
I think you run into the same problem with airports though. Regional airports in smaller cities are often prohibitively expensive to fly in and out of. When I fly home, I fly to the nearest major metropolitan area and then drive two and a half hours to my destination rather than pay hundreds more to fly to my hometown’s regional airport. That doesn’t sound much different from the problem you’re describing with a high speed rail network.
The cost of high speed rail travel will come down with increased utilization since the scale of cost for adding extra seats is a lot flatter than it is for air travel. Travel times by land are always going to be longer than by air but there’s plenty of room to optimize the systems we currently have.
Beyond that, convenience and sustainability are diametrically opposed and if we want to continue to live in symbiosis with our environment then we’re going to have to make some sacrifices to the convenience we now take for granted and that is directly harming our environment.