Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

evobsession.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 84 posts

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#51

Post by sandworm101 »

mikeash wrote: post #46
sandworm101 wrote: post #39

I'm always confused by the high-speed rail numbers. Exactly how many trains would it take to get 2/3 of the US population using rail? Take the average international-sized airport runway. It can land a 747 every couple minutes. That's hundreds of people every minute. A high-speed rail line cannot take even a fraction of that number. The trains cannot run at speed without significant time/distance between them. That's…

A Shinkansen line (arbitrarily chosen because it was the first thing that popped up in my search) can do 13 trains per hour with 1,323 passengers per train, which is equivalent to one 747 every 1.4 minutes.

That would replace one runway, but it still doesn't compare to the number of planes that the sky can handle. Sky which is cheap/free in comparison to building rails. There is definitely a point where trains are more efficient, particularly between a small number of large cities, but moving a large proportion of US air traffic onto trains, imho, is a different problem given the number of routes (1000s) and airports (100s).

I'd have to see the math, but there is also a question as to carbon emissions per-passenger/distance. I believe that on long flights (more time at high altitude) widebody aircraft might be more fuel efficient than high-speed trains stuck on tracks.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#52

Post by takno »

jacques_chester wrote: post #37
ghaff wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I prefer taking the train in the Northeast Corridor but: 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station 2. Even though the train is more convenient in a number of ways, flying can get me from Boston into Manhattan earlier in the day than the train. Usually doesn't matter, but it may if you have a morning meeting and can't come down the previous night. 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all…

> 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station There is, but it runs relatively infrequently and you have to switch to the monorail, which is only faster than walking because it has a right of way. > 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all the way from Boston to DC starts to not make sense vs. flying--and tends to cost more as well. Sure. I cheat by being the smug git in the middle. But I'd still rat…

I hate the monorail at EWR with a passion - the slow speed, the long stop at a parking garage before the terminal, the insane loop round some kind of junkyard/parking lot it takes on the way to the railroad station, but all told it's still only about 10 minutes at worst.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#53

Post by ubernostrum »

rmason wrote: post #5

My father told me a story about discontinuing a street car line (called an interurban) in a town North of Detroit. There was a hearing at city hall and hundreds of villagers turned out. Dozens of people made the case to keep the line. Finally the street car company's lawyer got up and made the business case for discontinuing the line. He concluded by asking the crowd how many of you used our company's street car to g…

There are plenty of places where the pitifully bad systems that already exist are not just used, but used to well beyond their capacity.

Like... SF and environs, where the rail-based transit systems are basically all running hobbled all the time due to being way over capacity and way past expected lifetime of equipment. Caltrain just reported weekday ridership is now around 62,000, for example, but is struggling to replace 25-year-old equipment that breaks down on an almost weekly basis.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#55

Post by gozur88 »

ubernostrum wrote: post #53
rmason wrote: post #5

My father told me a story about discontinuing a street car line (called an interurban) in a town North of Detroit. There was a hearing at city hall and hundreds of villagers turned out. Dozens of people made the case to keep the line. Finally the street car company's lawyer got up and made the business case for discontinuing the line. He concluded by asking the crowd how many of you used our company's street car to g…

There are plenty of places where the pitifully bad systems that already exist are not just used, but used to well beyond their capacity. Like... SF and environs, where the rail-based transit systems are basically all running hobbled all the time due to being way over capacity and way past expected lifetime of equipment. Caltrain just reported weekday ridership is now around 62,000, for example, but is struggling to r…

SF rail transit is very good by US standards. The system is old and worn out, but it takes you where you want to go in a reasonable amount of time. Which is, after all, the point.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#56

Post by ghaff »

takno wrote: post #52
jacques_chester wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. There is a regular train from EWR right into Penn Station There is, but it runs relatively infrequently and you have to switch to the monorail, which is only faster than walking because it has a right of way. > 3. Although I've taken it, the Acela all the way from Boston to DC starts to not make sense vs. flying--and tends to cost more as well. Sure. I cheat by being the smug git in the middle. But I'd still rat…

I hate the monorail at EWR with a passion - the slow speed, the long stop at a parking garage before the terminal, the insane loop round some kind of junkyard/parking lot it takes on the way to the railroad station, but all told it's still only about 10 minutes at worst.

They have one of those at SFO also and it's not exactly fast. That said, it's a big improvement over the prior shuttle bus to the rental car center--though the BART connection I usually just take that if I'm going into the city in the vicinity of the convention center.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#57

Post by gozur88 »

goatforce5 wrote: post #45
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's easy to tell a pollster you're for high speed rail but how many will actually buy a ticket? Perhaps they should ask for them to prepay for a ticket? I use the MBTA on a fairly frequent basis. I would use it every day if biking didn't half my commute time. I've also used Megabus to visit New York City, for day trips even, Acela for an interview in New York once, and a short domestic air flight to visit a friend…

> cost $450 for a 1 hour, 15 minute flight Remember to allow time for getting to/from the airports (which typically are a bit of a trek from downtown areas), allowing time to check in and clear security.

Right. That "1 hour, 15 minute flight" is really a minimum of about four hours. The train is probably faster, door-to-door.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#58

Post by ubernostrum »

mikeash wrote: post #44
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's easy to tell a pollster you're for high speed rail but how many will actually buy a ticket? Perhaps they should ask for them to prepay for a ticket? I use the MBTA on a fairly frequent basis. I would use it every day if biking didn't half my commute time. I've also used Megabus to visit New York City, for day trips even, Acela for an interview in New York once, and a short domestic air flight to visit a friend…

Acela isn't "high-speed" rail, it's basically normal rail with high-speed hardware which occasionally goes fast enough to barely clear the threshold for calling it "high speed." Acela averages less than 70MPH. In a proper high-speed system that would be more like 180MPH. Boston to DC would be 2.5 hours, vastly faster than flying once you account for airport nonsense.

In a proper high-speed system that would be more like 180MPH

The current record for highest average speed on a rail line is China's 176mph average Shijiazhuang-Zhengzhou. Prior record holder was 173mph on the Champagne-Ardenne to Lorraine run on the LGV Est corridor of the TGV.

All high-speed rail systems have stretches where they go faster than that, but average speeds are nowhere near what you're proposing. Unless, of course, your argument is that no "proper high-speed system" exists anywhere in the world today.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#59

Post by gozur88 »

protomyth wrote: post #17
slg wrote: post #15

Years ago I thought the idea of regional high speed rail lines in the US was a great idea, but I think the time for that has come and gone. The future seems to be clearly moving towards autonomous cars (and buses one presumes). Why sink billions into high speed rail when on our current pace it will be only a couple decades before we have all electric cars powered by solar and other clean energy sources that are 90 so…

I do wonder what would happen if they built a new double lane highway between two cities that is only usable by autonomous vehicles? How fast do we trust autonomous vehicles to go?

The real benefit isn't in increased speed. It's the decreased distance between cars.

Re: Two-Thirds of Americans Would Utilize High-Speed Rail If It Was Available

#60

Post by fla »

sandworm101 wrote: post #51
mikeash wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A Shinkansen line (arbitrarily chosen because it was the first thing that popped up in my search) can do 13 trains per hour with 1,323 passengers per train, which is equivalent to one 747 every 1.4 minutes.

That would replace one runway, but it still doesn't compare to the number of planes that the sky can handle. Sky which is cheap/free in comparison to building rails. There is definitely a point where trains are more efficient, particularly between a small number of large cities, but moving a large proportion of US air traffic onto trains, imho, is a different problem given the number of routes (1000s) and airports (1…

> Sky which is cheap/free in comparison to building rails.

Isn't flying the most expensive kind of transportation ? Plus it relies on fossil fuels big-time.

Post reply on HN