Actual comprehensive high speed rail networks would reduce the overall carbon footprint of travel by a huge factor, while still permitting a high overall degree of affordable mobility.
Actual comprehensive high speed rail networks would reduce the overall carbon footprint of travel by a huge factor, while still permitting a high overall degree of affordable mobility.
A one-way ticket for an Amsterdam - Paris train, taken well in advance (2 months from now), costs $159.30. It's a 3.5 hours long trip.
https://eurorails.com/en/trains/amsterdam-centraal/paris?dat...
A similar one-way ticket for the same date for a flight costs $112 (with no bags), and it takes 1 hour 25 minutes.
https://www.kiwi.com/en/search/results/amsterdam-netherlands... (Yes, some people can say that Kiwi is a shady website, but it can find some good deals if used right.)
I think most of the public would choose the second option. And this is a 500km long trip. Anything longer, and planes win by even larger margin.
If you're talking about the US, there's more about its rail networks density than unwillingness of Americans to build new railroads. It's also because people... don't really like using trains for long-distance transit?
I'm not saying it'll cost the same, I'm saying it'll still be accessible. (Also, comfort level on a train is typically much better.)
And it'll properly price in externalities, which is not currently the case.
Also, just to quibble, I think the _total_ travel time is actually not that different considering you're supposed to get to the airport at least an hour early, and how accessible airports are to population centers relative to train stations.
If you had to catch a cab either two or from the airport, but could avoid it with a train, the costs you cite are suddenly about the same.
HSR infrastructure costs $50-80 million per kilometer in developed countries.
:(