21 ms·
I always wondered about this as well. It seems like a nobrainer especially in SE Australia. Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, up to Brisbaine. Although 600km/h would
by awiesenhofer 7y ago
I always wondered about this as well. It seems like a nobrainer especially in SE Australia. Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, up to Brisbaine. Although 600km/h would probably be unnecessarily fast and not economically viable on these routes, a normal 300+ HSR would surely provide huge benefits.
- sanxiyn 7y agoSydney-Melbourne is indeed no brainer. It is one of the busiest air route in the world.
- netcan 7y agoSydney-Melbourne-Brisbane, even. Between those three, there's over 2,000 flights a week. The land issues are also easier than in most places. Ultimately though, these routes are pretty well serviced by flights. These trains are pretty amazing, but not cheaper or faster than flights.
- fulafel 7y agoIn trains, most of the cost is the fixed cost of the track and it makes sense to get its utilization way up. So the question of cost vs flights is a very dynamic one. Sounds like a good way for Australia to decrease its CO2 emissions would be to subsidize the track and try to get the air travelers to move over.
- netcan 7y agoco2 is a legitimate reason, and may justify the investment. Costs.. agreed in theory. But in practice, modern low cost airlines supported by efficient airports are very hard to beat on price. There are economies of scale here too. Very best case scenario, HSTs are similar in price and convenience and it's a matter of taste.