

Air travel is about to further crush the bus and train - mathoda
http://mathoda.com/archives/199

======
JayNeely
Jet Blue may be great, but airports still suck. And unless Boeing's
experiments* with bio-fuels pay off, airlines will continue to face increasing
fuel costs that make air travel unsustainable, while the American train
industry lets Asia innovate and bring the costs of high-speed magnetic rails
down.

*[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/200...](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003858756_boeingenergy30.html?syndication=rss)

~~~
timr
There's no technical reason that trains can't be an effective, environmentally
friendly alternative to intra-region air travel _today_. The problem is that
the government chooses to heavily subsidize airlines, while investing
virtually nothing in passenger rail. Shame, really.

I'm not saying that we would be seeing fast, cheap trains between San
Francisco and New York -- but it's ridiculous that there's only one train
between Seattle and San Francisco, and that it takes nearly a day to get
there.

~~~
kingkongrevenge
Trains are competing with cars, not so much planes.

It's the government subsidy of highways that's insane.

~~~
timr
I largely agree about the insanity of our highway subsidy, but I can see some
of the logic in it. Cars are more convenient/practical in rural areas, and the
US is pretty rural (I think it's stupid and short-sighted to encourage rural
development via highway subsidy, but that's another rant).

That said, in most of the developed world, the competition is between planes
and trains. Cars are more expensive (probably because they're not as heavily
subsidized).

~~~
kingkongrevenge
> Cars are more convenient/practical in rural areas

Not really true. It only seems that way because of the development pattern
subsidized highways have enabled. In much of the world housing is clustered in
dense towns in rural areas. This was the normal development pattern in the US
in the 1800s. Rural towns were fairly dense and walkable. The productive land
was around the town. The housing was not needlessly spread out through the
productive land.

~~~
timr
Well, yeah. I think we agree, and that's what I meant when I said that rural
development subsidy is stupid.

Still, the US is a _lot_ bigger than, say, France or Germany. It's harder to
build comprehensive train systems between urban areas here (particularly in
places like the west).

------
shimon
At current fuel prices, regional jets cannot be profitably operated at
$40/seat. The spate of recent airline bankruptcies and mergers is partially
fall-out from that fact. Virtually all air travel is less fuel-efficient per
passenger than a 4-passenger car would be.

Barring astounding developments in technology or major fuel price drops,
regional jets are not the future of commercial air travel. We'd do better
figuring out how to get good coverage using a smaller number of superjumbo
jets.

------
jeremymims
I took the Bolt Bus (a regional bus line with power outlets and free wi-fi)
from New York to Washington, DC this past weekend for $30 round trip.

For travel under 5 or 6 hours, you can hardly beat the price, convenience, or
amenities. You can arrive 5 minutes early, pack liquids in your luggage, and
surf the web. I expect a renaissance in bus travel if more companies adopt
this model.

------
joshwa
Regional jets are not exactly news. In fact, they're a major contributor to
the runway capacity issues that are causing record delays:

[http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/11/16/askthepilot25...](http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2007/11/16/askthepilot254/index.html)

OTOH: Air taxi services (e.g. DayJet) are actually really disruptive business
models:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DayJet>

------
mattmaroon
Airports suck enough that I would still drive anywhere 5 hours away,
especially if I can't get around via public transport once I'm there. If I'm
in SJ and going to Long Beach for a weekend, it's no more time to just drive
(and a 10% chance of a speeding ticket seems high even if you don't count the
fact that you can just not speed and reduce it to 0%) and saves me the
hassle/expense of renting a car.

------
hsmyers
For all of you critical readers out there, the word 'train' is not mentioned
in the article...

------
logjam
You've got to be kidding.

It takes an hour or more to get to SFO from almost anyplace in the city, and I
suspect LAX is worse. If you're not at the airport at least an hour early
these days, you may get bumped. Stress. Security checks. Rude airline people.
Delays, cancellation with little or no reimbursement. A bag of stale peanuts.
An hour down, and fiddle around more in the destination terminal. Rent a car
to get around. That's at least four hours right there, and probably more.

And NO airline is going to be offering $39 flights in California.

Meanwhile, I could take a leisurely drive down 101. Stop for lunch. Enjoy the
ocean. Relax. Take a friend or two and save them and you some money. Pull over
once in a while and stretch our legs. When I arrive, I'm in my own car. I head
right for my destination.

Of course, rail would be even better, and hopefully cheaper. But this is
America. We want to make a few people rich at the expense of everyone else

