The annual ranking of the world's most heavily traveled airline routes is out, and some of the cities on the list are surprisingly close to one another.
The list disgusts some train activists, who argue that there is no place for passenger planes on routes of less than 300 miles, especially as high speed train networks become more widespread. But aviation types say some short haul routes are essential because they feed passengers onto long distance flights, and that an increase in train travel won't necessarily reduce the number of planes filling our friendly skies.
To be fair, flying is indeed the best way to get between some of the cities on the list, which was compiled by the Globalization and World Cities Research Network. It doesn't make much sense to take the train between New York and Los Angeles or Sydney and Melbourne, and you're not going to get far if you try driving between Hong Kong and Taipei or London and New York.
But some of the other routes that made the list have us shaking our heads. Why would you want to fly 300 miles in a cramped 737 when you could be kicking it on a cushy train with lounges, cafes, and a restaurant? Ask the Italians. One and a half million of them flew 295 miles between Milan and Rome last year. And what's the deal with London-Paris? Over one million passengers winged it on that 211 mile route, despite the 20 daily Eurostar trains that cover it in two hours and fifteen minutes.
But in many cases, when trains come into the picture things change fast. Barcelona to Madrid has long been one of the world's busiest air travel routes, with Spanish airlines offering "air bridge" shuttles between the two cities. But last year trains running at up to 220 miles per hour were put on the route, cutting the 410 mile trip to a quick two hours and 35 minutes. The airline's slice of the Madrid-Barcelona pie has shrunk from 72 percent to 60 percent, and is expected to drop further.
"As air travel becomes more of a hassle, high-speed rail is winning
50%
of the traffic where rail journeys are 4 1/2 hours or less," says
Guillaume Pépy, the head of France's national rail network. Air France discontinued its Paris to Brussels route after the train's share of traffic reached 52 percent, and has cut service on many of its domestic routes.
But people who fly short routes aren't necessarily train-o-phobes, and rail isn't always better. "Many people fly into major hub cities in order to connect to longer flights," pilot Patrick Smith wrote in an email to Wired.com. "It's part of the same fare, and it can thus be cheaper and easier to fly than to go by train or by car."
And Smith says that even if trains siphon passengers away on some routes, it won't reduce the number of planes. "It simply changes the size of the aircraft," he writes. "There are probably more flights between Boston and New York today than ever before, even as the number of commuters going to Acela has increased. Fewer passengers does not necessarily equate to fewer flights."
Still, if true high-speed rail ever makes it to the United
States, it will open the door to train trips that right now seem ridiculous. Travel Industry Wire points out that a train ride between Paris and Marseilles takes three hours. Those two cities are 480 miles apart, the same distance that separates Detroit and New York.
We don't know too many people commuting between the Motor City and the Big Apple via train, but in the future....who knows?
Most popular airline routes
1. Hong Kong- Taipei
2. Los Angeles- New York
3. London- New York
4. Melbourne- Sydney
5. Milan- Rome
6. Cape Town- Johannesburg
7. Los Angeles- San Francisco
8. Amsterdam- London
9. Chicago- New York
10. Bangkok- Hong Kong
11. London- Paris
12. Dublin- London
13. Marseilles- Paris
14. Bangkok- Singapore
15. Rio de Janeiro- Sao Paulo
16. Boston- New York
17. Miami- New York
18. Atlanta- New York
19. Las Vegas- Los Angeles
20. New York- San Francisco
Photo: Flickr/faz the persian
__See also: __
