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

High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 297 posts

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#51

Post by fennecfoxen »

privong wrote: post #39
sand500 wrote: post #38

As I see it, the price of rail tickets will be pretty high.whats stopping the price of flights from being halved in the next couple of decades and killing this train service too?

> whats stopping the price of flights from being halved in the next couple of decades and killing this train service too? The construction of the high-speed rail system is/will be heavily subsidized by the government. So presumably, the government will have a vested interest in keeping the train service running and will subsidize operating costs if airlines cut prices in that manner.

> the government ... will subsidize operating costs

By which you mean taxpayers will subsidize operating costs.

I wonder exactly how regressive the wealth transfer from the average middle-class California taxpayer to the California weekly-commute bullet-train businessperson will be, in practice.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#52

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

magila wrote: post #8
niftich wrote: post #2

Not sure why they decided to build an elaborate viaduct [1] to allow for a high-speed curve radius in Southeast Fresno, if Fresno will be a likely stop anyway. Just make all trains stop in Fresno, a place conveniently midway between SF and LA and desperate for improved connections with California's more prosperous areas. After all, isn't the whole point of HSR to improve connectivity between more than just the two te…

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

I would be utterly shocked if even the top speed reaches 220 MPH.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#53

Post by mistersquid »

joshuaheard wrote: post #30
magila wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

According to the figures released before the project, it will cost the same, but take twice as long to go from LA to SF compared to flying. No one is going to take the train instead of flying, except maybe John Madden.

I have a friend who cannot fly due to temperament. He's tried everything from hypnotherapy, to beta blockers, to getting near black out drunk. His fear, which he knows is irrational, has only worsened over time.

He would take such a train.

Another thing is that a one hour flight from SF to LA means, 30 minutes to airport, 30 minutes to get through gate, 15 minutes to board, 10 minutes on tarmac, an hour flight, 10-20 minutes for landing/deplaning, 15 minutes to ground transport.

So, two hours seems ballpark.

Trains typically don't have as much security and boarding is simplified. I'm thinking plane and train travel times door-to-door would be comparable.

Finally, train seats are usually much more comfortable than seats on domestic flights.

I think a substantial number of travelers would use the train instead of flying.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#54

Post by sumbry »

CalChris wrote: post #24
erentz wrote: post #6

Huge supporter of rail but sadly I believe there are a number of mistakes being made. This is a classic example of how projects like this in the US need to be monolithic, self contained, and gold plated to the hilt. The correct action would have been for CA to incrementally acquire and build railways along a number of corridors. Take the SF bay for example. There should be one agency running Caltrain, the Capitol Cor…

> a repeat of the BART mistake. Probably a different mistake but BART uses 5'6" rail gauge. Standard US rail gauge is 4'8.5". This means that every railcar, every everything, has to be custom made with no economies of scale. No one can remember why they did this.

It is pretty common knowledge why they did this. Original plans for the BART had it traveling over the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin County. Due to high winds across the bridge, they wanted a wider gauge to prevent trains from tipping.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#55

Post by CalChris »

sumbry wrote: post #54
CalChris wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a repeat of the BART mistake. Probably a different mistake but BART uses 5'6" rail gauge. Standard US rail gauge is 4'8.5". This means that every railcar, every everything, has to be custom made with no economies of scale. No one can remember why they did this.

It is pretty common knowledge why they did this. Original plans for the BART had it traveling over the Golden Gate Bridge into Marin County. Due to high winds across the bridge, they wanted a wider gauge to prevent trains from tipping.

Yes, this is a popular theory but there's no evidence in the fossil record.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#56

Post by acchow »

joshuaheard wrote: post #30
magila wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

According to the figures released before the project, it will cost the same, but take twice as long to go from LA to SF compared to flying. No one is going to take the train instead of flying, except maybe John Madden.

But wouldn't train connect city centers? Airports aren't really near anything.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#58

Post by ajmurmann »

ghshephard wrote: post #46
jimmybobbyjones wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, I have no trouble imagining that the train can compete with flying between SF and LA. Even if the train has to stop in several backwater towns along the way. The shuttle flights between SFO/SJC and LAX are completely unreliable. When I was doing the SF-LA haul regularly, I'd be delayed (delayed!) by 6+ hours…

"The shuttle flights between SFO/SJC and LAX are completely unreliable. When I was doing the SF-LA haul regularly, I'd be delayed (delayed!) by 6+ hours at least once per month." I'm curious how that happened to you - I used to fly SFO-LAX from time to time, and was surprised that they didn't even really worry about me missing my flight - they just told me to catch the next one in line. United runs 27 flights daily f…

If it rains at SFO or there is fog they have to close 2 of the 4 runways and now you got massive delays. I've had a flight delayed from 8pm to 1:30am last year. Having lots of flights going the same way doesn't help, if the flights cannot take off.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#59

Post by helthanatos »

sand500 wrote: post #38

As I see it, the price of rail tickets will be pretty high.whats stopping the price of flights from being halved in the next couple of decades and killing this train service too?

High speed trains are much better than flights for small commutes, after the expenses are payed, it will be cheaper, it's easier to get on a train than wait hours for flights to take off. High speed rails are the future; flights are the past. Why would you not want to see this work out? Flying is quite annoying because it has constant delays, TSA, and hours of waiting in between.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#60

Post by ajmurmann »

joshuaheard wrote: post #30
magila wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

According to the figures released before the project, it will cost the same, but take twice as long to go from LA to SF compared to flying. No one is going to take the train instead of flying, except maybe John Madden.

I am frequently traveling between Portland and Seattle. I've tried airplane, bus and train. The train is the slowest of the three. However, The Lyft ride from SeaTac to downtown Seattle costs more than the train ride. The train is also so much more comfortable. Unless I am under time pressure I take the train. The bus frequently smells like porter potty which eliminated that cheaper and faster option. Of course the LA-SF distance is about twice as far, but it's also not supposed to be a shitty Amtrak train that has to constantly yield to cargo trains. I am super concerned about the stops in irrlevant cities though.
Post reply on HN