What if we just stop traveling by air?

[pixy0stix]

Airlines are racing to switch to ethanol to cut their emissions. There's a whole host of climate problems with ethanol, as covered in the "What if farmers had to pay for water?" article I posted.

Airlines are responding to increased demand to travel. What if we just stopped traveling by air? 

Non-gift link, but I could gift it if there's enough demand - www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/11/30/climate/airlines-jet-fuel-ethanol-corn.html

Salient bit from the article:

Scientific studies have long questioned whether ethanol made from corn is in fact more climate-friendly than fossil fuels. Among other things, corn requires a huge amount of land, and it absorbs relatively little carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere as it grows. Planting, fertilizing, watering, harvesting, transporting and distilling corn into ethanol all requires energy, most of which currently comes from fossil fuels.

The race toward fueling jets with ethanol comes as air travel is rapidly expanding worldwide, bringing greater environmental pressure on the airline industry.

Flying is one of the most polluting ways to travel: If global commercial aviation were a country, it would rank as the sixth biggest polluter, between Japan and Germany, by one estimate. Aviation produces about 2.5 percent of total carbon emissions in the world, a number that experts expect to triple by 2050. Right now, on any given day in America alone, more than 45,000 flights take to the air.

[erbear]

I didn't read the article yet but what is holding up the high speed train creation in the US (aside from cost. which obviously is a factor but the benefits, I would think, far outweigh the cost). This is one of my biggest pet peeves -- there needs to be a more environmentally friendly way to get from place to place than driving and flying, but outside of the Northeast, it just doesn't exist.

[pixy0stix]

Dec 29, 2023 13:02:16 GMT -5 erbear said:

I didn't read the article yet but what is holding up the high speed train creation in the US (aside from cost. which obviously is a factor but the benefits, I would think, far outweigh the cost). This is one of my biggest pet peeves -- there needs to be a more environmentally friendly way to get from place to place than driving and flying, but outside of the Northeast, it just doesn't exist.

That's the billion dollar question, isn't it? There's lots of theories, but the main one is that people don't want to travel by train since flying is faster. 

In relation to cost - Biden Admin has pledged $8.2B for train projects. www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-administration-passenger-rail-investment/

On the other hand, I think if the train option along the front range of CO gets completed, people will use it all the time. The interstate is a nightmare, and I never know if my 1 hour trip to Denver will turn into a 3 hour start and stop adventure. A train would alleviate the traffic component, so at least I'd know I'd get to my destination at a certain time. All told, though, the time traveling would be the same.

[erbear]

Dec 29, 2023 13:21:49 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Dec 29, 2023 13:02:16 GMT -5 erbear said:

I didn't read the article yet but what is holding up the high speed train creation in the US (aside from cost. which obviously is a factor but the benefits, I would think, far outweigh the cost). This is one of my biggest pet peeves -- there needs to be a more environmentally friendly way to get from place to place than driving and flying, but outside of the Northeast, it just doesn't exist.

That's the billion dollar question, isn't it? There's lots of theories, but the main one is that people don't want to travel by train since flying is faster. 

In relation to cost - Biden Admin has pledged $8.2B for train projects. www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-administration-passenger-rail-investment/

On the other hand, I think if the train option along the front range of CO gets completed, people will use it all the time. The interstate is a nightmare, and I never know if my 1 hour trip to Denver will turn into a 3 hour start and stop adventure. A train would alleviate the traffic component, so at least I'd know I'd get to my destination at a certain time. All told, though, the time traveling would be the same.

I agree, but I actually don't know if "people" are right. Between getting to the airport, arriving 2+ hours early, flight time, debarking time, baggage claim, and getting from the airport to your destination, a high speed train could actually be faster to many locations. I'd love a train from Philly (where I live) to Denver (where my family are) -- the total travel time for me now is probably 8-9 hours all things considered. A high speed train might be close to that, and a million times easier and more pleasant.

I live in the city but not in the downtown area. I am 8 miles from downtown. It can take me 15 minutes or an hour, depending on traffic. The commuter rail stops on my block and it's a consistent 35 minute train ride, so I usually do that. I think the front range line would have the same effect.

[pixy0stix]

Yeah, I should have put "faster" in quotes. LOL! But that's the same with much of our transportation woes, it's all perception without any real facts and figures to back it up. Such as why most of the country uses single occupancy car trips when they could walk/carpool/bike etc.

[wawa]

Dec 29, 2023 13:57:42 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Yeah, I should have put "faster" in quotes. LOL! But that's the same with much of our transportation woes, it's all perception without any real facts and figures to back it up. Such as why most of the country uses single occupancy car trips when they could walk/carpool/bike etc.

but they have to drive their car because what if they have to move their grandmother's washing machine?? how are you going to put that on a bike YOU HIPPY. check and mate.


(every single bike project comment section has at least one person saying that in complete seriousness. IN respnse the all powerful bike lobby loves to share pictures of unlikely things being transported by bike. It amuses me at least, even as it accomplishes nothing.)


Air travel is a hard genie to put back in the bottle. Everyone wants to move across the country but still see grandma at least once a year. Companies want to be able to have a VP of sales in charge of the entire western side of the country who visits a differet office every week, right?  And it's fucked and we're fucked, because that's all anybody cares about. But yeah, high speed rail would sure help. I keep meaning to and forgetting to check the numbers - has there been a persistent dip in business travel post-covid? Like...we're still doing some flying here and there for projects, but there are a lot of meetings that might have been in person previously that are now happening online because we all got good enough at it in 2020 to just keep on doing it that way. Curious if it shows up in the flight numbers the same way it shows up in ground traffic numbers.

also I love the train and dont understand poeple who don't. Like, i think it holds me back at work because part of what I do is encouraging behavior change, and I fundamentally don't GET why people don't want to ride transit. I understand reasons they sometimes don't - like, the days I don't, beacuse I need to bring a bunch of shit with me, because I need to string together a bunch of tasks and at least one of them isn't transit accessible, because the schedules are unpredicatble and shitty and my day is time sensitive, etc etc. But when those stars do align...and people still choose to drive or fly? WHY THO? it's like having a driver! Who wants to drive???

I will say - if you google flights between acela cities these days, google will straight up tell you on the main results page to take the train. Which is pretty cool.

[pixy0stix]

Quick google gave me this hit from Expensify (so I'm not sure on the veracity of the statements), regarding overall business travel numbers - use.expensify.com/blog/business-travel-statistics

If correct, they say that business travel is about 98% of what it was in 2019.

Looking at the sheer number of dollars, companies are just burning money on air travel for no real reason.

[livinitup]

I am not an expert on the subject, but I have learned that the major obstacle of high speed rails in US cities (vs European cities) cities is the lack of rails or reliable public transportation once you reach a U.S. city. I have little problem taking a train up the NE corridor to a city like NY or Boston and then continuing to travel within the city. If I traveled by rail from San Diego to LA, how would I get around LA without a car?

So, now we have to not only build a high speed rail system from/to major cities, we ALSO have to build it within cities, too - to make it practical to use.

[Deleted]

Dec 29, 2023 16:15:52 GMT -5 livinitup said:

I am not an expert on the subject, but I have learned that the major obstacle of high speed rails in US cities (vs European cities) cities is the lack of rails or reliable public transportation once you reach a U.S. city. I have little problem taking a train up the NE corridor to a city like NY or Boston and then continuing to travel within the city. If I traveled by rail from San Diego to LA, how would I get around LA without a car?

So, now we have to not only build a high speed rail system from/to major cities, we ALSO have to build it within cities, too - to make it practical to use.

This for sure. We live in NC, and have looked into rail to visit family in central FL. Not only is rail more expensive than flying, it also takes longer than driving! The nearest rail station to us is maybe 45-50 minutes away from us, and on the other end is 45-60 minutes away from family we would see.

[pixy0stix]

Here's the million dollar question to the board - if you couldn't fly, would you put in effort to see the family you're visiting? If no, then why are you killing the earth to visit them?

The amount of bitching I saw this year about people not wanting to travel to see their family but doing it anyway was amazing. There's a real cost to traveling that isn't about the money spent.

[Velar Fricative]

Dec 29, 2023 15:14:53 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Quick google gave me this hit from Expensify (so I'm not sure on the veracity of the statements), regarding overall business travel numbers - use.expensify.com/blog/business-travel-statistics

If correct, they say that business travel is about 98% of what it was in 2019.

Looking at the sheer number of dollars, companies are just burning money on air travel for no real reason.

Have we learned nothing from our Zoom years? I’m not saying ever expected work travel to just be completely eliminated after 2020, but come on, 98% of the 2019 level is just dumb.

[bugandbibs]

Dec 29, 2023 16:15:52 GMT -5 livinitup said:

I am not an expert on the subject, but I have learned that the major obstacle of high speed rails in US cities (vs European cities) cities is the lack of rails or reliable public transportation once you reach a U.S. city. I have little problem taking a train up the NE corridor to a city like NY or Boston and then continuing to travel within the city. If I traveled by rail from San Diego to LA, how would I get around LA without a car?

So, now we have to not only build a high speed rail system from/to major cities, we ALSO have to build it within cities, too - to make it practical to use.

But this is true if you fly, too. If you really need a car you could rent one. Although, honestly I use public transportation in LA. I try to stay walkable to most of what I do there, but the metro is an option. Renting a car is always an option, just like it would be for air travel.

Personally, I think solutions for this will happen once the rail is constructed. Americans are very enterprising where there is money to be made.

[erbear]

Dec 29, 2023 17:02:46 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Here's the million dollar question to the board - if you couldn't fly, would you put in effort to see the family you're visiting? If no, then why are you killing the earth to visit them?

The amount of bitching I saw this year about people not wanting to travel to see their family but doing it anyway was amazing. There's a real cost to traveling that isn't about the money spent.

I’m sure that’s true. Then there’s me, who would kill to see my family more often. Womp womp

[heygrey]

Dec 29, 2023 17:02:46 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Here's the million dollar question to the board - if you couldn't fly, would you put in effort to see the family you're visiting? If no, then why are you killing the earth to visit them?

The amount of bitching I saw this year about people not wanting to travel to see their family but doing it anyway was amazing. There's a real cost to traveling that isn't about the money spent.

Yes, I would drive 42 hours each way to see my parents. No, I will not visit my extended family in the same area once my parents are gone.  I shouldn't speak for H, but I do not think he would prioritize travel to his family. The effort we (he) put in to see them are tacked on to visits with my parents. (All of our family is on the east coast, but still far apart. We are west coast.)

I've been low key shamed in my friend group for saying that I have no desire to travel outside North America. I love learning about other cultures/places, but for our budget and vacation time, visiting my family and making it a holiday is the best use of our resources. 

[sillygoosegirl]

Speaking as someone who loves taking the train, I think the two biggest problems with US trains are: (1) they are way too expensive, often more expensive than flying, especially if you want a lay-flat option overnight. In other countries there is normally some sort it "dormatory" option where you can have a bunk to sleep in overnight at an economy price. Since so many train journeys are >8 hours, the fact that the only lay-flat option is 10x more money than taking a 1 hour flight is a real killer. If I could get on the train at bedtime, sleep in a bunk, and get off at my destination for breakfast, I'd do it over dealing with all the bullshit of flying for my "1 hour" flight any day (the 1 hour flight of course coming with another 4+ hours of time suck that train travel doesn't have). But not when it costs 10x as much. I'm pretty wealthy, but not so wealthy I can just book a private room on the train anytime I want to. And of course this is an even bigger barrier to the majority of people who are not wealthy at all. And (2) the schedules are just terrible. Most routes only have 1 train per 24 hours, always on the same schedule. And that's if they even run every day. So a lot of cities and town that nominally "have service" only actually have service at 3am or whatever. So they really might as well not have train service at all. If there were 2 trains per day, 12 hours apart (or hell, still 7 trains per week but on varying schedules), then at least every town with train service would have some trains that actually came through during the day.

I will probably never go visit my in laws on the train. Because in addition to being like a 5 day journey each way, it's also 5am service in their city AND it would cost about $6000 each way for our household. And I'm not sleeping in a coach seat 5 nights in a row before/after dealing with my in-laws (which would bring the price almost all the way down to parity with flying). I know this because I've tried to make it happen. DH won't go for it.

I'm pretty sure a lot of the cost disparity is because we subsidize the airlines a lot more than the trains, but I don't have a source to prove it.

We don't fly much, because I'm very concerned about the climate impact, but it's a hard change to make to choose to just not see your family anymore, or almost never anymore because it's so expensive (both time and money) to do it any way other than flying. I never should have married a man whose family lived so far away. I never should have met him because we shouldn't have gone so far away to college. But here we are. We still fly on vacation occassionally, not gonna claim I'm perfect or anything, but not 10% of the vacations we'd go on if there was actually a "green" option to get there.

[mrsukyankee]

I only fly to the States once every two years to see my parents (and have to fly internally to get to both sets as mom and dad live on almost opposite sides). Once they are no longer with us, I doubt I'll fly to the States as often to see my brother and sister in law.

I think we have one more trip to India in us (probably 2025 which will be after almost 10 years since the last time) to see my H's family and then that's that. It's getting harder to travel within India as everything is so crowded and breaking down.

We're flying less than we used to and using trains/ferry more, which is a lot easier in Europe, though a few services are being cut back to get out of England (thanks Brexit and the idiocy of our government).

[chickadee77]

I loved trains when I lived in Europe, and also generally love public transit. I also really want to do a cross-US or cross-Canadian train trip.

However. Where I currently live, public transit consists of the bus, which has a single daily route. If you miss it, you're stuck. It's not super well-maintained or safe. I don't mean that in a classist way (I know some do); but I won't travel @@@much less with my young kids@@@ on a bus where there are used needles discarded without care.

Also, with the current US infrastructure, I'm iffy about the safety of long-distance train travel, simply due to maintenance (or lack thereof). I realize passenger trains are operated differently than cargo, so I would hope the scheduling and staffing are in better care, but I don't know.

[aurora]

I would love to have more train travel options. I don't enjoy dealing with the airport.

That said, for the same vehicle miles traveled, flying emits less CO2 *per person* than driving solo. Depending on the type of vehicle (and its fuel economy), once you have 2-3 people in the car, driving is the better option. This would certainly apply to most leisure travel.

Anecdotally, my business travel has dropped a lot since COVID. Interesting that overall it's almost back to 2019 levels. I wonder if any of that is due to more people having relocated in 2020 but now traveling to the office once a month or quarter or whatever?

[sent]

Dec 30, 2023 10:19:42 GMT -5 chickadee77 said:

I realize passenger trains are operated differently than cargo, so I would hope the scheduling and staffing are in better care, but I don't know.

I read a long time ago that most train lines in the US are shared by passenger trains and cargo trains with cargo trains getting priority, except in the Northeast corridor region. 

[Poppy]

We live in Denver and have done the train to CA a few times. I totally agree with sillygoosegirl, it's quite expensive. It's also inconvenient due to the one train a day thing - if there are problems on the tracks or with one of the trains, it messes everything up across the whole route. Passenger trains get lowest priority and they are often hours behind schedule. Plus, it really is slow. In terms of boarding, it's similar to going to the airport just minus security screening, but then the train trip takes 36 hours (if on schedule) compared to a 2.5 hr flight, so if you have a week of vacation, you've eaten up 4 of your 9 days on the train rides.

There are parts of it that are awesome, but many reasons why it's less appealing than flying.

[Poppy]

All that being said, I do agree that air travel at American (esp upper class) standards is completely unsustainable.

There is a big argument to me for Reduce when it comes to air travel. We are so lucky to have so many amazing things to see/do within driving distance. I am focused on prioritizing that. Also, if we do decide on a big trip (last 10 years we have stayed relatively close to home), I aspire to really squeeze out as much in one big flight as possible. Eg taking a long trip (3 weeks minimum) and traveling by ground to see a bunch in the region.

[wanderingback]

I live in the Northeast and don’t own a car so take the train a lot. Thankfully my family also lives in the NE so take the train to see them. To get to my parents I take the train but then there’s no public transport and it’s another 90 min drive, so they come pick me up. My dad has an electric car, so I guess that helps!

In regards to longer distance travel, the main problem is the time and sometimes the price. I looked in to taking the train to Chicago and it was a 23 hour trip. To drive it’s 11 hours, that’s a big difference. If you leave on Monday afternoon, you don’t get there till Tuesday evening (there’s often delays) and essentially your trip won’t start till Wednesday. Most people aren’t going to do that, myself included.

We thought about taking the train to Montreal and same problem, train is double the time of driving and often the longer distance trains have delays so you’ll be on there even longer. So we haven’t made it to Montreal (I drove there myself 10 years ago), as I don’t want to fly there.

Yes those are excuses, but that’s the reality of why more people don’t use long distance rail regularly.

[circa1978]

@@@@

I'm posting from Amtrak right now! The train between St Louis and Chicago is 5 hours, just about what it takes to drive having to stop with a kid for bathroom breaks. I don't have to worry about weather, it has food, huge seats (I am in coach and 5'4 and I can literally stretch my leg out at 90 degrees and not hit the seat in front of me) it is quiet and without exception, my traveling companions and the staff have always been great. Most of the trains are fairly newly updated and they are just as clean as any plane I have ever been on. It is vastly underrated and I hope assholes never catch onto it.


ETA: I particularly like it for traveling alone with kids. The train is super child friendly in my experience.

[circa1978]

On the topic of speeds, there is a specific project about this in our region: www.idothsr.org/

The past few trains I've been on have hit 110 in open areas. That helps cut the time and we've been able to make up time when there is delay. It would be amazing if they cut 3/4 of the stops between STL and Chicago because that would shave even more time off and I think would be great for business travel that is still flying. (Which is ridiculous, imo and a big problem emissions wise.)

[DotAndBuzz]

There's a great train route from my area to Chicago that I've taken a number of times, and I LOVE it. I will 100% take that every time if I can, instead of driving or flying, especially if I'm staying in/near the city and won't need a car. It's not faster, because freight still gets priority on the tracks, and there's only one truly high-speed part where the train can hit 100 mph, but the convenience is unmatched and is SO much easier than driving in Chicago, or dealing with airports.

If there was a train to my parents' house 3 hrs away (drive time), I'd take it without question. I feel like the midwest is primed and ready for a high speed rail. It is so open and flat, just pop one in next to the highway routes and off you go.

@@@

For our family, it would probably increase domestic vacation travel. I'd love to be able to take the train to random cities for a vacation, instead of burning up 4 days of driving, or dropping $$$ to fly. *CAN* I do the drive to the beach? Yes, I do it every year, but it's getting harder. I'd love to hop on a train and wake up in the station hub, rent a car and drive to our destination (because realistically, high speed rail can't connect little beach towns). More and more places have all the "stuff" you need for that type of thing already there (chairs, sand toys, umbrellas, etc), so there's no need to pack a car full of it.

[neverfstop]

I'm curious to see how the new Florida train works out (Orlando down to Miami area) & I think they are working on one from Las Vegas to LA?

I think we in the US can start focusing on areas where it makes sense to put in a high speed rail that could divert a ton of short haul air traffic (like the NE).

They have been threatening & planning a Dallas/Austin/Houston high speed rail for years but it's forever wrapped up in lawsuits. I do know a lot of people around here are taking a business class bus service that runs Houston to DFW area several times a day instead of an airplane. It's more productive (3-4 hours of work time) vs. security/boarding & you don't have to worry about weather delays (summer storms or winter ice).

I think the train in Europe are amazing, but it's also decades and decades of investment. Also, if you are French and visiting family in France, the max distance you'd travel is still much smaller than an east coast American trying to visit family on the west coast. Our country is just so huge that visiting family or traveling can mean a much larger distance.

[sillygoosegirl]

Dec 30, 2023 17:49:33 GMT -5 neverfstop said:

I'm curious to see how the new Florida train works out (Orlando down to Miami area) & I think they are working on one from Las Vegas to LA?

I think we in the US can start focusing on areas where it makes sense to put in a high speed rail that could divert a ton of short haul air traffic (like the NE).

They have been threatening & planning a Dallas/Austin/Houston high speed rail for years but it's forever wrapped up in lawsuits. I do know a lot of people around here are taking a business class bus service that runs Houston to DFW area several times a day instead of an airplane. It's more productive (3-4 hours of work time) vs. security/boarding & you don't have to worry about weather delays (summer storms or winter ice).

I think the train in Europe are amazing, but it's also decades and decades of investment. Also, if you are French and visiting family in France, the max distance you'd travel is still much smaller than an east coast American trying to visit family on the west coast. Our country is just so huge that visiting family or traveling can mean a much larger distance.

China is a similar size to the US and has a great high speed train network. I seem to recall you could get on the train at bedtime and be most of the way across the country in the morning...

[neverfstop]

This is timely..

Last year, the Sunset Limited train from New Orleans to Los Angeles was on time for just 19 percent of trips, making it the tardiest train in the country.

Also a fun read www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/12/science-facts-that-blew-our-mind-2023/676959/
81 Things That Blew Our Minds in 2023
Where The Atlantic’s Science, Technology, and Health reporters found wonder this year

[macmars45]

H has mapped out driving our EV from our city in WA state to Phoenix, AZ where his family lives. It would take so much time to drive there & back that he'd hardly get to spend any time with his family. We haven't flown to them since Oct 2019. Unless there's a serious health issue with his parents H has no plans to fly to visit them in the foreseeable future.

I wish we had trains! I would love to take a train from my city to Seattle! We barely have a bus system in my city though.

[msmerymac]

I just started a new job three weeks ago and the majority of my travel will be through Amtrak! I already took a trip to NY from Philly.

I read a NYT article yesterday about NFL team travel (talk about using a huge amount of resources). They focused on the Giants, who play the Commanders each season - they rent out an Amtrak train to get there, which takes about two and a half hours. The Commanders, OTOH, fly to Newark. But the players said they like the train - it’s roomy and they can get up and congregate at tables to play card games and stuff. They also take charter buses when they play in Philly, which the players don’t love, but it’s 90 minutes from Met Life.