4 ms·

High-speed rail is often slower and definitely more expensive than regular rail, if Europe is any guide. Rail is best used for freight. Autonomous busses and

High-speed rail is often slower and definitely more expensive than regular rail, if Europe is any guide. Rail is best used for freight. Autonomous busses and cars (electric) are the best long-term solution for travel. The best approach is simply to enact a Carbon Tax and let the market figure it out. We would be better off promoting mass-contraception to the developing world and halting land clearance in terms of massive targeted CO2 reductions.

azmodeus 7y ago
Even slow trains are a good means of transport. I much prefer a train to buses and cars. I think high speed rail could be potentially a game changer for the job market. In the UK if you could easily commute in from Birmingham or Newcastle then London salaries would be more accessible outside London.
tonyedgecombe 7y ago
How can high-speed rail be slower than regular rail?
Zigurd 7y ago
China relies on rail, and a lot of high speed rail, to move their massive and increasingly mobile population. We no longer need to speculate on whether high speed passenger rail can substitute for a lot of air travel. "...let the market figure it out" would work in a market that isn't already so strongly shaped by subsidies, regulations, and nationalist protectionism. Autonomous vehicles will have a very large and currently underestimated impact on all kinds of other modes of transportation, but there is a wide range of expert views on when that will happen.
alkonaut 7y ago
Good reliable rail is good. High speed rail is the only replacement for air travel though. If you have two large cities 3h by car apart, you can just barely beat that by flying (depending on how big the airport is and whether it's reasonable secureity e.g. come to airport 30min before departure or TSA style 2 hours before). A train is often longe than the highway. You don't even necessarily need special high speed rail, just more rail makes it more high speed because you can mix slow and fast traffic (e.g. no-stop direct trains can run side by side with freight and services that makes 10 stops). Speed doesn't have to come up so much to at least beat road traffic.

azmodeus 7y ago

Even slow trains are a good means of transport. I much prefer a train to buses and cars. I think high speed rail could be potentially a game changer for the job market. In the UK if you could easily commute in from Birmingham or Newcastle then London salaries would be more accessible outside London.

tonyedgecombe 7y ago

How can high-speed rail be slower than regular rail?

Zigurd 7y ago

China relies on rail, and a lot of high speed rail, to move their massive and increasingly mobile population. We no longer need to speculate on whether high speed passenger rail can substitute for a lot of air travel. "...let the market figure it out" would work in a market that isn't already so strongly shaped by subsidies, regulations, and nationalist protectionism. Autonomous vehicles will have a very large and currently underestimated impact on all kinds of other modes of transportation, but there is a wide range of expert views on when that will happen.

alkonaut 7y ago

Good reliable rail is good. High speed rail is the only replacement for air travel though. If you have two large cities 3h by car apart, you can just barely beat that by flying (depending on how big the airport is and whether it's reasonable secureity e.g. come to airport 30min before departure or TSA style 2 hours before). A train is often longe than the highway. You don't even necessarily need special high speed rail, just more rail makes it more high speed because you can mix slow and fast traffic (e.g. no-stop direct trains can run side by side with freight and services that makes 10 stops). Speed doesn't have to come up so much to at least beat road traffic.