Traveling
I think I'm much like most folks in that I "know", from my perch atop the barstool, what's best for my city/country/world/whaddevah, and I do pontificate about it in this journal quite a bit to you, my long-suffering captive audience. I think I'm unlike most in at least two respects: first, I don't necessarily happen to be drunk when I do so - though it occasionally helps - and second, I do try to actually determine whether or not these are workable solutions I'm spouting. In the various world-building projects I've done, I've used them as a "test bed" for many of these ideas, and have asked fellow players or passersby to please make comments on why such a thing wouldn't work. I don't think I have all the answers, and I could use the feedback to tweak them, or maybe even change my mind about them and try a different tack. So it is with many of my political ideas, my business ideas, and so on.
For example, in my recent travels, I noticed that there is an insane amount of air passenger traffic out there. I don't know the specific numbers, but I perceive it's gone up dramatically in the last twenty-five years or so, terrorist attacks or no, and my guess would be that car and train travel of equivalent distances has either gone down or not increased as much. Yet the airlines claim pauperdom. They are cutting services, packing in more passengers into smaller spaces, and laying off workers. I don't know why this is, but it does appear that small, regional airlines are increasing, which is probably the correct response. Use a small fleet of planes, stay within known routes and budgets, and so forth. Interestingly, I haven't seen the converse from the large carriers: stay away from the small routes, choose a dozen or so "hub" cities - London, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. - and simply act as a conduit between these regional airlines.
Indeed, why can't the same be done for trains? The modern-day objection to rail travel is the time involved, particularly for the amount of money. The only American rail system which is paying for itself is the northeastern corridor, between D.C. and Boston; no one takes a train to Chicago any more. So instead, build a few strategic high-speed rail lines, of the type they have in France or Japan. New York to Chicago, Chicago to Denver, Denver to San Francisco - done. Plane-like speeds to your destination, regional carriers from the hub.
Obviously, the strike against all of this is $cashmoneydough. You'd have to shell out a bundle, and you would not realize a return on investment for many years - indeed, rail systems are usually publically subsidized. However, the remainder of the savings would be realized indirectly - relief on the air travel industry, and much, much less pollution, particularly if it was also used for freight, thus taking some trucks off the road.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there.
For example, in my recent travels, I noticed that there is an insane amount of air passenger traffic out there. I don't know the specific numbers, but I perceive it's gone up dramatically in the last twenty-five years or so, terrorist attacks or no, and my guess would be that car and train travel of equivalent distances has either gone down or not increased as much. Yet the airlines claim pauperdom. They are cutting services, packing in more passengers into smaller spaces, and laying off workers. I don't know why this is, but it does appear that small, regional airlines are increasing, which is probably the correct response. Use a small fleet of planes, stay within known routes and budgets, and so forth. Interestingly, I haven't seen the converse from the large carriers: stay away from the small routes, choose a dozen or so "hub" cities - London, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc. - and simply act as a conduit between these regional airlines.
Indeed, why can't the same be done for trains? The modern-day objection to rail travel is the time involved, particularly for the amount of money. The only American rail system which is paying for itself is the northeastern corridor, between D.C. and Boston; no one takes a train to Chicago any more. So instead, build a few strategic high-speed rail lines, of the type they have in France or Japan. New York to Chicago, Chicago to Denver, Denver to San Francisco - done. Plane-like speeds to your destination, regional carriers from the hub.
Obviously, the strike against all of this is $cashmoneydough. You'd have to shell out a bundle, and you would not realize a return on investment for many years - indeed, rail systems are usually publically subsidized. However, the remainder of the savings would be realized indirectly - relief on the air travel industry, and much, much less pollution, particularly if it was also used for freight, thus taking some trucks off the road.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there.