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

181–190 of 297 posts

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

#181

Post by obstinate »

saosebastiao wrote: post #29
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…

This is completely false. The entire flight demand of SF to LA is so pathetically low in comparison to the demand from the Cartesian set of intermediary routes that catering to just SF to LA would doom the project to failure. There isn't a successful HSR system in the world that hasn't already learned this lesson. Not only is Fresno crucial to ridership projections, but so are all the other small towns like Merced.

I would love to read about this lesson that other HSR systems have learned in more detail. Do you have any articles about it?

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

#182

Post by gydfi »

ghaff wrote: post #156
klinquist wrote: post #148

One thing that nobody has mentioned - autonomous cars. Close to the time this will be completed, I assume I'll be able to sit in my vehicle and be shuttled from SF to LA in 5 hrs in the comfort of my own vehicle.

Normally I'm as skeptical of autonomous vehicle timeframes as anyone. But this is a case where even just the highway portion would be a huge win. And one of the cities (as well as pretty much all the intermediate locations) aren't very public transit or pedestrian friendly. If I'm leaving SF and will be in LA in 5-6 hours (door-to-door) with a minimum of driving [ADDED: with my own vehicle], how attractive is that tr…

Once autonomous driving works well, I see no reason why cars can't scream along I-5 at twice the current speed, too. So five hours could become three and a bit, door to door.

They could even autonomously draft behind each other for maximum efficiency. Cars could be designed with high speed drafting aerodynamics in mind. With that, a line of cars might actually be more energy efficient than a high speed train running at typical occupancy levels, or at least competitive.

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

#183

Post by closeparen »

bbcbasic wrote: post #144
valuearb wrote: post #3

$64B just in startup costs, for a slower trip than flying. Why this infatuation with a technology that hasn't been leading edge since the 1800s?

Flying has lots of externalised costs - noise, pollution, requires use of fossil fuels etc.

Ever lived near a busy level crossing? Passing trains may simply make the floors shake; train horns are deafening. You don't just hear them, you feel them in the core of your body. If you building is not well soundproofed, or you have any windows open for ventilation, you have no hope of sleeping through the night. Passing airplanes are background noise, passing trains refuse to be ignored.

Long/slow trains create an impermeable partition in the area, causing huge disruptions to local transportation (even pedestrians). Train tracks are also dangerous, requiring extra supervision of children and claiming the lives of the suicidal/oblivious/reckless every now and then.

If I asked to build something which

- Makes a huge amount of noise as it passes through residential areas at night.

- Disrupts all pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic while it passes.

- Has no hope of stopping for the hazards that can trivially enter its path.

- Will obliterate anything it hits, 100% of the time.

You'd look at me like I was crazy, unless you grew up viewing trains as just part of the landscape.

All the same, I think we should build more of them. But trains are much worse for externalizing costs than airplanes.

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

#184

Post by scythe »

acchow wrote: post #118
scythe wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the coast is too expensive; you have to go over a bunch of hills and deal with steep terrain and thick forests. The correct option is to go for the cheapest land available, which any private company (not sure this kind of thing should be privatized but it's a useful comparison imo) would have obviously gone for. That would be just west of I-5, up the eastern edge of the Central Valley. Throw in a few improvement…

> while delaying the big prize: service from SF to LA. I don't think that's the biggest deal here. I'll refer you to this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13630341

The inner areas will be more likely to want transit to the endpoints than to each other. Of course having only two stops wouldn't pay for the train but it's probably easier to drive from Bakersfield to Fresno eg and you need a car both places whereas going to LA/SF without a car doesn't present a hassle. If you look at page 43 here on the ridership projections:

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/2016_Busines...

It looks like about 2/3 or so of the revenue is to either the MTC or SCAG regions, with the remainder dominated by the San Joaquin Valley. So while traffic may not be entirely between the endpoint it is highly concentrated in trips going to and from the endpoints, and for this purpose, driving 30 minutes down a freeway to the train might not be too much of an inconvenience for the residents of Modesto who despite technocrats' brainwashing ambitions will probably still like to drive cars in 2030. Plus they won't complain about a cheaper fare, even if road improvements take another ten years to get in place (the train is the important part).

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

#185

Post by pm24601 »

klinquist wrote: post #148

One thing that nobody has mentioned - autonomous cars. Close to the time this will be completed, I assume I'll be able to sit in my vehicle and be shuttled from SF to LA in 5 hrs in the comfort of my own vehicle.

I suppose if you regard sitting in a seat not being able to move as comfortable.

But before you get too relaxed in that glorious possible future:

1) high speed trains exist and proven - no new science or engineering to figure out

2) autonomous cars are constrained by the realities of space to put the vehicles. Too many vehicles, autonomous or otherwise = congestion and slow travel.

3) At 6 hours, this is nearly twice as long as the train will be.

4) In the autonomous car, you will need to stop for food and bathroom break. The train does not need to stop. So your trip time is extended, especially true with kids.

5) At 3.5 hours, someone can leave for LA at 6am - get to a 10am meeting and return in time for dinner and bed. Not going to happen if each direction takes 5-6 hours.

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

#186

Post by sethhochberg »

gydfi wrote: post #182
ghaff wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally I'm as skeptical of autonomous vehicle timeframes as anyone. But this is a case where even just the highway portion would be a huge win. And one of the cities (as well as pretty much all the intermediate locations) aren't very public transit or pedestrian friendly. If I'm leaving SF and will be in LA in 5-6 hours (door-to-door) with a minimum of driving [ADDED: with my own vehicle], how attractive is that tr…

Once autonomous driving works well, I see no reason why cars can't scream along I-5 at twice the current speed, too. So five hours could become three and a bit, door to door. They could even autonomously draft behind each other for maximum efficiency. Cars could be designed with high speed drafting aerodynamics in mind. With that, a line of cars might actually be more energy efficient than a high speed train running…

I'd be surprised if a "car train" running on rubber tires, even if as aerodynamically efficient somehow as a high-speed train, could ever match the same efficiency per occupant-mile. Ignoring everything else, steel wheels on steel rails have a massive efficiency advantage from lower rolling resistance alone - and a train carrying 400 people is going to have far fewer wheels per passenger than a "car train" carrying 400 people.

http://www.lafn.org/~dave/trans/energy/rail_vs_autoEE.html#s...

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

#187

Post by WillPostForFood »

milesrout wrote: post #149
superbaconman wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wine yo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_wine

80% of California's water is used by agriculture.

This is false. I don't blame you because it is often repeated. But agriculture only accounts for about 40% of California's water use.

In an average year, about 39% of California's water consumption, or 34.1 million acre-feet, is used for agricultural purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California#Uses_of_wa...

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

#188

Post by ktRolster »

pm24601 wrote: post #176
milesrout wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>some good farmland, which CA has some of the best of in the world. Is that a joke? California is a terrible place to be farming. Farming in California is only viable because farmers are allowed unfettered access to water, depriving it from residents (who are told they should turn off the water in the shower while farmers are pouring untold millions of gallons on crops that could be grown somewhere actually suited to…

No its not a joke. Central Valley used to be a big marshy area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacramento%E2%80%93San_Joaquin...

It still would be if it weren't for the levies. Especially right now.

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

#189

Post by WillPostForFood »

michaelvoz wrote: post #151
superbaconman wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wine yo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_wine

Not nearly the same area of the state...

You think two buck chuck is made from grapes grown in ritzy Napa valley? Large majority of California wine comes from grapes grown in the central valley.

* The Central Valley is California's largest wine region stretching for 300 miles (480 km) from the Sacramento Valley south to the San Joaquin Valley. This one region produces nearly 75% of all California wine grapes and includes many of California's bulk, box and jug wine producers like Gallo, Franzia and Bronco Wine Company.*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_wine#Wine_regions

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

#190

Post by WillPostForFood »

pm24601 wrote: post #174
datahack wrote: post #106

If I had known that they were going to run this through the Central Valley instead of down the coast where it belongs I never would have voted for it. It should have gone straight from la to Oakland or emeryville, turned and gone straight to Sacramento. Instead we have a convoluted mess of rail connections that take people places they don't even want to go (no offense to Bakersfield buts it's hardly a holiday destina…

Seriously - trains should go where the people are. The people are in the central valley. Between Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz the population is very light and the terrain is very difficult. It wasn't until the 20th century that access to the Big Sur area was possible. And even today for over a hundred miles highway 1 is the only access. Fresno - 509,000 people Bakersfield - 363,000 people The first segment connects 1…

trains should go where the people are

That's why the money would be better spent on local transit improvements inside the Los Angeles area and the Bay Area, not connecting them.

Post reply on HN