Can you quantify why rail is inefficient for moving people? It seems to work well in Europe, for instance. The criticism of high-speed rail in China didn't last long.
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.
> Harmonize security and those travel times fall in line right quick.
The security differential in the US is based in large part on the fact that airplanes can (a) be diverted by hijackers to alternate destinations, and (b) be used as weapons against arbitrary targets.
Since the risks aren't the same, why would you aim to harmonize security, except as a pure subsidy to the airline industry?
Can you provide the numbers to back up your statement? I realize on most other sites it's ok to so the cost is ludicrous, but here it's better to provide the numbers so other people can evaluate.
Thanks. Now we can address what you've said because clearly you are wrong, even from your own articles. This doesn't make it sound like train transportation is ludicrous.
"The busiest high-speed lines in the world are capable of making money, Bel said, including those between Paris and Lyon, where about 25 million people ride the French TGV trains each year, and the Japanese Shinkansen trains between Tokyo and Osaka, which draw about 130 million riders a year."
As for Spain, they've spent $60 billion dollars since 1980. That's less than one high-speed rail train in California and they've got almost 2000 miles of track.
We should dig up some other sources. They site that you provided doesn't seem like it's a great source. It doesn't say how much money is actually lost. Simply that it's not profitable.
Here in Europe rail is mostly used for commuting and shorter distances in general. Especially in smaller countries. That part of rail is not competing with flying in any way.
I would think that is only true for 'rail designed for cargo' or 'rail in not too densely populated areas'. Isn't rail designed for humans as used in subways efficient almost everywhere? I would think it definitely beats private cars.
I think that one reason for that is that, for reliable connections, one needs a multiple-connected graph. Users must be able to 'go around' any disturbance that arises.
Cities with high auto use tend to have lower commutes, cities with high metro use tend to have longer commutes. Of course in this case more than any other causation =/= correlation, but just anecdotally you'll find loads of people in Manhattan and Queens with 45+min subway+foot commutes to go a few miles.
NY, the most subway-centric city, has the longest commutes in the US. LA, "the most car centric city" (probably not literally true) tends to have amongst the shortest.
Decommission those NYC subways and replace with private shuttles and busses. Bet you'll see dramatic drops in commute times for NYC. And it'll save incredible, incredible amounts of money.
Los Angeles does not have below-average commute times; it has above-average commute times (the mean is just a hair under 30 minutes).
The NYC subway system is also a red herring. The subway primarily serves Manhattan, The Bronx, and Brooklyn. Of those people who commute into Manhattan from another borough, a plurality come from Queens, half of which has no subway coverage at all; that's for people inside NYC proper and obviously excludes NJ, Westchester, and Long Island commuters.
> NY, the most subway-centric city, has the longest commutes in the US. LA, "the most car centric city" (probably not literally true) tends to have amongst the shortest.
NY has much, much higher population density than LA, which probably both explains why it was more subway-centric and why commutes are longer.
There's a reason LA has shorter commutes: because highways and car traffic don't scale, and subways do, so it's impossible to get as far as you could with a subway. Los Angelenos still have 45 minute commutes, they just don't get as far and burn a lot of petroleum getting there.
The average commute in NYC is 45mins, which is almost 50% higher than the national average. LA always has a below average commute time.
The fact that LA metro has such short commutes - despite being one of the largest and most car dependent big cities in the world - suggests that highways and private cars do, in fact, scale very well.
While I've never been there, my impression of LA is that it's very sprawling. Maybe not everyone has to go to one central area to work. Unlike Chicago's Loop or lower Manhattan where a lot of the commutes tend to converge in one general area. If few people have the same commute destination, individual cars would be more effective than mass transit.
That problem is already solved, and it doesn't require light rail: Privately run shuttles and busses.
It'll never happen, as it's opposed by (1) Taxi operators, (2) Mass transit operators & unions, AND (3) Do-gooders who don't want private business to succeed where public service has failed.
