10 ms·

Whatever the commercial viability of this particular idea, I hope that pressure from such ventures, whether delusional or otherwise, can inspire greater democra

Whatever the commercial viability of this particular idea, I hope that pressure from such ventures, whether delusional or otherwise, can inspire greater democratisation and fare transparency in air travel. For instance, I would be willing to pay an airline some amount of monthly recurring fees (though perhaps not $1k) to option certain seats on a large selection of flights at low prices. The monthly recurring revenue could, in theory, offset the impact of my unpredictability as a passenger on booking calculations. Edit: On the other hand, I'd much rather the money go into some sort of vaguely 21st century high-speed rail infrastructure, particularly for short to medium inter-city trips. The absence of such makes us the laughingstock of Europe and Asia.

excuse-me 15y ago
Thats what you get now (and for the last 40years)by buying full price tickets - you can simply not checkin and pay nothing Thats the whole reason for overbooking flights, adn why you can upgrade to 1st class - the airline only knows that the discount seats will show up
- zackattack 15y ago
  $180 for a flight tomorrow AM on southwest SFO LAX. That's $360 RT. Of course Palo Alto is more convenient than SFO and you're going to be taking a $100 car ride each way that's $200. So $560. Four times a month and it's a bargain... I know plenty of people from Palo Alto who had made that type of commute twice a week.
drgath 15y ago
> The absence of such makes us the laughingstock of Europe and Asia. Please. The geography of the US compared to these Europe & Asia projects are so radically different, the reason high-speed rail hasn't been a priority is because it isn't as viable here. Rail fares are more expensive than flights [1], and a trip from SF<->LA would take anywhere from 2-3 times as long. No thanks. I've traveled by air and rail around Europe, and I greatly prefer flying. Cheaper, and faster. The only people laughing at us are the americans who think a rail infrastructure is something to be jealous of. [1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/despite-rising-price-tag-high-speed-rail-fares-are-projected-remain-steady http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/despite-rising-price...
- ScotterC 15y ago
  I would give a counter argument. Our industrial rail system is actually a stellar system. We simply made a choice a century ago to make our industrial rail a priority. Passenger railroad was the choice of Europe, but we can move freight across the country faster then anyone. This of course hampers any chance of passenger rail because they use the same infrastructure.
  - stephengillie 15y ago
    Greyhound is cheaper and faster from Seattle to LA than Amtrak.
  - stephengillie 15y ago
    Greyhound is cheaper and faster from Seattle to LA than Amtrak.
- justincormack 15y ago
  Not everyone wants to go long distance all the time. Europe has airports too. Personally in Europe I usually prefer trains up to around 8 hours journey, but it varies and I do go for longer. You can work much more effectively on trains. That is say 1000 miles on high speed train roughly - you have places closer than that I think...
- vidarh 15y ago
  Norway has a population density about 1:10th that of the US, and somehow making rail work in most of the country hasn't been an issue. What people forget whenever making this argument is that while your population density is low, you have large areas - larger than many countries - with quite high density. Your population density is pulled down by the vast areas with really low density. And yes, as a European: Your rail infrastructure is the subject of widespread ridicule. I'm 36. I don't have a drivers license - I've never had a compelling need for one. Only time I've ever missed having one is when visiting the US.
  - sneak 15y ago
robomartin 15y ago
> I'd much rather the money go into some sort of vaguely 21st century high-speed rail infrastructure, particularly for short to medium inter-city trips. Yikes! No! This is a complete waste of money. Our cities are just not built to make use of something like this. The various stake holders (environmental groups, politicians, industry, unions, etc.) all but make sure that these projects will cost ten times more than they should and end-up in exactly the wrong places. And, because of this, not enough people will use them. Take the proposal that was floating around a while ago (maybe still is) to build a high-speed rail connection between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Maybe it is a good idea, I don't know. Here's the problem. The start point in LA is Central Station. That's Downtown Los Angeles. In other words, an hour to two hours away from this great mass of people living in the area. That is, if you even want to consider going Downtown (it ain't like Downtown San Francisco). I know I have absolutely zero interest in driving 50 miles to get on a train. Heck, I avoid LAX like the plague. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see mass transportation akin to what they have in Europe. On my most recent trip I took the train from Amsterdam to Munich. I was great. I think that Europe evolved into this infrastructure while we evolved into something else. Take a city like Amsterdam and look at the light rail going everywhere. And take a look at the tens of thousands of bikes running around. That bike parking lot in Dam Square across from Central Station is simply amazing. Their culture and way of life have evolved around these ideas. Try to bring something like that into a megalopolis like Los Angeles and you'll fail. The place simply was not built with this kind of thinking in the first place. Heck, I drive 60 miles a day just picking up my kids from school! I would like to see a transition to something more sensible than what we are doing today. I really would. I just don't think that high-speed rail is the way to do it and, therefore, think that investing in it would be a complete waste of money and resources. If you want to feed money into something that has the potential to make great changes given our way of life and culture, send your monthly check to companies like Tesla. We desperately need to move away from these horrible, polluting and inefficient gasoline engines into something that provides greater options in terms of where energy might come from and could just be better for the environment. When in Europe do as the Europeans. Here in the US. Well.
- rwhitman 15y ago
  The proposed maglev train to Vegas from LA was supposed to be from Anaheim (aka Disneyland), not Union ("Central") Station in Downtown LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California-Nevada_Interstate_Maglev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California-Nevada_Interstate_Ma...
tomsaffell 15y ago
Funny that you should mention recurring fees in return for lower prices _and_ inter-city rail infrastructure - that's exactly what the Swiss have: http://www.sbb.ch/en/travelcards-and-tickets/railpasses/half-fare-travelcard.html http://www.sbb.ch/en/travelcards-and-tickets/railpasses/half...
- bergie 15y ago
  German railways also lets you buy a discount card - 25%, 50%, or 100% valid for a year. I got the BahnCard 50, and the first week of intense conferencing already paid it back.
rwhitman 15y ago
On the East Coast high speed rail infrastructure has existed for over a decade. So CA is also trailing other parts of the US as well, considering that Amtrak has been able to operate Acela trains across multiple states on aging infrastructure for some time now.
- hamidpalo 15y ago
  Acela is awesome and I prefer it to flying when going from Boston to NYC and back, but you can really tell that the tracks are old. The ride is nowhere near as smooth as the trains in Europe, especially when you hit 150 mph.
wyclif 15y ago
The absence of such makes us the laughingstock of Europe and Asia. I was with you till this point, but that's just wrong. The USA is vastly larger than continental Europe, and has problems of scale that are correspondingly larger. If you don't believe me, let me do some back-of-the-envelope land area comparisons for you to the UK, France, and Germany (or your country of choice).
- leoedin 15y ago
  No-one's suggesting cross-continent rail. The argument that US population densities are vastly below those in other countries is true on a country wide scale, but false when you look at the key population corridors. San Francisco to San Diego is approximately 500 miles. 24 million people live in that corridor.[1] Paris to Marseille is 481 miles. It takes about 3 hours and 16 minutes by train to make that journey. I'm not particularly adept at French, so finding corridor population details is difficult. However, judging by the population of the regions the train passes through [2], I'd estimate that (11.7, 1.6, 6.1 and 4.9) 24.3 million people live in that corridor. That's a really rather close number. Lack of high speed rail in the US is probably due to the auto companies removing the public transport that provides a feeder into that kind of system. The large spread out cities are a symptom of a car culture, not the other way around. [1]: http://www.slideshare.net/mmazner/ne-corridor-facts http://www.slideshare.net/mmazner/ne-corridor-facts [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_list_of_French_regions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_list_of_French_regions

excuse-me 15y ago

Thats what you get now (and for the last 40years)by buying full price tickets - you can simply not checkin and pay nothing Thats the whole reason for overbooking flights, adn why you can upgrade to 1st class - the airline only knows that the discount seats will show up

zackattack 15y ago
$180 for a flight tomorrow AM on southwest SFO LAX. That's $360 RT. Of course Palo Alto is more convenient than SFO and you're going to be taking a $100 car ride each way that's $200. So $560. Four times a month and it's a bargain... I know plenty of people from Palo Alto who had made that type of commute twice a week.

drgath 15y ago

> The absence of such makes us the laughingstock of Europe and Asia. Please. The geography of the US compared to these Europe & Asia projects are so radically different, the reason high-speed rail hasn't been a priority is because it isn't as viable here. Rail fares are more expensive than flights [1], and a trip from SF<->LA would take anywhere from 2-3 times as long. No thanks. I've traveled by air and rail around Europe, and I greatly prefer flying. Cheaper, and faster. The only people laughing at us are the americans who think a rail infrastructure is something to be jealous of. [1] http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/despite-rising-price-tag-high-speed-rail-fares-are-projected-remain-steady http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/2011/11/despite-rising-price...

ScotterC 15y ago
I would give a counter argument. Our industrial rail system is actually a stellar system. We simply made a choice a century ago to make our industrial rail a priority. Passenger railroad was the choice of Europe, but we can move freight across the country faster then anyone. This of course hampers any chance of passenger rail because they use the same infrastructure.
- stephengillie 15y ago
  Greyhound is cheaper and faster from Seattle to LA than Amtrak.
- stephengillie 15y ago
  Greyhound is cheaper and faster from Seattle to LA than Amtrak.
justincormack 15y ago
Not everyone wants to go long distance all the time. Europe has airports too. Personally in Europe I usually prefer trains up to around 8 hours journey, but it varies and I do go for longer. You can work much more effectively on trains. That is say 1000 miles on high speed train roughly - you have places closer than that I think...
vidarh 15y ago
Norway has a population density about 1:10th that of the US, and somehow making rail work in most of the country hasn't been an issue. What people forget whenever making this argument is that while your population density is low, you have large areas - larger than many countries - with quite high density. Your population density is pulled down by the vast areas with really low density. And yes, as a European: Your rail infrastructure is the subject of widespread ridicule. I'm 36. I don't have a drivers license - I've never had a compelling need for one. Only time I've ever missed having one is when visiting the US.
- sneak 15y ago

robomartin 15y ago

> I'd much rather the money go into some sort of vaguely 21st century high-speed rail infrastructure, particularly for short to medium inter-city trips. Yikes! No! This is a complete waste of money. Our cities are just not built to make use of something like this. The various stake holders (environmental groups, politicians, industry, unions, etc.) all but make sure that these projects will cost ten times more than they should and end-up in exactly the wrong places. And, because of this, not enough people will use them. Take the proposal that was floating around a while ago (maybe still is) to build a high-speed rail connection between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. Maybe it is a good idea, I don't know. Here's the problem. The start point in LA is Central Station. That's Downtown Los Angeles. In other words, an hour to two hours away from this great mass of people living in the area. That is, if you even want to consider going Downtown (it ain't like Downtown San Francisco). I know I have absolutely zero interest in driving 50 miles to get on a train. Heck, I avoid LAX like the plague. Don't get me wrong. I'd love to see mass transportation akin to what they have in Europe. On my most recent trip I took the train from Amsterdam to Munich. I was great. I think that Europe evolved into this infrastructure while we evolved into something else. Take a city like Amsterdam and look at the light rail going everywhere. And take a look at the tens of thousands of bikes running around. That bike parking lot in Dam Square across from Central Station is simply amazing. Their culture and way of life have evolved around these ideas. Try to bring something like that into a megalopolis like Los Angeles and you'll fail. The place simply was not built with this kind of thinking in the first place. Heck, I drive 60 miles a day just picking up my kids from school! I would like to see a transition to something more sensible than what we are doing today. I really would. I just don't think that high-speed rail is the way to do it and, therefore, think that investing in it would be a complete waste of money and resources. If you want to feed money into something that has the potential to make great changes given our way of life and culture, send your monthly check to companies like Tesla. We desperately need to move away from these horrible, polluting and inefficient gasoline engines into something that provides greater options in terms of where energy might come from and could just be better for the environment. When in Europe do as the Europeans. Here in the US. Well.

rwhitman 15y ago
The proposed maglev train to Vegas from LA was supposed to be from Anaheim (aka Disneyland), not Union ("Central") Station in Downtown LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California-Nevada_Interstate_Maglev http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California-Nevada_Interstate_Ma...

tomsaffell 15y ago

Funny that you should mention recurring fees in return for lower prices _and_ inter-city rail infrastructure - that's exactly what the Swiss have: http://www.sbb.ch/en/travelcards-and-tickets/railpasses/half-fare-travelcard.html http://www.sbb.ch/en/travelcards-and-tickets/railpasses/half...

bergie 15y ago
German railways also lets you buy a discount card - 25%, 50%, or 100% valid for a year. I got the BahnCard 50, and the first week of intense conferencing already paid it back.

rwhitman 15y ago

On the East Coast high speed rail infrastructure has existed for over a decade. So CA is also trailing other parts of the US as well, considering that Amtrak has been able to operate Acela trains across multiple states on aging infrastructure for some time now.

hamidpalo 15y ago
Acela is awesome and I prefer it to flying when going from Boston to NYC and back, but you can really tell that the tracks are old. The ride is nowhere near as smooth as the trains in Europe, especially when you hit 150 mph.

wyclif 15y ago

The absence of such makes us the laughingstock of Europe and Asia. I was with you till this point, but that's just wrong. The USA is vastly larger than continental Europe, and has problems of scale that are correspondingly larger. If you don't believe me, let me do some back-of-the-envelope land area comparisons for you to the UK, France, and Germany (or your country of choice).

leoedin 15y ago
No-one's suggesting cross-continent rail. The argument that US population densities are vastly below those in other countries is true on a country wide scale, but false when you look at the key population corridors. San Francisco to San Diego is approximately 500 miles. 24 million people live in that corridor.[1] Paris to Marseille is 481 miles. It takes about 3 hours and 16 minutes by train to make that journey. I'm not particularly adept at French, so finding corridor population details is difficult. However, judging by the population of the regions the train passes through [2], I'd estimate that (11.7, 1.6, 6.1 and 4.9) 24.3 million people live in that corridor. That's a really rather close number. Lack of high speed rail in the US is probably due to the auto companies removing the public transport that provides a feeder into that kind of system. The large spread out cities are a symptom of a car culture, not the other way around. [1]: http://www.slideshare.net/mmazner/ne-corridor-facts http://www.slideshare.net/mmazner/ne-corridor-facts [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_list_of_French_regions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_list_of_French_regions