By this logic, since planes can cover longer distances in shorter times than trains, should we quit trains in favor of planes?
However, people very often are taking the plane instead of the train, partially because it's cheaper, and partially because on paper it looks faster.
So... maybe?
Then you need to factor the fact that airports are not often in easy to reach places. (exception: LCY and JFK). That applies to both ends. The times stack up very rapidly.
In theory it's 2hrs to Birmingham from Copenhagen, but that trip will take approx 5hrs when you factor in all the "early arrive" and last mile shenanigans.
Trains (most of the time) are a bit better in that regard because stations are more plentiful and often closer to where people want to be.
Cars, bicycles, and feet (mostly in that order; depending on infrastructure, it may be faster to get into your car than to hop on pot your bicycle) are even better.
Speed wise, it’s reversed. If there are no obstructions, speeds are feet < bicycle < car < train < jet plane.
That means that, only looking at trip duration, the detour to an airport and from the destination airport only is worth it for fairly long trips. Similarly, walking can be faster than cycling if you don’t have to go far, cycling can be faster than taking the car, etc.
Unfortunately, people also take trip costs into account, and those often are cheaper for air planes, compared to trains.
So, to ‘quit’ cars, we have to make it easier for people to go to a train station or to hop onto their bicycle and/or have to make it more difficult to hop into their car.
Banning on-street parking, requiring car drivers to walk a few hundred meters to a parking garage cuts multiple ways there. Using less space for parking allows for higher density, which leads to shorter travel distances, and increases the time to hop into one’s car.
The former is fine, since it's an improvement to society. The latter is not fine, since it's a worsening of society.
You don't have to. It's a recommendation. The only true "have to" is that you have to be at the gate before the scheduled end of boarding, which is usually 15 minutes before takeoff.
This was in Amsterdam Schipol.
And I also distinctly remember being unable to drop my bag at EWR for being "too late" to do so.
Always better to be early, so people will factor that in.
That is indeed a universal thing when you have bags to check. I just don't consider that a "have to" since you don't have to check a bag to fly.
That’s an opinion, not a fact. IMO, the negative effects for society of it being easy to hop into their cars for so many are plentiful. Cities get worse, the environment is worse of and the population gets less healthy.
Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that changing those incentives will improve things, overall.
Building such places is not easy where they don't already exist. It isn't impossible, but you need to start there.
We don't need to be punitive, but we should make drivers pay their fair share of the costs they impose on the rest of us.
Virtually no one is taking the train from Chicago to Seattle, even when the train is full, its to get on the train, go 4-5 stops and exit.
There are more and I don't know them because I don't live near them. Acela isn't the only one.
Surfliner is about 3.5 hrs from LA to San Diego; ain't nobody gonna fly that, but lots of people drive it.