2 ms·
That seems a strange argument… yes, if we didn’t have planes, trains would be our best option… but it would be a much worse experience. 20 hours is a lot longer
by cortesoft 5y ago
That seems a strange argument… yes, if we didn’t have planes, trains would be our best option… but it would be a much worse experience. 20 hours is a lot longer than the 5 it takes me to fly to New York.
If there was no air travel, I would just travel a lot less. If you want to argue that the environmental cost of air travel is too great to allow it to happen is one thing, but done act like it wouldn’t make the travel experience a lot worse.
- Gibbon1 5y agoI'd like to see a graph of miles flown per year by decile. internet foo Found this. As I suspected, hockey stick graph. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/airlines.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/1579/airlines.aspx Half the people in the US don't fly at all. 25% fly 1-2 times a year. People that don't fly at all, and people that fly 1-2 times year. Probably wouldn't be much impacted if they had to take a high speed train instead of a plane.
- ant6n 5y agoIt’s not a strange argument. Read the discussion again, which starts with the thesis > All overland passenger transport should be rail. Then it was claimed that this is impossible. My argument is saying it’s possible to have rail replace rail, for example if air travel was severely restricted.