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

251–260 of 297 posts

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

#251

Post by seanmcdirmid »

wapz wrote: post #231
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains as mass transit beat cars on efficiency driver or not. Autonomous cars are best used locally or to deal with last mile problems

The problem is that same person can pay about $50 for gas to go from SF to LA and have the car with them in LA or pay $130 for a one way ticket (I haven't read the numbers but that's about the cost in Japan and I expect other countries with high speed rail). Then you have to get to the station which might be a little far for some. I really love the high speed rail system in Japan and Europe but it's not cheap.

Those prices for car are heavily subsidized and don't account for all costs. Gas, highways, cost of car and maintnence....

If you look at HsR in Europe and Japan, you notice that driving isn't heavily subsidized so it wins in a clear way.

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

#252

Post by gotthemwmds »

milesrout wrote: post #140
shiny wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another potential concern is that it runs through some good farmland, which CA has some of the best of in the world. I would love to have an HSR along the coast however. When I was in Taiwan it was amazing being able to get to the bottom of the island in a couple hours.

>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…

Obviously you've never read a Steinbeck book.

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

#253

Post by thinkcontext »

snomad wrote: post #164
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…

I always thought they should have gone LA - Las Vegas - Reno, but that takes a more regional approach.

There is such an effort for LA to Vegas. Its been setback as it was a joint venture between a US firm and a Chinese partner. The Chinese pulled out, however, because of the requirement that high speed trains be manufactured in the US (there are currently no such manufacturers).

http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-xpresswest-rail-line...

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

#254

Post by pessimizer »

milesrout wrote: post #142
DrScump wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where right-of-way is shared with freight, freight has priority.

This is the problem with the stupid American capitalist system. You have these sorts of problems. If it were all controlled by the Government, like it is in other countries, nobody would need to have 'priority'. You just schedule the trains properly.

How silly you are, to expect government to be responsible for coordinating things. The only reasonable purpose for government is to hand out candy to friends, relatives, and people who can keep you in government.

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

#255

Post by trome »

WildUtah wrote: post #26
0max wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't think Measure M passed last year would make any difference? http://theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/factshee...

You can't make a city transit and walking friendly by grafting rail infrastructure over a car-based design. You need to allow development on narrower streets without minimum parking requirements on every lot and you need more population density. You'd have to actually change the rules and overcome the NIMBYs. Some problems can't be solved with cash.

Pretty much this, if its sub-5 story slum (aka most US cities & nearly all suburbs) overlaying rail is a bandaid. The city was built wrong in the first place, and needs to gain density, rail can keep a dense city economically viable by providing reliable, rapid transit. There is no good transit solution for suburban sprawl.

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

#256

Post by trome »

magila wrote: post #14
melling wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC to Boston is 230 miles, about 3.5 hours by "fast" train. It's about an hour flight. A lot of people still take the train. If you can get the trains to take you directly into the city center, it can often be a better option.

That theory doesn't really work for LA because it's so spread out that you are very likely going to need to take a car to your final destination regardless of which mode of transportation you use to get into the city.

Depends what part of LA your in, but in most cases your absolutely right. Most areas are designed with cars being the prime transport, with sidewalks halfheartedly tacked onto high speed roads. I'd never walk along that by choice!

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

#257

Post by netfire »

tdhoot wrote: post #223
DrScump wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where right-of-way is shared with freight, freight has priority.

This is patently false - Amtrak has the right of way by law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308

"intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation"

What qualifies as commuter rail? I think most of Amtrak's cross-country tracks would probably not be considered intercity or commuter lines.

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

#258

Post by rebootthesystem »

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…

> 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.

Do everyone a favor. In the future, when such projects come up for vote, assume the politicians are lying to you and, most importantly, they are as incompetent as a truck driver attempting open heart surgery. That's a good start. Then do some research and see if in the last fifty years they have ever completed any project on time, on budget and without major problems.

Armed with that reality, please don't vote to give incompetent liars the ability to create another mess and screw us all, again.

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

#259

Post by lisivka »

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…

I my country, trains are required to travel at lover speed at night time near to a town or city. Horn is forbidden at night too.

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

#260

Post by rchowe »

netfire wrote: post #257
tdhoot wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is patently false - Amtrak has the right of way by law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/24308

"intercity and commuter rail passenger transportation provided by or for Amtrak has preference over freight transportation" What qualifies as commuter rail? I think most of Amtrak's cross-country tracks would probably not be considered intercity or commuter lines.

Amtrak is the contracted operator for a number of commuter rail services, such as MARC. Not sure if that counts as "by or for Amtrak".

The real issue is that often operationally, a passenger train has to stop for a freight train. If you have a 1000' siding that you have to have a 6 car passenger train pass a 30 car freight train at, the passenger train is going to have to stop for the freight train. That doesn't even take into consideration other factors like how freight dispatchers don't like to stop hazmat/"hot" trains for safety reasons.

Post reply on HN