Even in Europe the cost is ludicrous relative to the gain.
Additionally, any convenience gained by the user - relative to flight - is almost entirely due to security differentials. Harmonize security and those travel times fall in line right quick.
Apply a tiny fraction of HSR costs to speed up air travel security instead, and you'll see far greater rider convenience increases and save incredible amounts of money.
well if you're assuming the same number of passengers - given the logistics and hassles of air travel, one is likely more inclined to travel with hassle-free HSR, not to mention the secondary economic benefits
The same reason why cell phone roaming in the EU was such a desaster before the regulation. It's too many different players (each country has one ore more railroad companies).
Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such high speed tracks would by far be greater than for any other player just operate an airline. At the same time, the demand for climate friendly travel is not high enough, given that everyone acts selfish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods).
Politicians say that air traveling should not be cheaper than railroad traveling. However, I expect that they will come up with regulations which just makes flying as expensive as railroad traveling.
I'm all for a HSR system and I think it sounds AWESOME, but I have doubts if it would ever catch on.
HSR would have to compete with the current airline system. If it's cheaper, more convenient to ride, and the time required to travel is comparable to airline, it could catch on, but as it stands I'm unsure if there's enough room for it to survive while competing against the airline system.
Commercial airlines travel at around 500-600 miles per hour, so if a HSR system is able to reach 220mph, then the plane will get you there about ~2.5x as fast. Of course. People consider their time to be valuable, so if you need to get somewhere quick, you'd likely just take the airplane, unless you're traveling somewhat nearby (like San Francisco to Los Angeles). It would appeal to most people not having to deal with the TSA, but there's no guarantee TSA wouldn't decide that it's their duty to "protect" (terrorize) the people in the HSR system as well.
Somebody please write me a message to convince me my message is nonsense and that a HSR system is a great idea.
The problem is that flights are not sustainable much longer. Flying uses an astounding amount of subsidized fossil fuels, requires infrastructure that takes up quite a large amount of space, and is increasingly both inconvenient and intrusive. They're also a separate matter from the last-mile problem that bicycles, scooters, and autonomous vehicles aim to solve (assuming we can structure AV use in a way that, during the transition period towards full subscription use, doesn't increase traffic like so-called ridesharing taxis do now).
The United States can be one of these countries funding HSR. Countries that are quite pleasant to live in--and some that aren't, depending on your outlook--are already funding HSR and already have expansive rail networks. There's no reason we can't, too.
Well, no. You just made that up. HSR is intended to meet a future need for transportation. The equivalent air transportation infrastructure to meet the same need is believed to cost at least $500bn, according to the environmental impact report. That's making the generous assumptions that this level of air travel is even possible without serious air traffic congestion problems, and the aviation fuel costs do not rise faster than general inflation.
The main cost of CAHSR will be the opportunity cost of not having built it.
Realistically there are much better ways to speed up the flight experience without actually making planes fly any faster. To name a few:
- Accessible, high speed rail connections to the airport
- Better throughput with security theater
- Faster boarding methods to prioritize speed (back rows first)
- Faster luggage claim process
and so on. There's a reason why high speed rail is competitive with flights below a fairly long distance. Most people aren't flying this far at current prices, which does not even reflect the full cost of carbon emissions. Flying faster is inevitably less efficient, and when the full cost of energy is reflected on the price tag, this is only going to be less appealing.
Because it's still too expensive when compared to flying. Just look at the cost of the high speed rail plan in California. Until the price of jet fuel is much higher, economically, it makes more sense to fly.
I say let the high speed rails come naturally (because they will eventually): don't try to force it.
How can we possibly know that it is safer? The damn thing doesn't even exist yet! Also we already have the infrastructure for air travel so there is no way it is cheaper.
That's an extremely expensive and impractical solution. EDIT: By "impractical" I mean that it doesn't help safety much, but does totally wreck US air travel for several years.
Airline flights, and international travel generally, is _incredibly cheap_ compared to basically all human history. Adding in just a little more cost for a measurable, significant safety benefit seems like an obvious choice.
I think it would make a lot more technical, economic and environmental sense to make air travel greener and quieter through regulation and investment in Europe's world-class aerospace industry rather than attempt to build integrated high-speed rail across the continent at vast cost and over huge delays spent negotiating with different landowner every 200 meters.
Even if you account for the security issues, I never had a plane in Europe being quicker than the plane (with all the overhead). In most cases is double or triple the time (for shorter distances) or close to impossible for longer ones.
That has a major danger of being another Concorde situation, where the second best option is still acceptably fast and much much cheaper. At the end of the day the market for people who are willing to spend an extra $2000 or $4000 to shave an hour and a half off of their travel time isn't very large.
Additionally, any convenience gained by the user - relative to flight - is almost entirely due to security differentials. Harmonize security and those travel times fall in line right quick.
Apply a tiny fraction of HSR costs to speed up air travel security instead, and you'll see far greater rider convenience increases and save incredible amounts of money.
reply