5 ms·

People IN THE US still use regional flights because all sorts of public transport in the US are literally third world crap. EU and parts of developed Asia use a

by nixass 7y ago

People IN THE US still use regional flights because all sorts of public transport in the US are literally third world crap. EU and parts of developed Asia use a lot of inter-city trains. Munich<>Frankfurt (400km) is 3 hours with ICE, much less than going to the airport, wait for check in, boarding, flight, off the plane and to the city centre. It's around 110e too for returns

ghaff 7y ago
And yet Europe has all those discount airlines that people apparently use. A Munich-Frankfurt route is a lot like a Boston or DC to NYC route, which is indeed popular by train in US. (Though traveling that by plane is also popular for reasons I don't understand outside of some fairly specific circumstances like an early morning meeting.)
- gutnor 7y ago
  Borders. That's the problem in the EU. Cooperation for massive infrastructure project beyond a single line or a tunnel is very hard to achieve. Discount airlines are discount mostly because of tax incentive to develop small local airport around the EU. Of course they are popular. In the UK, from London, it is basically cheaper to get anywhere in the EU than anything north of Birmingham.
Sharlin 7y ago
Interstate rail in Europe is still very far from optimal, and long-distance rail service has been declining due to cheap state-subsidized air travel. Overnight service, a natural mode of longer-distance transport, has been scaled back in recent decades, but is now making a comeback due to climate concerns.
bluGill 7y ago
A country in the EU and a state in the US are equivalent (for discussion on transport - in other contexts there are significant differences). Nobody flies between cities in one state, just like nobody flies between cities in one EU country. When going to a different country things change - the distances are now large enough that you fly because it is faster. Remember, Chicago to New York City is almost the same distance as Munich to Moscow! (Note that rail advocates will tell you that Chicago to NYC is just barely in high speed rail range, anything farther even rail advocates don't pretend to be competitive. Chicago to New York City is not very far on the scale of the US, so of course we fly. Yes I will agree that our rail system in the US isn't great, but flying doesn't compete with the rail system, driving does. A good rail system in the US would only negatively affect some short flying routes, it would however mean less people drove.
- ghaff 7y ago
  NYC to Chicago is also through one of the continental divides in the US (as well as some fairly densely populated areas). You're only going to get so fast. And even if you could get a trip down to 8 hours or so (which is less than half of the current time), how many people will routinely do that vs. a couple hour flight? >Nobody flies between cities in one state With some exceptions. Probably most notably SF to LA although there are probably other smaller in-state city pairs that are a long drive from each other especially in the western US.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    There is no technical reason NYC to Chicago can't be done in under 5 hours. Getting the land rights and building tunnels is probably too expensive to pull off, but there is no technical limitation. The continental divide is just an engineering problem to deal with. The cities are actually a good thing as you can make a 1 minute stop in each for more traffic (indeed most advocates suggest that few people will ride the whole route)
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      NYC to Chicago is over 1000km in linear distance (I-80, a decent approximation of the shortest distance you can route it, puts it at 1200km). Making it in 5 hours requires an average speed, including stop penalties, of over 200km/h. And that's bypassing any other major city. A more reasonable route, that goes via Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, runs you closer to 1500-1600km, requiring a 300km/h average speed. With the top speed of conventional trains being about 350km/h, that is impossible. If you bypass every other city between NYC and Chicago, and basically go through a state-long tunnel in Pennsylvania, you might be able to do it with a conventional railroad, but it definitely won't be cost-effective. To hit the other cities, you have to switch to maglev, which makes it cost-ineffective as well. A final note: the city pair you're trying to link up is Chicago-NYC. Given the relatively diminutive size of the other cities en route (Pittsburgh is #27 and Cleveland #33, compared to #1 NYC and #3 Chicago), Chicago-NYC is going to make up the bulk of your traffic, so partial portions of the route aren't particularly effective. This is one of the issues CA has as well: the full SF/LA connection is where the market is, and the HSR can't justify its costs until it connects those two cities.

by nixass 7y ago

ghaff 7y ago

And yet Europe has all those discount airlines that people apparently use. A Munich-Frankfurt route is a lot like a Boston or DC to NYC route, which is indeed popular by train in US. (Though traveling that by plane is also popular for reasons I don't understand outside of some fairly specific circumstances like an early morning meeting.)

gutnor 7y ago
Borders. That's the problem in the EU. Cooperation for massive infrastructure project beyond a single line or a tunnel is very hard to achieve. Discount airlines are discount mostly because of tax incentive to develop small local airport around the EU. Of course they are popular. In the UK, from London, it is basically cheaper to get anywhere in the EU than anything north of Birmingham.

Sharlin 7y ago

Interstate rail in Europe is still very far from optimal, and long-distance rail service has been declining due to cheap state-subsidized air travel. Overnight service, a natural mode of longer-distance transport, has been scaled back in recent decades, but is now making a comeback due to climate concerns.

bluGill 7y ago

A country in the EU and a state in the US are equivalent (for discussion on transport - in other contexts there are significant differences). Nobody flies between cities in one state, just like nobody flies between cities in one EU country. When going to a different country things change - the distances are now large enough that you fly because it is faster. Remember, Chicago to New York City is almost the same distance as Munich to Moscow! (Note that rail advocates will tell you that Chicago to NYC is just barely in high speed rail range, anything farther even rail advocates don't pretend to be competitive. Chicago to New York City is not very far on the scale of the US, so of course we fly. Yes I will agree that our rail system in the US isn't great, but flying doesn't compete with the rail system, driving does. A good rail system in the US would only negatively affect some short flying routes, it would however mean less people drove.

ghaff 7y ago
NYC to Chicago is also through one of the continental divides in the US (as well as some fairly densely populated areas). You're only going to get so fast. And even if you could get a trip down to 8 hours or so (which is less than half of the current time), how many people will routinely do that vs. a couple hour flight? >Nobody flies between cities in one state With some exceptions. Probably most notably SF to LA although there are probably other smaller in-state city pairs that are a long drive from each other especially in the western US.
- bluGill 7y ago
  There is no technical reason NYC to Chicago can't be done in under 5 hours. Getting the land rights and building tunnels is probably too expensive to pull off, but there is no technical limitation. The continental divide is just an engineering problem to deal with. The cities are actually a good thing as you can make a 1 minute stop in each for more traffic (indeed most advocates suggest that few people will ride the whole route)
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    NYC to Chicago is over 1000km in linear distance (I-80, a decent approximation of the shortest distance you can route it, puts it at 1200km). Making it in 5 hours requires an average speed, including stop penalties, of over 200km/h. And that's bypassing any other major city. A more reasonable route, that goes via Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, and Philadelphia, runs you closer to 1500-1600km, requiring a 300km/h average speed. With the top speed of conventional trains being about 350km/h, that is impossible. If you bypass every other city between NYC and Chicago, and basically go through a state-long tunnel in Pennsylvania, you might be able to do it with a conventional railroad, but it definitely won't be cost-effective. To hit the other cities, you have to switch to maglev, which makes it cost-ineffective as well. A final note: the city pair you're trying to link up is Chicago-NYC. Given the relatively diminutive size of the other cities en route (Pittsburgh is #27 and Cleveland #33, compared to #1 NYC and #3 Chicago), Chicago-NYC is going to make up the bulk of your traffic, so partial portions of the route aren't particularly effective. This is one of the issues CA has as well: the full SF/LA connection is where the market is, and the HSR can't justify its costs until it connects those two cities.