29 ms·

You doubt rail will compete/replace cross country air travel because "it seems like 1,000 miles is the limit for high speed trains." Is there any reason to thin

by dfc 13y ago

You doubt rail will compete/replace cross country air travel because "it seems like 1,000 miles is the limit for high speed trains." Is there any reason to think that what appears to be the case is actually the case? I do not know a lot about rail travel why is distance a limiting factor? Is it a business limitation or a physical limitation?

mikeash 13y ago
1,000 miles is about the point where air travel starts to become substantially faster than modern high-speed rail. Airplanes add about three hours onto the trip just to account for getting to and from the airports (which are almost always far away from the city), going through security, arriving early enough to account for unexpected problems, etc. With trains it's much less, often well under an hour. However, airplanes go much faster. That DC-Miami trip would be about five hours by high-speed train and is about two hours by plane. It would be roughly a wash when you account for the extra overhead of airplane travel, making the train more attractive due to being more comfortable and potentially cheaper. But go much farther, and the plane starts to get a lot faster. For a coast-to-coast flight, a high-speed train is still going to take nearly a full day, while an airplane can do it in about eight hours after accounting for the extra overhead. So, as far as I can see, 1,000 miles is roughly the breakeven point on planes versus high speed rail.
cmsmith 13y ago
The 1,000 mile rule is pretty widely quoted and is not too controversial. Reasons for it are: 1. Speed (physical limitation). Due to reduced overhead (time getting to and at airport), trains are faster or equivalent to air travel for short (<500 mi) routes, and are not much slower for medium (<1000 mi) routes. Whereas for cross country (~3000 mi) routes, even a high speed train would take a couple of days for a trip that could be made in 10 hours by plane (incl. overhead). 2. Infrastructure costs. Air travel infrastructure is proportional to the number of passengers and constant with respect to the travel distance (since each passenger occupies 1/200th of a gate at two airports for about an hour, regardless of the travel distance. Rail travel infrastructure is proportional to the distance traveled and relatively constant with respect to the number of passengers. These combine to mean that shorter trips with more passengers are more competitive by rail, and longer trips with fewer passengers are more competitive by plane.

by dfc 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

1,000 miles is about the point where air travel starts to become substantially faster than modern high-speed rail. Airplanes add about three hours onto the trip just to account for getting to and from the airports (which are almost always far away from the city), going through security, arriving early enough to account for unexpected problems, etc. With trains it's much less, often well under an hour. However, airplanes go much faster. That DC-Miami trip would be about five hours by high-speed train and is about two hours by plane. It would be roughly a wash when you account for the extra overhead of airplane travel, making the train more attractive due to being more comfortable and potentially cheaper. But go much farther, and the plane starts to get a lot faster. For a coast-to-coast flight, a high-speed train is still going to take nearly a full day, while an airplane can do it in about eight hours after accounting for the extra overhead. So, as far as I can see, 1,000 miles is roughly the breakeven point on planes versus high speed rail.

cmsmith 13y ago

The 1,000 mile rule is pretty widely quoted and is not too controversial. Reasons for it are: 1. Speed (physical limitation). Due to reduced overhead (time getting to and at airport), trains are faster or equivalent to air travel for short (<500 mi) routes, and are not much slower for medium (<1000 mi) routes. Whereas for cross country (~3000 mi) routes, even a high speed train would take a couple of days for a trip that could be made in 10 hours by plane (incl. overhead). 2. Infrastructure costs. Air travel infrastructure is proportional to the number of passengers and constant with respect to the travel distance (since each passenger occupies 1/200th of a gate at two airports for about an hour, regardless of the travel distance. Rail travel infrastructure is proportional to the distance traveled and relatively constant with respect to the number of passengers. These combine to mean that shorter trips with more passengers are more competitive by rail, and longer trips with fewer passengers are more competitive by plane.