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

241–250 of 297 posts

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

#241

Post by masklinn »

lispm wrote: post #31
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…

France has tracks with 320km/h. Germany uses 300km/h on some tracks. Here the view from a train at that speed overtaking cars on the Autobahn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js3XDTE5Iyg China learned from it, here using a version of a German Siemens ICE train, Shanghai/Beijing in under five hours. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvytUaRs2dU

> France has tracks with 320km/h.

350 nowadays, that's the rating for the latest LGV Est although the current trainsets are only rated for 320.

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

#242

Post by privong »

lhopki01 wrote: post #230
twoodfin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The subsidies are qualitatively different: If roads had to be paid for entirely from user fees in the form of gas or mileage taxes, they could be for effective rates not much higher than fuel prices of a few years ago. Capital and maintenance. If you tried to charge passengers adequately to fund rail, the system would go into a death spiral, absent radical changes in consumer preferences.

Europe has significantly higher taxes on fuel yet still needs to subsidise roads from general taxes so I think if roads were properly funded it would be higher than fuel prices a few years ago. Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option.

> Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option.

Can you elaborate? This is the first time I've heard this claim – I'm curious about the details.

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

#243

Post by lhopki01 »

privong wrote: post #242
lhopki01 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe has significantly higher taxes on fuel yet still needs to subsidise roads from general taxes so I think if roads were properly funded it would be higher than fuel prices a few years ago. Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option.

> Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option. Can you elaborate? This is the first time I've heard this claim – I'm curious about the details.

Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient.

If we then start to take into account the other costs such as pollution, land wasted on parking and wider roads, the increased area of municipal services that have to be covered because of the much lower density require for cars, and the massively increased health costs associated with a car lifestyle and trains not only are more cost efficient than cars they're an order of magnitude more cost efficient.

Trains are wildly efficient, they only use energy to overcome air and rolling resistances as energy used to accelerate is put back into the system during deceleration. They can pack many more people with much higher throughput. For example Crossrail in London is designed to have 24 1500 person trains an hour on a single track.

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

#244

Post by privong »

lhopki01 wrote: post #243
privong wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also if both rail and roads were funded only by users then rail would be the more attractive option. Can you elaborate? This is the first time I've heard this claim – I'm curious about the details.

Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient. If we then start to take into account the other costs such as pollution, land wasted on parking and wider roads, the increased area of municipal services that have to be covered because of the much lower density require for cars, and the massively increased health costs associated with a car lifestyle and trains not only are…

Okay, that makes sense.

> Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient.

Is this still true if one also considers the infrastructure investments that need to be made, both in terms construction and maintenance?

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

#245

Post by lhopki01 »

privong wrote: post #244
lhopki01 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient. If we then start to take into account the other costs such as pollution, land wasted on parking and wider roads, the increased area of municipal services that have to be covered because of the much lower density require for cars, and the massively increased health costs associated with a car lifestyle and trains not only are…

Okay, that makes sense. > Cost per passenger per mile is cheaper by rail than by road. It is just much more efficient. Is this still true if one also considers the infrastructure investments that need to be made, both in terms construction and maintenance?

Highway costs less per lane than a single line of rail but considering most highways are 3 lanes either side the cost factor starts to become favourable to railway lines.

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

#246

Post by kijin »

masklinn wrote: post #237
pm24601 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Seriously - trains should go where the people are. For HSR you want to connect large hubs, there's no point in a train which can go 200mph if it has to stop every 60mi.

Not every train needs to stop at every station. If you design the tracks and stations properly, you can operate a mix of non-stop trains and other trains that take some or all of the stops in between, and you can vary the composition depending on actual ridership.

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

#247

Post by tnone »

closeparen wrote: post #183
bbcbasic wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Why are trains required to blow their horns? This is what guarded crossings are for.

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

#248

Post by gsnedders »

ern wrote: post #117
Groxx wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With strange, custom-construction-requiring stuff like this, I tend to wonder how much of it would be explained by "help self/a buddy get rich". It's practically guaranteeing that there's going to be a single company supporting it for all time, which is a potentially-extremely-lucrative business deal. If that's the case, obfuscating the reasons for these decisions is a rational move .

It's a bit cynical to say this but running HSR on an incompatible network protects it against future politicians who may seek to sabotage it by merging networks.

This sounds similar to the reason why the Glasgow Subway runs on a 4' (1219mm) gauge: to stop it from being taken over by the numerous (at the time privately owned) railways around the city which were all standard gauge.

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

#249

Post by Proven »

No one cares if the damn train and railways are built or not.

Opponents object to the fact that the State is acting as a (clueless) investor that will push the state into an even more unsustainable fiscal position. It's a generic and valid objection that has nothing to do with the train.

And of course it's being built: it's a way for various parasites, from crony capitalists to public unions, to do really well for themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Again.

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

#250

Post by ghaff »

briandear wrote: post #221
slacka wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe or Japan were nice, but China was amazing. No pre-paid ticket, no planning just show up at the Shenzen train station the morning, arrive in Beijing in the evening on the other size of the country.[1] Imagine freedom, the innovation, the improvement in quality of life if we could hop on a train in the morning NYC and arrive in SF at night for ~$100. I found the trains so much more comfortable than even flying f…

As a tourist, that trip can be nice, but burning and entire day to travel for business? Imagine the improvement in quality of life if we could get on a supersonic airplane and be in NYC from SFO in two hours.

So I save 4 hours out of a 10ish hour door to door trip for me. Nice, sure. But hardly a dramatic quality of life improvement.
Post reply on HN