High Speed Rail-Airport Links
As somewhat of a followup to my last post on how successful high-speed rail isn’t really made for tourists, I’d like to talk about the issue of air-rail links. Those are beloved by both foreign tourists and domestic residents using them to travel abroad, and American high-speed rail planning has on occasion tried focusing on them. This has always been awkward for both environmental and ridership goals. Such links are not inherently bad, but they are often overrated in planning, especially at the level of public advocacy and shadow planning agencies, which reproduce the biases of frequent fliers.
Skipping the airports in rich Asia
The Shinkansen does not serve Narita. There were plans for it to do so but they have not been implemented. Such service would require a dedicated line, since the Shinkansen is on a different gauge from the classical JR network and the standard-gauge link between the city and the airport is owned by private railway Keisei, and Narita itself is not important enough to drive such a line, not at the urban tunneling construction costs of Japan.
But the same lack of service to airports is seen in the two most Shinkansen-like systems outside Japan, Korea and especially Taiwan. The airport is not in Taipei but in Taoyuan, and is connected to the city by an express commuter train, the Taoyuan Airport MRT, but the Taiwan High-Speed Rail system does not serve it, instead having a different Taoyuan station on the Airport MRT. Even in Korea, which uses standard gauge and runs KTX trains through on classical lines in the French style, there is no KTX service to Incheon or to Gimpo.
The issue in all three countries is that the role of the capital’s international airport is to connect passengers between the capital region and the rest of the world. Tourists visiting the capital don’t need a train to secondary cities; in South Korea, last year, 66% of tourism by spending was in Seoul, and in Taiwan, 53% of tourism by occupied hotel nights was in Taipei, New Taipei, and Taoyuan (PDF-pp. 20-21 of the 2024 annual report). Domestic residents using the airport to travel abroad are a more serious use case, but far more residents of Busan or Kaohsiung are going to their respective country’s capital than abroad, and so the airport link is not a high priority for planning.
Serving the airports in Europe if they’re on the way
Three of the four busiest airports in the EU – CDG, Schiphol, and Frankfurt (the fourth is Barajas) – have high-speed rail links. However, in all cases, it’s because they’re on the way somewhere. CDG and Frankfurt are both on valuable bypass routes around the primary city with its terminal-only train stations, so they might as well be served. Schiphol is between Rotterdam and Amsterdam, but serving it involved high-cost tunneling, on a high-speed line, HSL Zuid, that has in retrospect been more a case of imitating the TGV than responding to Dutch intercity rail needs.
In all cases, the airport link is decidedly secondary to the network, and is not a major planning goal. There are intercity trains routed into Berlin-Brandenburg, but these are intended for long-distance regional use: the extensive rail tunneling to the new airport is for various regional express trains, with a 15-minute Takt to Berlin Hauptbahnhof and four hourly Takt trains to regional destinations starting next month and only one intercity train on a two-hour Takt between Berlin and Dresden. Munich has no ICE connection, and a proposal for one never got beyond the conceptual stage because the airport-city center connection was deemed a higher priority. It’s notable that even high-cost, high-prestige air-rail links here prioritize connections to city center, and not to the national network.
The awkward environmental politics of air-rail links
High-speed rail is justified on both economic and environmental grounds. But sometimes these different justifications end up conflicting. It’s noteworthy that in the United States, a common argument for high-speed rail in California and the Northeast has been that the airports are too clogged with short-haul regional flights and if high-speed trains replaced them then the gates and runway slots would be usable by long-haul flights. This argument is made at the same time as arguments about reducing greenhouse gas emissions – but long-haul flights contribute far more emissions than short-haul ones per unit of airport capacity consumed, airport capacity not particularly caring if you’re flying 700 km or 7,000.
It’s possible to ignore the environmental effects and just focus on the economic benefits; in Europe, the broad environmental movement is neutral or even hostile to high-speed rail, viewing it as inferior to running more night trains and regional trains. But then in Europe the economic-only planning for high-speed rail does not prioritize the air links, because they are fundamentally secondary. In a country like France, the demand for high-fare rail links to CDG is to the center of Paris, not Marseille.
Pedestrian Observations 
It should be pointed out KTX used to through run to Incheon airport, but that was quickly cancelled with load factor of something like 2%
IMO that is not true.
Ultimately, airlines are for-profit entity, if they find long haul flights worth operating, they can upgrade 50 seats aircraft to 76 seats and then to mainline to free up slots to operate more longhaul flights. Operation cost of 737/A320 are cheaper per seat than those smaller aircraft. Same for emission too. And if the capacity is really constrained they can even use widebody aircraft on short haul flights, like pre-Shinkansen Japan.
But airlines don’t do so because they don’t think using the airport slot on international flights can earn them better money than on international routes. Or sometimes airlines might even intentionally operate a lot of smaller planes out of a congested airport before they have better destination to fly to, in order to hoard the airport slots for themselves.
Having HSR can kill most domestic flights along HSR corridor, but these behavior wouldn’t change. So ultimately whether there can be more long haul route is ultimately decided by whether airlines find it worthwhile, not because whether there will be fewer short haul flights to free up slots.
Separately, I personally think it should also be noted that one of the biggest enemy against effort to combat climate chamge and resolve global environment issue is people who do not travel around the world and experience other places, staying in comfort zone whether they work and live and learn about rest of the world only through like minded people on the internet. Such breed localism and make people feel it is less important or not important at all to solve global environment issue. And thus I think even with long haul flight producing large amount of carbon emission, discouraging long distance travel would still end up being bad to the goal of global cooperation in solving the climate crisis.
Airlines know that frequency is important. So they will run several small airplanes even when the daily demand is such that they could fill a single 737 (or even 777). The longer the flight the more people are willing to wait for a single daily flight (when the flight is only an hour you can have a business meeting and return in time for your next one back home – when you will be in the air for 16+ hours it doesn’t really matter as much)
If an airport is busy they will make the hard decisions of who gets less ideal service and that may mean cut long distance routes. If there is a pilot shortage they also will most those hard decisions. However in general airports are not that busy – they are busy when they are a hub and everything arrives at once, but otherwise the demand is more spread out and they can find plenty of time to shove in direct long distance flights if there is demand for it (but you can’t connect to a different flight when they shove things in the middle like this, so this limits demand)
airlines in the US do be removing 50-seats or less aircraft and moving to 76-seat aircraft from what I heard last time, although they aren’t moving to mainline 737 all at once
The correct plane to use is a complex optimization problem. Just like any other transit frequency matters, but unlike a bus the cost of running something that isn’t near full is high enough that they need to adjust to get those seats full of paying passengers. They want to run as large an airplane as they can, but passengers will chose a smaller plan from a competitor that runs more often if it fits their schedule (so long as the cost difference isn’t too much).
Isn’t the environmental argument in favor of HSR-airport links specifically that yes, it’s plainly uncompetitive on long-haul journeys, but that HSR can generally almost entirely replace short-haul flights, and so reduce the need for smaller regional airports? Even in the archetypal HSR system–the Shinkansen–the long-distance Tokyo-Fukuoka/Tokyo-Aomori services have ~1/4 mode share, with flights predominant, but on routes like Tokyo-Osaka (and Seoul-Busan, Taipei-Kaosiung, even Beijing-Shanghai) flights can be relegated more or less to capacity provision? In that way, far larger but fewer airports at major hubs which are mostly internationally-serving can suffice to meet demand.
The point, AFAICT, isn’t to completely obviate flying, but merely to replace it where it’s at all feasible. Eventually, perhaps with >400km/h service speeds, long-haul flights could be reduced, but especially in regions with large empty swathes of territory (the U.S. west, and island-population-dense East Asia), nothing short of the still-hypothetical vacuum-tube maglev could fully replace those.
Rail replace flight on routes like Tokyo-Osaka is replacing trips of city to city travel. These trips neither start nor end at airport, hence replacing those trips do nit require linking HSR into airport.
Some of the remaining 10% Tokyo-Osaka trip on flight, other than LCC that undercut rail, are people who connect from Osaka via Narita airport to international destinations, and the question is whether it’s worth to extend the high speed rail into airport for these remaining trips
notably the Narita Shinkansen was never planned as a through running scheme, so the difference is a slightly lower top speed than now, more stops, and a transfer at shinegawa.
That’s the argument, yes. But then American HSR boosters make that argument simultaneously with “and it will decongest the New York and Los Angeles airspaces to allow for more long-haul flights,” while pushing for alignments that prioritize HSR as an airport feeder. For example, California HSR moved the Burbank stop from Downtown Burbank to the airport, adding otherwise-unnecessary tunnels in the process (link), and its future LA-San Diego phase has always included a stop at Ontario Airport. Burbank is exactly the small regional airport that HSR should be completely replacing – the majority of its traffic, at least on pre-corona numbers, is to destinations within HSR range (in-state, Vegas, or Phoenix).
Someone is misunderstanding something somewhere. Replacing the puddle jumper with a flight to Denver doesn’t decongest anything. It’s still a plane flying out. It will mean someday far far in the future that puddle jumper flight to hub airports will go from three a day to two a day. People still want to go to Nowherestan and those flights will still be there.
Likely different groups of people. Or clueless enthusiasts throwing anything against the wall.
Someone is misunderstanding something somewhere. The naysayers love to point out that airplanes can go anywhere. When the market to Las Vegas shrivels up the airlines can add flights to Salt Lake City or Denver. Or Phoenix. So people can change planes there instead of schlepping to LAX. There can be more than one thing going on at once. People who want to go to Hollywood can take the train. People who want to take six kids to visit Grandma in Sun City can take a van. People who want to go to Denver can fly there.
“That’s the argument, yes. But then American HSR boosters make that argument simultaneously with ‘and it will decongest the New York and Los Angeles airspaces to allow for more long-haul flights,’ while pushing for alignments that prioritize HSR as an airport feeder.”
This isn’t a contradiction. HSR may ~eliminate demand for BUR/ONT-SFO or BUR/ONT-LAS flights, but the whole Central Valley and Inland Empire are now in their travel shed. So those can be replaced with flights to Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, etc., in turn putting less strain on LAX. Put another way, BUR and ONT aren’t the airports HSR would be replacing, those would sooner be Fresno, Stockton, Merced, San Bernardino’s ill-fated attempt at an airport, etc. The same effect could happen at Fresno, but it’s a smaller market.
This would look different in the Northeast because the tertiary airports either aren’t on the NEC (White Plains, Manchester) or are so close to the major cities that they don’t have a lot of short haul flights (Trenton, Providence).
ETA: In the case of Providence, that should be “aren’t dominated by short-haul flights” the way Fresno or Burbank are today. Baltimore is the 2nd busiest destination (Southwest hub) and Philly and DC proper are up there. So there’d be substitution room there.
Ultimately, new routes and infrastructure is about increasing capacity and reducing congestion, which in turn increases economic activity. Almost everywhere, HSR diverts long-distance intercity traffic away from the conventional rail lines and parallel highways. For instance, the Tokaido Shinkansen is another set of tracks for the Tokaido Main Line, and THSR is the alternative to Taiwan’s never-built third north-south freeway. The Chuo Shinkansen will essentially quad-track the now-over capacity Tokaido Shinkansen, and the THSR extension to Yilan will be a parallel route to both the always-congested Taipei-Yilan Freeway and the conventional Yilan line. In the UK, HS2 will serve as the 6th tracks of the West Coast Main Line. CA has no conventional rail, so CAHSR and Brightline West are the parallel routes to I-5 / CA-99 and I-10 respectively.
Note that airport traffic doesn’t really factor into HSR calculations. Airports generate a lot of local traffic, but very little intercity traffic. A town that needs access to flights is going to build and use a relatively small but local airport, instead of a train line to a large hub far away. The one exception is Schiphol, which is accessible to the entire Netherlands in 2.5 hours or less, but even then upgraded higher-speed rail is a better fit for the layout of the country.
Acquiring market share from the airlines is a positive side effect, but reducing a thousand or so passengers aboard flights pales in comparison to tens of thousands of local commuters. Gateway is a national priority not for visitors from Philly or DC, but to ensure redundancy for NJ residents when the North River tunnels go down. And in CA, the projects with the highest ROI are all in LA: D Line extension for Wilshire, Sepulveda Line for I-405 (which is the most congested freeway in the entire country), and even the LAX APM (because the auto traffic is just that bad). It’s debatable whether CAHSR, and especially Brightline West, are major priorities given current ground conditions.
There can be more than one project at a time. The alternative is shoving more people into LAX.
How many more of them are on I-405 if they close Burbank Airport like Alon wants to do?
Intercity, international and at the bigger ones, intercontinental travel is the reason they exist.
I see a slightly different explanation. A fair number of tourists arriving at the capital’s airport will be taking trains to secondary cities, but they’re likely to stop over in the capital first or use it as their day-tripping base (e.g., visitors who pair Tokyo with Kyoto et al., or Seoul with Busan).
I can also imagine that those who do travel abroad may prefer a connecting flight from their local airport (with smaller crowds, through-checked luggage, and the airline having some responsibility to facilitate the transit) than dealing with a time-sensitive change of mode at the capital’s airport.
Visitors to Japan would definitely do that, yeah. Tokyo is not particularly dominant as a destination for tourists to Japan, best that I can tell from international lists; Osaka and Kyoto combined seem about even with it. In Korea, Seoul is a lot more dominant, though – Busan is not Kyoto or Kaohsiung. Taipei is rather dominant as well, if less than Seoul.
Tokyo is fairly dominant in terms of business travel and population, but Keihanshin is no slouch: its population is comparable to LA without the massive sprawl. But the classic two-week trip to Japan is one week in Tokyo and surroundings, then a week in Osaka / Kyoto / Nara / Kobe, so from a pure tourist perspectives, both regions are equal in importance.
The others are correct in terms of percentages: Seoul has 55% of SK’s entire population while Busan-Ulsan only has 15%, but Busan has the better scenery and is still a reasonably popular regional destination in East Asia. Likewise, northern Taiwan is 40% of the population, compared to 15% of the population. But Taiwan is less a sightseeing country, and more for foodies and semiconductor businessmen.
Busan and Kaohsiung see a lot of air traffic within Asia, but if you’re heading to different continents, you’re going to need a widebody aircraft at Incheon and Taoyuan (or transit in Japan / HK).
The sprawl is pretty similar – Japan just does it by rail.
This confuses two issues. The rail line through Schiphol opened in the 80s. That’s when they built the 6km tunnel and station under the runways and terminals. This was a very good decision not just because of the faster trips between Amsterdam and Rotterdam (and also Leiden, the Hague, Delft), but also because Schiphol itself has 90k passengers per weekday.
HSL Zuid opened in the 2000s and its landmark tunnel (Groenharttunnel) was a NIMBY-driven addition, but in principle that alignment could have been very simple.
Of the 44k people travelling south from Schiphol, only 14k take the HSL Zuid, 30k take the Leiden/the Hague/Delft route.
After a modest 63 million Euro investment and a single track segment below the A1 motorway, the Chamartin-Barajas T4 AVE link should open in 2027. It will follow the existing 1668 mm Cercanias tracks. The goal is to connect the South of Spain to Barajas airport and the office and services complex Aena plans to develop near the airport. Barajas T4 could eventually become a pass through station if direct connections to the Salamanca and Barcelona AV lines are built.
They’re kinda building that, but not using Barajas as a pass through. On one north of Madrid, they’re connecting Barajas with Chamartín alongside the existing Cercanías line (the issue of the two gauges forcing duplication of infrastructure?), allowing to connect Barajas with Sevilla and the northern Spain lines. On the other side of Madrid, they’re building some flyover craziness to connect the lines of Barcelona and Valencia to the Atocha – Chamartín tunnel. This way, technically, Barajas can be the final destination of any line in Spain. They’re also selling it as being able to connect Barcelona and the lines to the north. I have my questions about the time sink of doing almost a full lap around Madrid plus the two intermediate stops though.
Meanwhile in Catatonia, there’s talks of building stations in the existing high speed line, at the points closest to the secondary airports of Girona and Reus, ironically with the support of the green movement, as a an alternative to a new extension of the Barcelona airport that would destroy some protected natural spaces.
I write that, and one day later the Minister of Transportation announces he’s planning to build a pass through link in Barajas, plus look for ways to increase the speed in the Barcelona – Madrid line: https://www.transportes.gob.es/el-ministerio/sala-de-prensa/noticias/lun-17112025-1132
This man spends the day making announcements to the press or the congress, when does he have time to do any actual job?
I’m bit disappointed you didn’t include this stupid proposal for new higher speed airport connectors. But this is meant to be a way to 1. Extract 10’s of billions from Southern England. 2. Build a HS2 approach for the future. 3. Magically turn “a global rail leader again*” 4. Extract 10’s of billions from Southern England. 5. Avoid learning about other polycentric urban belts e.g. Kansai. 6. I did mention the 10’s of Billions right?
https://www.greatermanchester-ca.gov.uk/news/laying-the-tracks-to-growth-liverpool-manchester-railway-plan-could-unlock-90bn-economic-boost/
*Burnham’s words not mine.
https://www.railwaygazette.com/uk/britain-could-be-a-global-rail-leader-again-says-burnham-as-he-urges-backing-for-northern-arc/68787.article
I was thinking of talking about the UK in the sense that HS2 is not planned to serve Heathrow, does not need to serve Heathrow, and at most is going to have an interchange station to a train to Heathrow at Old Oak Common. But then HS2 is in flux, and I suspect that if you guys had our construction costs then it might have actually served Heathrow in a tunnel.
I’ll bite. Why do people in Manchester need to go to Heathrow? Except for the dozens and dozens a year who want to catch the thrice weekly flight to a former colony. Or the score or two week who want to catch the daily to a different former colony?
well one reason could be that Heathrow has better direct connections than Manchester. But probably not enough justification for a HSR connection.
Railfans seem to imagine the train ticket will be free, the trip take no time at all and the station will be at the gate. It doesn’t work that way. The once a week to former colony, the three times a week to different former colony and the daily to yet another can leave … after all the other connecting flights from all over the U.K. have arrived. To merge with the majority of passengers who came from metro London.
If someone from Birmingham wants to get to Cleveland Ohio…. there isn’t any direct service from Heathrow. They can change planes in Dublin.. Assuming Wikipedia is correct and I read it right. Railfans seem to imagine the train ticket will be free, the trip take no time at all and the station will be at the gate. It doesn’t work that way. There is usually an alternative to whatever it is they are imagining.
Quite ironically, the one airport that would benefit massively from a full-build HS2+NPR system is Manchester, not Heathrow. Given the network design + travel times + limited options out of other regional airports, MAN would become the default airport for Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, and take most of Birmingham’s long-haul traffic. And HS2 would become the preferred way of accessing the airport.
If people want to go HS2->OOC->Heathrow to fly nonstop to Perth, that’s great, but the upside for Leeds & Liverpool accessing MAN in 25 minutes is much higher.
@spencepatrickj this is a great point.
I think you’re being much too optimistic about what happens to MAN in the Era of Narrowbody Spam coming to the North Atlantic. There’s no reason to consolidate at MAN when American Airlines can fly an A321XLR into not only MAN, but BHX, LBA, NCL, CWL, EDI, GLA, and STN, from its choice of Philadelphia or New York-JFK or both as demand warrants, and meanwhile JetBlue is doing the same thing from Boston, and United is doing the same thing from Newark and Washington-Mirabel, and Air Canada is doing the same thing from Montreal and Toronto. This can be independent of whatever happens at Heathrow, just the same way that Emirates flying six daily A380s to Heathrow didn’t slow them down a bit in flying A380s or 77Ws to that same-ish list of secondary airports.
Maybe? Even if United/Delta/American add Newcastle and Birmingham, MAN remains the airport for Sheffield, Leeds, and Liverpool. And none of the three even fly to MAN today…let alone BHX. Stuff like NCL and LBA remains a distant fantasy. And there’s limited capacity at the NY-area airports…and e.g. United wouldn’t add Dulles-BHX before EWR-BHX, and there’s not space at Newark.
More generally, LBA isn’t even easier to access from central Leeds than Post-NPR MAN. Closing and redeveloping LBA and Liverpool might make sense with easy MAN access.
HS2 wasn’t going to connect Leeds to Manchester. The branch to Leeds was canceled.
The naysayers love to point out the aeroplanes can go anywhere there is an aerodrome. People can change planes in places Not-Heathrow. They can change planes in places Not-New-York too. On airlines Not-British-Airways!! !! Astonishingly people in the U.K. even the rest of Europe want to go places in the U.S. that are Not-Manhattan ! Hard to believe but it happens. As evidenced by:
The naysayers love to point out the aeroplanes can go anywhere there is an aerodrome. And they do!! By choosing Aer Lingus and changing planes in Dublin, according to Wikipedia at the moment it was edited, because the aeroplanes can change which aerodrome they fly to, anytime, people in
Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, and Southampton can change planes for
Boston, Chicago-O’hare, Cleveland, Hartford, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Nashville, New York-JFK, Newark, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle–Tacoma, Washington Dulles with service to Raleigh–Durham purportedly starting in 2026.
I’m not in the mood to check what happens if you do the same thing with KLM. Or Lufthansa. Air France. Something similar. Lots of ways to get from places Not-Heathrow to places not-JFK. Without a train to London.
What is your point exactly? Your comment verges on unreadable, but I agree that you don’t need a train to London to cross the Atlantic.
My point is that if HS2 Phase 2 and NPR were to be built (if, not when), it would meaningfully expand the catchment area of MAN Airport across the Northern Powerhouse conurbation (not that MAN/LHR would split up the whole country). The UK has a few big airports, but the only ones in the Midlands/North with the potential to serve many destinations are Manchester, Birmingham, and Newcastle. Leeds/Bradford and Liverpool are very small, and my point is that MAN might just vacuum up all their flights given the *extremely short* travel times from Leeds and Liverpool to MAN. Going from Liverpool to MAN is like going from East London to Heathrow, not Birmingham to Heathrow.
Furthermore, some Birmingham customers would use MAN (instead of LHR) to access North America. BHX doesn’t support a meaningful volume of TATL flights and that’s not going to change much with the a321XLR given slot constraints in NYC.
Obviously people go places other than New York, but DL/UA/AA won’t add secondary UK to IAD/BOS/ATL/ORD/PHL if they can’t first fly JFK/EWR. Thus, “there’s no reason to consolidate at MAN when American Airlines can fly an A321XLR into not only MAN, but BHX, LBA, NCL, CWL, EDI, GLA, and STN, from its choice of Philadelphia or New York-JFK or both as demand warrants, and meanwhile JetBlue is doing the same thing from Boston, and United is doing the same thing from Newark and Washington-Mirabel, and Air Canada is doing the same thing from Montreal and Toronto” doesn’t make a lot of sense.
The point is that people can get places without London or trains or British Airways.
It’s not my problem that you are too stupid to understand that people in
Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, and Southampton
can get to
Boston, Chicago-O’hare, Cleveland, Hartford, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Nashville, New York-JFK, Newark, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle–Tacoma, Washington Dulles with service to Raleigh–Durham starting in 2026.
without London or trains or British Airways.
That in no way contradicts my point. Are you literate?
Why would I spend an hour or two in London, fly to wherever my final city is, and then go home when I can get HS2 from the airport to home and skip all the time waiting? Of course this assumes HS2 is frequent, not too expensive, and such, but for many people taking a rail could well be a better choice than switching airplanes. Nobody want to get to the airport in Birmingham – many people travel through the airport, because their destination is somewhere near enough to the airport that it is the bast way for them to travel. However if you can give HS good service it wouldn’t be hard to make it the better option. For many HS2 could get them home from London before their airplane to Birmingham even leaves the ground in London. (I don’t know what driving/parking is like in London, but in the US for that distance everyone I know expects we could drive faster than an airplane could get us where we are going)
In English and Latin. Though the Latin is getting very shaky. I hazarded a guess that “A321XLR into not only MAN, but BHX, LBA, NCL, CWL, EDI, GLA, and STN” is an Airbus model number and airport codes. None of them JFK, LHR, EWR. Or even PHL, BOS or IAD.
What part of flying from Dublin to
Boston, Chicago-O’hare, Cleveland, Hartford, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Minneapolis–Saint Paul, Nashville, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle–Tacoma, Washington Dulles with service to Raleigh–Durham starting in 2026.
involves capacity constraints in New York or London? Or trains? Or British Airways?
J.G. has discovered that using BDL is a much more pleasant experience than using JFK. He could change planes in Dublin for Aberdeen, Birmingham, Bristol, Edinburgh, Exeter, Glasgow, Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle, or Southampton. Which doesn’t involve New York, trains, London, trains, British Airways or trains.
I very very briefly glanced at the destinations KLM serves in Amsterdam. There are more cities served in the U.K than Aer Lingus serves. And more cities in the U.S. and Canada than Aer Lingus serves. Just like flying from the U.K. to Dublin on Aer Lingus to change planes doesn’t involve London, trains, British Airways, trains or New York, flying from the U.K. to Amsterdam on KLM doesn’t involve London, trains, British Airways, New York or trains. Aer Lingus should leverage that flying with them doesn’t involve London, Amsterdam or New York. Or long train trips.
Why does someone want to take a long expensive train trip to MAN or an even longer more expensive one to LHR when they can fly out and back at the local airport? People can do that. Use trains when it makes the most sense, for them, aeroplanes when that makes sense, automobiles. Ferries, funiculars, aerial tramways. And they don’t care what the car numbers are. Makes me wonder if trainspotters, when forced to use an airplane, write down the registration number.
Just for shits and giggles I asked Google for GLA-ORD. The cheapest fastest flight doesn’t involve London or New York. It’s on Iceland Air with a 90 minute layover in Iceland. I don’t know about you but I’ve crossed many airport concourses. They are remarkably the same. If I wanted to go from Glasgow to Chicago I’d likely choose that. Which doesn’t involve trains, British Airways, London, Aer Lingus, New York or KLM. And I suspect this is very very disappointing, trains. The Blue Line will get you to the Loop. In the subway but there is free transfer to the elevated trains.
You could change there for Baltimore, Boston, Denver, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Orlando, Raleigh/Durham, Washington–Dulles too. Which is very intriguing because I see there is service from Gatwick. Which means Gatwick to any of the places Iceland Air flies doesn’t involve Heathrow, perhaps not even trains at all, congestion in and around New York or London. Or Manchester, flight delays at Narita, flying over Russia or being diverted to Rome because Milan is temporarily closed. And very disappointingly, trains.
At this moment in time because as the naysayers love to point out, the aeroplanes can go anywhere there is an aerodrome. And things might have changed since I looked at Google a few minutes ago.
People have choices you don’t imagine. And it will be radically different in 2092 when what you are imagining gets built. People, unaware or your fantasies will do things like fly to Iceland to get to Chicago. Or Boston, Denver, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Orlando, Seattle/Tacoma, Toronto or Vancouver. Without British Airways, London, Aer Lingus, New York or KLM. And I suspect this is very very disappointing, trains.
Only in the imaginations of especially frothy railfans.
The only thing you can do at the Newark Airport railroad station is change to the people mover. Even though Amtrak has been stopping there for a very long time only 182,119 people got on or off Amtrak trains in 2024. That includes people who think something along the lines of “goodness gracious me, I missed the NJTransit train, I’ll pay the higher fare and use the Amtrak train that is coming soon”
It takes time to get to the distant airport on a train just like it takes time to fly from the local airport to a different airport to change planes. Which very likely involves less walking. And if the airline schedules you for an especially quick connection, less time. Without wrestling luggage.
The naysayers love to point out the aeroplanes can go anywhere there is an aerodrome. They can plan a trip that does not involve London or New York. Which means they don’t need a train to London.
For people who live in the Birmingham train station.
If their plane is in Dublin, it won’t be taking off from London… It won’t be taking off in London if it’s in Amsterdam or Iceland either. Once you arrange trips that use alternatives to London, New York or Amsterdam there aren’t many trips left. And if a market appears the aeroplanes can go anywhere there is an aerodrome.
Do not presume to invoke my name in your unhinged rants, you utter moron.
I thought
2025-12-07 – 19:00
J.G.
You keep responding to me like I or anyone else gives a shit what you think. We don’t. Begone, troll.
If you don’t give a shit why do you read it?
Again, I’m sorry reality offends you. It won’t stop other people from going to Bradley International, outside of Hartford, flying to Dublin and changing to planes that go many many places. Quite a few of them in the U.K.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations
Old Oak Common will be 10-15 minutes from Heathrow assuming the Heathrow express stops and under 25 minutes from Heathrow on the Elizabeth line does.
That’s pretty close.
Yes, but riding to OOC, then schlepping your luggage to another train (assuming timed transfers and no wait) and then riding 15-25 min to Heathrow and then going through security won’t be competitive with a flight from Manchester or wherever that lands at Heathrow and you are already in the terminal with your luggage being moved plane to plane for you.
Compared to air, HSR almost always has longer travel time (time spent moving in a vehicle) but is competitive when it has shorter trip time (total time spent on the journey, including waiting and travel in other modes). This works well when the train doesn’t have security lines and stops in center city instead of needing a second ride from the airport to downtown. But if you have to go through security regardless, and the extra access time is train-to-airport not airport-to-downtown then HSR loses much of its value.
There’s only 6 flights a day so the train is a lot more flexible.
Or book an itinerary that doesn’t involve Heathrow or even London. Do that and it frees up capacity for someone who has no other choice – for instance the infrequent flight to a former colony that only has service to Heathrow. where people who don’t live along HS2 can also change planes.
“There’s only 6 flights a day so the train is a lot more flexible.”
Yes, but if a Manchester traveler is connecting at Heathrow, that means they are catching a long haul international flight that probably has less than 6 flights a day*, so the added flexibility of catching a train at a different time doesn’t help, your main flight leaves when it leaves. You might be able to spend less time waiting at Heathrow by catching a later train instead of an earlier flight, but not too much less, because after arriving at Heathrow you have to check baggage and go through security, while with a connecting flight your baggage is moved for you and you are already on the secure side of the terminal. If you budget 2 hrs on arrival at Heathrow to check bags, clear security, get to the gate, and do passport checks, then you are not saving much over a flight every 2 hrs from Manchester Given that the train is a longer total trip than a flight to begin with, the hassle of moving bags three times (board HSR, board at OOC, check in Heathrow) versus once (check in Manchester) will likely far outweigh any flexibility.
*There are many international destinations with many more than six flights a day from Heathrow, but as far as I can tell they all have direct flights to Manchester too (NYC, Frankfurt, Dubai, Dublin, etc.)
Bearing in mind interchange time between flights at Heathrow and the flight is 1h15 meaning at least 2 hours and likely longer for a flight. Don’t forget that the current trip time is around 3 hours including an illegal change – following railway rules it is 3h15.
I suspect honestly the main reason people fly is cost as the flexible train tickets are expensive
You are assuming the railfan’s goal is getting to a destination quickly. Flying from Birmingham to Dublin to change planes for Cleveland doesn’t involve trains, clambering between platforms and putting more car numbers in The Notebook. Normal people want to balance cost and travel time.
I’ve also found that railfans have provincial concepts of airports. The magical mystical “One seat ride” to JFK for instance. One seat ride from where? and to where? All the hotels in Manhattan aren’t at Penn Station, this magical mystical train isn’t going to stop at all the terminals either. There already is a train that stops at all the terminals. That connects to four different one seat rides to Manhattan. Which will still have those connections because people on Long Island want to go to the airport as do people in Brooklyn and Queens.
I doubt the proposal for Heathrow, whatever it was, was for HS2 to go to all the terminals. So except for the lucky few whose flight is at the terminal where the station is, they’d have to change anyway. It’s much easier to walk across a concourse at a hub airport not-Heathrow.
People ride the Stansted/Gatwick/Heathrow express services and change onto the tube the whole time. Or they get a train to reading or Guildford and the rail air coaches to Heathrow.
The tube goes lots of places but, without looking, I suspect it doesn’t go to Manchester. Or even Birmingham. If you live someplace that only has tube service your choices are the tube, the tube or the tube. Busspotters would likely disagree. Which is why people take the tube to get places. Some of them Not-Heathrow.
People not in metro London can use their local Not-Heathrow airport to get to hub Not-Heathrow airports and change planes there. It’s unfortunate that it might not involve trains but most people aren’t trainspotters, they won’t be very disappointed.
HS2 was specifically rejected to Heathrow on cost grounds.
With regards to Liverpool-Manchester it is pretty reasonable compared to https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/685839d1a71bb0fcad2cf1f2/685e5717b1f1448b95a3ae20_31774_The_Case_for_Northampton_to_Old_Oak_Common_v2.pdf for example.
Of course you could do that for a tenth of the cost, but you know.
We have got very silly I think.
I mean we can’t actually name “the country” accurately for policy purposes*. Silly and stupid is the contemporary political culture of the UK.
Again its a combo of London envy, car-airport elite brain, and dislike of poor people being connected to jobs i.e. places rich people go. Remember only transit city people in the UK know about is London, but they don’t understand why, so its a mix of “London stole all the money” and “if London** has it, that’s what we need” from professional northerners.
*I.e. Great British Railways, instead of British Railways, the Great is there to explain why it doesn’t apply in Scotland, NI and Wales, just “the country”.
** The London they visit/see on TV, not the actual London, since the truth “Megacity inherits a 1st class mass transit network from before the foundation of the United Kingdom in 1922 and unlike the north its not a polycentric steampunk industrial city”
The United Kingdom was founded in 1801 surely, unless you’re arguing that it profoundly changed in nature due to the partitioning of Ireland?
That’s where it came from.
I would be surprised if someone got a meeting with Burnham to propose a Picc-Vic tunnel and a Warrington tunnel (for overtaking the stopping services) plus 100mph+ on the classic south route from Liverpool to Manchester that he wouldn’t take notice.
Especially as you could comfortably also fund an east-west metro link tunnel for Manchester and still have change from the £15bn, and the benefits would be bigger too.
The big MP/Mayor friendly argument is that £15bn for a railway from Liverpool to Manchester is that it is too expensive so it won’t happen. There’s a million rides a year from Liverpool to Manchester at the moment, what are you really going to get with better service? 3-5 million?
Headbolt Lane got a rate of 800k passengers a year in its first year and cost £70m to build – and probably 1-1.5m in the longer term. It’s much better value.
Actually looking at the corridor as it stands, with a service only calling at Warrington, electrification and the approaches at Manchester and Liverpool sped up to only cost you 3 minutes of acceleration and deceleration and you’d be looking at a trip time of 33 minutes or so, which is pretty much what the £15bn plan proposes – the maths I am doing is (33/85*60+3+2.5)*1.1.
The United Kingdom was founded in 1801 surely, unless you’re arguing that it profoundly changed in nature due to the partitioning of Ireland?
1801 Union and 1707 Union (and the 1536 Union) are all quite different polities. I think having a civil war which ends with 1/5 of the state leave with your largest ethno-religious minority is pretty profound. We also underestimate the impact of the First World War, which also completes the process of democratisation within the UK, forces it to give more autonomy to the dominions and to a lesser extent the Crown Colonies (e.g. beginning of national elections in India as Gandhi takes over the INC). Also sees the beginning of UK subordination to the US, with US bailing out the Entente, then Fiscal dependence and plus accepting American meddling in Ireland. The Liberal party collapses too. And finally the word England is banished from political discourse. That’s why the closest thing the UK has to a national holiday is November the 11th, i.e. the funeral for Victorian England (they also want to check its dead).
I know that, you know that, but for them to admit it is to admit their entire theory of the universe is wrong. It has to be stolen because if it isn’t…..
Picc-Vic (or rather Picc-Salford Central tunnel) is a good project, it would have my full support. And it is clearly floating around the ether. The problem is 1. You need more than GM support. 2. To get non-GM support it needs to be “Northern” 3. That means its more Thameslink than Crossrail which means its less pro-GM (in theory).
Also its the North, they want the money more than the transport. See their love of Two-Main-Train-Operations.
….. Calling them subsidy sucking welfare queens would be impolitic.
Local yokels love to rant about the state spending “their” money “downstate”. I point out that roughly 60 percent of the money the state collects is collected in New York City. Apparently money collected locally is “their” money and money collected other places is “their” money too. It’s usually the same people who whine, moan and complain about “summer” people. It’s impolitic to point out they would be out in the woods collecting nuts and berries if it wasn’t for the tourists providing jobs.
Depends how you cut it. In terms of operating subsidy per passenger undoubtedly the regions away from London/New York/Paris are higher.
However in terms of investment I doubt they have had investment that even matches their share of the revenue.
In Britain in the last quarter there was a total of £3.1 billion of passenger revenue, of which £1.5 billion was London and the South East, £1.1 billion was the long distance services (largely but not exclusively to London) and £500 million was the regional services. I doubt since World War Two or even 1900 that the regional services away from London have attracted 1/6th of the investment – although to be fair it has improved in recent years.
@Borners, I would have thought that a Piccadilly Salford tunnel would allow you to run a service between Manchester Piccadilly and Liverpool with a roughly half hour journey time and if you split services between the Northern route and the Southern route that would allow you to have a service every 15 minutes.
That would benefit more than just Manchester – especially if you could send it onto Leeds with the same frequency.
Less polemically, Alon what would think of the opposite of threading HSR through an airport, instead plonking an airport on a HSR. I’m particularly thinking about places like Australia or Canada where the rural areas have low population, but the cities are large/growing/geographically constrained, and using HSR speeds you can have a big intergrated airport at 80-90km from city centre, relatively far away from people. Also means you can then cannibalise existing airport sites for more intensive development.
Depends on country, 80-90km trip on HSR could mean something like 20-40USD fare. Which is quite expensive for airport rail.
And even the like of Beijing Daxing Airport and Tokyo Narita Airport are considered quite inconvenient, and even those aren’t 80-90km out. Narita didn’t have high speed rail now but Keisei is 160km/h already
Yes, but the benefits of having an airport closer than 60km to a megacity are deeply overrated, you can see in that even a Heathrow or Haneda* which are inner suburban locations, earn low billions, i.e. insanely less than working class semi-detached suburbs per km. And that’s before the negative effects of plane noise etc.
*Haneda is distinct from heathrow because of the role of water/reclaimed land means the land’s potential other uses are reduced. This is true for Fukuoka and Kansai Itami airport.
Airports are not compatible with dense cities. Airplanes are noisy – nobody wants to live near a runway. (when they are high no problem, but they need many miles of low altitude around airports to land). You also can’t put skyscrapers near airports since the airplanes need a path to fly.
While many existing airports are close to city center for historical reasons, anyone looking to build a new airport (which is rare – this is expensive) will be looking to get well outside of the city. So the point is correct, HSR to the airport makes sense, you can get the airport farther away from the city and still be close enough to be the cities airport. You can potentially find some other small city in that direction to share the airport with as well.
HSR is still going to be expensive, and in this application not intended for other transportation, but may still be overall worth building as a way to get your new airport away. (until of course the city builds to the airport – business often wants to be done near the airport so you can all meet and get back)
An airport at the distance from city like ICN, HND, TPE, PVG, PKX are already sufficiently far, and such distances aren’t HSR distance.
High building cannot be constructed in the direct proximity next to the airport, but nowadays airplanes landing at Haneda fly over the entirety of Ikebukuro, Shinjuku, Shibuya and have no problem because those wouldn’t be considered immediate proximity of Haneda.
And airplanes are ultimately transportation tool. While they the procedure before boarding and after landing already make airplane unpopular, adding the cost of HSR fare and complexity like HSR ticketing would only make it even more unpopular
HSR need not be expensive, and ticketing need not be complex. If the HSR line is for transportation competing with short haul flights that happens to stop at the airport then it will be. However if the HSR is built by the airport for purposes of getting to the airport they can make the tickets a lot cheaper. Will anyone do that – I doubt it, but when we are discussing in the abstract we have to allow for that possibility. If NYC decides to replace JFK they probably need a HSR line – everything close is already taken, or bad geography (mountains and oceans are both bad things to build an airport on)
The airport to close is LaGuardia. Newark is far enough away from JFK that they don’t interfere with each other’s operations. LaGuardia interferes with both. Close LaGuardia there can be more flights using Newark or JFK.
New York built an SST-port back in the 70s. It has flights to Florida, Florida and Florida.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_International_Airport
I wasn’t trying to suggest close JFK as something NYC should do. I don’t know enough about NYC to know what is right. I just picked JFK because that is where international flights go and thus where people from the entire region need to go for some travel.
There already is an intercity railroad station at Baltimore-Washington International Airport and Newark Liberty International airport. The supposed people who are attempting to catch the twice weekly flight to Obscuristan, a former Dutch colony, can fly to Amsterdam and change planes there to the daily flight.
People from the region don’t need HSR to get there. People in other regions have options like flying to Atlanta to change planes. Or flying to Chicago. Or just going to their local international airport. Boston has quite a few destinations. As does Philadelphia. And Washington D.C. The choices at Baltimore are few but they can fly to one of the big-three’s hubs and change planes. Or people in Pittsburgh or any place else whose straws you want to clutch at.
The topic in this specific comment thread is building airport at HSR distance and connect it to the city using HSR to free up more premium land
It would be a complete waste of money, because the dominant use of the airport would be to serve the primary city it’s near and not to serve cities hundreds of km away by train. When Canada tried doing that at 40 km range, the result was a financial flop.
Cannibalizing old domestic airports is useful, but not any of the primary airports I know of. Metro Vancouver, for example, doesn’t have a shortage of development in Richmond, so there’s no need to redevelop YVR; where it needs to build more housing is closer in, along the Canada Line and the under-construction Broadway subway.
How far is too far is hard to determine but, as you pointed out, cannibalizing old airports is useful or even crucial. Mirabel failed because Montreal changed her mind, did not close Dorval and did not build the promised rail link. Malpensa, at 50 km from Milan, is struggling because the domestic connections land at Linate. To succeed one must go all the way as in Casablanca and Hong-Kong. Casablanca Anfa airport was closed and the area redeveloped. In a few years, CMN, at 30 km from downtown, will be served by a stop on the Kenitra-Casablanca-Marrakech LGV.
Heathrow’s relocation, even if Borners’ math is correct, is a stretch. Boris Johnson failed to get much support for his Isle of Dogs Airport. HS2 travails show that nymbyism is strong in the region and that HM Treasury doesn’t have billions to spare.
HS2 would not have been at all controversial if some of the people involved had political nous.
That seems doubtful, or at least the controversy would be much reduced. Typically as far as I remember the time savings from HS2 for London were around 30-45 minutes.
However if a station was built in Buckinghamshire Aylesbury would see journey time savings of two hours or more. Birmingham International was planned to have time savings of around an hour. I am less clear about Stoke Parkway, but the time savings would still be large – especially for Liverpool and for places like Shropshire which are further away but currently have very weak service.
No more so than any other developed country, just with slightly different problems.
LGA would be a pretty good candidate for demolition and replacement with TOD, wouldn’t it? Its location is a natural destination for an extension of the Astoria Line. A comprehensive high speed rail network could compete with 5 out of its top 10 busiest routes, to Chicago, Atlanta, Charlotte, Detroit, and Boston. Induced demand from HSR could actually cause travel volumes to cities NOT served by HSR to shrink, as people only have a finite amount of vacation time. LGA’s main advantage vs the other airports is its proximity to Manhattan, but with better regional rail service Newark could become just as convenient for manhattan bound travelers, with the large speed advantage of commuter trains over the subway cancelling out the longer distance. Removing LGA would reduce the number of flights in NYC airspace, reducing delays at Newark and JFK.
The reason Montreal second airport failed is entirely due to retaining the old airport. You can’t give people the choice. Exactly the same is going to happen to Western Sydney Airport (Badgerys Creek) which might have worked if they had closed Kingsford Smith. It is about to open, though of course exactly as predicted the Metro transport link will be years behind completion while the best, fastest link has been put on the back-burner meaning a very indirect route by first going north, changing train to go on the 50+km long eastward/south-eastward trek to the city and of course probably further changes for residents who are spread all over the Sydney basin sprawl.
The very profitable airport parking industry wins again. People will drive or Uber etc as they always have. Except that because our major airports were all privatised, KSA will use every trick to make sure WSA fails; they won’t have to try very hard and there is already talk of it being mostly for LCC, again exactly as predicted. Gatwick versus Heathrow is another case study; Gatwick was supposed to be for American lines but they quickly abandoned it to return to Heathrow. Yes, despite this Gatwick is the second busiest airport in Europe and they have just announced an extra runway; they should have closed Heathrow and expanded Gatwick which has tons of space all around it (if filled with Home Counties NIMBYs) and sits on mainline rail to London. The sheer cost of building anything in the UK will probably kill Heathrow expansion (I have lost track) but no government will bite the bullet, and since it is a private entity …
Re Borner’s concept, it is in a version of the HSR plan to link Sydney-Canberra that I published ages ago:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-very-fast-train-is-a-model-of-sustainability-20100326-r2cv.html
The concept was that it could do multiple very useful things in addition to linking Sydney-Canberra, in particular provide more affordable housing options in places like Goulburn (just north of Canberra and on any HSR route crayon) because the commute to Sydney would be as good or better than most areas of Sydney (which aren’t the parts the tourists see). (And northern Central Coast if the Newcastle HSR is built; this is now being proposed as the first HSR but it will also be the most expensive as almost all of it is awful geography). This was before Badgerys Creek was planned and it could not fit into such plans because any HSR can only exit Sydney via the southern route (the west runs into the Blue Mountains) but one of the fantasy plans for a (second) Sydney airport was in the south … In fact another option would be to have the HSR serve Canberra airport because the 45 minute travel to Sydney would be competitive with any (second) airport (certainly Badgery which looks like a 2h slog by transit and who knows by car). That is, Canberra airport becomes Sydney’s second airport. A single airport in the middle (or just south of Sydney makes more sense) but all these airports are privately owned so any serious government planning is stymied before they start. Part of my plan was that the huge KSA site (about 14km2 existing and probably easily 20km2 if filling the bits of Botany Bay between) is turned into prime housing + TOD. This is only 8km from the main CBD. (The site remains crown land.)
None of this will happen. The $20 billion Western Sydney airport will be a gigantic white elephant with even poorer transit links (because even the poor one being proposed will be postponed forever when demand doesn’t occur) and Sydney housing becomes unaffordable to next gen.
Driving will always have a large place in airports because people tend to bring luggage for longer trips. As such (and despite what I said elsewhere about HSR potentially having a place!) driving will also be popular just because you can put your bags in the car and drop them at the door instead of transferring train to train.
Most travelers have just one suitcase and a backpack. That is not a problem at all to manage on a train. Driving to the airport is unpopular in many places because of the high cost of airport parking.
The issue is convenience. Airplane is an transportation tool afterall and location of airport determine how convenient air travel are. Even if you closed the old airport like Hiroshima or Kitakyushu, the new airport being inconvenient will still discourage air traffic from/to the city. And this could mean people no longer visiting the city at all. Like for example despite Hiroshima being the largest city in Japan’s Chugoku/Shikoku area, few foreign airlines serve the city and would rather serve the like of Takamatsu instead, furthering decay of significance and value of the city
the most obvious application for borners idea is the uk where you would put over half the country within an hour of the airport form their main train station if you put an airport on HS2
My proposal wasn’t about connecting other cities to a Megacity hub airport, it was about optimal use of land/adding to HSR market in more marginal cases like Oz. It only works though if you close the existing airport and redevelop it (which can help pay for the move).
Munich moved their airport out of tow in 1992, successfully. The old one was 12 km away from the center, the new one is 30 km out—far for German standards. No long-distance trains but decent regional train connections.
But they closed down the old airport? Montreal didn’t. Sydney hasn’t and won’t, and now because the old one is a privatised Monopoly money machine, cannot afford to.
Munich-Riem airport closed in May 1992, and the Franz Joseph Strauss one opened the next day. Munich-Riem, which was Munich’s second airport, was redeveloped as a new urban district.
The first airport named Oberwiesenfeld, where PM Chamberlain and Daladier landed to negotiate the 1938 Munich Agreement with Hitler, was under US control from 1945 to 1955. It closed in 1968 and was redeveloped for the 1972 Olympics.
HSR links make sense at hub airports to replace feeder flights from not-too-far-away places. Short-haul flights are much more polluting per km than long-haul: both incur the massive fuel consumption for take-off but the short haul then has only a short distance cruise to amortize it. Secondary airports don’t need HSR.
Case in point: Frankfurt Airport (FRA). Cologne and Stuttgart have their own (secondary) airports. From the city center it takes an S-Bahn ride to get to the local airport or about 1h HSR to FRA. As a result, it takes quite a bit longer to board a feeder flight from the local airport and change to long distance at FRA than taking HSR directly to FRA and boarding the long-distance flight directly.
DB has a rail-and-fly offer with a flexible HSR ticket, so you can board the next train right after landing. (Every 10 mins to Cologne, every 1/2h to Stuttgart.) That’s much more efficient that the generous layover buffers between flights.
As a consequence, there are no more direct flights between Cologne and FRA. Why Stuttgart still has 5 flights a day to FRA escapes me.
Argh—this @#$% system attached my comment to the wrong threat again! @Alon: If you could please delete it here. I’ve posted it to the right place below.
Not “high speed”, but Oslo Gardermoen airport replaced closed and now redeveloped Fornebu. 64km total 210kmh max rail link
Stockholm Arlanda airport ought to have but has not yet quite killed Bromma. 39km total 200kmh max rail link.
“In a country like France, the demand for high-fare rail links to CDG is to the center of Paris, not Marseille” is a truism. There is no demand for high-fare rail links from CDG to Marseille (or other provincial towns) because the airlines are perfectly capable of offering fast and reasonably priced options. There is however a demand for low or medium-fare TGV tickets, about 3.5 million annually to and from CDG. As for the high-fare demand to Paris center we shall know its extent once CDG Express starts running in 2027. I’ll give it a try but so far, in about three hundred public transit trips to or from CDG or Orly, I never felt the need for a fast and comfortable ride to Gare de l’Est.
Instead of opposing HSR to provincial towns and fast links to downtown, or HSR for tourists and domestic needs as you did in your previous post, I would second Borners and ask whether something is built to be a global leader, for prestige, or for more practical reasons. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about HSR or not. Pudong’s airport Maglev is a downtown link but is as preposterous as some of the arguments for HS2 or CAHSR. California would benefit from HSR for safety reasons as the airspace is dangerously crowded but, as designed, CAHSR will not help as there are practically no flights between the Central Valley towns and LA or SF, and the route chosen will not be time or price-competitive with the actual numerous flights between the various LA and Bay Area airports.
Whether something works in practice depends on unique circumstances like geography. Patronage on the LGV Interconnexion Ile-de-France was high enough to pay for construction costs in a dozen years. Closer to Paris, a Orly LGV would require between 16 and 28 km of tunnels. So far, the numbers don’t add up for SNCF. HSR service to Incheon and to Fiumicino failed because the high speed trains were running at commuter rail speed for some 30 km. AVE’s 8 km link to Barajas should work better.
I differ with your opinion about California HSR. I have lived in the state for over 40 years and driven or flown to practically every region of the state. I’ve studied California HSR project, Amtrak California regional routes and commuter rail routes since 2009. Though I have some criticisms of California passenger rail and the HSR start-up mistakes were bad, the lack of federal funding is by far the worst issue. Imagine interstate highways only receiving 17% of project funding from the Feds. BTW, it was a smart decision to choose the current Central Valley route. See https://www.soulofamerica.com/home/blog/california_high_speed_rail/
French highways (toll roads) are privately funded so I can certainly imagine 17% of project funding from the government. The LGV going through CDG was built without State subsidies on flat agricultural land resembling the one in CA Central Valley. It was 91% funded by SNCF, and the rest by businesses wanting to have a station on or next to their premises (mainly Aeroports de Paris and Disney). Without State financing, the builders need to get to the point, i.e. closely study the market and deliver on time. Financing by distant State authorities lead to the scenario seen in CA and HS2 where consultants and builders are content to work on a project for decades and without any plausible rentability. The fact that airlines don’t bother sending a 60-seat turboprop from LA or SF to Central Valley towns suggest that people find it more convenient to drive there. HSR is not going to change that. Your Central Valley route is a self-inflicted headache. Separation rules imposed by the Federal Railroad Administration and BNSF require the construction of a 110 meter wide and 10 meter high embankment in the middle of Shafter to no-one’s delight in a town of 20 000 that won’t even benefit from a station.
If the train is stopping at every wide place in the road the high speed part of high speed rail goes away. They can drive to Bakersfield. Like they do for a lot of things because it’s a town of 20,000. 20,000 people taking an extraordinary amount of high speed rail trips every year is a few dozen parking spaces the high speed station a few miles away in Bakersfield.
I am not arguing for a Shafter HSR station. Bakersfield is indeed close enough. I am saying that CAHSR should have targeted the large LA-Bay Area market. This could be done while going through open fields along the I-5 highway, an ideal ground for HSR. LA and the Bay Area are separated by 660 km. Low cost carriers don’t even try to compete with the TGV on trips of similar length. Air France does it because of its hub and spoke network but LAX and SFO each serve enough destinations that Angelenos do not need to fly to SFO to catch an international flight, and vice-versa.
CAHSR chose to go through the Central Valley towns, and often to follow existing corridors despite the difficulties created by FRA rules demanding extensive physical separation between freight and high speed rail. In Europe or Japan, these towns would represent attractive markets for HSR. In California, as demonstrated by the almost complete lack of scheduled flights, people chose to drive there. It may just be that, unlike in Japan or Europe, a car is needed for the last miles. CAHSR will make a valiant effort to reverse that situation but I am afraid it will fail.
Respectfully, we have to agree to disagree. I explain the reasons why choosing Bakersfield, Kings/Tulare, Fresno was best on https://www.soulofamerica.com/home/blog/california_high_speed_rail/
They did. And convinced the people along the way to vote for the route. It’s a pity democracy works that way, isn’t it?
You forget that France did not encounter the same level of Highway & Aviation lobbies resistance in late 1973-early 1974, when it ramped up commitment to HSR. National commitment was high and infrastructure costs relatively low when they added about 400 km of LGV to existing track entering central stations and opened at 270 kmph in 1981 (upgraded to 300 kmph in 1988). Once citizens saw the initial TGV ridership success, it was a done deal for French commitment to more TGV and LGV.
Since Amtrak Northeast Corridor HSR was always underfunded, America never had the successful experience to count on or to share best practices with California HSR.
The north east corridor is less busy than the British rail network and has faster top speeds. There is no excuse for not meeting British average speeds at the very least.
And end to end service in 5 hours should be able to be achieved without any fuss.
The faster top speeds are for embarrassingly short sections.
The Central Valley route isn’t an issue; it’s the deferred connections to LA and the Bay Area. The San Joaquins / Rail Runner already exists and speeding up the trains via the IOS won’t induce that much demand in Fresno and Bakersfield.
The first segment needed to be Bakersfield – LA, which is the only existing gap in the state network. That connection would have enabled a Bay Area – LA basin rail route without the uncomfortable bus transfer. It’s also telling that Merced is going to be deferred for a direct connection to Caltrain; while not optimal, this does create a commuter route between the Silicon Valley and Central Valley that should spur development in the latter.
Bakersfield to Los Angeles wasn’t eligible for the money available at the time. If you think not building anything at all is a better option I’m sure other states could have used the money.
”The first segment needed to be Bakersfield – LA, which is the only existing gap in the state network.”
This is exactly right, and the key failure of CAHSR, along with the selection of Tehachapi pass over Tejon pass.
@Adirondacker, Bakersfield-LA was not eligible for funds because they environmental reports were not done, because they chose to do the Central Valley first. If they had done the southern connection reports first they could have received the money to build it first too.
And if railfans had clapped harder in their ruby slippers Dagny Taggart could have shown everybody how to do it.
The TGV tickets are low-fare per km, but 0.10€/km times 400+ km is still a lot of money by the standards of an LCC ticket. So in terms of fare per passenger, they should be compared with the CDG Express.
Your comparison is curious. Who is going to compare CDG Express, LCC and TGV fares? Someone wanting to go to Paris will compare CDG Express, RER B, taxis, Uber and bus fares. Further away, LCC only enter the comparison when going to Toulouse (840 km by TGV) or Nice and Corsica which are even further away. EasyJet left the Paris-Marseille (725 km) market 20 years ago. For your 400 km example the choice will be between the TGV, Blablacar and car rentals.
The full cost of a flight (with baggage etc) is very comparable with high speed rail in Europe including going on the Eurostar in my experience.
I’m not sure where it falls, but the Stuttgart airport station is another case. From reading the German Wikipedia article, the original plans for Stuttgart 21 and the new high speed route between Stuttgart and Ulm didn’t include a stop at the airport, and including it increased the cost quite a bit. STR is not a large airport (7th largest in Germany) and the airport link doesn’t provide much benefit as a bypass (I guess you could bypass Stuttgart between Ulm and Zürich, but why would you do that).
Shizuoka airport sit right on top of Tokaido Shinkansen tunnel.
It was previously calculated that building a station on the line right beneath the airport would cost 40 billion yen, but it’s more recently estimated the cost would double due to inflation
But JR Central have been rejecting the idea even before considering funding, due to scheduling issue
Shizuoka’s airport is similar to Hiroshima’s airport, both of which are far from the city center. In both cases, it doesn’t make sense for JR West / Tokai to build expensive stations to airports that would reduce their rail traffic.
Once the Chuo Shinkansen is built, the existing Nozomis should be stopping at Shizuoka and Hamamatsu, so there will be even less need for a stop at the airport.
Ah it does make sense according to Regional Patronage politics, regional airport in Japan are a way for local LDP machine to transfer resources to prefectural peripheries (and also avoid NIMBYism of suburbs). That’s very visible in Shizuoka, Akita or Hiroshima (n/b not universal there are a bunch of airports that are ex-military).
???
In most other countries, city of the size of Shizuoka City and Hamamatsu City will most likely get their own individual airport, instead of the current situation of sharing a middle of nowhere Shizuoka MtFuji Airport inbetween both and close to none
Both Shizuoka airport and Hiroshima airport are political compromise between the two big cities in each prefecture. In Shizuoka, between Shizuoka City and Hamamatsu City, in Hiroshima, between Hiroshima City and Fukuyama City
The problem here with Shizuoka is not cost. But that it would block Tokaido Shinkansen operation since it would make spacing between station too close, Kodama would be travelling slow between nearby stations if the station is constructed being unable to speed up, resulting in blocking other Nozomi trains
Even after Linear Chuo Shinkansen is constructed, Nozomi won’t stop at Shizuoka City or Hamamatsu City. But instead more Hikari will be available to stop at the two stations.
But this have nothing to do with replacing Shizuoka airport, since Shizuoka airport currently mainly serve LCC connecting China Korea Taiwan, and barely have any domestic flights.
Indeed, the STR HSR link makes little sense—in line with all the counterproductive planning around Stuttgart 21. I’ve put together a few thoughts involving STR and FRA below.
You wrote, “in the United States, a common argument for high-speed rail in California and the Northeast has been that the airports are too clogged with short-haul regional flights and if high-speed trains replaced them then the gates and runway slots would be usable by long-haul flights. This argument is made at the same time as arguments about reducing greenhouse gas emissions – but long-haul flights contribute far more emissions than short-haul ones per unit of airport capacity consumed …”
While the statement is true, an overriding truth is that people will continue and increase flying long distances because the time savings and need to fly over seas & oceans are compelling and increasing. Until a purely green energy source is developed for jets, consumers have to push for the rapid conversion to Sustainable Aviation Fuel coupled with jet-mileage fees to plant more trees. Every advanced & emerging nation must recycle more plastic as well to reduce GHG.
-Thomas
It’s notable how much comment engagement a post about fucking stupid (always!) fucking airport rail links generates.
Honest question, no games here…why do you feel that airport rail links are stupid? (Forget HSR for a second.)
I’ll show my business-traveler bias, I have used airport rail links (both dedicated lines and transit stops on lines going elsewhere) in DC (Reagan), London (Heathrow), Munich, Rome, Amsterdam, Hong Kong, and Singapore. (I guess New York too, but I changed trains three times – Metro-North, two subway lines, AirTrain.) I found them to be invaluable. Hong Kong was the most impressive. I was flying Cathay Pacific, and being able to check in for my flight and check my bags through to New York while in the Hong Kong MTR station in Central and then being able to go about my day (the flight left at midnight) was fantastic.
Do you feel that they aren’t worth it because the capital/operating cost per rider is too high? I can see why that may be the case for a dedicated line. HK MTR Airport Express’s ridership is pretty low, especially by Chinese standards. But on the other hand, the DC airport station (Reagan National) is just another metro station; Munich is on an S-bahn line; Singapore’s on an MRT line. Interested to hear your thoughts.
Despite OP’s hyperbole, dedicated airport links tend to underperform because they usually do not meet ridership projections. That’s because air travelers are not reliable daily commuters, and airport fare surcharges usually dissuade the airport’s workers from using the public transport. From a pure equity perspective, new rail lines should be built in city centers to serve the latent ridership who would otherwise be stuck on inefficient buses. Business travelers with luggage can usually afford to take rideshare or express buses instead.
There are a few exceptions. You’ve already noted DC National is a good rail link because it just happens to be on the rail line; the same is true for Schiphol. In all the other cases, the airport link is a shorter branch of an existing line:
I suspected this is the way the response would go, and I agree; a low-ridership dedicated line to an airport that doesn’t serve airport workers is definitely not a good use of public monies. I feel like if you’re going to dedicate a line to an airport, airport workers shouldn’t have to pay a surcharge.
Also, when I went to London I slummed it on Piccadilly, not Heathrow Express 🙂 I had time and it was a nostalgia thing.
I do wonder why airport links get such outsized attention – one-seat rides between Manhattan and LGA/JFK have been talked about forever. Maybe it’s because the market segment has disproportionate political power – frequent fliers are higher income, whereas occasional travelers and families may be less likely to take public transportation to the airport because of luggage, unfamiliarity, and convenience; maybe also because they’re coming from unconnected origin points. But then again, you’re right about business travelers having the means to take taxi/rideshare or express buses. Thinking of my own experience, coming from CT, I almost never took public transit to JFK except for the one occasion where I wanted to try it out just for kicks. 4 hours later I decided I wasn’t doing that again.
Interesting discussion all around.
As an aside, when I was traveling frequently for work, I definitely started to hate big airports. I will actually pay extra to depart from Hartford or Westchester now.
outsized attention of airport rail link is because even people who usually drive would likely use airport train to access airport from the city I think
@Phake Nick, also it’s a social class issue. The people who fly a lot are typically well off and well connected.
There are four different “one seat rides” to JFK. The LIRR to Jamaica to change for Airtrain, the E train to Jamaica, the J/Z to Jamaica and the A train to Howard Beach. Alon once blurted out that the E train, instead of going to the World Trade Center, should go to Inwood so the gentry of the Upper West Side wouldn’t have to change to the LIRR to get to JFK. They already have a one seat ride to Howard Beach on the A train. EWR has one seat ride on NJTransit or Amtrak. Someday there will be one seat ride on PATH.
Most of the people yammering on about one seat rides are imagining other people yearning for a one seat ride that goes from the mythical doorstep to the the correct terminal. Even though doesn’t give someone a one seat ride from their alternate doorstep and alternate terminal.
Airtrain is there to keep automobile and bus traffic out of the terminals. It will be there for trips to the parking lots, rental cars, train station ( people have origins and destination that are not-Penn-Station. One seat ride to Manhattan doesn’t do you much good if you are going to Trenton or Hicksville ). The one seat ride they already have, is good enough.
There is also the problem of other people already using whatever clueless railfans come up with. It’s not going to go over well to cancel a 12 car standing room only LIRR train so a 6 car half empty train can go to the airport. Or NJTransit.
The toll on the Whitestone or Throggs Neck isn’t cheap. Or parking at JFK. You do miss out on the the joys of the Van Wyck Expressway. You should try EWR sometime. It avoids the Bronx and Queens.
You don’t add value to any conversation, adirondacker. Piss off.
Forgot to mention there are one seat rides from New England to Newark Airport. It’s unclear when the Amtrak Regional started serving it. But they do.
“There are four different “one seat rides” to JFK. The LIRR to Jamaica to change for Airtrain, the E train to Jamaica, the J/Z to Jamaica and the A train to Howard Beach.”
The definition of a “one seat ride” is that one does not have to change to a different train to reach the destination. Each example that Adirondacker gives is a two seat ride because they each involve changing to the AirTrain.
One could argue that if you only have to board an airtrain/peoplemover to get from the main terminal to a satellite terminal with your gate then you had a one seat ride “to the airport”, but Howard Beach is 5.5km from the terminal loop and Jamaica 7.5km, both with intermediate non-terminal stops, so using the AirTrain from Manhattan is hardly a one seat ride.
I don’t write this for Adirondacker’s benefit, but for other readers who may not be as familiar with transit terminology or the layout of JFK but want to learn.
….you do realize that people who are thinking “Are you nutz? I’m not going to take a fucking train to the airport or even a bus” say things like “No, It’s too bad it’s not a one seat ride”..
Are you familiar with the layout of the major airports in metro New York? It’s quite common for large busy airports to have multiple terminals. All three of the ones in New York have multiple terminals. I’d suggest starting with
https://maps.jfkairport.com
The magical mystical one seat ride can’t be from everywhere to all of the terminals. Which is what I suspect people yearning for a one seat ride are imagining. Which is apparently what you are suggesting. What do you have in mind?
I’ll leave it up to you to check Wikipedia for recent costs of rebuilding terminals at New York area airports. The Port Authority has been spending a lot of money. How much would it cost to rebuild all of the terminals so Airtrain is one side of the platform and the magical mystical one seat ride is on the other?
Airtrain is still going to be there because it does many many things. Without being stuck in traffic. Including connecting to the train stations because the majority of people in the metro area are in places not-Manhattan. They can get to the airport faster without getting a magical mystical one seat ride from Manhattan.
I suppose they could save lots of money by having one mystical station at the airport. Which takes the one seat ride magic out if it for many people. Or all the people if they connect to Airtrain at Parking-lot-remotest to save money. What is the significant difference between changing to Airtrain inside of the airport perimter versus outside of it?
All the while you are confecting scenarios for your magical mystery goes from everywhere for one seat rides to all the terminals avoid doing things like canceling the standing room only train so a half empty train can go to the terminals. If you avoid things like that it’s likely your magical train needs new tunnels to Manhattan. That gets real pricey. All so people don’t have to change to the people mover off-airport instead of on-airport.
“I do wonder why airport links get such outsized attention – one-seat rides between Manhattan and LGA/JFK have been talked about forever. Maybe it’s because the market segment has disproportionate political power – frequent fliers are higher income, whereas occasional travelers and families may be less likely to take public transportation to the airport because of luggage, unfamiliarity, and convenience; maybe also because they’re coming from unconnected origin points.”
A lot of it is elite projection but IMO it’s not just this. A priori, a large commercial airport should be a big ridership generator: it’s a big concentration of demand, traffic is bad, parking is invariably expensive, as are cabs and rideshares, getting someone to drop you off is logistically annoying. But the logic breaks down mainly because the transfer penalty is higher: add any of the issues you list (family travel, luggage, disparate origins) and it becomes clear why it’s…more complicated.
Thing is, there is a successful model of airport transit even in the US – private express buses. Every major market in the States has these in some form. And especially with regional or intercity rail, you can get good mode share because you put more people total in one-seat ride range. In other words, the question isn’t “can airport transit get mode share,” it’s whether the spending needed is worth it.
@Ethan Finlan
Great points, and I’ll add that some express buses to airports are not private (i.e. they are extensions or dedicated public transit bus services). I’ve used a few in the past myself. I just looked one up to see if it survived Covid, actually, and it didn’t 😦 It was a Greenbelt Metro Station to Baltimore-Washington International (BWI) WMATA express with space for luggage.
Projection that hoi polloi who take cabs to the airport would take a train. If the movers and shakers who take limos to the airport actually wanted the magical mystical one seat ride from all of Manhattan to all of the terminals at all three airports they would have used their outsize political power to get it.
I’m sure Onux will explain how, under his plan, all the airports will have one seat rides to all the terminals. Real soon.
You have nothing to offer this conversation, and no one likes you.
I don’t know who licked the sugar off your bun. Or care. Amtrak cafe cars have sweet items. Unfortunately no sugared buns. They would be available on your one seat ride from New England. Or the rest of the Northeast Corridor. Or Keystone Corridor. There is a one seat ride to and from BWI too. That requires, I know this might cause some railfans break out in hives, a bus ride from the station.
Certainly in Britain they make a lot of money. The Stansted express makes east Anglia railways make a profit. There’s 40 to 45 million rail passengers using the airport stations in London. Plus 12 million on the tube at Heathrow and 5 million at Manchester airport.
Airport links are not stupid per se, any more than a transit link to any other destination that sees tens of thousands of workers/customers a day is stupid. Many examples have been given in other replies here (DC National, Hong Kong, Stansted/Heathrow, Changi, etc.). Richard’s attitude comes from a few items:
-Airport connectors tend get more attention than they should. An airport getting a few tens of thousands of employees/customers/visitors per day is probably in a metro area where even secondary CBDs are seeing hundreds of thousands of such journeys. They should be a part of comprehensive transit network, not a replacement for it.
-They tend to be poorly designed, with stub end stations or taking extensions of metros that would be much better used elsewhere (see above). Alon did a whole post on this general point over a decade ago https://pedestrianobservations.com/2014/05/28/airport-connectors/
-Airport connections for HSR (the subject of this post) are much less valuable than the ordinary transit links (metro/subway or regional rail) people have mentioned as examples of useful airport connections. As this post notes both HSR and air travel are long distance inter-city modes; people are unlikely to take a train from one city to another city just to use a different airport. There are some exceptions, either a string of low/mid-size cities near a major metro each too small for their own airport (or with just a regional airport featuring high prices and infrequent service) but collectively with some decent ridership, or an international hub with another nearby large city where the HSR time can be competitive with a connecting flight. If LAX were in Burbank then the central valley cities from Bakersfield to Fresno might be an example of the first; if Heathrow were in Ruislip then Birmingham might be an example of the latter.
-Richard lives in San Francisco, and the BART airport connection to San Francisco International Airport was particularly mismanaged, with a lot of money spent to achieve poor results both for the metro trains that reach the airport (BART) and the commuter rail trains (Caltrain) that do not. His view of airport connections is naturally affected.
On another level, most posts Alon makes referencing high speed rail tend to get a lot of engagement.
Thanks for the Onuxsplaining!
As I’ve never encountered any city outside the San Francisco Bay Area, it’s understandable that I ought to have my attitude explained and corrected and placed in a global (= 3/5 Anglophone!) context, a context which I can barely conceive from my provincial remove.
“Nothing else ever. Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
I have long wondered if there is a use for a intercity HSR. I’m thinking of a geographically large city such that there is a large distance within the city that people would want to cover. If the price isn’t too unreasonable trains are enough faster than cars (even on uncongested highways) that they can be the ideal way to get across the city. Now most people choose to live close to work, so it would be slow to get people on, but everyone has a few trips they want to make to the other city of the city for something and once people realize it works over the next decade people will start getting jobs farther from their house.
I noticed a few years back that Denver is about 100km north to south (I assume because of mountains), so a 300 km/h line could start in the far north suburbs, stop in downown, and stop in the far south suburbs – each about 50km apart (and obvious continuations to other cities in Colorado). 10 minutes to downtown brings in a lot of people who can’t get a job downtown. 25 minutes to the opposite side of the city isn’t a reasonable commute but useful for meetings or events that are not happening on your side of the city.
The above has never been tried, so nobody knows how or if it will work in the real world. However there is potential. I would expect such a line to support high frequency all day service, and change the layout of the city long term. (but of course only if the economics work out – I could also see it being so expensive that it flops)
I suspect you mean intracity? This is exactly what is being tested in China in Chengdu though it is something dozens of mega-cities in China need. Especially because they built their Metros in a way that doesn’t really work for their far-flung parts (too frequent stops and no passing tracks to allow express trains). Here is a report on the 3.5km test track for the Bögl medium-speed maglev specifically designed for this purpose.
Nothing much in this latest report except that it attained 181kph and apparently has achieved its test parameters. Bögl licensed some of the Siemens technology used for TransRapid and developed their version which is intended to reduce the cost and make it ‘easy’ to build in crowded urban environs, namely exploiting the intrinsic lightness of maglev to make the supporting infrastructure also very lightweight, factory prefabricated and quick to build. Example, its concrete spans are 125 metres, providing flexibility in spanning existing urban structures as well as reducing costs.
It is designed as a kind of super-RER reaching 50 or 100km or further into the exurban extremities of these mega-cities. And perhaps achieve more affordably, and without expensive tunneling, what TransRapid was designed for. And of course airport links partly because federal money may be available.
But no real news about whether Changdu will go ahead with the ≈150km line originally proposed. Ditto whether any German city will commission a line; maybe it can snaffle some of that cash-splash Merz has promised.
Interesting question. I believe the JRs would be the closest implementation of an “intra-city” HSR, but even then, and even in your Denver example, it’s still technically intercity. (The City of Denver, bounded by the portion abutting Lakewood and Aurora, is only about 8 miles north-to-south. The adjacent suburbs are separate cities.)
I go back to the previous thread where Alon provided a link to the fact sheet for JR Central. One way to look at it is that intra-city riders are commuters.
As Alon showed, the JR Central fact sheet reveals that only a small portion of Tokaido Shinkansen riders were commuters (13 out of 168 million in 2024). JR West, for the San’yo Shinkansen, doesn’t report number of commuters but does report passenger-km: it shows 917M p-km commuters out of 20,092M p-km total.
So looking at it this way only a small portion of Tokaido and San’yo Shinkansen riders are commuters.
Another way to look at it is which trains travelers take regardless of trip purpose. JR West doesn’t split up # of trains by service type on their fact sheet that I can see. JR Central does, though, and most daily departures are of the “Nozomi” service which is the fewest stops. One can conclude that shorter-distance riders would be taking the “Kodama” service which makes all stops, and there are many fewer of those.
I’d conclude that no, intra-city HSR doesn’t make sense, because making more stops and spacing them closer removes the speed advantage. That’s what regional rail and slower intercity services are for.
Sources:
https://www.westjr.co.jp/global/en/ir/library/fact-sheets/2024/pdf/fact2024.pdf
https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/company/ir/factsheets/_pdf/factsheets2025.pdf
We should keep an open mind on whether HSR makes sense for commuter or short distance trips.
The Joetsu Shinkansen was promoted by K Tanaka, PM from 1972 to 1974. Tanaka was born in Niigata, worked in the building industry and was an influential politician known for pork barrel politics, for promoting large construction projects and decentralization to ura Nippon, the “back of Japan”. It turned out that Tanaka’s objectives were not met. The Shinkansen did not reverse trends towards Tokyo’s dominance. The Joetsu in particular seemed to benefit the metropolis more than Niigata. While the ridership to Niigata, located at 301 km from Tokyo, is decent, ridership in Tokyo’s commuter belt, up to Takasaki, 109 km from Tokyo, is much higher.
As for the Tokaido, we know that JR Central will offer more Kodama and less Nozomi trips once the Chuo Shinkansen is in service.
Building HSR is the hard part. Presenting the project as multifunctional can be useful. I believe that HS2 would have had an easier gestation if the UK Government had envisioned a mixed use, for long distance traders as well as commuter ones, and built a few stations closer to London instead of going for a world beating 400 km/h speed. HS2’s choices were surprising since HS1 was a great example of mixed usage with Eurostar, the occasional freight train and the Javelin commuter trains.
The way the passengers seep through their seats when the train instantaneously accelerates to 300 kph would be unpleasant. Assuming the seats didn’t rip out of the floor as the car detaches from the wheels. I suspect that it would cut down on how much they splatter when it stops instantaneously.
@dralaindumas
I’m chuckling because I’m reminded of a passage from Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, a superb one-volume history of the American Civil War Era.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
@J.G. JR Central reports both, commuter pass holders are 7.7% of passengers and 2.2% of passenger kilometres, with JR West commuter passes is 4.5% of passenger kilometres so points to roughly 15% of passengers, if we assume there are a fair number of commuters without passes it could be up to a third of total passengers are commuters.
With Jr west as the Nozomi and other express services has more stops I wouldn’t bet that most commuters are on Kodama services.
@J.G
Would the westerners have been better off without the infrastructure? I doubt it.
@Michael, with regards to China I think they have weak commuter rail on their classic lines?
@Matthew Hutton
I think the point is that you should be careful what you wish for. Or cruel irony.
No. Airport rail link is not inherently a bad idea. Especially for an airport with like annual enplanement of 50+ million, that mean average daily usage of 130+ thousands, which clearly justify a rail link, even if let say onlyv 30% passenger would use the rail, and this is before adding airport workers etc
But the issue come from how you build it. It make no sense for such link to sit on an high speed line skipping everything in the middle, and it also make no sense for such line from airport typically sitting at exurb entering the city core do not also pick up commuters mid-way.
Airports are generally not that far from their respective cities, Châlons Vatry Airport is around 160 km from Paris and Chicago Rockford International is 125.5 km from Chicago. Trains running at 200km/h are perfectly fine for such links. Assuming you are using the train to drain passenger for long haul flights, integrated tickets and check-in at the train station (like for instance in Hong-Kong) will probably get you bigger time savings for cheaper.
… and “Frankfurt”-Hahn Airport is 125 km from Frankfurt. None of these is the main airport of the respective city—in fact, they are all minor airports that really have nothing to do with the big city in their name. I guess that is making your point.
HSR links make sense at hub airports to replace feeder flights from not-too-far-away places. Short-haul flights are much more polluting per km than long-haul: both incur the massive fuel consumption for take-off but the short haul then has only a short distance cruise to amortize it. Secondary airports don’t need HSR.
Case in point: Frankfurt Airport (FRA). Cologne and Stuttgart have their own (secondary) airports. From the city center it takes an S-Bahn ride to get to the local airport or about 1h HSR to FRA. As a result, it takes quite a bit longer to board a feeder flight from the local airport and change to long distance at FRA than taking HSR directly to FRA and boarding the long-distance flight directly.
DB has a rail-and-fly offer with a flexible HSR ticket, so you can board the next train right after landing. (Every 10 mins to Cologne, every 1/2h to Stuttgart.) That’s much more efficient that the generous layover buffers between flights.
As a consequence, there are no more direct flights between Cologne and FRA. Why Stuttgart still has 5 flights a day to FRA escapes me.
Shanghai Hongqiao Airport is also the main high speed rail hub. Pudong Airport doesn’t have any intercity rail yet. Do many airline passengers access the airport by HSR?
The intention was that the TransRapid maglev was going to link the three airports, Hongqiao, Pudong and Hangzhou but obviously after the Pudong-Shanghai link was built the extensions to the others were not. For 15 years it was the world’s fastest train in scheduled commercial service but they reduced its top speed from 430kph to 300kph, adding one whole minute to the time it takes to cover the 30.5km.