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

71–80 of 84 posts

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

#71

Post by ghaff »

ubernostrum wrote: post #61
ghaff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and then act surprised that nobody takes Amtrak But lots of people take Amtrak in the Northeast Corridor--enough to subsidize the rest of the system. The problem is that there aren't any other areas in the country that are as well-suited for busy inter-city rail as the Boston to DC corridor. Almost everything else is lower density and further apart. I'm not an expert on transportation cost structures but my observat…

The problem is that there aren't any other areas in the country that are as well-suited for busy inter-city rail as the Boston to DC corridor. A lot of money's being pumped into trying a high-speed rail corridor between Los Angeles and San Francisco. And to be honest, I'd think there's at least a moderately good case for running up to Portland, Seattle and possibly even Vancouver. There's an awful lot of tech-industr…

They're not as well-suited because the distances between the major cities are greater. And LA is so spread out with horrible traffic once you get there.

But, yes, the West coast corridor is an obvious candidate if the idea can be made to work anywhere in the US. (As is upgrading the Northeast Corridor where demand is already proven.)

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

#72

Post by takno »

ghaff wrote: post #56
takno wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The one at SFO is pretty standard. What's irritating about the one at EWR is that it's so unecessary. The loop seems like it's there because they couldn't get somebody to accept the supporting pillars in their precious car yard, and the general speed is a bit less impressive than the monorail to the space needle in Seattle.

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

#73

Post by fla »

sandworm101 wrote: post #69
fla wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It's hard to compare price because it is very rare for two means to compete directly. It's often apples and oranges. A train that moved as fast as plane isn't going to be very fuel efficient. They can be electric (insert source debate) but planes can also run on biofuel (another debate). And when comparing plane-train, a plane burns much of its fuel taking off and climbing to altitude. Once there (10,000m) it is rema…

As you said, it is two different things.

I take the train everyday. For me, travelling by train for It is generaly a smoother experience than taking a low-cost flight. But, I realize it really depends on how 'car-first' and large your country is. Definately not an universal solution.

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

#74

Post by jacques_chester »

tptacek wrote: post #41
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…

What's "infrequently"? Has it changed recently? I used to have to DTW-NYC once or twice a week, and I always routed to EWR because I knew I'd just be a quick train trip to Manhattan. I don't remember ever waiting very long.

> What's "infrequently"?

It depends on the time of day. Between 15 and 45 minutes, in my experience.

That said, I find getting to EWR to be much easier than getting out of EWR.

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

#75

Post by Mz »

Well, they are currently breaking ground on high speed rail in California. We may get this question answered in actual fact in the not too distant future instead of in some hypothetical study.

Anyone have any ideas for how to help make it successful? I would love to have better transit options because I have no plans to drive a car ever again.

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

#76

Post by ac29 »

ScottBurson wrote: post #19
ChuckMcM wrote: post #2

This would seem pretty clear when California voters (notorious for not voting in taxes or bonds) approved the high speed rail project. What was even more interesting were the forces that came out against it and how they have acted.

I voted for that bond measure, and now I regret it. I'm a little fuzzy on the details at this point, but my recollection is that it was originally planned to include major Caltrain improvements, which they have now given up on.

Caltrain modernization is already under construction with full electrification and new train sets expected to be complete by 2020 [0].

[0] http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/...

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

#77

Post by chimeracoder »

seanp2k2 wrote: post #62
mikeash wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While I agree that more high-speed rail would be amazing in the US as a viable transit option, a lot of the calculus around efficiency of it rests on it being exempt from the likes of TSA. TSA has been making their way into train stations for a few years now: 2013: http://reason.com/archives/2013/08/08/tsa-to-ruin-train-trav... 2015: http://www.infowars.com/tsa-airport-style-searches-on-all-am...

> TSA has been making their way into train stations for a few years now:

Yeah, 'Amtrak police' are now also doing their own 'random' inspections and swabs, etc. Last few times I took the Amtrak from Penn Station they were doing this.

Yet another reason for me to take the bus (which is 80% cheaper, as long as they're not sold out).

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

#78

Post by throwaway_exer »

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…

> the three dimensional world of aircraft.

No, that's not how it works.

En route airways are 3d, but approaches are 2d and landings are 1d. Large US airports are already at capacity, and above capacity in poor visibility conditions (like fog at SFO.)

Also, trains can just add more engines and cars.

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

#79

Post by mikeash »

ubernostrum wrote: post #58
mikeash wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

In what world is 176MPH "nowhere near" 180MPH? I was explicitly approximate, and being 4MPH off is pretty good!

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

#80

Post by ubernostrum »

mikeash wrote: post #79
ubernostrum wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

In what world is 176MPH "nowhere near" 180MPH? I was explicitly approximate, and being 4MPH off is pretty good!

I mean "nowhere near" in the sense that the outliers -- the current and previous record holder for average speed -- haven't managed to crack your proposed 180mph criterion for "high speed", and the non-outliers definitely aren't coming close to that number. Common definitions of "high speed" rail kick in at 200kph or 250kph, which are 124mph and 155mph respectively.

Even if we go with the higher of those numbers, that's still around a 13% minimum difference in average speed between what's accepted and what you're proposing.

(for non-Americans, what I'm arguing with here is the idea that ~290kph would be the minimum average speed to call something "high speed rail")

Post reply on HN