5 ms·
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
by 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 agoHey, 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 agoI 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 agoI 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.