8 ms·
Trim 45 min? That would barely account for the commute to the airport in most cities. Most train stations are right in the city, as opposed to airports. in Fra
by serbrech 7y ago
Trim 45 min? That would barely account for the commute to the airport in most cities.
Most train stations are right in the city, as opposed to airports.
in France high speed rail between Paris and other cities has pretty much killed the local plane routes.
- leggomylibro 7y agoYes, exactly. Amtrak is already an option that gets you between city centers, and it's fairly quick and cheap between nearby coastal cities. It's not "high-speed", but passenger trains do exist in the US, and any proposed high-speed rail project will have to compete with them. "We get you there an hour quicker, but still slightly slower than an airplane" is not necessarily a hugely appealing differentiator which would justify charging much more.
- crooked-v 7y agoAmtrak is wildly unreliably because of how much it shares rails with freight trains, which is the real problem with it more than just travel time.
- ShinTakuya 7y agoMost of the time high speed rail wins out vs planes for short to medium distances due to travel time to the airport, the need to arrive early to the airport and the amount of time it takes to get past security check points and so on in airports. Typically as far as I've seen it's only once the travel time exceeds 3 hours by high speed rail that the plane starts to win.