Companies that don’t want to invest in new infrastructure.
That’ll always be the blocker with rail. Moving humans, even a lot of them, by rail isn’t cost effective by most company’s definition outside luxury pricing.
Rail wins when you need to move goods in bulk though.
Annoys the hell out of me. I much prefer train travel, even if it’s slower. But in the States, Amtrak is passable at best depending on the particular line. European rail was a lot more pleasant. Neither comes close to Japan though. Their high speed rail is a reason I’d consider living there long term.
> Concorde, ... ultimately failed economically due to ... regulatory restrictions on overland supersonic flights.
Hardly fait to blame regulation here, the problem was that it was incredibly loud and unpleasant. You can try to make it sound like government overreach, but it takes some serious mental aerobatics.
The sonic boom definitely was a problem when flying over land. But part of the issue behind the regulations were also that the Concorde was a French British collaboration and did not involve US aviation companies. The only airlines that operated the Concorde were British Airways and Air France. The only cities in the US that were reachable by the Concorde were on the east coast and the planes would slow down and come in subsonic. There are a lot of other valid reasons for regulations in the US; but the lack of US suppliers, jobs, etc. didn't make it easier.
It failed because US/Boeing coyld not make a competitor to EU's plane, and feared airlines would buy it, so they decided to ban it instead of competition.
Makes the mistake of to some extent conflating propellant and fuel. Liquid oxygen is very cheap, much cheaper than hydrocarbon fuels per unit mass, a fact not in evidence in the article.
Can't go supersonic over inhabited land in this day and age. So all it does is shave some time off on ocean crossing. Like flying the 3000km from East Canada to West Ireland in 1.5 instead of 3 hours.
At extremely increased cost. It's a hard sell in an industry that's competing for price efficiency.
Interesting like how entrenched auto makers are not interested in EVs, and entrenched power companies are not interested in solar , and entrenched health insurers are not interested in making healthcare more efficient?
Make a list of people flying in these things and attribute the consequences of climate change to their heads. Then you have them pay the bill for their lifetime, potential inheritances pay after.
Not to put a too fine point on it, but climate change is an existencial global, international and inter-generational problem. It is about time we hold those accountable who contribute to it overly much, without loopholes.
If this comes across overly vindictive, consider that the rich will be the people who are least likely to be unable to avoid the consequences of global warming.
For the self-described "skeptics," 2 hour travel to anywhere on Earth means that everyone gets to have a donor organ shipped to them within the viability window.
If we could go from SF to Tokyo in 2 hours, it would permanently change geopolitics. Imagine commuting between Shenzhen and SF. One foot in each of the two most innovative cities on Earth.
The smaller our world becomes, the more peaceful it becomes.
While the engineering and innovation surrounding fast travel is interesting and compelling, I think that ultra-comfortable but slow-and-sustainable travel is more likely to win the day.
My head goes to really kickass trains. Imagine a train roughly twice as wide as today's trains, where you can kinda bring your own small-house-size-module and travel about the world at 15-30mph.
If this is too far a reach, then maybe self-driving motorhomes will fill a similar desire. I can definitely imagine a very lightweight motorhome - less like a bus, more like an overbuilt enormous e-bike - being viable, maybe even by solar power (say, 2 days to charge for every day on the road, something like that).
I mostly live in a school bus, but too much of my time is spent driving, and those driving times are mostly a) on highways, and b) at speeds which represent a constant threat to everything around me.
I'd love to have an autopilot to take us on country roads at much slower speeds.
Isn't most the time consumption in the airport anyway? Like people supposed to be ther 2-3 hours ahead. If you could get 10m before the flight to the airport that would save so much more time.
25 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 48.4 ms ] threadThat’ll always be the blocker with rail. Moving humans, even a lot of them, by rail isn’t cost effective by most company’s definition outside luxury pricing.
Rail wins when you need to move goods in bulk though.
Annoys the hell out of me. I much prefer train travel, even if it’s slower. But in the States, Amtrak is passable at best depending on the particular line. European rail was a lot more pleasant. Neither comes close to Japan though. Their high speed rail is a reason I’d consider living there long term.
Hardly fait to blame regulation here, the problem was that it was incredibly loud and unpleasant. You can try to make it sound like government overreach, but it takes some serious mental aerobatics.
At extremely increased cost. It's a hard sell in an industry that's competing for price efficiency.
Follow the money. Always.
Not to put a too fine point on it, but climate change is an existencial global, international and inter-generational problem. It is about time we hold those accountable who contribute to it overly much, without loopholes.
If this comes across overly vindictive, consider that the rich will be the people who are least likely to be unable to avoid the consequences of global warming.
If we could go from SF to Tokyo in 2 hours, it would permanently change geopolitics. Imagine commuting between Shenzhen and SF. One foot in each of the two most innovative cities on Earth.
The smaller our world becomes, the more peaceful it becomes.
If this is too far a reach, then maybe self-driving motorhomes will fill a similar desire. I can definitely imagine a very lightweight motorhome - less like a bus, more like an overbuilt enormous e-bike - being viable, maybe even by solar power (say, 2 days to charge for every day on the road, something like that).
I mostly live in a school bus, but too much of my time is spent driving, and those driving times are mostly a) on highways, and b) at speeds which represent a constant threat to everything around me.
I'd love to have an autopilot to take us on country roads at much slower speeds.
A supersonic bizjet is a possibility. It's not cost effective, but it's a status symbol.