posted
Why all the talk lately about high-speed train travel in the U.S? If people are in that much of a hurry, can't they just fly?
Posts: 7 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In theory, yes. On Tuesday I was supposed to fly out of LA, for San Jose, at 8am, but various delays and cancellations resulted in a departure of 1:55pm. Certain air corridors are overcrowded (and will probably get more crowded) so high speed rail could be a viable alternative.
Posts: 874 | From: South Bay (LA County), Calif, USA | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Flying is the best way to get places fast over long distances. Aircraft are also at their most efficient over long distances. Aircraft efficiency diminishes greatly over shorter flights.
In regional transportation corridors surface transportation is usually faster if you consider such things as the time it takes to get to and from airports (often an hour at each end), check in time (one hour), etc. The downtown to downtown nature of trains makes it faster to get to them, and usually you only need to be there 30 minutes prior to departure. So in many cases, on trips of a few hundred miles, high speed train travel can actually be faster than or at least competitive with flying. Sometimes even conventional rail is faster. Trains are also cheaper to operate, especially over shorter distances, so fares are lower.
------------------ Trust God, love your neighbor, and never mistake opinion for truth. -Mr. Toy
posted
A good question, however all travel is not so clear cut. Certain travel corridors are so busy that high speed rail is a important option not to be overlooked. The highways in the Northeast are overcrowded, and need to be repaired almost every other year. The airways are airports are crammed and plagued by delays and no new major airports have been built in the past 20 years. It makes sense to have an alternative mode of transportation. While high speed rail may not be viable for long distances, it is important for densly populated regions of the country
Posts: 140 | From: Albany, NY | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out here in California it is difficult to get a competitive price on airline tickets to other destinations WITHIN California. I live in Bakersfield Ca. For me to fly to Los Angeles, 112 miles away, just during the week it costs me $230 round trip if I reserve one week in advance. Its more during the weekends and twice that during summer and holidays! To go to San Francisco which is 300 or so miles, it cost close to $400 dollars or more round trip and takes about an hour on a put-put wind up turbo prop aircraft (EMB 120--seats about 20 or so--it's very crammed). The Amtrak San Joaquin cost about 90-100 round trip most of the year to go from Bakersfield to Oakland (you have to take a shuttle bus across the Bay Bridge), you can move around, the seats are wider, and the food is better. All of the intermediate metropolitan areas between Los Angeles and San Francisco (particularly in the valley) suffer from the same problem. You cannot get a competitive price on tickets to LA or the Bay Area! Not to mention weather in California is a problem. It gets extremely foggy in the Bay Area as well as in the Valley. We are sick of having to wait hours for the fog to clear before we board a small, 20 passenger puke-o-matic put-put plane that costs us our first born child to get a ticket on. For what? because we wanted to save two or three hours. Lets admit it-flying doesn't provide as much freedom as some think it does. It's just about worth it to spend the extra couple of hours. Your wallet will appreciate it too!
Posts: 4 | From: Bakersfield, Ca. 93308 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
