4 ms·

This is all missing the point. And is a typical case of solving the problem with a "bigger hammer". China is building a national rail network running at 350km/

by feilipu 16y ago

This is all missing the point. And is a typical case of solving the problem with a "bigger hammer". China is building a national rail network running at 350km/h to with the goal of putting any city within an 8 hour travel radius of Beijing. http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/09/30/7114 http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/09/30/7114 Kind of makes domestic air travel somewhat obsolete and really quite unnecessary.

enjo 16y ago
Why is rail travel inherently superior to air? Every spot in the continental U.S. is already well within 8 hours of...everywhere.
- feilipu 16y ago
  Ah... you can get up and go to the bathroom during "take-off" is one of the main reasons that come to mind. But, there are may others relating to carbon footprint per tonne.km traveled, which have greater relevance.
- ardit33 16y ago
  for short to medium distances it is: 1. Much more comfortable (wider seats, more luggage space, etc) 2. A lot more convenient. No taking off shoes, check points and lines. Plus the chances are a train station would be a lot closer to the center of the city, rather than an airport. 3. Cheaper and less pollution. E.g. If the CA High Speed Rail got build, it would take about 2.5 hrs. from downtown SF, to downtown LA. By plane it is about 50mins. BUT, you should add the time it takes for check in check out (at least 45mins), then the time to travel to the airport themselves (30 mins with Bart, if you live in SF), etc. If High Speed Rail would have been implemented throughout most of the major cities of US, It just wouldn't make sense to fly for short and medium distances. Coast to Coast, yes, coast to Midwest yes, SF to LA or LV, probably not.
  - ryana 16y ago
    "2. A lot more convenient. No taking off shoes, check points and lines. Plus the chances are a train station would be a lot closer to the center of the city, rather than an airport." I would imagine that the first part would change as rail became a more traveled medium, thus making it a more attractive target for terror attacks. However, having train stations closer to the city centers than out in the suburbs would be great.
    - cstross 16y ago
      There have already been terrorist bombing attacks on high speed rail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents It turns out that high speed trains are a lot more robust than planes: the failure mode is usually "soft", i.e. the train comes to a halt safely and damage is confined to one carriage (unlike an airliner). To inflict mass casualties (e.g. 7/7, Madrid) attackers target either busy subway systems at rush hour (7/7) or busy transport terminals with lots of people (Madrid). It's worth noting that both 7/7 and the Madrid bombings involved large suicide teams and multiple bombs -- but killed fewer people than a typical airliner bombing.

by feilipu 16y ago

enjo 16y ago

Why is rail travel inherently superior to air? Every spot in the continental U.S. is already well within 8 hours of...everywhere.

feilipu 16y ago
Ah... you can get up and go to the bathroom during "take-off" is one of the main reasons that come to mind. But, there are may others relating to carbon footprint per tonne.km traveled, which have greater relevance.
ardit33 16y ago
for short to medium distances it is: 1. Much more comfortable (wider seats, more luggage space, etc) 2. A lot more convenient. No taking off shoes, check points and lines. Plus the chances are a train station would be a lot closer to the center of the city, rather than an airport. 3. Cheaper and less pollution. E.g. If the CA High Speed Rail got build, it would take about 2.5 hrs. from downtown SF, to downtown LA. By plane it is about 50mins. BUT, you should add the time it takes for check in check out (at least 45mins), then the time to travel to the airport themselves (30 mins with Bart, if you live in SF), etc. If High Speed Rail would have been implemented throughout most of the major cities of US, It just wouldn't make sense to fly for short and medium distances. Coast to Coast, yes, coast to Midwest yes, SF to LA or LV, probably not.
- ryana 16y ago
  "2. A lot more convenient. No taking off shoes, check points and lines. Plus the chances are a train station would be a lot closer to the center of the city, rather than an airport." I would imagine that the first part would change as rail became a more traveled medium, thus making it a more attractive target for terror attacks. However, having train stations closer to the city centers than out in the suburbs would be great.
  - cstross 16y ago
    There have already been terrorist bombing attacks on high speed rail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents It turns out that high speed trains are a lot more robust than planes: the failure mode is usually "soft", i.e. the train comes to a halt safely and damage is confined to one carriage (unlike an airliner). To inflict mass casualties (e.g. 7/7, Madrid) attackers target either busy subway systems at rush hour (7/7) or busy transport terminals with lots of people (Madrid). It's worth noting that both 7/7 and the Madrid bombings involved large suicide teams and multiple bombs -- but killed fewer people than a typical airliner bombing.