6 ms·

I feel like that wouldn't fix the issue in such close proximity locations. Flying isn't optimal for that type of distance (less than 400 miles). You could lay

I feel like that wouldn't fix the issue in such close proximity locations. Flying isn't optimal for that type of distance (less than 400 miles). You could lay track and get more volume on some high speed trains with comparable times (if you take into account the time for arrival / security clearance / etc at airports), the train could even be faster. Land rights are obviously the issue (esp in california), but adding more airports as a transit option for end points that are less than 500 miles doesn't seem ideal at all.

randyrand 9y ago
how is it not optimal? its 1/3rd the travel time and $75 each way.
- ingenuous2 9y ago
  Flying is a lot more time spend on overhead.
  - randyrand 9y ago
    it doesnt have to be that way.
    - ingenuous2 9y ago
      Agreed, but now we are talking political problems. And when we talk political problems, it's important to consider the base economic cost, all included.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Security overhead should be the same for high speed trains.
    - serhei 9y ago
      God, I hope not. It makes zero sense to have TSA theater for high speed intercity trains but not local public transportation, because the latter has far greater passenger volumes. If terrorists wanted to cause mass chaos using a public transit system, they would go for local subway and commuter train lines.
      - candiodari 9y ago
        It's kind of amazing that there isn't more terrorism focusing on train lines, bridges and other infrastructure. That was the most effective way resistance against Germany during WWII worked. And to boot: some of it is easy. You just have to bend one rail segment. Manually (which is doable with basic DIY equipment), or explosively. If you're okay with trying 5 times a large boulder positioned between the tracks where it can't be pushed aside easily has a decent chance of derailing a train. And that is a disaster. The amount of stored power in a train's movement is more than enough to destroy it. When this sort of shit happens by accident, there's usually double, sometimes triple digits dead. Targeted, you could do more. Without a few particular train lines, US oil production would slow to a crawl. They are also far easier to destroy than to rebuild. Terror attack, and things go back to normal in a matter of hours. Sucks for the 5 people, but the economy is not going to be seriously impacted. With trains, and because there's a lot of cleanup, after which the entire line needs to be checked (and obviously not with a high speed train) a derailed train will take a week or two to fix, more on longer lines. It seems to me that disconnecting small cities in middle America from the train network and make coast-to-coast freight go a LOT slower wouldn't be out of the question for even a small organisation.
- acchow 9y ago
  The HSR is supposed to go from SF downtown to LA in 2h40m. You want to go from city center to city center including airport security in 53 minutes? The shortest SFO-LAX flight I see right now is 1h25m. Even if you made smaller, local, more efficient airports, I fail to see how you can hit 53 minutes while including commute time to the airport and clearing security.
  - randyrand 9y ago
    > including commute time to the airport and clearing security. You have to include that for the rail too, obviously. Yes. You won't need to leave as much time for the train station as you do for the airport. Why? Because the airport services many more flights and is much more crowded. If we had more airports, it could become similar to a rail-station in terms of time needed at the station/airport. In terms of time though, flying would still be faster, amazingly. Flying: 45 mins to airport. 1 hr in airport. 1.5 hr flight. 45 mins to destination. Total: 4 hr Rail: 45 mins to station. .5 hr in station. 2.75 hr travel. 45 mins to destination. Total: 4.75 hr
    - rayiner 9y ago
      You're ignoring three major points. First, the need for security is less with trains because they can't be turned into guided missles in transit. Second, you can build stations in the middle of the city but you can't build airports in the middle of the city. Penn Station is a 15 minute cab ride from most of the NYC CBD. LGA or JFK are close to an hour. Third, trains are inherently faster to load because they have many entry doors. Amtrak loads hundreds of people at NYP in a few minutes.
    - twelvechairs 9y ago
      Of course the european model assumes business travel means rail is much closer to start and end destinations and transport is so reliable you need only arrive 5 mins beforehand. In California this doesnt apply as much, but its going to head more in that direction in the future.
    - posguy 9y ago
      Wow, this is wholly unrealistic. When I take commuter rail, its a 10 minute trip to the train station, and I need to be there 5 minutes before. When I get off I'm also right in downtown, instead of out in the brambles like SeaTac, JFK or Denver. A rail line can easily move 20k people an hour, can't say the same about a similarly priced or staffed airport.
- joelrunyon 9y ago
  1. You can't have the airport in the middle of the city. Add 20-45 minutes to arrive / leave at each one. 2. Airport security. Add 15-45 minutes depending on density. 3. Delays. Frequent & much more common with airlines than trains. (add 1-several hours every hundred flights or so). 4. Capacity. Need 100 more passengers capacity? Add another carriage to the train or schedule an entirely different flight. 4. Also add in that you're wanting to cram in a bunch of airports into a few hundred miles of each other. You have to take into account that planes are moving at 550+ mph and need lots of clearance around each one. It's a lot easier to even schedule another train 10 minutes behind an existing one than it is to schedule another flight (considering the variables of destinations, companies and other logistics involved). There's a reason why ATC jobs are some of the most stressful in the world. Flying seems easy, but the logistics behind it are intense.

randyrand 9y ago

how is it not optimal? its 1/3rd the travel time and $75 each way.

ingenuous2 9y ago
Flying is a lot more time spend on overhead.
- randyrand 9y ago
  it doesnt have to be that way.
  - ingenuous2 9y ago
    Agreed, but now we are talking political problems. And when we talk political problems, it's important to consider the base economic cost, all included.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Security overhead should be the same for high speed trains.
  - serhei 9y ago
    God, I hope not. It makes zero sense to have TSA theater for high speed intercity trains but not local public transportation, because the latter has far greater passenger volumes. If terrorists wanted to cause mass chaos using a public transit system, they would go for local subway and commuter train lines.
    - candiodari 9y ago
      It's kind of amazing that there isn't more terrorism focusing on train lines, bridges and other infrastructure. That was the most effective way resistance against Germany during WWII worked. And to boot: some of it is easy. You just have to bend one rail segment. Manually (which is doable with basic DIY equipment), or explosively. If you're okay with trying 5 times a large boulder positioned between the tracks where it can't be pushed aside easily has a decent chance of derailing a train. And that is a disaster. The amount of stored power in a train's movement is more than enough to destroy it. When this sort of shit happens by accident, there's usually double, sometimes triple digits dead. Targeted, you could do more. Without a few particular train lines, US oil production would slow to a crawl. They are also far easier to destroy than to rebuild. Terror attack, and things go back to normal in a matter of hours. Sucks for the 5 people, but the economy is not going to be seriously impacted. With trains, and because there's a lot of cleanup, after which the entire line needs to be checked (and obviously not with a high speed train) a derailed train will take a week or two to fix, more on longer lines. It seems to me that disconnecting small cities in middle America from the train network and make coast-to-coast freight go a LOT slower wouldn't be out of the question for even a small organisation.
acchow 9y ago
The HSR is supposed to go from SF downtown to LA in 2h40m. You want to go from city center to city center including airport security in 53 minutes? The shortest SFO-LAX flight I see right now is 1h25m. Even if you made smaller, local, more efficient airports, I fail to see how you can hit 53 minutes while including commute time to the airport and clearing security.
- randyrand 9y ago
  > including commute time to the airport and clearing security. You have to include that for the rail too, obviously. Yes. You won't need to leave as much time for the train station as you do for the airport. Why? Because the airport services many more flights and is much more crowded. If we had more airports, it could become similar to a rail-station in terms of time needed at the station/airport. In terms of time though, flying would still be faster, amazingly. Flying: 45 mins to airport. 1 hr in airport. 1.5 hr flight. 45 mins to destination. Total: 4 hr Rail: 45 mins to station. .5 hr in station. 2.75 hr travel. 45 mins to destination. Total: 4.75 hr
  - rayiner 9y ago
    You're ignoring three major points. First, the need for security is less with trains because they can't be turned into guided missles in transit. Second, you can build stations in the middle of the city but you can't build airports in the middle of the city. Penn Station is a 15 minute cab ride from most of the NYC CBD. LGA or JFK are close to an hour. Third, trains are inherently faster to load because they have many entry doors. Amtrak loads hundreds of people at NYP in a few minutes.
  - twelvechairs 9y ago
    Of course the european model assumes business travel means rail is much closer to start and end destinations and transport is so reliable you need only arrive 5 mins beforehand. In California this doesnt apply as much, but its going to head more in that direction in the future.
  - posguy 9y ago
    Wow, this is wholly unrealistic. When I take commuter rail, its a 10 minute trip to the train station, and I need to be there 5 minutes before. When I get off I'm also right in downtown, instead of out in the brambles like SeaTac, JFK or Denver. A rail line can easily move 20k people an hour, can't say the same about a similarly priced or staffed airport.
joelrunyon 9y ago
1. You can't have the airport in the middle of the city. Add 20-45 minutes to arrive / leave at each one. 2. Airport security. Add 15-45 minutes depending on density. 3. Delays. Frequent & much more common with airlines than trains. (add 1-several hours every hundred flights or so). 4. Capacity. Need 100 more passengers capacity? Add another carriage to the train or schedule an entirely different flight. 4. Also add in that you're wanting to cram in a bunch of airports into a few hundred miles of each other. You have to take into account that planes are moving at 550+ mph and need lots of clearance around each one. It's a lot easier to even schedule another train 10 minutes behind an existing one than it is to schedule another flight (considering the variables of destinations, companies and other logistics involved). There's a reason why ATC jobs are some of the most stressful in the world. Flying seems easy, but the logistics behind it are intense.