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

291–297 of 297 posts

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

#291

Post by djrogers »

yellowapple wrote: post #234
djrogers wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That ignores the fact that there are already 6 airports in Southern California and 3 (5 if you include Central Valley airports) in Northern California. Do you really think getting to Disneyland or Pasadena will be faster if you take a train to downtown LA than if you flew to SNA or BUR or ONT?

And that ignores the fact that not all of those airports are going to have the same airline coverage as the major ones (namely: SFO and LAX) - and even if they do, certainly not with a significant selection of flights, and certainly not at readily-affordable rates. To the average traveler, they might as well not exist; even Amtrak or Greyhound are more viable. Also, again: weather is still a major factor for any airp…

Absolutely false - for NorCal-SoCal trips, all of the aforementioned airports have plentiful flights at similar cost to SFO and LAX. And weather primarily affects SFO - OAK and SJC rarely have the same problems as SFO.

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

#292

Post by marssaxman »

fennecfoxen wrote: post #51
privong wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> By which you mean taxpayers will subsidize operating costs.

Just as we subsidize operating costs for freeways, city streets, buses, subways, and virtually all other forms of transportation infrastructure.

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

#293

Post by ant6n »

masklinn wrote: post #239
ant6n wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

European high-speed rail systems have some dedicated rights of way, but they definitely didn't start that way. They are systems that are integrated with regional and urban rail, and have grown to have more dedicated higher speed sections over time. Compatibility is the main reason for the success of the TGV and ICE, for example over the failed Transrapid maglev system. All track with passenger rail on it should be we…

> European high-speed rail systems have some dedicated rights of way, but they definitely didn't start that way. TGV was most definitely started that way. It was engineered to be able to run on regular railway ("standard gauge high-speed train") so that the existing "inner-city" rails could be used to reach inside existing metropolis, but it was designed primarily to run on new specific rights of way, regular service…

You're nitpicking on TGV without making an argument within the discussion.

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

#294

Post by masklinn »

ant6n wrote: post #293
masklinn wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> European high-speed rail systems have some dedicated rights of way, but they definitely didn't start that way. TGV was most definitely started that way. It was engineered to be able to run on regular railway ("standard gauge high-speed train") so that the existing "inner-city" rails could be used to reach inside existing metropolis, but it was designed primarily to run on new specific rights of way, regular service…

You're nitpicking on TGV without making an argument within the discussion.

I'm saying that your claim of european high-speed systems "definitely not having started with dedicated right of way" is absolute bullshit.

Yes they are standard gauge and can run on regular old rail and that's plenty useful, but no that's not what they were built for, it would be a complete waste of the rolling stock.

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

#295

Post by ant6n »

masklinn wrote: post #294
ant6n wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're nitpicking on TGV without making an argument within the discussion.

I'm saying that your claim of european high-speed systems "definitely not having started with dedicated right of way" is absolute bullshit. Yes they are standard gauge and can run on regular old rail and that's plenty useful, but no that's not what they were built for, it would be a complete waste of the rolling stock.

You don't understand what dedicated means in the American context - which is this discussion. It would mean complete incompatibility, and building new tracks and maybe stations downtown. This is not what EU high speed rail was built on, they use a lot of legacy lines, especially earlier on, especially in Germany. Without that it wouldve failed - not being able to reuse existing infrastructure is why maglev failed.

As an aside, calling an idea complete bullshit based on an nitpick is pretty weak, especially since you're wrong: when tgv started in September 1981, they only had part of the line constructed. Without compatibility, I.e. a completely dedicated system, you could've only traveled between two random towns.

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

#296

Post by pm24601 »

jmalicki wrote: post #285
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…

BART is already being extended to Livermore (just west of the Altamont pass), and already goes to Dublin, so that area is at least already well-served by regional transit. Going over the Pacheco Pass allows the train to hit San Jose and the Silicon Valley without going through huge windy detours, which has a lot more people in it than the Altamont Pass area.

Distance does not matter - sustained speed matters.

Higher sustained speeds = shorter trip times.

Go look at a terrain map.

Pacheco Pass ---------------------- From Gilroy to San Jose the train can go no faster than ~125, ~150mph because it has to do a fairly sharp turn.

Anyone come from San Francisco is doing the first ~100 miles at speeds no greater than ~125mph.

Altamont Pass -------------------- Trains leaving San Francisco and San Jose join up in Fremont.

Once they leave Fremont, the right of way opens up. The trains can then hit 220 mph until Los Angeles.

This saves in total time ~ 30 minutes.

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

#297

Post by masklinn »

ant6n wrote: post #295
masklinn wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm saying that your claim of european high-speed systems "definitely not having started with dedicated right of way" is absolute bullshit. Yes they are standard gauge and can run on regular old rail and that's plenty useful, but no that's not what they were built for, it would be a complete waste of the rolling stock.

You don't understand what dedicated means in the American context - which is this discussion. It would mean complete incompatibility, and building new tracks and maybe stations downtown. This is not what EU high speed rail was built on, they use a lot of legacy lines, especially earlier on, especially in Germany. Without that it wouldve failed - not being able to reuse existing infrastructure is why maglev failed. As…

> You don't understand what dedicated means in the American context

It means the exact same fucking thing in every context. Dedicated means infrastructure which exists solely for high-speed train, not that high-speed trains can only exist on the dedicated infrastructure.

> It would mean complete incompatibility

That's completely nonsensical. European high-speed lines are dedicated, non-high-speed trains do not run on them, it's the high-speed rolling stock which is compatible with older electrified rail lines because they use a standard gauge and compatible/switchable electrical feed (some of the more complex rolling stock having to cross multiple borders can handle 4 different power inputs).

> This is not what EU high speed rail was built on, they use a lot of legacy lines

And they use dedicated infrastructure and have done so from the start.

> As an aside, calling an idea complete bullshit based on an nitpick is pretty weak

It's not a nitpick to point out that your statement is factually entirely incorrect.

> especially since you're wrong: when tgv started in September 1981, they only had part of the line constructed.

That was still a dedicated right-of-way which it started with, putting the lie to your statement.

> Without compatibility

That has nothing to do with your original statement. Your statement was not that high-speed rolling stock should be compatible with legacy rail and able to use it. Your statement was that european high-speed rail "definitely didn't start" with "dedicated rights of way", and further that high-speed rail only have some dedicated rights of way.

Post reply on HN