4 ms·

So, the population density is too low to justify a rail link, but is high enough to support the second busiest air route in the world? Isn't the number of peop

So, the population density is too low to justify a rail link, but is high enough to support the second busiest air route in the world? Isn't the number of people travelling between the cities the thing that actually matters?

thedz 9y ago
Those airports already exist for other flights, and you don't need to negotiate track and land space for the path between cities. So I could see a heavily trafficked air route being (1) more logistically expedient (2) politically viable
tomhoward 9y ago
I gather the very reason it's the second-busiest air route in the world is that it's just far enough below the margin at which it becomes economically feasible to build fast rail (for now). As a comparison, London and Paris, which are of comparable proximity and economic importance to one-another, have much bigger populations, and thus fast rail is justifiable, so the two cities don't rank highly on the busiest-air-routes list.
dagw 9y ago
Isn't the number of people travelling between the cities the thing that actually matters? Not if you have lay new tracks, then that cost will dwarf all other considerations. A lot of the land between Melbourne and Sydney is quite valuable as well making it even more expensive. Plus the fact that there already are fully functional and reasonably priced air routes makes it much harder for high speed rail to charge a premium, making the profit pr. passenger quite slim. Had they started building the high speed rail line in 1984, before the land prices started to sky rocket and before low cost airlines took of, then it might have worked out very well. Starting to build it today is an entirely different prospect.
bluGill 9y ago
Distance is a factor, as distances get larger airplanes' speed advantage gets more and more important. High speed rail is 250km/h, while airplanes generally run 900km/h. Travel time is enough to ensure that even if the train is a lot cheaper (rail costs enough that this is unlikely) many people will fly. High speed rail is very useful for medium distances, but has you get to long distances it doesn't really make sense.
- selectodude 9y ago
  Madrid to Barcelona was the busiest air route in the world until Spain finished the AVE. Now it's off the top 10.
  - bluGill 9y ago
    Exactly my point: Madrid to Barcelona is a medium distance application where high speed rail makes sense (in a general sense - geography can be a confounding factor)
rconti 9y ago
Maybe not. Given Australia's distance from other populated countries (okay, the US), the added distance to travel to Melbourne on a single flight may be non-trivial. Additionally, the amount of travel on a given day to Australia might not be enough for an airline to dedicate large 747 or A380 routes to multiple airports; people flying 16 hours over the Pacific might not expect a nonstop flight regardless. Hence, Sydney became a defacto hub for much of Australia's air travel. And once you're already paying one airline to get you there, you might as well take their connection to Melbourne, rather than pay another vendor, collect your baggage, find the train station, etc. Just this past May I flew from SFO to MEL. My options on United were SFO-SYD-MEL or SFO-LAX-MEL. I actually preferred the Sydney connection because I reasoned a missed connection in Sydney wouldn't put me off my journey by much, but a missed connection at 9pm in LAX would ensure I'd lose at last half a day if not a whole day getting to Australia. Ultimately I went with the SFO-LAX-MEL route for 2 reasons; the Sydney option routed me on Qantas for the Australia "domestic" leg and I didn't get any miles for it, plus the LAX-MEL route was served by a 787 which I deemed preferable for its potential to reduce jet lag (jury's still out on that one). The advent of smaller planes like the 787 serving MEL from, one would hope, an increasing number of US cities, might take stress off of SYD.

thedz 9y ago

Those airports already exist for other flights, and you don't need to negotiate track and land space for the path between cities. So I could see a heavily trafficked air route being (1) more logistically expedient (2) politically viable

tomhoward 9y ago

I gather the very reason it's the second-busiest air route in the world is that it's just far enough below the margin at which it becomes economically feasible to build fast rail (for now). As a comparison, London and Paris, which are of comparable proximity and economic importance to one-another, have much bigger populations, and thus fast rail is justifiable, so the two cities don't rank highly on the busiest-air-routes list.

dagw 9y ago

Isn't the number of people travelling between the cities the thing that actually matters? Not if you have lay new tracks, then that cost will dwarf all other considerations. A lot of the land between Melbourne and Sydney is quite valuable as well making it even more expensive. Plus the fact that there already are fully functional and reasonably priced air routes makes it much harder for high speed rail to charge a premium, making the profit pr. passenger quite slim. Had they started building the high speed rail line in 1984, before the land prices started to sky rocket and before low cost airlines took of, then it might have worked out very well. Starting to build it today is an entirely different prospect.

bluGill 9y ago

Distance is a factor, as distances get larger airplanes' speed advantage gets more and more important. High speed rail is 250km/h, while airplanes generally run 900km/h. Travel time is enough to ensure that even if the train is a lot cheaper (rail costs enough that this is unlikely) many people will fly. High speed rail is very useful for medium distances, but has you get to long distances it doesn't really make sense.

selectodude 9y ago
Madrid to Barcelona was the busiest air route in the world until Spain finished the AVE. Now it's off the top 10.
- bluGill 9y ago
  Exactly my point: Madrid to Barcelona is a medium distance application where high speed rail makes sense (in a general sense - geography can be a confounding factor)

rconti 9y ago

Maybe not. Given Australia's distance from other populated countries (okay, the US), the added distance to travel to Melbourne on a single flight may be non-trivial. Additionally, the amount of travel on a given day to Australia might not be enough for an airline to dedicate large 747 or A380 routes to multiple airports; people flying 16 hours over the Pacific might not expect a nonstop flight regardless. Hence, Sydney became a defacto hub for much of Australia's air travel. And once you're already paying one airline to get you there, you might as well take their connection to Melbourne, rather than pay another vendor, collect your baggage, find the train station, etc. Just this past May I flew from SFO to MEL. My options on United were SFO-SYD-MEL or SFO-LAX-MEL. I actually preferred the Sydney connection because I reasoned a missed connection in Sydney wouldn't put me off my journey by much, but a missed connection at 9pm in LAX would ensure I'd lose at last half a day if not a whole day getting to Australia. Ultimately I went with the SFO-LAX-MEL route for 2 reasons; the Sydney option routed me on Qantas for the Australia "domestic" leg and I didn't get any miles for it, plus the LAX-MEL route was served by a 787 which I deemed preferable for its potential to reduce jet lag (jury's still out on that one). The advent of smaller planes like the 787 serving MEL from, one would hope, an increasing number of US cities, might take stress off of SYD.