EarthLab's List of Top Green U.S. Cities for 2007

[Abner]

Individuals may not have much alternative to flying for many trips, but the emissions generated from flying could be negated by high-speed rail for medium-range overland trips. Unfortunately, the only lifestyle change one can make to start using high-speed rail (aside from advocating for it) is to leave this continent.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

What exactly would be the green alternative, anywhere? New York to Southampton on the QE2? I highly doubt that's any more efficient than a transatlantic flight.

Green alternative to what? Sorry, not understanding your question...

[Shawn]

I got a 395 (in Tokyo!) with my 8+ international flights a year. Take out those flights - which would have occurred whether or not I was on them - and I'm at 175. I think my score would have been even lower, but like Cirrus already pointed out, I am penalized for not using a push mower to cut my nonexisting lawn.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Green alternative to what? Sorry, not understanding your question...

Flying. There simply isn't another means of getting long distances in a practical amount of time for business travel.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

Flying. There simply isn't another means of getting long distances in a practical amount of time for business travel.

Ah, ok. Yes, I agree 100%. I fly 25-30 times a year for business and it kills my score even though I walk to work the rest of the time, don't own a car, buy local fruits/veggies, never use heat/AC, and never mow my non-existant yard.

However, high speed rail (if it were available now as planned for this fall's ballot initiative in CA) would eliminate two thirds of my flights (all to Southern Cal). If I could walk out my door and to the train station thirty minutes before my train leaves and be in LA two and a half hours later, you can be sure that I wouldn't be messing around with the airport. It wouldn't help my trips to the East Coast, Seattle, or South America, and wouldn't help most of my vacation trips, but it would make me completely stop using air travel within the state. Just to put it in perspective, Southwest alone has more than 100 flights a day to the LA area airports from the three Bay Area airports.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Ah, ok. Yes, I agree 100%. I fly 25-30 times a year for business and it kills my score even though I walk to work the rest of the time, don't own a car, buy local fruits/veggies, never use heat/AC, and never mow my non-existant yard.

However, high speed rail (if it were available now as planned for this fall's ballot initiative in CA) would eliminate two thirds of my flights (all to Southern Cal). If I could walk out my door and to the train station thirty minutes before my train leaves and be in LA two and a half hours later, you can be sure that I wouldn't be messing around with the airport. It wouldn't help my trips to the East Coast, Seattle, or South America, and wouldn't help most of my vacation trips, but it would make me completely stop using air travel within the state. Just to put it in perspective, Southwest alone has more than 100 flights a day to the LA area airports from the three Bay Area airports.

Well, right. People do use Acela here on the East Coast to go to meetings in, say, Philly from New York, I'm sure. Most people still fly on the shuttle to Boston and Washington, though, at least in my experience. I don't expect it's different anywhere else, as the Acela isn't any cheaper than flying and isn't as fast as it should be (it's really more of an express train that makes limited stops, rather than true HSR).

I think HSR would be great and would certainly cut emissions, but it would be more useful for leisure travel (tend to be longer trips) and if there was more of a cost advantage vs. flying.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by 10023

I think HSR would be great and would certainly cut emissions, but it would be more useful for leisure travel (tend to be longer trips) and if there was more of a cost advantage vs. flying.

The convenience factor is incentive enough.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by 10023

The fact is that asking how often you fly is sort of irrelevant. There simply isn't a more environmentally friendly alternative, other than to simply not see your friends and family or take vacations, or have a job that requires travel. And unless you're a militant tree-hugger, people just aren't going to do any of that.

How on earth is that irrelevent? People like Al Gore shouldn't be expected to put their money where their mouth is regarding energy consumption and CO2 production?

If it's such a damn inconvenience and quality of life issue to reduce flying, maybe the hardcore Global Warmongers should rethink their strategy of how humanity should confront climate change....

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

I think HSR would be great and would certainly cut emissions, but it would be more useful for leisure travel (tend to be longer trips) and if there was more of a cost advantage vs. flying.

I don't agree with that at all - if I could get from downtown SF to downtown LA in two and a half hours, I'd never fly between the two cities again, even if it cost me 20% more. The airport hassle is a tremendous negative, and adds huge amounts of time - especially since none of the airports are anywhere close to downtowns. I could probably shave an hour off of my total trip time.

I would expect the same would be true of many in NYC if Acela were true high speed - as in NYC to Boston in just over an hour, central city to central city.

[10023]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

How on earth is that irrelevent? People like Al Gore shouldn't be expected to put their money where their mouth is regarding energy consumption and CO2 production?

If it's such a damn inconvenience and quality of life issue to reduce flying, maybe the hardcore Global Warmongers should rethink their strategy of how humanity should confront climate change....

It's a huge quality of life issue for a lot of people, and it's also not even an option in many businesses.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Gordo

I don't agree with that at all - if I could get from downtown SF to downtown LA in two and a half hours, I'd never fly between the two cities again, even if it cost me 20% more. The airport hassle is a tremendous negative, and adds huge amounts of time - especially since none of the airports are anywhere close to downtowns. I could probably shave an hour off of my total trip time.

I would expect the same would be true of many in NYC if Acela were true high speed - as in NYC to Boston in just over an hour, central city to central city.

But... it's not. You can get from Midtown Manhattan to downtown Boston in an hour and a half right now, factoring in taxis to the airport and time to go through security, if you know what you're doing. We would obviously need a real high speed rail network to beat that. And it still wouldn't do anything for the east coast to west coast trips, or trips to Chicago from either coast. In fact, I don't think even TGV speeds would result in a time advantage vs. flying for any destination as far as Washington, DC is from New York City.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

But... it's not. You can get from Midtown Manhattan to downtown Boston in an hour and a half right now, factoring in taxis to the airport and time to go through security, if you know what you're doing. We would obviously need a real high speed rail network to beat that. And it still wouldn't do anything for the east coast to west coast trips, or trips to Chicago from either coast. In fact, I don't think even TGV speeds would result in a time advantage vs. flying for any destination as far as Washington, DC is from New York City.

You can take a taxi from midtown to an airport, get through security, fly on the plane to Boston, and take a taxi to downtown in an hour and a half. Damn, those are some fast taxis. Last time I was in NYC it took me half an hour to get to La Guardia in a taxi from Midtown. Can you get to JFK quicker?

[10023]

Originally Posted by Gordo

You can take a taxi from midtown to an airport, get through security, fly on the plane to Boston, and take a taxi to downtown in an hour and a half. Damn, those are some fast taxis. Last time I was in NYC it took me half an hour to get to La Guardia in a taxi from Midtown. Can you get to JFK quicker?

It depends when you're traveling. When I've gone to Boston, I'm either taking the first morning flight out of New York, heading in the opposite direction from the bulk of rush hour traffic, or the last flight out, leaving the office after rush hour. And as long as you're checked in with your boarding pass printed before you leave, and don't check bags (which no business traveler ever does), security is very quick for the Boston shuttle out of LGA, which leaves from a small terminal away from the main terminals. The actual flight time is like half an hour, even though when you look online it shows an hour from departure to arrival. I may have slightly understated the reality but it's not far off, assuming 20 minutes to the airport, 20 minutes at the airport, 5 minutes on the runway, half an hour in the air, and 15 minutes from Logan to downtown Boston. This is obviously under ideal circumstances with no traffic and delays, but I've done this about half a dozen times in the past 2 years and I don't think it's ever been more than 2 hours altogether.

In any event, it's faster than the 3.5 hours that it would take you with the Acela. As I said, a real bullet train would probably be equivalent to flying all things considered, but New York to Boston is about the longest trip where this would be the case.

I think the abundance of low cost airlines in Europe these days is pretty strong evidence of the fact that even with a world class rail network, people will still use air travel for relatively short trips. Although the fact that these airlines are usually even cheaper than the low cost U.S. carriers like Southwest shows that the trains do provide strong competition.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by 10023

It depends when you're traveling. When I've gone to Boston, I'm either taking the first morning flight out of New York, heading in the opposite direction from the bulk of rush hour traffic, or the last flight out, leaving the office after rush hour. And as long as you're checked in with your boarding pass printed before you leave, and don't check bags (which no business traveler ever does), security is very quick for the Boston shuttle out of LGA, which leaves from a small terminal away from the main terminals. The actual flight time is like half an hour, even though when you look online it shows an hour from departure to arrival. I may have slightly understated the reality but it's not far off, assuming 20 minutes to the airport, 20 minutes at the airport, 5 minutes on the runway, half an hour in the air, and 15 minutes from Logan to downtown Boston. This is obviously under ideal circumstances with no traffic and delays, but I've done this about half a dozen times in the past 2 years and I don't think it's ever been more than 2 hours altogether.

In any event, it's faster than the 3.5 hours that it would take you with the Acela. As I said, a real bullet train would probably be equivalent to flying all things considered, but New York to Boston is about the longest trip where this would be the case.

I think the abundance of low cost airlines in Europe these days is pretty strong evidence of the fact that even with a world class rail network, people will still use air travel for relatively short trips. Although the fact that these airlines are usually even cheaper than the low cost U.S. carriers like Southwest shows that the trains do provide strong competition.

Ok, I guess I could see that. There's no way in hell the average time from downtown SF to SFO or OAK and LAX or BUR to downtown LA is less than 25-30 minutes on each end (and you have to schedule for more time, at least on the LA end). Security blows at SFO and LAX too - that's why I try to avoid both of those places (and trust me, I never check luggage and always have my boarding pass before I get to the airport).

Regarding European low cost airlines - it is very interesting to look at places where high speed rail is an alternative. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Barcelona-Madrid routes when HSR opens there. I've flown between those two cities, and it's not a fun time. In many cases, it's actually the airlines that are providing a lower priced service that is primarily used for leisure, where the HSR is used by business. Paris-Lyon is a good example of this - the flights are like a Greyhound bus in the US. The train costs more, always arrives on time, and is loaded with business travelers.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Ok, I guess I could see that. There's no way in hell the average time from downtown SF to SFO or OAK and LAX or BUR to downtown LA is less than 25-30 minutes on each end (and you have to schedule for more time, at least on the LA end). Security blows at SFO and LAX too - that's why I try to avoid both of those places (and trust me, I never check luggage and always have my boarding pass before I get to the airport).

25-30 minutes isn't unreasonable for downtown sf to sfo - its a 32 minute bart ride in any case and there isn't much need to pad that. without traffic it's only a 15 minute drive (almost always worse getting into sf than out though). security at SFO does *not* blow compared to any of the other airports i've been this year - which is almost all the big ones. (lax, sjo, oak, sfo, sea, san, ord, jfk, ewr, lga, bos, etc etc etc).

i am extremely optimistic about high speed rail, for a lot of reasons, but saving time is not one of them. if they build it, i will use it, and use it a lot... but the door to door time from sf to la will never beat flying except in conditions of extreme weather.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by mthd

25-30 minutes isn't unreasonable for downtown sf to sfo - its a 32 minute bart ride in any case and there isn't much need to pad that. without traffic it's only a 15 minute drive (almost always worse getting into sf than out though). security at SFO does *not* blow compared to any of the other airports i've been this year - which is almost all the big ones. (lax, sjo, oak, sfo, sea, san, ord, jfk, ewr, lga, bos, etc etc etc).

i am extremely optimistic about high speed rail, for a lot of reasons, but saving time is not one of them. if they build it, i will use it, and use it a lot... but the door to door time from sf to la will never beat flying except in conditions of extreme weather.

So you can arrive at the airport 10 minutes before the flight leaves and be assured of getting through security? Security at SFO depends entirely on what airline and what time you're flying - if you're flying United, it isn't bad - anyone else, watch out - especially in the morning. Let's be generous and say that you only arrive 20 minutes before the flight leaves. With a 32 minute BART ride (that you didn't wait a minute for), then about an hour on the plane, then 30 minutes at least to downtown LA - just about the exact estimated time for an HSR train from downtown SF to LA.

After riding trains in Europe and Japan for business - the number one reason for me to use it would be time. They are NEVER late. You can only say that about half the time for planes from/to SFO.

[10023]

Good point. I've taken 30-40 flights between LGA and ORD over the past few years, and I don't think one has ever left the ground on time.

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Gordo

So you can arrive at the airport 10 minutes before the flight leaves and be assured of getting through security? Security at SFO depends entirely on what airline and what time you're flying - if you're flying United, it isn't bad - anyone else, watch out - especially in the morning. Let's be generous and say that you only arrive 20 minutes before the flight leaves. With a 32 minute BART ride (that you didn't wait a minute for), then about an hour on the plane, then 30 minutes at least to downtown LA - just about the exact estimated time for an HSR train from downtown SF to LA.

After riding trains in Europe and Japan for business - the number one reason for me to use it would be time. They are NEVER late. You can only say that about half the time for planes from/to SFO.

no - i would never cut it that close. i take the 4pm from sfo to lax all the time (allegedly on time only 70% of the time, but i haven't been on a late one in over a year - i guess i'm just lucky???) i would probably take the 2:39 train from the embarcadero station which would get me to the airport 45 minutes before my flight. i'd have to get up from my desk at 2:35. i'd be in a cab at lax by 5:30 (one of the way united pads the 'on-time' numbers to lax is by adding about 15 minutes to the flight time that doesn't actually exist ) and at my destination in santa monica by 6, depending on traffic on lincoln.

coincidentally, that just about exactly matches the CHSRAs 3:26 minute 'door to door' estimate for air travel from LA to SF. they predict 3:30 'door to door' for high speed rail and i don't see any reason to disagree with them.

high speed rail won't be faster than flying - but it will be much much better.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by mthd

no - i would never cut it that close. i take the 4pm from sfo to lax all the time (allegedly on time only 70% of the time, but i haven't been on a late one in over a year - i guess i'm just lucky???) i would probably take the 2:39 train from the embarcadero station which would get me to the airport 45 minutes before my flight. i'd have to get up from my desk at 2:35. i'd be in a cab at lax by 5:30 (one of the way united pads the 'on-time' numbers to lax is by adding about 15 minutes to the flight time that doesn't actually exist ) and at my destination in santa monica by 6, depending on traffic on lincoln.

coincidentally, that just about exactly matches the CHSRAs 3:26 minute 'door to door' estimate for air travel from LA to SF. they predict 3:30 'door to door' for high speed rail and i don't see any reason to disagree with them.

high speed rail won't be faster than flying - but it will be much much better.

Door-to-door high speed rail is estimated at 2:30, not 3:30 - so using your numbers it would be an hour faster.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

[mthd]

Originally Posted by Gordo

Door-to-door high speed rail is estimated at 2:30, not 3:30 - so using your numbers it would be an hour faster.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

huh???