[albertgoeswoof]

This so inefficient it’s painful to watch. It’s about 14 miles to go from jfk to manhattan. A train could do this in 20 minutes or so. A train could ship thousands of people in one go, supports millions of ordinary people in their daily lives, and doesn’t cause excessive noise pollution at street level (not to mention the climate, safety, and infrastructure benefits)

In London a new train line was built deep underground from Heathrow all the way through central London and out the other side. It stops all the way, travels further (19 miles) and still only takes 25 minutes, so don’t pretend it can’t be done.

Instead of supporting people we solve problems for the 0.001% who will give us a quick buck, while we pretend we’ll one day be rich enough to ride these things

[billfor]

It would be expensive to build a new train to JFK. The unions and regulations in NYC make those projects very long and very expensive (look at the 2nd Ave subway line). There is an "AirTrain" to JFK but you have to take other trains to get to it first. There was supposed to be one to LGA but it got cancelled. We used to have a really nice water shuttle to LGA but that also stopped many years ago. People didn't want to travel to the water shuttle and pay $20 to get to the airport in 15 minutes. I'm hard pressed to see how a cheap quadcopter ride is going to be anything other than a novelty unless the FAA allows the heliports to be built inland -- we've had a bad history with blades flying through the streets.

[lmm]

Funny how every other developed country manages to build more infrastructure cheaper despite having stronger unions and stricter regulations.

[maccard]

> Funny how every other developed country manages to build more infrastructure cheaper despite having stronger unions and stricter regulations.

Every country says this about every other country. The UK has HS2, and we point to Germany. Germany has Stuttgart 21 and they point to Spain. Spain has the Sagrada Familia. Spain points to China, and China has the HZMB [0]

This stuff is really really hard, and standards have evolved hugely. The london underground would never be built today, because of the ignored costs. HS2's massive problem isn't that we spent £100m on a Bat tunnel [1], it's that nobody was willing to say no because that decision is pinned to you but the blame absolving is "someone elses problem".

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong%E2%80%93Zhuhai%E2%80.... [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9wryxyljglo

[digital-cygnet]

I'm not exactly sure the point you're making about each country pointing at another as a positive example. The chain you've listed (US->UK->Germany->Spain->China) is a pretty good list of countries in descending order of cost to build infrastructure (it's not a straightforward analysis, but see https://transitcosts.com/new-data/ for example). There are always boondoggles, but the scoreboard is pretty clear -- each country in that list is better than the country before at building rail infrastructure.

Your analogy is like saying that everyone thinks someone else is a faster runner: amateurs point to collegiate athletes, collegiate athletes point to elites, elites point to Olympians. You can find someone in each of these categories who has run a bad race, but that doesn't invalidate the existence of the differences in ability.

[maccard]

No, my analogy is that everyone assumes that everyone else is an Olympic runner, when we’re all just college athletes.

[testing22321]

There are plenty of countries winning gold medals for massive infrastructure projects while the richest one can’t even get into college

[rsynnott]

I mean, I'm not sure that the Sagrada Familia is a good example. It taking a long time to build was arguably part of the _point_, and was planned from the start.

[maccard]

I wasn’t sure if I should leave it in or not, it was more tongue in cheek than anything. The train between Madrid and Barcelona is a real example [0]

[0] https://english.elpais.com/elpais/2014/05/13/inenglish/13999...

[hakrgrl]

Isn't it? Look up the California high speed rail. There is massive corruption, incompetence, and red tape.

[rsynnott]

One thing that some cities have done where awkward infrastructure is required to get a train to the airport is to, essentially, borrow money to do it, and make the fares to the airport very high to compensate.

Notably, getting to Brussels airport, which takes about 15 minutes from Brussels Nord, costs about 15 euro. For a 15 minute train journey. Hands-down the most expensive train per minute (or per km) I've ever been on. But, at least in theory, it's paying for this thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabolo_project

(That's by no means the only one; lots of airports are in awkward places so running rail to them is expensive, and it's common for it to be paid for by special, more expensive services. And people use them.)

[youngtaff]

Even at 15 Euros I bet its way cheaper than a helicopter or electric VTOL aircraft

[rsynnott]

Oh, yeah, and it can and does handle a scale of traffic that a helicopter service obviously couldn't. I think each train takes about a thousand people and they're every ten minutes or something.

The "use helicopters for airport access" thing seems, at best, extremely niche.

[ericd]

Joby plans to expand way beyond airport access, it’s meant to be basically flying rideshare. The key enabler is they designed it to be quiet enough to not annoy everyone around like a helicopter, so that it would be reasonable to have this thing taking off from residential neighborhoods. JFK access is just a very visible first test run.

[nradov]

This thing will not be taking off from residential neighborhoods. Regardless of noise, like any manned VTOL aircraft it requires a large open area free of overhead obstructions (trees, wires).

And the notion that landing pads will be installed on the roofs of tall buildings is mostly a fantasy. Commercial or high-rise roofs are mostly already occupied with other machinery, and aren't designed to support the extra weight.

[SJetKaran]

Yep, Stockholm's Arlanda express train is costly as well

[orwin]

I guarantee France have stronger unions and regulations, and still managed the GPE. 3 years late and with 20% cost overrun, sure, but to be fair, they had to deal with floods twice, which wasn't planned and broke equipment and reseted some tunnels.

[cromka]

20% cost overrun is nothing if you look at the typical cost overrun of a US infrastructure project. UES extension in NYC a prime example of that. And 3 years late? How about 50 years late?

[orwin]

So your unions and regulations have nothing to do with it, but it has everything to do with corruption and the way US public command is arbitraged. You probably need _more_ regulation to avoid the former, and have unions involved in the review process (construction workers usually know when a construction company is full of shit).

[jbxntuehineoh]

yeah lol, in NYC 3 years and 20% would be regarded as an unprecedented success

[cromka]

Exactly, some serious bonuses would be paid out

[AngryData]

I don't see how unions cause any of those problems. Corruption and incompetence comes through administration and management not the average worker wanting a decent pay and 2 weeks of vacation.

[prasadjoglekar]

NYC unions are not your average worker. In my north of NYC town the labor rate for a union worker is 3x that of non union..and state laws mandate govt projects must pay that rate.

[AngryData]

Yeah, that is what unions are for, protecting worker wages from the ever tightening noose of greedy capitalists that would otherwise use slave labor if they still could.

[bluGill]

unions are often a form of corruption themselves. If, as is often the case, there's only one union that can do a job, that means that that union is a monopoly.

[AngryData]

I don't see how that is corruption. Unions can be corrupted when the union leader's goals diverge from the average union members, but the whole point of a union is to collectively bargain as one to try and make up for the inherent power imbalance that capital holders possess. If workers were being treated well and not taken advantage of a union wouldn't form in the first place and people wouldn't want to join it.

[bluGill]

They all too often use the together for political purposes that are corruption. If I legally have to hire union that is corruption.

[HWR_14]

There's a free bus to LaGuardia from the subway.

[baxtr]

If you’re interested how some of these things got build in New York in the past I recommend the books of Robert Caro about Robert Moses.

Building new massive infrastructure requires a level of ruthlessness that is not socially acceptable these days.

[timcobb]

Op's example was underground. Moses built above ground, thereby requiring the ruthlessness. Not sure the same ruthlessness would be needed with tunnels.

[jtbetz22]

According to Bloomberg[1] construction of the first phase of the second avenue subway cost about 2.5B USD per mile.

At that rate, even if you just look at extending the A/C/E from Jamaica to JFK, you're talking about 15B or so USD. And compared to today's [subway|LIRR] -> airtrain system, you probably only cut about 25% of the travel time (from 60 minutes down to 45 minutes)

Compare that to, for example, the Gateway Tunnel, estimated to cost about 16B USD and double the daily commuter capacity from NJ to NYC (including traffic to and from EWR!), and it's hard to justify new infrastructure to make it easier to get to the airport.

1. In NYC Subway, a Case Study in Runaway Transit Construction Costs - Bloomberg https://share.google/SPcN8iRDZG7lNiwt9

[ericd]

That’s something like $2k/resident to build, and then ongoing maintenance. Seems high for something that most will never use.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Not sure the same ruthlessness would be needed with tunnels

Still requires lots of cut and cover due to buried power and water mains being poorly documented. And stations will require razing buildings, as well as gentrifying neighborhoods.

[baxtr]

It’s not only about underground vs evicting people.

It’s also in large part about making sure that your project gets the required funding and other (social) projects don’t.

[jonnybgood]

> A train could do this in 20 minutes or so.

There’s already a train that does this. It’s the express A train, which gets you to the AirTran. And as someone who has taken the train from Manhattan to JFK on multiple occasions, it most certainly does not take 20 mins or so. It takes at least an hour and that’s not including the highly likely delays.

I think it would be inefficient to have a dedicated train take up the line just for JFK.

[piva00]

Stockholm with a bit over 1 million people has an express train from Arlanda airport to the center of the city, it goes at ~200km/h making the transit of ~40km in 20-25 minutes.

I don't understand why it would be inefficient for one of the busiest airports in the world to one of the largest cities in the world to have a similar setup.

[jonnybgood]

Do you know where JFK is? JFK does not sit outside the city like Arlanda. JFK is in the NYC Queens borough surrounded by highly dense urban sprawl. That setup makes sense for an airport that sits far outside the city.

No track to JFK can support anything near a 200km/hr train and building a track for such a train is a nonstarter.

[rsynnott]

It'd likely have to go largely underground. This is the approach being taken for Dublin Airport (again, a far, far smaller city than NYC); it'll be served by a largely underground metro line, running every 3 minutes each direction, taking about 20 minutes from the city centre.

Now, the catch there is that this metro isn't going to the airport, it's going _through_ the airport. Even without the airport it would be justifiable, so the airport kind of gets it for free. That's probably the only scenario where you can justify this sort of thing; it would be comically overkill if it was just to serve the airport (it will be able to move 20,000 people per hour per direction, which is... a lot more than the airport can move.)

That said, you'd think something along these lines might be justifiable; as you say, the area surrounding JFK is dense.

[d--b]

I always counted 50 minutes from midtown to JFK, taking the E train to Jamaica station and the air train.

But I think GP's point is that it could be done in 20 minutes. The A train is a subway, it's nowhere near the speed of the Heathrow Express.

[jbxntuehineoh]

the LIRR also goes from manhattan to jamaica, and it does in fact take 20 minutes or so (21 according to google maps)

[coredog64]

You can only pick up the LIRR from midtown and the Jamaica endpoint is the AirTrain which requires a separate fare and another 10-12 minutes to get to the terminal. Having said that, AirTrain/LIRR is my preferred route into Manhattan on business travel, but I always take an Uber out to the airport unless I've got a late night flight.

[mizzao]

Why? The LIRR is way faster out of the city compared to rush hour traffic. OTOH there are many fewer trains at night.

[MisterTea]

I live two blocks form the Rockaway A station, two stops from the Howard Beach/JFK station that hooks you into the Air train. It's at least 30 minutes on an express A to Fulton St, the first stop in Manhattan. Takes me about 45 minutes to get to Penn station from my house, an hour or more with delays. Unsure of what the Air train to LIRR Jamaica then to Penn in Manhattan takes, might be faster then the A depending.

15 minutes to fly from JFK to lower Manhattan is at least a 3x speed up, likely closer to 4-5x.

[Leonard_of_Q]

Back in the time when I frequented NYC I took the train to JFK, is that no longer a thing? the LIRR brought me a'clackity-clacking (haven't you Yanks learned about that new thing called welded rails?) past Rockaway to where those driverless shuttle things took over the ride. It did take a while but I rather liked the trip. I use public transport wherever I can, certainly over overpriced taxi 'services'. Once when in London I let myself be convinced by the press rep who insisted I take a taxi with her to the airport instead of the tube as I intended. Well, let's just say that if this were all part of her plan to corner me for a few more hours it worked because the non-unexpected traffic jam kept us from catching our flight. Great job, miss press rep, drinks are on you. In other words yay for public transport in those places where it is more or less reliable and not suicidally unsafe to ride.

[Jblx2]

Interestingly enough, I posted this as a follow on to a comment I made on yesterday's derailed Waymo-in-Portland discussion, where I wondered when will personal (flying) quadcopter vehicles have more annual passenger miles than every passenger rail combined (subways/light rail/Amtrak) in the U.S. I'm could see it happening within my lifetime.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47943360

[JumpCrisscross]

> where I wondered when will personal (flying) quadcopter vehicles have more annual passenger miles than every passenger rail combined (subways/light rail/Amtrak) in the U.S.?

I had a similar thought a few days ago in respect of Waymos specifically: "Americans take about 34 million public-transit trips a day. Assuming 25 rides per day, that's about 1.4 million self-driving cars to rival public transport's impact. Waymo has "about 3,000 robotaxis deployed nationwide." Doubling fleet size annually–Waymos and non-Waymos, though currently they have no peers–would get us to parity in less than 10 years. (A more-realistic 35% growth rate puts us around 20 years.)"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47915937

[llbbdd]

I'm very much in agreement. All of the pitches for more passenger rail have a for-the-greater-good tint to them that glosses over the fact that point-to-point private vehicles are better in every other conceivable way, more so if they're autonomous. I'd be comfortable betting that any serious passenger rail projects breaking ground right now today are going to be legitimately antiquated by the time Waymo and/or Flying Waymo and their equivalents are commonplace and cheap. More desirable, more convenient, easier infrastructure build out, less disruptive maintenance, better capacity allocation. I hope I live to see the day I can summon a car to my house, hop inside, and it travels automatically to a designated VTOL zone, docks into a fixed-wing harness and takes me anywhere I'd like to go. I'd get fat as hell.

[mmooss]

> All of the pitches for more passenger rail have a for-the-greater-good tint to them that glosses over the fact that point-to-point private vehicles are better in every other conceivable way

You must not live in a dense city. Rail doesn't have traffic and is usually faster, and much faster in heavy traffic, including rush hour, sporting events, airports, bridges/tunnels across the river, parades, marathons, etc. etc.

Also, there's no advantage to Waymo that doesn't apply to rideshare and taxi. I doubt people will care that Waymo vehicles autonomous, beyond the initial novelty (and despite SV's attempted marketing that their robots are better than people).

Finally, despite SV trying to ridicule any attitude that threatens their profits, most people like the greater good.

[llbbdd]

I do live in a dense city with rail and it's slower, especially accounting for last-mile transit. Rail does have traffic, they just sit next to you and you have to navigate around them on foot.

It's also not true that there's no advantage to Waymo; I take rideshare and taxis everywhere, and it will be a massive draw turning that into a pure transaction with a robot instead of it being a potentially social experience based on the whims and social malfunctions of the driver you get that day. As soon as Waymo or equivalent is available everywhere I will never choose to take a human-driven car again. And that's before getting into the many traffic advantages afforded to a fleet of cars that act as a collaborative swarm.

To me that does describe the greater good. For all its real benefits, passenger rail is inflexible and bulky in comparison.

[mmooss]

> Rail does have traffic, they just sit next to you and you have to navigate around them on foot.

Obviously not what I'm talking about. It does not increase travel time in a significant way, and I'm including NYC subways. It's not like traffic jams for cars.

> it will be a massive draw turning that into a pure transaction with a robot instead of it being a potentially social experience based on the whims and social malfunctions of the driver you get that day

You're entitled to your personal preferences, of course, and I hope you find what works for you. Assuming your preferences are globalized is not factual: Most humans generally desire social interactions with other humans. We are naturally social animals that live in groups.

> To me that does describe the greater good.

Antisocial behavior is not 'good', it's just what you like. The pandemic was a major negative for society on a social level.

[llbbdd]

> Obviously not what I'm talking about. It does not increase travel time in a significant way, and I'm including NYC subways. It's not like traffic jams for cars.

It's still relevant. Waiting for the next train, finding a seat, these are still jams. Travel time is also increased when you are required to be on the transit schedule instead of leaving at any time.

> Most humans generally desire social interactions with other humans. We are naturally social animals that live in groups.

This is a silly leap. Taxi and ride-share drivers are service workers. You don't shoot the shit with the cashier at McDonalds; he is doing his job and is literally forced to politely entertain you if you decide to trap him in conversation. When you are paying somebody to do a job it is not a social interaction anymore and has no bearing on whether one enjoys real social interaction. There are Uber drivers who falsely identify themselves to the app as deaf or hard-of-hearing specifically because they'd rather focus on driving than be a performing clown for chatty riders at the same time.

> Antisocial behavior is not 'good', it's just what you like. The pandemic was a major negative for society on a social level.

It's not antisocial to want privacy; it's not antisocial to want a predictable experience during transit. A Waymo is substantially less likely than a human stranger to rob or kill or rape you; Uber added a feature where women riders can set a preference for hiring women drivers to avoid tension and danger. The human element of taxis is a downside unless you fancy yourself Miss Daisy.

[jbxntuehineoh]

> better in every other conceivable way

except for being like 10x more expensive, of course

> easier infrastructure build out

lol yes we should just replace Amtrak with 40 lane highways full of waymos. great idea

[llbbdd]

> except for being like 10x more expensive, of course

Expense is largely fake when we're talking about transit. Amtrak specifically is directly federally subsidized; most bus lines run at a substantial loss. At scale there's no specific reason a fleet of cars has to be more expensive to the rider than either of these things.

> lol yes we should just replace Amtrak with 40 lane highways full of waymos. great idea

Didn't suggest replacing what's already there, there's just no justification to start building more in the US in big 2026. The time has really passed for that to be a good investment.

Buses are cars, buses can be self-driving, and they use the same infrastructure as other cars. Cars can also be made to be much smaller for the average trip, 1-2 passenger seats only, if you don't need a driver. They can go faster and stop less if you aren't subject to human reaction time. These changes are obviously future tech, but it seems nearer every day, and if we achieve genuine full self-driving at scale all assumptions and constraints about travel by car have to change.

[Jblx2]

Keep in shape my friend! The smaller/sportier flying cars will probably have more weight restrictions.

[fragmede]

Why drive to a VTOL zone? Just take off from your driveway!

[JumpCrisscross]

> It’s about 14 miles to go from jfk to manhattan. A train could do this in 20 minutes or so

I used to live on 30th & Madison. Blade was about 30 minutes door to door. LIRR was 50 to 55 minutes. Car 45 to 120 minutes. Helipads are cheaper to build and site than train stations; for most people, eVTOL will almost always be faster than the train. (I mostly take the train.)

> Instead of supporting people we solve problems for the 0.001% who will give us a quick buck

Blade cost $200 a trip. Assuming that's only affordable for someone making $50k a year or more, that covers the top 80% of Manhattan, 30% of New York City and America and about 5% of the world.

I'm not arguing we don't need better rail (and ferry) connectivity between our airports and urban cores. But you're always going to have a need for time-efficient travel options. And eVTOL has significant applications outside luxury transport. This complaint lands like someone complaining that the original Tesla Roadster was "inefficient and painful" as it was only affordable to the rich.

[dghlsakjg]

People making $50k a year in Manhattan are going to pay $200 to get to the airport while also having access to a helipad anywhere near where they can afford rent?

This suggestion lands like someone suggesting that people making $25 an hour in the most expensive city in America are going to consider throwing away $190 to save 15 minutes. In other words: incredibly out of touch with reality.

As a side note: the Tesla Roadster sales figures completely support the idea that it was a complete flop of a car that didn’t even appeal to impractical rich people or anyone else. 2,450 sold for the entire production run. A failure for any purpose except publicity. The model S is the one that changed things, and it was never widely criticized as impractical or only for rich idiots.

[JumpCrisscross]

> People making $50k a year in Manhattan are going to pay $200 to get to the airport while also having access to a helipad anywhere near where they can afford rent?

Regularly? No. Most people aren't regularly taking helicopters anywhere, in part because their ability to fly around New York usually requires VFR conditions.

Occasionally? Yes. If you live in Harlem and need to get to JFK, you're paying an outsized time tax to get to and through Grand Central or Penn Station compared with taking the West Side Highway down to the 30th Street heliport. If eVTOLs take off, it's way more realistic to site a helipad uptown than dig a new rail tunnel.

(I'm ignoring the outer boroughs and New York's surrounding suburbs, for whom this could actually be a game changer.)

> the Tesla Roadster sales figures completely support the idea that it is a dumb car for rich people

Without which we wouldn't have any EVs in the West, and globally be years behind where we are in EV adoption.

[project2501a]

> If eVTOLs take off, it's way more realistic to site a helipad uptown than dig a new rail tunnel.

We will see what happens the first time one of them crashes.

[ua709]

Obviously there are a lot of variables but helicopter and city bus crashes happen so we’ll have some idea what to expect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Hudson_River_helicopter_c...

https://abc7ny.com/post/mta-driver-injured-bus-crashes-store...

[rsynnott]

> Without which we wouldn't have any EVs in the West, and globally be years behind where we are in EV adoption.

... Eh? The very successful Nissan Leaf (for quite a long time the best-selling electric car in the world) came out the year after the Tesla Roadster. The Renault Zoe (again, quite successful) came out about a year after that, if you're really hung up on the 'west' thing.

[amluto]

> the Tesla Roadster sales figures completely support the idea that it was a complete flop of a car that didn’t even appeal to impractical rich people or anyone else.

Tesla never meant to sell it in large numbers, and they probably couldn’t have made many more anyway. And this still represented around $3bn if revenue and helped get Tesla off the ground.

[lmm]

> Helipads are cheaper to build and site than train stations

Is that still true once you control for capacity? A modern single-line station is handling, what, 150 people alighting every 2.5 minutes? How many helipads would you need to match that?

> $200 a trip. Assuming that's only affordable for someone making $50k a year or more, that covers the top 80% of Manhattan

Someone making $50k isn't going to spend $200/trip regularly. They might spend it occasionally for an urgent trip, but how often is that going to be to/from an airport? For someone making $50k any flights they're taking will have been planned and booked months in advance, they can't afford to fly spontaneously/last-minute. (And if 80% of the population did want to use it, would it even be possible to build enough enough helipads? There isn't room for anything like 80% of the population to park in Manhattan, and these things look to be bigger than cars and I don't see anyone putting them in a multi-storey garage).

[JumpCrisscross]

> Someone making $50k isn't going to spend $200/trip regularly

They don’t fly regularly. I picked that number because it puts $200 into the reasonable splurge bucket, and that’s the lowest income of a friend I know who has taken one more than once.

If $50k doesn’t do it, take it to $80k and still understand that covers quite a bit more than half of Manhattan. Plugging these services as top 0.1% is wrong—that’s private jets.

[lmm]

> They don’t fly regularly

Right, which is why it makes no sense for them to pay extra to get to the airport slightly faster. (They might splurge $200 occasionally to get home from a late night out or something, but this isn't serving that route). They're not doing last-minute spontaneous trips or trying to cram a city break into a weekend. They're not cutting it close on the timing knowing they can always buy a replacement if they miss their flight. They probably don't even have precheck, which tells you how much saving 20 minutes the rare time they fly is worth to them. This is absolutely not a product that fits into a $50k or $80k lifestyle.

[cguess]

I live in NYC and make quite a bit more than $80k and would still never splurge $200 for a trip to the airport. JFK by car (when I'm in an emergency) is already $100 and I get irrationally angry at it. Not to mention I'd have to actually get to a helipad, which are only on river fronts, an basically no train goes to those either, so I'm still in a cab.

[JumpCrisscross]

> would still never splurge $200 for a trip to the airport

Would you splurge $200 on anything? There are 8.6 million people in New York and 1.7 million in Manhattan. Some fraction of those can call this their cup of tea.

Like, I will never splurge for curbside bag check. That doesn't make it a plutocratic privilege. eVTOLs have lots of downsides that are worth debating. Only solving "problems for the 0.001%" is not one of them. That designation belongs to private jets.

[JumpCrisscross]

> why it makes no sense for them to pay extra to get to the airport slightly faster

“Slightly” faster from where they live is like an hour.

> They're not doing last-minute spontaneous trips or trying to cram a city break into a weekend

I’ve taken Blades quite a few times. This describes zero of their clients. It’s folks who want to fly out of EWR without having to deal with New Jersey’s infrastructure, those splurging and a very small number of regulars.

> This is absolutely not a product that fits into a $50k or $80k lifestyle

Agree. But it can and does on occasion. That makes it categorically different from purely plutocratic services. Also, use $80k if that works better for the example. That’s half of New Yorkers and a commanding majority of Manhattan residents.

Helicopters and eVTOLs are relatively accessible in a city as rich as New York.

[AngryData]

People making $50K a year are not dropping $200 to save even 2 hours of time, not to mention 15 minutes. Even if they paid zero taxes $200 is an entire working persons day at $50K a year.

[ericd]

There is a train to JFK, it does not take 20 minutes.

[tootie]

Multiple trains. You can take LIRR to Jamaica and transfer to AirTrain. Or take the A subway line. LIRR is faster but still like 45 minutes to either Brooklyn or Manhattan.

[JumpCrisscross]

> There is a train to JFK, it does not take 20 minutes

An express train could. It would be a political non-starter since it does jack shit for the boroughs.

[dzhiurgis]

They are not mutually exclusive you know?

[hakrgrl]

This argument always comes up. "Why not public transit? It's so efficient, look at country X". Well, country X has people who respect public property and are orderly, so they can have nice things.

The US is filled with people who don't. And who do drugs. And who rob. So people retreat to places like a Joby aircraft or self driving Waymo, which don't have those issues.

[albumen]

Other countries with good systems also have such people. America’s crime rate is far lower than the 1990s; the impression that you live in a crime-infested world is likely increased media coverage.

I think the real reason the US has poor public transit is that its transport landscape has been shaped by years of planning and funding decisions that have put the car first, and cities rebuilt accordingly. America’s enormity also makes nationwide PT more difficult (but not impossible).

Then add the meritocratic attitude that if you can’t afford a car it’s somehow your fault, and you end up with little political and societal interest in a good public transit system.

*https://ourworldindata.org/us-crime-rates

[interestpiqued]

You’re probably right on crime. But I will say that both SF and Chicago(most of my experience) local train systems are constantly filled with homeless people with severe mental health issues. Generally , without fixing that a large segment of the population are never going to want to ride public transport.

[_DeadFred_]

I'm with you. Imagine the Sackler class being forced to see the results of what they have inflicted on American society?

[renewiltord]

I don’t get it. Did they use the MTA budget or something? If the train is better then just build the train. Certainly these guys aren’t stopping you.

[mvkel]

The infrastructure requirements to get a train into operation, let alone travel to a destination twenty minutes away, takes decades of development and billions.

This needs a 20x20ft approximately flat surface.

[sho_hn]

I haven't done the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if cost/passenger over useful lifetime still shakes out better for the trains, and that's before you consider that people developing and building a train line get to eat and put their kids through schools.

I can't believe seriously arguing for oversized quadcopters as a mass transport alternative.

[fragmede]

Do the people who run the helipads not also get to eat and put their kids through school though? Where are you that makes the parents pay directly for school such that not having a job at the train station means their kids go hungry and unschooled? What horrible place is that? (Wait, don't tell me, is it the USA?)

I don't know how the economics in the electric VTOL era works out, but the thing about air travel vs train travel is that in order for the train to be useful, you have to build tracks from every train station to every other train station to have perfect routability, which is expensive. However, for a helipad, once you've built the helipad it automatically connects to all other helipads in range.

[JumpCrisscross]

> haven't done the math, but I wouldn't be surprised if cost/passenger over useful lifetime still shakes out better for the trains

In Manhattan? I honestly would. If it were a nation, it would be the 22nd-largest economy. Any disruption to that system is massively expensive.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do the math. But we also shouldn't be reaching conclusions without attempting it.

[timcobb]

People disrupt Manhattan for novelty (eg. marathon) and civic/political (eg. no car zones) purposes all the time. Manhattan is hardly a purely reasonable place, in fact it's far from it. All kinds of nonsense takes place in nyc all the time. If nyc was driven by cold economic reason it would be boring and lame compared to what it is today.

[JumpCrisscross]

> People disrupt Manhattan for novelty (eg. marathon) and civic/political (eg. no car zones) purposes all the time

This isn’t in the same category as burying a new train line. I lived around just the Hudson Yard water and electric expansions when those happened. It was years of increased noise, traffic and litigation.

[djeastm]

Sure it was bothersome, but it didn't seem to cause the city to collapse into itself, either.

[signatoremo]

NYC already have a functional mass transit system. Why does any transport discussion on HN become train focus? Why it's so hard to understand there still is the need for other modes of transportation. At the very least, tourists want to view the city from above, or those who wants a quick hop from JFK to Manhattan. This is not a replacement for mass transportation.

At least try to show curiosity about what they want to solve.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Why does any transport discussion on HN become train focus?

Hypothesis: people aren't familiar with New York's trains. It's a world-class network the likes of which we don't otherwise have in North America. (Sorry Toronto.) So when they see eVTOLs, they emotionally map it to their local trainless context.

[sho_hn]

I don't fit the hypothesis - the two cities I've lived in (Berlin, Seoul) have excellent trains. So it's perhaps overfitting in the other direction.

[bluGill]

Both of those cities are not in North America. In North America, New York City is by far our best example of a transit system. It is terrible by world standards, but is still the best example we have in North America.

[rsynnott]

... I mean, no. It's more that it is weird that there is no train to the airport (it looks like you can take ~3 trains from Manhattan). New York is likely the only really big city in the developed world where this is the case.

In Ireland, everyone thinks it's pretty ridiculous that there's no train to Dublin Airport (all going well, it will finally have one in 2036 or so, after _many_ false starts). Dublin's a city of about 1.5 million people. It's pretty incomprehensible that a city ten times the size wouldn't have one.

[minutillo]

There is (since 2023) a train that connects directly from Grand Central to JFK AirTrain.

[dzhiurgis]

EVTOLS supposed to be less complex than cars and cars are already cheaper than trains.

[Jblx2]

Call me skeptical on being less complex than cars. I suppose this must be referring to parts count compared to an internal combustion engine car?

[dzhiurgis]

Suspension, steering, brakes, airbags, body...

Of course on a serious EVTOL you got variable pitch props and tilting rotors (basic 4 rotor design is inefficient just doesn't scale).

Avionics vs modern AEB, ESP, etc likely on par. Inverter redundancy way more important on EVTOL, but EVs have redundancy too.

[albertgoeswoof]

You state that like decades and billions is a long time.

You have 10000 people who need to do this trip every hour, how will you manage that with this? It can’t scale.

In the end normal people will be stuck without proper transport, while a tiny majority will fly around in comfort.

[moomoo11]

Yeah but I don’t want to travel on a train packed with randoms, some of whom are unpleasant or dangerous.

Have you taken public transit? Either it is good or it is awful.

The only country whose public transit was actually good is Japan, and why is deeper than just having a good transit system.

The privacy convenience and comfort are why I prefer Waymo over a bus/rail or even uber.

I will pay for an air taxi if it’s a good service.