4 ms·
> Aviation is simply much more efficient. Efficient, how? It uses much more energy, makes more noise and creates more pollution. The speed has very little to
by Symbiote 6y ago
> Aviation is simply much more efficient.
Efficient, how? It uses much more energy, makes more noise and creates more pollution.
The speed has very little to do with the funding model. Flights were still faster in the 1970s when many state-owned airlines operated, and trains are little different when private companies run them (see: several European countries).
- EdwinLarkin 6y agoPoint-to-point travel is much faster and more efficient with planes than with trains.
- bluGill 6y agoDon't forget about those rails. A lot of energy is locked in them, not to mention land. Planes need airports and nothing more. Planes also spend their time where there is less wind resistance to deal with. Trains are still a win, but it isn't as clear as it seems.
- closeparen 6y agoTying up capital equipment and personnel for much less time to serve the same journey. Consider San Francisco to Chicago, a route I have done both ways. The flight is 5 hours, the train ride 50 hours. A 737 is more expensive than the California Zephyr trainset, but not by 10x. I'm not sure what noise has to do with efficiency - I doubt that the energy expended on vibrating the air is physically or economically significant - but it is worth noting that trains are loud. Particularly because regulations written in blood require that they blow their horns three times at every level crossing at all hours.
- Symbiote 6y ago(Among developed countries I'm familiar with) it's only the USA that has the excessively loud train horns at level crossings, and a lot of crossings. In Europe, lights, bells (or a beeper thing) and automatic barriers are used instead, sometimes with automatic or manual infrared/visible cameras to confirm the crossing is clear of road vehicles.