• In Germany, high-speed rail lines have led to the grounding of hundreds of short-haul flights. Just imagine what HSR could do for the Northeast Corridor. (Guardian)
• The trials of flying with Snowball: Should airlines be allowed to charge passengers up to $100 to fly with their felines? (Particularly since the kitties don’t get a seat.) (Gothamist)
• The landscape designers who created New York City’s beautiful new High Line are turning their eye towards downtown Cleveland. (Fast Company)
• A Dutch architect theorizes that all the cities of the future may be built on water. And maybe the airports as well? (NRC)
• Wouldn’t it be great if the debacle in Copenhagen had some ripple-effect consequences? And wouldn’t it be even greater if those consequences were positive? (Grist)
• A new fashion line is focusing entirely on bike-friendly clothing (not that we’re suggesting that fashionable-ness is a prerequisite for bike riding). (BikePortland)
Image courtesy of LolCats
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Be careful about overinterpreting high-speed rail’s success against air. The amount of traffic an HSR line needs to profit is much higher than the amount of traffic an air market needs, because airport infrastructure can serve any city pair. Some HSR lines have dominated the air/rail market but still failed as rail lines - for example, Eurostar, which has a 70% share of the air/rail market.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Should air lines charge extra for flying with cats? Yes. Absolutely. Holy Crap yes. $1000/cat. Minimum. Some people are allergic to cats. Some people are very allergic to cats. Please, I beg you, keep cats off planes.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Alon: I’m curious to know by what definition Eurostar fails as a rail line (especially considering Eurostar is one of the services run on the line, not the owner of the line itself)?
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Came here to mention the allergy issue. I’m totally allergic to cats and if someone had one nearby I’d have to be moved…please, keep pets off the plane.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I am allergic to the shrill cries of uncontrollable infants. I am also allergic to obese people whose spare tires intrude on my already limited personal space. I am also allergic to people with severe body odor who stink up entire rows. And I hear lots of people are allergic to peanuts, perhaps we should just get pretzels from now on?
All of these things (besides the peanuts) I have had to deal with on flights, and yes all pissed me off, but can we really ban things that cause us annoyance and discomfort.
I had to sit through an entire 3 hour flight with my head pressed against the seat in front of me due to the putrid body odor of the man sitting next to me (for some reason that was the only position were I could mostly avoid the smell). Do not try to tell me that allergies cause any more discomfort than that situation.
This is a society; people do things that bother us, cause us discomfort, make us sick etc.. Unfortunately we can’t just ban things left and right. As much as it annoys me, people need to transport infants, as much as it annoys you, people need to transport pets.
The only thing we can do is suck it up and try to cope.
December 24th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
[...] gift for high-speed rail (HSR) fans. I just pulled this Guardian UK article from August (via The Infrastructurist) about how the demand for HSR in Germany is really starting to crowd out the airline market. For [...]
December 26th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Cost structure and price competition between planes and trains should get interesting with pending climate legislation in the US. If we go to emissions trading scheme, will airfares rise to cover carbon emissions costs? Will the airlines get significant carbon credits to offset, while utilities get tagged under the scheme and pass those costs along to electrified high speed rail lines? If utilities get more credits and airlines do not, will that lead to greater pressure to electrify US passenger rail?
December 26th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
Over time wouldn’t HSR pay off? Airlines are subject to their viability as companies and are already supported (at least in the US) by the gov’t (except the few profitable ones like Southwest or JetBlue). If they fail, then all those connections fail. Railroad is real infrastructure that, though has to be kept up, can be used by any private or gov’t-owned entity and would provide an overall benefit regardless. With new restrictions coming online after this latest incident (some airlines not allowing passengers to leave their seats in the last hr of flight and probably even dumber restrictions at airports), HSR will hopefully look more and more attractive to those in short haul areas.
December 27th, 2009 at 8:07 am
Not all possible HSR corridors are Tokyo-Osaka or Paris-Lyon. Some, like Seoul-Busan, Madrid-Barcelona, and Shanghai-Beijing, have a shot at paying off in the future. Even if they look shaky now, they can improve, just like Tokyo-Sendai looked shaky 20 years ago but is now the second busiest HSR corridor in the world. But other corridors may never pay off - for example, the Shanghai maglev white elephant. Even in France they’re warning that the new TGV lines planned, such as Paris-Rennes, are questionable and may require subsidies.
In the US, SNCF estimates that of the Florida, Texas, Midwest, and California HSR corridors, only Texas can pay off financially. California it expects to pay off including environmental benefits such as congestion reduction, but not carbon emissions, which it doesn’t consider; the Midwest and Florida it expects to pay off only when including consumer welfare. The Northeast Corridor is likely to pay off financially, too, but SNCF hasn’t studied it.
December 28th, 2009 at 9:53 am
It seems to me that one thing that makes rail work as an alternative to air within Germany is that DB has a station attached to the terminal at the Frankfurt airport. As a result, passengers flying from, say, Cologne to Frankfurt for the purpose of connecting to a flight can make a fairly painless transfer.
Since there are few such convenient airport rail stations in the U.S. (BWI and EWR are the only ones that come to mind immediately), HSR will have to depend on point-to-point business and leisure travel for its passenger base. Living in the Detroit area, if I had convenient access to HSR to Chicago (which means keeping the Pontiac extension with the stop in Birmingham) with a travel time of about two hours, I would use rail rather than air (assuming there’s a morning train that gets me to Chicago by 8:00-8:30) every time for business trips. With a travel time of maybe four hours, I would use HSR rather than drive for personal trips. As it stands, with an arrival at Union Station, then a cab ride to take the subway to O Hare, HSR isn’t a good alternative for those trips when my purpose is to connect at O Hare.
So, absent an extension of HSR to O Hare, the question is what is the percentage of people who are flying to Chicago from Detroit (or St Louis, Fort Wayne, or South Bend) who are terminating at Chicago versus making an onward connection.