Daus said:
Because it's already been accomplished with much less infrastructure cost. ...and I can take Midwest Express direct to DC five minutes from my door stop. ...The best, most efficient way to get from my house to Orlando is on a direct flight, on a well run airline ...
I respond:
Yes, but... If you take away Midwest Express (and maybe one or two other flights a day by Sun Country) you are left with a hop to Chicago or Minneapolis before you get anywhere.
As for your trip to Orlando, I would compare it to the telecommunications infrastructure. You have copper pairs running to your house. The phone company combines them into a bigger pipe. Somewhere between here and there you end up on a huge fiber optic pipe. On the other end you separate again, until you are on your own pipe again.
Today you hop in your car, drive to the airport, get on a plane that may (or may not) take you direct. By adding a step and go to the airport, get on a train, then get on a full plane that takes you direct, you are not too far off.
I'm just asking the question of if it would be cheaper and/or faster that way. Not sure that I am sold on the idea.
balrog666 said:
That's called a hub system. Almost all the big airlines already use it.
I respond:
And we all complain about having to fly into St Louis (or Atlanta, or Chicago) to get anywhere. With true "intermodal" you could separate hub for long haul, another for short, and something effective connecting them. Planes are used today. I'm just asking if trains would work here also.
Kinda like interstates and surface roads. Some folks take the interstates for short hops, but most are on it for longer trips.