5 ms·

The majority of flights in the US are relatively short distance. The top ten most popular flights in the US are [1]: 1. LA to NYC (2800 miles) 2. SF to LA (35

The majority of flights in the US are relatively short distance. The top ten most popular flights in the US are [1]: 1. LA to NYC (2800 miles) 2. SF to LA (350 miles) 3. NYC to Chicago (800 miles) 4. LA to Chicago (2000 miles) 5. Atlanta to Orlando (440 miles) 6. LA to Las Vegas (270 miles) 7. LA to Seattle (1100 miles) 8. Denver to LA (1000 miles) 9. Atlanta to NYC (850 miles) 10. Atlanta to Fort Lauderdale (640 miles) Many of those flights would benefit from a high speed rail connection. Modern high speed trains can travel at around half the speed of passenger planes, and save around 2~ hours traveling to/from the airport, checking in, security checks and boarding. That means the break even point in terms of time is around 800~1000 miles. Anything below that and a modern high speed trains are faster than airplanes. That means that high speed trains are a competitive (and for many, faster) alternative to 8 of the 10 most popular flight routes in the US. On those lines alone, they can replace ~200K flights per year in the US. They are also generally much more comfortable, because space and weight is much cheaper on trains than it is on airplanes. Another very important consideration here is that we know how to make sustainable train travel; we have no idea how to make sustainable passenger air travel. [1] https://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/44259160/these-are-the-10-busiest-air-routes-in-the-u-s/ https://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/44259160/these-are-the-...

sokoloff 6y ago
Keep in mind that, because of the hub and spoke route system, that the most popular flights don't match the most common tickets. 6 of the top 10 routes touch LAX and 3 are from ATL. I haven't been outside the airport to Los Angeles in over 35 years, but I've been through LAX probably a dozen times since then. I wouldn't be surprised if more pax buy tickets from NYC to the Miami area (FLL above) than originate in the Atlanta area and fly to Miami area. If that's true, they're not likely to be happy with high-speed rail replacing their NYC3-ATL-FLL travel. I agree with you on the sustainability point, but it's not at all clear to me that rail is the answer.
- mytherin 6y ago
  That's a good point, but airplane transfers are pretty bad in terms of time efficiency. Every transfer adds at least another 1.5~2 hours to your journey, and is very uncomfortable because you need to get out and switch airplanes. For your example, NYC to Miami, the distance is only around 1200 miles in total. Once you add in the extra time taken to travel by airplane and extra hours to make the transfer, the total time taken for the trip easily reaches 7 hours. And those are not a very comfortable 7 hours, with many stops, a lot of waiting in lines, etc. A high speed train could make that same trip in 6 hours, and it would be 6 hours you can spend working in relative comfort. I know which option I would heavily prefer.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    How long until you realistically believe we could have actual track in place allowing a 6-hour city-center to city-center NYC to Miami journey? I think the answer is "not in the next 50 years".
    - mytherin 6y ago
      This attitude is very common in the US, and it surprises me. The US has done magnificent things. When did the US become a country that couldn't, rather than a country that could? Building a rail network of that size is also not unprecedented. China is the same size as the US, and is a country with much fewer financial resources. They started construction on their high-speed rail network in 2006, and now that network covers almost half their country. Another interesting thing I found, apparently they are now prototyping trains that run at 400 mph [1], which is 75% of the speed of a passenger airplane. I wager we will see trains that are as fast as airplanes long before we see functional sustainable airplanes. [1] https://asiatimes.com/2019/05/chinas-600km-h-train-set-for-2020-test-run/ https://asiatimes.com/2019/05/chinas-600km-h-train-set-for-2...
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        Well, for the NYC to DC corridor, that passes through some of the most built-up areas of the country and someone already owns all of that land. Some of the best land for placing a rail network there already is owned by freight lines and has rail installed. It's not that hard nor expensive to put 400 miles of new rail across Nebraska. It's quite a bit harder and much, much more expensive to buy all the land needed to put 400 miles of new rail between DC and NYC.

sokoloff 6y ago

Keep in mind that, because of the hub and spoke route system, that the most popular flights don't match the most common tickets. 6 of the top 10 routes touch LAX and 3 are from ATL. I haven't been outside the airport to Los Angeles in over 35 years, but I've been through LAX probably a dozen times since then. I wouldn't be surprised if more pax buy tickets from NYC to the Miami area (FLL above) than originate in the Atlanta area and fly to Miami area. If that's true, they're not likely to be happy with high-speed rail replacing their NYC3-ATL-FLL travel. I agree with you on the sustainability point, but it's not at all clear to me that rail is the answer.

mytherin 6y ago
That's a good point, but airplane transfers are pretty bad in terms of time efficiency. Every transfer adds at least another 1.5~2 hours to your journey, and is very uncomfortable because you need to get out and switch airplanes. For your example, NYC to Miami, the distance is only around 1200 miles in total. Once you add in the extra time taken to travel by airplane and extra hours to make the transfer, the total time taken for the trip easily reaches 7 hours. And those are not a very comfortable 7 hours, with many stops, a lot of waiting in lines, etc. A high speed train could make that same trip in 6 hours, and it would be 6 hours you can spend working in relative comfort. I know which option I would heavily prefer.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  How long until you realistically believe we could have actual track in place allowing a 6-hour city-center to city-center NYC to Miami journey? I think the answer is "not in the next 50 years".
  - mytherin 6y ago
    This attitude is very common in the US, and it surprises me. The US has done magnificent things. When did the US become a country that couldn't, rather than a country that could? Building a rail network of that size is also not unprecedented. China is the same size as the US, and is a country with much fewer financial resources. They started construction on their high-speed rail network in 2006, and now that network covers almost half their country. Another interesting thing I found, apparently they are now prototyping trains that run at 400 mph [1], which is 75% of the speed of a passenger airplane. I wager we will see trains that are as fast as airplanes long before we see functional sustainable airplanes. [1] https://asiatimes.com/2019/05/chinas-600km-h-train-set-for-2020-test-run/ https://asiatimes.com/2019/05/chinas-600km-h-train-set-for-2...
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Well, for the NYC to DC corridor, that passes through some of the most built-up areas of the country and someone already owns all of that land. Some of the best land for placing a rail network there already is owned by freight lines and has rail installed. It's not that hard nor expensive to put 400 miles of new rail across Nebraska. It's quite a bit harder and much, much more expensive to buy all the land needed to put 400 miles of new rail between DC and NYC.