When Trains are Faster than Airplanes
- Posted by Bill Belew in Transportation
Jun 17,2008
In some worlds trains are faster than airplanes, or at least definitely more convenient considering fuel and airline ticket prices, rising the way they are.
Image by Nicola Beccu
Europe’s first high speed train link from Paris to Lyon saw air traffic drop significantly. This was followed by the same phenomenon more recently in the Paris-London, Paris-Brussels and Paris-Amsterdam combinations. Madrid-Barcelona high speed trains caused an 18.4% drop in airline passengers. When I lived in Japan, Tokyo was linked to Niigata by bullet train and the air route was canceled altogether.
It’s faster to get on the train and than to going to the outer limits of the city to reach the airport, check-in, fly, check-out, etc.
Image by Dan Holder
Train speeds are pushing along faster - 300 kph (200mph) about the speed and sometimes better of small commuter airlines. In any event, can we expect trains to overtake plane routes in more places? I don’t see it happening in the States. The country is too big. However, there has been talk of a high speed train route from San Francisco to Los Angeles.
But, those talks always stall because of some special interest group. In this case, the environmentalists prevent environmentalists from trying to do ‘good.’ Then what?
You may also be interested in:
Aptera Typ-1, Concept Car Does 300mpg
Norway’s Think City Goes 110 miles on One Charge
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe for updates to our RSS feed. Thanks for visiting and please do come back!
Categories
Links
Latest articles
- Goats Are Not Crazy Animals! Think Again!
- The Joyful Trees That Move
- Global Cooling in Kenya?
- An Elephant in My Pocket
- 8 Points - Sarah Palin is at Odds with Environmentalists
- Do-it-yourself Wind Turbine Made from Scrap
- 239 Billion Green Opportunities in China
- Exxon Green Ad Gets Banned in UK
- Growing Food in the Sahara Desert
- Solar Tree Concept by Vivien Muller
Copyright © 2008 - GreenPacks.org
Wordpress theme by Design Disease and SmashingMagazine. Hosting by HostV.
8 Responses to “When Trains are Faster than Airplanes”
Don’t give up on trains in the USA. As plane service gets worse and worse and more delays are added trains have a chance (it takes longer on many routes to fly planes today than it did decades ago). Granted so far the USA has done a horrible job investing in trains where they would make sense (DC - Boston corridor and probably others).
“In any event, can we expect trains to overtake plane routes in more places? I don’t see it happening in the States. The country is too big.”
If I can check in without getting anally probed, carry a water bottle on board, and have a seat larger than 12 inches, I’m game.
The speed of jet engines is being largely offset by social and regulatory factors these days. A high-speed train route that could avoid these would do awesome.
Don’t be so quick to blame environmentalists for stopping high speed trains. Southwest is the most prominent opponent to the LA SFO rail link.
Not true. We tried really hard to book a train from London to Vienna but flying is about $200 cheaper - even with increased price of oil. Sorry world, I’m polluting the atmosphere, but I really really tried to take a train. The train system in Europe is not all that it is cracked up to be.
There is revived talk of a bullet train from LA to Las Vegas. The federal government just released $45 million for an impact study which to me is hilarious. There ain’t jack shit between LA and Vegas except rocks and dirt. Talk about wasting money. There’s nothing to study. Build the fucking thing.
Come by Bangalore.
A 200 odd mile journey between Bangalore and Chennai takes 5 hours by train, centre to centre.
The same one by flight takes ohh….6 hours.
I wonder how much the setup of American cities also affects the desirability of this - I would think that a high speed rail link between Dallas and Houston would be a fairly obvious one too, for instance, but getting around in Dallas without a car is rather tricky. Add the annoyance of booking a rental car, picking it up, making sure that it’s fully fueled before you return it, and the hassle free train becomes less simple. The fact that cities were built with cars in mind, and without consideration for public transport means that some of the advantages gained in Europe cannot happen here. As to the question of the US being too large, that seems peripheral. The entire article seems to focus on links between specific cities, and there are a fair few large ones in close proximity in the US.
Trains make perfect sense in the US in certain areas, like from Boston to Washington DC, which would include NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore and all the smaller cities in between. That trip currently takes about 7.5 hours if you do not take traffic into account, or a 1 to 1.5 hr flight, if you don’t consider where the airport is relative to any given city and all the hassle associated with flying. A high speed train would make perfect sense here there, but in areas like the mid-west US there are large distances between cities, and trains would not make a lot of sense.
I do not see where renting a car has anything to do with it, as you would have to rent a car at the airport anyway.
Leave a reply