4 ms·

Train travel is also impractical because no train is ever going to be competitive with an airplane on a Chicago-Houston, Chicago-Boston, or (heh) Chicago-Seattl

Train travel is also impractical because no train is ever going to be competitive with an airplane on a Chicago-Houston, Chicago-Boston, or (heh) Chicago-Seattle route, simply because of the distances involved, even assuming the train runs the top operational speed of the Shanghai Maglev for the entire route. Under your hypothetical, I'd certainly take the train on some of those routes. The Shanghai Maglev's top operational speed is 268 mph. Chicago–Houston is a little over 1000 miles, so that'd make the trip 4 hours, pretty competitive with a plane (the flight is a little under 3 hours, or about 5 if you want city center to city center). Of course that hypothetical is exceedingly unlikely. But TGV-style speeds would be fine on the route, too; I'd take it if it were a 6- or 7-hour trip, if the cost were reasonable. I think the reasonable-cost part is a bigger barrier than any technical feasibility, since the economics are unlikely to work out.

tptacek 12y ago
A plane would crush a 6-7-hour train ride, both in travel time and in cost.
- _delirium 12y ago
  It wouldn't crush it in travel time, but yes likely so in cost. Travel time is realistically 5 hours right now by plane, if everything goes well, often 6+ when it doesn't (which is about half the time, because IAH-ORD on-time performance sucks). I'd definitely take a high-speed train if it existed and somehow managed to not be a bazillion dollars, which admittedly means I never will.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    If planes have to account for delays, so do trains: the on-time performance of the Acela is comparable.
- toddsiegel 12y ago
  Most Rail stations are in downtown areas. Most large airports are outside of cities. If you're going downtown to downtown you get the driving, parking, security and waiting time back. Air travel may still be better in a pure $ and time basis, but for people like myself looking for a more comfortable travel experience than air, I would still take rail for a few $ more and a little extra time.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Hey, I'd rather spend the time I spend in airports and airplanes in the Acela. I'll probably never fly between two Acela-connected cities. I have a strong preference for trains. That doesn't mean a massive investment in rail is a good plan for the US, or, for that matter, that Brookings is right that we're in the middle of a rail renaissance.
    - akamaka 12y ago
      I think the authors of the study are in agreement with you. They've specifically structured their analysis to point out that despite the growing passenger traffic, it is only a small handful of short routes that don't lose money.
  - trevorstrohman 12y ago
    I think the best use of taxpayer money would be improving the airport experience. The high speed rail initiatives suggested cost many billions of dollars per city served. Suppose that, instead, we spent those billions to remake our airports. For instance, imagine moving the "terminal" to the city center, with a high speed rail line (inside security) that takes you directly to the runway. There must be some way to use a billion dollars for significantly faster baggage service, and another billion for faster security. Hopefully this would cut a lot of time from the average flight. Airports would get much smaller because people wouldn't be waiting around in them.

tptacek 12y ago

A plane would crush a 6-7-hour train ride, both in travel time and in cost.

_delirium 12y ago
It wouldn't crush it in travel time, but yes likely so in cost. Travel time is realistically 5 hours right now by plane, if everything goes well, often 6+ when it doesn't (which is about half the time, because IAH-ORD on-time performance sucks). I'd definitely take a high-speed train if it existed and somehow managed to not be a bazillion dollars, which admittedly means I never will.
- tptacek 12y ago
  If planes have to account for delays, so do trains: the on-time performance of the Acela is comparable.
toddsiegel 12y ago
Most Rail stations are in downtown areas. Most large airports are outside of cities. If you're going downtown to downtown you get the driving, parking, security and waiting time back. Air travel may still be better in a pure $ and time basis, but for people like myself looking for a more comfortable travel experience than air, I would still take rail for a few $ more and a little extra time.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Hey, I'd rather spend the time I spend in airports and airplanes in the Acela. I'll probably never fly between two Acela-connected cities. I have a strong preference for trains. That doesn't mean a massive investment in rail is a good plan for the US, or, for that matter, that Brookings is right that we're in the middle of a rail renaissance.
  - akamaka 12y ago
    I think the authors of the study are in agreement with you. They've specifically structured their analysis to point out that despite the growing passenger traffic, it is only a small handful of short routes that don't lose money.
- trevorstrohman 12y ago
  I think the best use of taxpayer money would be improving the airport experience. The high speed rail initiatives suggested cost many billions of dollars per city served. Suppose that, instead, we spent those billions to remake our airports. For instance, imagine moving the "terminal" to the city center, with a high speed rail line (inside security) that takes you directly to the runway. There must be some way to use a billion dollars for significantly faster baggage service, and another billion for faster security. Hopefully this would cut a lot of time from the average flight. Airports would get much smaller because people wouldn't be waiting around in them.