Embed Notice

@lain@lain.com Sure. But, it'd still be far more costly to operate and much less ecological and less accessible and many airports would have to be totally renovated to meet demand and the A380 isn't built anymore, nor is it built to handle short haul routes. HSR can run off the electrical grid vs. burning Jet-A. Even if giant aircraft are capable of marching similar levels of capacity, they still do not match the efficiency of rail solutions.

Air travel does have a place. There is a depreciating benefit to HSR as distances increase. But, in the US, for example: JFK > BOS, ATL > CLT, ATL > MCO, MCO > MIA, SFO > LAX, PHX > LAS, PDX > SEA.. all of these types of trips are far better suited to rail vs. air travel. You're probably not going to want to take a train from LAX > JFK, for example. Or PHX > PDX. It makes a lot more sense to go by air for trips like that. But a 3-hour HSR train from PHX > LAS, for example? It's about a 1.3 hour flight, and you have to arrive at least 1 hour early to make your flight anyway. And probably 0.5 at least after arrival to taxi to the gate and deplane and get to ground transportation. You add that all together and you're already at around 2.7 hours total travel. Even adding time at the beginning and end of the hypothetical rail journey, with those margins, it still makes more sense.