3 ms·
>that vast majority of those commutes are 50 miles or less. High speed rail only becomes cost and time effective over much longer distances. Which fraction of t
by dethstar 12y ago
>that vast majority of those commutes are 50 miles or less. High speed rail only becomes cost and time effective over much longer distances. Which fraction of the population need to frequently travel to cities greater than 50 miles away?
Maybe the distance of those commutes are related to the times it takes? Would the average commute grow in distance if the time decreased?
- PeterisP 12y agoCan't find the references now, but yes it does - the tolerance of commute times is pretty static; in historical cases where you improve traffic infrastructure, then after a few years the result is not faster commutes but people living further away; presumably in better or more affordable housing than was previously within their acceptable-commuting-time range.
- rhino369 12y agoThese high speed rails wouldn't really be for commuters because they aren't going to make frequent stops.
- rob_lh 12y agoExactly Jevon's Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox It has all sorts of implications for life/work, where it could open up options for smaller towns; however, the problem becomes one of efficiency for the rail, as it can't slow down at every small town with a minor population unless it really was a feeder to the big city. I think it just reinforces travel between hubs (metropolitan areas, which still might have last-mile problems that Google, Uber, Lyft, etc. focus on). I think it also increases the viability of what a "local ecosystem" entails. Suddenly, a manufacturing town that's normally an airplane away is a couple hours, so it's easier to establish a relationship and coordinate between two currently disconnected sectors.