11–20 of 22 posts
China is building a national rail network running at 350km/h to with the goal of putting any city within an 8 hour travel radius of Beijing. http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/09/30/7114
Kind of makes domestic air travel somewhat obsolete and really quite unnecessary.
This is all missing the point. And is a typical case of solving the problem with a "bigger hammer". China is building a national rail network running at 350km/h to with the goal of putting any city within an 8 hour travel radius of Beijing. http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/09/30/7114 Kind of makes domestic air travel somewhat obsolete and really quite unnecessary.
This is all missing the point. And is a typical case of solving the problem with a "bigger hammer". China is building a national rail network running at 350km/h to with the goal of putting any city within an 8 hour travel radius of Beijing. http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/09/30/7114 Kind of makes domestic air travel somewhat obsolete and really quite unnecessary.
Why is rail travel inherently superior to air? Every spot in the continental U.S. is already well within 8 hours of...everywhere.
But, there are may others relating to carbon footprint per tonne.km traveled, which have greater relevance.
This is all missing the point. And is a typical case of solving the problem with a "bigger hammer". China is building a national rail network running at 350km/h to with the goal of putting any city within an 8 hour travel radius of Beijing. http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/09/30/7114 Kind of makes domestic air travel somewhat obsolete and really quite unnecessary.
Why is rail travel inherently superior to air? Every spot in the continental U.S. is already well within 8 hours of...everywhere.
1. Much more comfortable (wider seats, more luggage space, etc)
2. A lot more convenient. No taking off shoes, check points and lines. Plus the chances are a train station would be a lot closer to the center of the city, rather than an airport.
3. Cheaper and less pollution.
E.g. If the CA High Speed Rail got build, it would take about 2.5 hrs. from downtown SF, to downtown LA. By plane it is about 50mins. BUT, you should add the time it takes for check in check out (at least 45mins), then the time to travel to the airport themselves (30 mins with Bart, if you live in SF), etc. If High Speed Rail would have been implemented throughout most of the major cities of US, It just wouldn't make sense to fly for short and medium distances. Coast to Coast, yes, coast to Midwest yes, SF to LA or LV, probably not.
The article claims a 70% fuel efficiency increase, and another quoted part claims a 70% reduction in fuel use. Which is it?
Other examples:
"Crime rate drops with 8%!" ... compared to what and when?
"Inflation now 2% higher" ... does that mean inflation went from 1% to 1.02% or to 3%?
The mere notion that you can express change of a metric (expressed as percentage), as a percentage would probably destroy the average journalist's brain.
I thought a 737 was a specific model of plane, no? Wouldn't this be a completely different model? Can someone explain what makes a 737 a 737 and why you would still call something with as much change as this a 737 still?
They are implying this will be a commercial hit of the same size as the 737, so it's worth of government funding (because if they don't develop it, Airbus will).
Isn't the really interesting thing that they're proposing fuselage and wing shapes that you can't design without using "modern" (developed after 1965) methods? The cylindrical fuselage standard passenger jet design is something you can design using a slide rule or pocket calculator and a copy of "Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain".
I like what a test-pilot once told me: We don't need milestones. We need inchstones.