@lain@lain.com Is a premium of $133 worth getting to your destination an hour earlier sitting in the back of a regional jet in economy class? For some people it might be, and for those people there would still probably be regional airline routes available---just not as many and not as often.
@lain@lain.com Because of the dramatic increases in efficiency of rail vs. air, too, fares are usually 1/2 to 1/3 what they are for air travel. This isn't a made-up number or hypothetical---looking at global fares in Japan, Europe, and China, HSR fares come out to be generally 1/2 or 1/3 what you'd pay for a comparable airline ticket to the same destination.
@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.
@lain@lain.com The CRJ-700 is one of the most popular regional airline jets in North America. It would take approximately 8 CRJs to cover the capacity that a single train could deliver. So a single train could, in theory, replace 8 airline flights on a single route. It'd be safe to assume similar demand in return trips, so that's 16 flights, now. If that same capacity or demand was served let's say twice a day, that's 32 jets. Now you start extrapolating that to other destinations---let's say 4 destinations, for thought experiment. 4 trains going to 4 destinations with full service (there and back return trips) could cover the same capacity as 128 regional airline jets.
@lain@lain.com A single HSR line can transport up to 20,000 passengers per hourThe California HSR project estimates:7,500 people per direction per hourThe entire Atlanta airport handles 11,458 passengers per hour, for reference. And, it's one of the largest and busiest airports in the country. Most airplanes only carry around 150 people per aircraft, as a rough average. The most popular HSR train configuration in China, for example, can carry up to 622 people per train.
@lain@lain.com They're far more efficient, cheaper, more ecological, and convenient. They can replace a lot of the demand for regional airline routes in a way far more accessible to a larger amount of people while, combined with robust public transportation, reduce North American demand/dependency on automobiles. They're just a fantastically useful transportation infrastructure.
@Mrfunkedude@mastodon.social If I am elected General Secretary of the #DarkFedi People's Congress I will launch an unending war of terror against Mastodon.
@Moon@shitposter.club I feel the exact same way. I don't care about being blocked. I care that the entire #fediblock phenomenon is used almost exclusively to libelous disparage others and purposefully sabotage instances. @kaia@brotka.st