5 ms·

Yeah exactly. Considering in many cases a plane ticket from SF to LA will cost less and get you there faster, the high speed rail project makes little sense

dionidium 9y ago
Trains are better than planes along several dimensions, if done right. "Why would I take the train when I could fly for the same price?" isn't a very good question. The answer is that (again, when done correctly): - Trains are generally more comfortable - Trains allow you to use your cell phone - Trains can take you from city center to city center - Trains don't have the same security requirements - Trains are safer - Trains are cheaper to operate (and so should actually be cheaper in the long run) Planes are better over very long distances. But trains are better for regional travel.
- niftich 9y ago
  I will defend the OP here, and say that LA-SF trains indeed make little sense, when perfectly good sunk-cost airports already exist that allow various airlines to compete over that route on price and features. Trains are more susceptible to disruptions along the route, because the route itself is more anchored to a particular geography, not to mention they cost a lot to build out to the satisfaction of being truly competitive with airlines if the infrastructure and level-of-service is lacking at this time (which it is). However, where a train does make sense, is connecting other points along the route. Air travel tends to be either hub-and-spoke between busy hubs and tiny spokes, or point-to-point between two busy points; rail travel, however, is always along a route that allows intermediate points to be served at similar levels-of-service as major destinations. Whereas a Sacramento-Bakersfield journey would typically require at least one hop to SF or LA by air, train (and roads, for that matter) allow that journey to be taken without intervening hops, and serviced at a marginal cost, because the two lie along a route that a train would travel anyway. That ability to connect ancillary cities is where rail travel really shines, in ways that air travel can't currently mimic.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    I can't argue with sunk costs and future constructions costs. You're right about those. I'm just relaying my experiences using Amtrak along the Northeast Corridor, which I find to be far superior to the equivalent air travel.
- carlivar 9y ago
  Are trains safer? I am not sure the statistics support that.
  - dionidium 9y ago
    You are right. Sorry about that one.
bduerst 9y ago
There's little evidence to the final pricing yet, other than some speculation it will be between $85-$115, which are approximately what flights are.

dionidium 9y ago

Trains are better than planes along several dimensions, if done right. "Why would I take the train when I could fly for the same price?" isn't a very good question. The answer is that (again, when done correctly): - Trains are generally more comfortable - Trains allow you to use your cell phone - Trains can take you from city center to city center - Trains don't have the same security requirements - Trains are safer - Trains are cheaper to operate (and so should actually be cheaper in the long run) Planes are better over very long distances. But trains are better for regional travel.

niftich 9y ago
I will defend the OP here, and say that LA-SF trains indeed make little sense, when perfectly good sunk-cost airports already exist that allow various airlines to compete over that route on price and features. Trains are more susceptible to disruptions along the route, because the route itself is more anchored to a particular geography, not to mention they cost a lot to build out to the satisfaction of being truly competitive with airlines if the infrastructure and level-of-service is lacking at this time (which it is). However, where a train does make sense, is connecting other points along the route. Air travel tends to be either hub-and-spoke between busy hubs and tiny spokes, or point-to-point between two busy points; rail travel, however, is always along a route that allows intermediate points to be served at similar levels-of-service as major destinations. Whereas a Sacramento-Bakersfield journey would typically require at least one hop to SF or LA by air, train (and roads, for that matter) allow that journey to be taken without intervening hops, and serviced at a marginal cost, because the two lie along a route that a train would travel anyway. That ability to connect ancillary cities is where rail travel really shines, in ways that air travel can't currently mimic.
- dionidium 9y ago
  I can't argue with sunk costs and future constructions costs. You're right about those. I'm just relaying my experiences using Amtrak along the Northeast Corridor, which I find to be far superior to the equivalent air travel.
carlivar 9y ago
Are trains safer? I am not sure the statistics support that.
- dionidium 9y ago
  You are right. Sorry about that one.

bduerst 9y ago

There's little evidence to the final pricing yet, other than some speculation it will be between $85-$115, which are approximately what flights are.