6 ms·

Jet Blue may be great, but airports still suck. And unless Boeing's experiments* with bio-fuels pay off, airlines will continue to face increasing fuel costs th

Jet Blue may be great, but airports still suck. And unless Boeing's experiments* with bio-fuels pay off, airlines will continue to face increasing fuel costs that make air travel unsustainable, while the American train industry lets Asia innovate and bring the costs of high-speed magnetic rails down. *http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003858756_boeingenergy30.html?syndication=rss http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/200...

timr 19y ago
There's no technical reason that trains can't be an effective, environmentally friendly alternative to intra-region air travel today. The problem is that the government chooses to heavily subsidize airlines, while investing virtually nothing in passenger rail. Shame, really. I'm not saying that we would be seeing fast, cheap trains between San Francisco and New York -- but it's ridiculous that there's only one train between Seattle and San Francisco, and that it takes nearly a day to get there.
- kingkongrevenge 19y ago
  Trains are competing with cars, not so much planes. It's the government subsidy of highways that's insane.
  - timr 19y ago
    I largely agree about the insanity of our highway subsidy, but I can see some of the logic in it. Cars are more convenient/practical in rural areas, and the US is pretty rural (I think it's stupid and short-sighted to encourage rural development via highway subsidy, but that's another rant). That said, in most of the developed world, the competition is between planes and trains. Cars are more expensive (probably because they're not as heavily subsidized).
    - kingkongrevenge 19y ago
      > Cars are more convenient/practical in rural areas Not really true. It only seems that way because of the development pattern subsidized highways have enabled. In much of the world housing is clustered in dense towns in rural areas. This was the normal development pattern in the US in the 1800s. Rural towns were fairly dense and walkable. The productive land was around the town. The housing was not needlessly spread out through the productive land.
      - timr 19y ago
        Well, yeah. I think we agree, and that's what I meant when I said that rural development subsidy is stupid. Still, the US is a lot bigger than, say, France or Germany. It's harder to build comprehensive train systems between urban areas here (particularly in places like the west).

timr 19y ago

There's no technical reason that trains can't be an effective, environmentally friendly alternative to intra-region air travel today. The problem is that the government chooses to heavily subsidize airlines, while investing virtually nothing in passenger rail. Shame, really. I'm not saying that we would be seeing fast, cheap trains between San Francisco and New York -- but it's ridiculous that there's only one train between Seattle and San Francisco, and that it takes nearly a day to get there.

kingkongrevenge 19y ago
Trains are competing with cars, not so much planes. It's the government subsidy of highways that's insane.
- timr 19y ago
  I largely agree about the insanity of our highway subsidy, but I can see some of the logic in it. Cars are more convenient/practical in rural areas, and the US is pretty rural (I think it's stupid and short-sighted to encourage rural development via highway subsidy, but that's another rant). That said, in most of the developed world, the competition is between planes and trains. Cars are more expensive (probably because they're not as heavily subsidized).
  - kingkongrevenge 19y ago
    > Cars are more convenient/practical in rural areas Not really true. It only seems that way because of the development pattern subsidized highways have enabled. In much of the world housing is clustered in dense towns in rural areas. This was the normal development pattern in the US in the 1800s. Rural towns were fairly dense and walkable. The productive land was around the town. The housing was not needlessly spread out through the productive land.
    - timr 19y ago
      Well, yeah. I think we agree, and that's what I meant when I said that rural development subsidy is stupid. Still, the US is a lot bigger than, say, France or Germany. It's harder to build comprehensive train systems between urban areas here (particularly in places like the west).