Europe Wants a High-Speed Rail Network To Replace Airplanes (cnn.com) 82
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN Travel: Breakfast in Paris, lunch in Frankfurt and dinner in Vienna -- all without the hassle and frustration of flying.
Imagine a network of modern, super-fast and comfortable trains hurtling between every major city in the European Union, providing a reliable, comfortable and sustainable alternative to air travel. That was the vision outlined by rail industry leaders in Lyon, France, on June 29, amid ambitious European plans to double high-speed rail use by 2030 and triple current levels by 2050. Only a massive -- and accelerated -- expansion of the high-speed network can achieve these hugely ambitious targets, but are they a realistic and affordable proposition?
Unlike many parts of the world, Europe already has thousands of kilometers of dedicated high-speed railway. France's world-famous TGVs, Germany's ICE and Spain's AVE have transformed rail travel over the last 40 years, but they remain largely focused on domestic markets. That's no surprise. When countries are investing billions of euros in new infrastructure, political pressure to squeeze out the maximum benefit for taxpayers is inevitable. Building lines across international borders, even within the European Union, creates tension over who pays for what, how the contracts are allocated, conflicting national standards and regulations and a host of other obstacles. For decades it's been too easy to kick difficult projects down the road until they become someone else's problem.
Now a body of European organizations have committed to a new study highlighting the numerous benefits of an expanded high-speed rail network connecting national capitals and major cities. These include the European Commission, the Community of European Railways, the European Rail Supply Industry and ALLRAIL, which represents non-state-owned railways. Most importantly the group will investigate how to pay for tens of thousands of kilometers of new lines and how a radical transformation of the continent's rail network can help the EU deliver on its "Green Deal' objective of carbon neutrality by 2050. Some of that expansion will come on new routes that are planned or under construction but many more will be needed to facilitate the vision of European leaders. "According to EU statistics, 17 of the 20 busiest air routes in Europe cover distances of less than 434 miles (700 kilometers) -- exactly the kind of distances where city center-to-city center trains can offer faster, cleaner and more sustainable journeys -- if the right infrastructure exists," adds CNN.
"And according to Alberto Mazzola of the Community of European Railways, carbon emissions trading could be a key tool in funding the massive investment required to complete a Europe-wide high-speed rail network." A Paris-Berlin flight generates at least six times the CO2 emissions of a similar train journey, notes the report. Meanwhile, flights of less than 621 miles between and within European countries are estimated to create 28 million metric tons of CO2 every year.
"Excess carbon emissions from airliners, trucks and cars are currently charged at 50 euros per ton in the EU, but this could soon rise to 80 euros per ton," reports CNN. "If just 10% of that revenue is re-invested in transport it could add around 8 billion euros a year to the pot for rail upgrades."
Unlike many parts of the world, Europe already has thousands of kilometers of dedicated high-speed railway. France's world-famous TGVs, Germany's ICE and Spain's AVE have transformed rail travel over the last 40 years, but they remain largely focused on domestic markets. That's no surprise. When countries are investing billions of euros in new infrastructure, political pressure to squeeze out the maximum benefit for taxpayers is inevitable. Building lines across international borders, even within the European Union, creates tension over who pays for what, how the contracts are allocated, conflicting national standards and regulations and a host of other obstacles. For decades it's been too easy to kick difficult projects down the road until they become someone else's problem.
Now a body of European organizations have committed to a new study highlighting the numerous benefits of an expanded high-speed rail network connecting national capitals and major cities. These include the European Commission, the Community of European Railways, the European Rail Supply Industry and ALLRAIL, which represents non-state-owned railways. Most importantly the group will investigate how to pay for tens of thousands of kilometers of new lines and how a radical transformation of the continent's rail network can help the EU deliver on its "Green Deal' objective of carbon neutrality by 2050. Some of that expansion will come on new routes that are planned or under construction but many more will be needed to facilitate the vision of European leaders. "According to EU statistics, 17 of the 20 busiest air routes in Europe cover distances of less than 434 miles (700 kilometers) -- exactly the kind of distances where city center-to-city center trains can offer faster, cleaner and more sustainable journeys -- if the right infrastructure exists," adds CNN.
"And according to Alberto Mazzola of the Community of European Railways, carbon emissions trading could be a key tool in funding the massive investment required to complete a Europe-wide high-speed rail network." A Paris-Berlin flight generates at least six times the CO2 emissions of a similar train journey, notes the report. Meanwhile, flights of less than 621 miles between and within European countries are estimated to create 28 million metric tons of CO2 every year.
"Excess carbon emissions from airliners, trucks and cars are currently charged at 50 euros per ton in the EU, but this could soon rise to 80 euros per ton," reports CNN. "If just 10% of that revenue is re-invested in transport it could add around 8 billion euros a year to the pot for rail upgrades."
high speed VR (Score:3)
you need very little energy to travel between Paris and Vienna in a fraction of a second when you're pushing bits through a cable instead of people in a carriage.
Maybe we're not there today, but in 10 or 20 years will we still have such a focus on passenger travel, or will we care more about freight trains and high bandwidth networks?
Re:high speed VR (Score:4, Funny)
Re:high speed VR (Score:5, Funny)
Some people have already thought of this:
http://www.easylife.org/fufme/ [easylife.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That site is so 1999. It reminds me of CU-SeeMe, also from the 1990s.
There have been so many advancements in virtual "stimulation" since then. Even hardware is not immune to Rule 34.
https://spy.com/articles/healt... [spy.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, I remember seeing that original link ages ago.
Was surprised at the concept (assuming it was even real), considering the difficulties involved in using the optical drive locations in a CPU in the manner described.
And clean ups as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to actually go to Vienna to fuck someone with your actual genitals in real life bits through a cable won't do.
But then you're in Vienna AND thus fucked. Have you ever actually been there?
Re: (Score:2)
Breakfast in Paris, lunch in Frankfurt and dinner in Vienna
Samba in Uganda,
Pogo in Togo,
Coca Cola in Angola.
Re: (Score:1)
No need to plug myself into your brand new shiny Matrix -- er, I mean "Metaverse" -- and surrender my life and money over to you.
More importantly, rail provides high-paying jobs (Score:3)
More (or most) importantly, rail service provides high-paying jobs that last forever as well as huge, ever-increasing maintenance needs, which also provides jobs to the local economies.
As a bonus, rail cars are generally made in Europe, so the money will in general stay in Europe.
Re:More importantly, rail provides high-paying job (Score:5, Insightful)
More (or most) importantly, rail service provides high-paying jobs that last forever as well as huge, ever-increasing maintenance needs, which also provides jobs to the local economies.
That is THE WORST reason to build anything. The higher the upkeep costs, the less sustainable it is. The purpose of capital is not and should never be about creating jobs. It is and should be about creating value. If you try to go against that grain, you're almost certainly going to create something that nobody wants to use because it is cost prohibitive to do so.
In a funny way, that's how the light rail ended up working out in Phoenix, Arizona. Somebody did the math and figured that the subsidies funded by taxes could have been used to buy one Prius for each household in Phoenix. And hardly anybody even uses the damn thing.
Re:More importantly, rail provides high-paying job (Score:4, Insightful)
... high-paying jobs that last forever as well as huge, ever-increasing maintenance needs, which also provides jobs to the local economies.
That is THE WORST reason to build anything. The higher the upkeep costs, the less sustainable it is.
Sustainability is a big-picture thing. When you consider carbon footprint, which is better - frequent short-haul flights, or frequent trains? All things considered, I bet it's the latter.
The purpose of capital is not and should never be about creating jobs. It is and should be about creating value. If you try to go against that grain, you're almost certainly going to create something that nobody wants to use because it is cost prohibitive to do so.
I agree that job creation shouldn't be the primary reason for investment, but I think it must be a mandatory requirement. As long as the jobs genuinely need doing and aren't just make-work, then they DO create value.
Your version of capitalism explicitly leads to an ever-increasing rate of wealth concentration. It also leads to the externalization of costs and liabilities, forcing society and future generations to shoulder a heavy burden in the name of maximizing short-term shareholder profit. That's bad for us and for the environment, and we need to grow up and get past it. Investment can be about BOTH jobs AND the value of, and profit from, the resulting product or service.
In a funny way, that's how the light rail ended up working out in Phoenix, Arizona. Somebody did the math and figured that the subsidies funded by taxes could have been used to buy one Prius for each household in Phoenix. And hardly anybody even uses the damn thing.
When it comes to rail travel, comparing Phoenix with major European travel corridors is comparing apples to oranges. The population density, the distances involved, and the dramatic cultural differences, render the comparison meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Our conversation so far is too long for inline replies, so I've used bullet points:
-- Your opening points are good, and they reminded of something I should have thought of. Replacing airplanes is stupid, not only because there's a synergy between the two modes and because choice is good, but because redundancy is often vastly underrated and studiously ignored. I've promoted such redundancy on many occasions here and elsewhere, so my bad for missing it in this discussion.
-- It's not mandatory job creation pe
Re:More importantly, rail provides high-paying job (Score:4, Interesting)
There's value in keeping money within the local economy, like paying a bus driver instead of purchasing fuel that was extracted and refined far away [fastcompany.com]. Or putting money into the hands of the poor [wikipedia.org] in order to increase local GDP [medium.com].
But who's going to buy the fuel for them, or pay to insure and maintain them, or replace the cars when they wear out? There's also the lost tax revenue to the city from all the land that must be set aside for parking instead of higher uses that pay FAR more in property and sales taxes.
So there are some very good economic reasons why governments invest in mass transit instead of buying everybody cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Europe has a different model. More or less, high speed rail is seen as a long-term Government investment in infrastructure by the population paid out of National tax revenue.
The few private attempts [like the Channel Tunnel] always end up as money pits so the Government basically makes those decisions now and spends the money.
The Tunnel has turned out to be one of the most far-sighted transport decisions made in many decades and the UK track-record [pun intentional] over many decades is pretty poor.
Re: (Score:3)
"In a funny way, that's how the light rail ended up working out in Phoenix, Arizona. Somebody did the math "
Yes, the Koch brothers and they killed it good.
Re: More importantly, rail provides high-paying jo (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, because none of that applies to airplanes with highly paid pilots that need constant maintenance and have many built in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because none of that applies to airplanes
The PP's point is not that aircraft are better but that "creating jobs" is a stupid metric.
Jobs should be for the creation of goods and services, not "keeping people busy."
All other things being equal, the fewer jobs created the better, so that workers can be employed elsewhere as net contributors to the economy.
Re: More importantly, rail provides high-paying j (Score:2)
But if the goal was to maximize jobs I would think going with airplanes would be optimal.
More people per pilot
Harder to maintain vehicles (per passenger)
More attendants (per passenger)
More security personnel
Trains don't maximize jobs, airplanes do.
Re: (Score:2)
Airline jobs emit a lot more CO2 though.
Re: (Score:2)
That could explain why a 'comparable' trip cost 2 to 3 time more by train than by plane and take much more time. My only answer is to says to the train to check the deepest and darkest part of my anatomy...
Re:More importantly, rail provides high-paying job (Score:5, Informative)
"That could explain why a 'comparable' trip cost 2 to 3 time more by train than by plane and take much more time. "
I live in Luxembourg and I take the TGV to Paris every other week to eat the daily plate there, since I travel for free. (pensioned rail-worker), otherwise I'd pay around €50 depending on the booking date.
The train needs 2 hours 5 minutes and I need to be on the platform only 1 minute before departure, no security checks, no passport checks, my car is parked 5 yards away from the track in a parking house.
It doesn't get any better than that.
If I took a plane, I would have to be on the airport at least 2 hours before the flight to remove my shoes and belt and queue until my feet fall off.
With the TGV, I'm already in the Paris Métro before the plane even departs.
Re: (Score:1)
I had the same experience taking the chunnel train from London to Paris and back. Airport security acts as something of a tariff on air travel, making it uncompetitive for shorter routes. I generally assume that any flight I take requires ~3 hours of time on top of the actual flight time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps it's time to introduce fuel duties and taxes to the airline industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First, you have your head all the way up your ass on pricing. Paris to Brussels by train is $63 and takes 2 hours with a train change, or $120 direct which is 85 minutes. Cheapest flight is $202 which is 65 minutes in the air.
And, you're forgetting about the security clusterfuck at the departure airport, and baggage handling clusterfuck at the arrival airport. And the arriving over an hour early at the departure airport to deal with the check-in and security clusterfuck. And usually airports aren't buil
Re: (Score:2)
A few years ago, when visiting Japan, I took the train from Tokyo to Nagoya. I used a tourist JR pass, but teh googlez shows that to be a $115 ticket for the ~161 mile trip. It was a 15 minute walk to the nearest station on the Yamanote line where I arrived just 5 minutes before my train, which was a 25 minute trip to Tokyo station, where I arrived 20 minutes before my next train, which was a Shinkansen that takes 1h34m (And in Japan, t
Re: (Score:2)
When I visited my aunt and uncle in Paris they told me that everyone's favorite subway route was the #1 line because the (automated) route never went on strike...
Love European trains (Score:5, Insightful)
Moving around Europe by train is one of the things I really enjoy there. (Same with Japan and China for that matter).
Always feels weird coming back to the US afterwards.
That's all I've got to say about that.
Re:Love European trains (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Love European trains (Score:2)
As a European, I like taking the train in the US when it's possible. I remember taking the train from Portland to Eugene for example, that was nice. The train station looked great but also almost empty for some reason. The ride between (I think) NY and Philly I do not remember especially fondly, but it worked as expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a tourist in the US, taking a train is a possibility if you don't have anywhere you need to be. The problem is the trains just aren't reliable. Unlike in Europe, the train tracks in the US and Canada are owned by freight companies and thus freight trains have priority over passenger trains. This often results in multi-hour delays in order to let a freight train pass through
Thus in the US and Canada, it isn't unusual for a train to be late by several hours. In Europe, that's generally unheard of as the
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, freight train companies own 96% percent of the tracks that Amtrak uses.
No, by law passenger trains in the US do [amtrak.com] have priority. Problem is, the US Justice Dept. has to enforce the law and they don't consider it a priority.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, freight train companies own 96% percent of the tracks that Amtrak uses.
Correct. The US Congress saw to that when they lifted the passenger hauling requirement from the RR and into a (badly run) government-owned corporation.
No, by law passenger trains in the US do [amtrak.com] have priority. Problem is, the US Justice Dept. has to enforce the law and they don't consider it a priority.
Perhaps the Justice Department would help clear away the lawsuits that prevent the RR from building the 12,000 foot and 15,000 foot and longer sidings that are needed to sideline one of today's freight trains so that Amtrak can blow by? Oh wait! The NIMBYs don't want trains in their backyards! And the Enviro-nuts always find some niche never-heard-of-before
Re: (Score:2)
They work well. In the UK with their rail strikes, it still seemed to do better than North America (US & Canada).
The usual argument against high speed trains in North America is population density, but there are a certain number of areas where there is enough population. West coast it would San Diego to LA to SF. East coast it would be Boston to New York and Toronto to Montreal. Florida got their Brightline train, but it is still diesel-electric; west coast USA is currently building its high speed line
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to try Tokyo to Nagoya on the new maglev train in Japan. It won't be cheap but it will be worth it just to experience flying 10cm off the ground at 600kph+.
Better get building then (Score:2)
Re:Better get building then (Score:4, Funny)
Now it's impossible to get anything off the ground
I thought the point of trains was to *stay* on the ground? Unless you're building a maglev, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
This sounds nice, and not for eco reasons, it's just so much less of hassle to take a train when its a viable option, less customs BS, comfier seats, better food etc
Too bad its geographically infeasible for north america to have a decent passenger rail system
It is, though at the same time the US needs to adjust the way it thinks about its cities, along with related transit. Too often cities are built with stations on their outskirts and don’t properly mix residential and commercial zoning.
Re: (Score:2)
>>its geographically infeasible for north america to have a decent passenger rail system
That is false.
USA had an excellent passenger rail system.
It was destroyed in the 60s.
...until some terrorist asshole... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
until some terrorist asshole decides to blow up a train, security theater ensues, and train travel is no longer convent.
Actually, that already happened, in Spain in 2004:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Security theater was indeed enacted, but is not as bad as the security theater in airports... 15min most of the time, 30 min tops, when there is too much people.
Re: (Score:2)
We had multiple bombings on the trains in the 7/7 attack [wikipedia.org]. Except for the police shooting Jean Charles da Silva e de Menezes [wikipedia.org] a couple of weeks later, security isn't intrusive at all. Eurostar is a bit more effort, but it also comes with international passport and customs controls and is still way better than going to an airport. It's yet to have a major terrorist incident though.
Re: (Score:2)
Terrorist's aim is terror: to make people afraid.
People are not afraid of trains as they are of flying, in the first place.
Terrorists in Europe have been more active at attacking public transport, crowded streets and venues in big cities. Those are more part of most people's daily lives, and have been easier to hit.
Faster, yeah. (Score:2)
Currently, if I want to go to say, Spain, I can do it by a 2h flight. No train is going to beat that.
Re: (Score:2)
Currently, if I want to go to say, Spain, I can do it by a 2h flight. No train is going to beat that.
If you want to go to spain by plane, is 2h of security theather + 2h flight + dealin with inmigration (if any) + Luggage + Customs (say 1h).
Since the security teather in a train is significantly less, and most of the inmigration is done while on the train, (and you handle your own luggage) there are destinations where it behoves you (i.e. , is faster) to go by train instead of plane.
Of course, at some point, the plane begins to slightly dominate the time sheets, and it becomes a matter of personal prefferen
Re: Faster, yeah. (Score:2)
Trains also tend to be city center to city center and have good link ups with regional trains.
Airports tend to be 30-60 minutes from a city center and have only 1 metro connection for continuing your journey.
Re: (Score:1)
So, really, rail is a non starter except for very short trips.
And when things go awry, the down time is catastrophyc in most cases, while planes are more resilient to disruption.
Re: (Score:2)
The train connection between Portugal and Spain is well known to be a failure, and that's the point of the article. The AVE and TGV do link up, but the Pyrenees make it unlikely that more connections will be added between Spain and France. I don't know how realistic it would be to upgrade the Atlantic rail link (Irun-Hendaye), which has TGV on the French side but not AVE on the Spanish.
Re: (Score:3)
Currently, if I want to go to say, Spain, I can do it by a 2h flight. No train is going to beat that.
You need to decide whether it is two hours flight or two hours travel. Generally, the first scenario the plane will win, whereas in the second it will be the train.
For the a plane journey you typically need to add 2 hours to the journey time, to take into account travelling to the airport, check-in, security and baggage collection (if you have hold baggage). Train is typically city centre to city centre and unless you are taking something like the EuroStar, then the rest aren’t factors.
This is why 'ole Phony Stark "invented" hyperloop (Score:2)
That would be great (Score:1)
air travel doomed (Score:2)
Air travel is doomed, because it does not yet have a viable alternative to fossil.
European HSR is already very good (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I almost always take rail in Europe, even for fairly long trip. I'll take an 8 hour train ride over the end effects and misery of air travel. Rail is a great solution for 1000 mile trips. But.... its usually more expensive than low cost air carriers for the same trip
You would love real HSR even more.
If it took 8 hours for a 1000-mile trip, it aint high-speed rail. Real HSR goes at more like 200-250 mph, so 1000 miles would be done in 4-5 hours.
For the most frequent 434 miles trip mentioned in the summary, it should be around 2 hours, i.e. about the time to you need to just get through the airport checks to reach the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For various values of "high speed rail" the stops are limited, and in Japan the train is only stopped for a maximum of 1 minute - they give a warning chime on the train a couple minutes before coming into the station so you can gather your things and be ready to get off, and people on the platform are ready to get on. And then you go.
In Europe, they don't turn it around as fast, but it's still pretty fast. The train is only in the station a few minutes and then you're off.
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of high speed rail varies from country to country, but anything above 200 kph is already a vast improvement in many regions. The TGV and the EuroStar hit 300 kph.
The fastest non-maglev trains in the world are in China, reaching speeds of 350 kph. Maglev has been seen running at 430 kph, but not sure whether that was a passenger run or an engineering test.
There are promises of faster solutions, but for now I am more interested in demonstrated solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the problem with maglev is that it doesn't scale up well (in terms of volumes of passengers transported) and the infrastructure is very expensive and brittle.
In the current situation with a WWIII looming in the next few years in Europe, it's better to build good old metal railways, that can be quickly put back in working condition after a bombing raid, than to build the advanced rail system of a maglev.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course what we need are the old 60's idea of maglevs in hard vacuum operating at near orbital speeds (not the watered-down hyperloop which isn't even supersonic)
Re: (Score:2)
France has banned flights on routes that can be done by train in under 3 hours.
If anything 3 hours seems low. They normally say get to the airport an hour before your flight so you can get checked in and through security. Add on the time to drive there, park, get from the carpark to the airport, then more surface travel at the other end to get into town... 3 hours total for a 1 hour flight seems optimistic, and the French high speed rail would be faster.
Re: (Score:2)
This seems untrue. There are still flights from Paris (CDG) to Brussels, which is less than 2 hours on the Thalys train.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, the temporal cut-off point is around six hours.
That stems from when I and a friend of mine had departed from the same city at the same time, and arrived in the destination city the same time: the difference being that he had taken a plane from/to airports in the outskirts while I had taken a bullet train directly from city centre to city centre.
Also, he was stressed out, but I was relaxed having read a nice book.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't neglect the cost of getting to the airport. Given where I am the time and cost to get to the airport is about the same compared to the cheapest flights to the other end of the country. But then I have to factor the time and cost of getting from the airport. By the time you take it all into account, plus 1 hour minimum waiting time at the airport, journey travel times for ones involving a maximum of two changes of train are pretty much the same, and flying is only slightly cheaper if you plan ahead *.A
It is a great plan (Score:3)
I currently live in Hong Kong. Pre-pandemic my job brought me occasionally to Beijing. it is 2000km flight distance. If you take transport to and from the airports into account (in Beijing esp it is far from the city centre), and the need to be there long in advance for all the checks etc, plus more risk for delays than with a train, in practice most of a day is lost. Plus you sit cramped in the airplane seat.
Meanwhile it is now possible, well at least it will resume when the pandemic finally dies down, to take a high speed train that does 2450 km in 9 hours incl 6 stops, between city centres, and you have to be there 30 min in advance if I remember well. Yes, it is still a little longer overall but you can travel in so much stressless, roomy comfort. Plus wifi on board for working.
Hence next time I will take the train. Similar arguments can be made for many trips within Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a short distance either. Hong Kong to Beijing is crossing most of China. It is equivalent to going across Europe (London to Moscow), or in America, Seattle-to-Dallas.
Some China stats (Score:1)
We all know that China has 40,000km of HSR track and 5000 HSR locomotives, so they've had enough time to put together some real world statistics. Here are four that stick in my mind:
Re: (Score:2)
On the flip side, higher paid people moving to cheaper places puts up the cost of living for the locals who might be priced out of the market.
Re: (Score:2)
One needs to ask what the raw statistic mean. Fewer people with cars affect what "long distance" commuting would have happened.
Covering "up to 150km" is a large distance without a vehicle to commute with. Would the people being served in China have been commuting those distances without the train? The train did not replace long commutes, it made them possible.
150km is not a 30-minute commute for a 300kph train that must stop at various locations along the route.It's a possible number, but not a practical on
Long-distance rail travel in Europe needs to be ch (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
they'll fuck it up (Score:2)
It's a great idea, in the hands of the wrong people. Namely a) politicians and b) rail company managers whose companies are now privatized and who are looking for quarterly results so they get their bonuses.
I used to travel a lot by rail, in Europe. I saw how it became worse and worse while at the same time becoming more and more expensive. I don't consider rail a serious alternative anymore, and I'm tremendously sorry for that, because I just love to trail by rail. It's so much more comfortable than plane
Re: (Score:2)
The "wrong" people? Really? In whose hands should it be, Musk or Bezos or whoever?
And you think that *airline* maintenance doesn't go up? Oh, and let's not forget the tax paid airports.
Rail is the *lowest* carbon footprint. Let's see, BNSF likes to advertise it moves 1 ton (US) of freight 453 or so mi on one gallon of fuel... and no, they're not exaggerating.
Re: (Score:2)
The "wrong" people? Really? In whose hands should it be, Musk or Bezos or whoever?
Someone who cares beyond the next election or quarterly results, because infrastructure is something where projects have timelines of decades.
Rail is the *lowest* carbon footprint.
Like I said: I'd love to travel more by rail. It's just a joke. For almost all destinations where I checked, the rail connection was slower AND more expensive than a plane, even when considering security, boarding and time to drive to/from the airport.
For the rich (Score:2)
Europe already has high speed rail. Only the rich can afford to use it.