4 ms·

There is also the environmental impact to consider. Air travel has a much larger emission profile compared to train travel, and train travel has a much larger c

by illvm 8y ago

There is also the environmental impact to consider. Air travel has a much larger emission profile compared to train travel, and train travel has a much larger capacity. Plus, rail station are often in the center of the city rather than on the outskirts like airports are. e.g. traveling by train from Boston to NYC vs flying is almost a wash time wise due to travel to/from the airport + buffer time for security.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
Getting to the city center, though, is often problematic. You either follow the existing railroad lines, which often have tight curves, or you build your own, which involves ripping out a long path through the already-existing city.
- rangibaby 8y ago
  if Japan can manage it America can
  - yellowapple 8y ago
    The more relevant comparison would be California specifically instead of all of America. Still, given that if California were an independent country it'd be right behind Japan in terms of GDP, if Japan can manage high-speed rail, we should be able to.
    - woolvalley 8y ago
      The issue is a large chunk of tax revenue goes to the federal govt, not the state of calfornia. That and their mismanagement of property tax and pubic pensions.
- scatters 8y ago
  Or you tunnel. Expensive, but effective.
  - Piskvorrr 8y ago
    Exponentially expensive. Do I hear "seismically active terrain"?
captainperl 8y ago
> There is also the environmental impact to consider. Air travel has a much larger emission profile compared to train travel I'm not sure that's true. Heavy locomotives require a lot of fuel, and aircraft turbine engines are fairly efficient these days (airplanes roughly get 1% more efficient per year, compounded annually.) Railroads also divide the landscape, which has a highly negative impact on wild-life roaming and migration patterns.
- tomarr 8y ago
  It definitely is true, these are electrified lines and rolling resistance is low. For equivalent distances elsewhere emissions are 80-90% lower with rail over air transport. With the potential for solar in SoCal there is no reason this could not be even better. Dividing the landscape is a separate issue. It can be mitigated against (tunnels, habitat bridges, route planning), but alone it's not an excuse to stick with emission heavy modes of transport.

by illvm 8y ago

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

Getting to the city center, though, is often problematic. You either follow the existing railroad lines, which often have tight curves, or you build your own, which involves ripping out a long path through the already-existing city.

rangibaby 8y ago
if Japan can manage it America can
- yellowapple 8y ago
  The more relevant comparison would be California specifically instead of all of America. Still, given that if California were an independent country it'd be right behind Japan in terms of GDP, if Japan can manage high-speed rail, we should be able to.
  - woolvalley 8y ago
    The issue is a large chunk of tax revenue goes to the federal govt, not the state of calfornia. That and their mismanagement of property tax and pubic pensions.
scatters 8y ago
Or you tunnel. Expensive, but effective.
- Piskvorrr 8y ago
  Exponentially expensive. Do I hear "seismically active terrain"?

captainperl 8y ago

> There is also the environmental impact to consider. Air travel has a much larger emission profile compared to train travel I'm not sure that's true. Heavy locomotives require a lot of fuel, and aircraft turbine engines are fairly efficient these days (airplanes roughly get 1% more efficient per year, compounded annually.) Railroads also divide the landscape, which has a highly negative impact on wild-life roaming and migration patterns.

tomarr 8y ago
It definitely is true, these are electrified lines and rolling resistance is low. For equivalent distances elsewhere emissions are 80-90% lower with rail over air transport. With the potential for solar in SoCal there is no reason this could not be even better. Dividing the landscape is a separate issue. It can be mitigated against (tunnels, habitat bridges, route planning), but alone it's not an excuse to stick with emission heavy modes of transport.