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

Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#111

Post by mmt »

IshKebab wrote: post #110
mmt wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have any primary sources offhand, but the closest thing I last looked at was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail which has a number of 25k/h for light rail (pretty low speed, single-deck, presumably short trains). I'd say 4x that amount for a full-sized HSR train is credible. It's just that that's a maximum . I don't believe that ridership will ever be high enough to approach that number, unless air trav…

> I don't believe that ridership will ever be high enough to approach that number Trains in the rush hour in the UK are pretty much always full, with people standing up. The tube at rush hour looks like this: https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2... If it's not too expensive or infrequent I imagine it will be very popular.

> Trains in the rush hour

Especially given the picture you provide, I think you're talking about intra-urban rail (subway, metro, even suburban commuter).

That's a far cry from a 350-mile, 3-hour inter-city link.

Show me the picture for the London-Edinburgh "rush hour".

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#112

Post by IshKebab »

mmt wrote: post #111
IshKebab wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't believe that ridership will ever be high enough to approach that number Trains in the rush hour in the UK are pretty much always full, with people standing up. The tube at rush hour looks like this: https://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2... If it's not too expensive or infrequent I imagine it will be very popular.

> Trains in the rush hour Especially given the picture you provide, I think you're talking about intra-urban rail (subway, metro, even suburban commuter). That's a far cry from a 350-mile, 3-hour inter-city link. Show me the picture for the London-Edinburgh "rush hour".

Done: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article158562.ece/ALTE...

Southend to Liverpool is 3-4 hours on the train.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#113

Post by gok »

jiggliemon wrote: post #59

When you sell voters the sizzle and not the steak; this disillusion is just a matter of time. It was sold on an impossible premise; - Minimum 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) where conditions permit - Maximum travel time between SF and LA not to exceed 2 hr 40 min - Financially self-sustaining (operation and maintenance costs fully covered by revenue) A flight to SF is 1.5hrs from LA (take off and landing). And only cos…

The SF/LA route has an even bigger problem: once you get to LA, then what? There's not really enough transit in the LA area to get where you actually mean to go, and that's almost certain to be true even if all the current transit projects finish. The Bay Area frankly isn't much better. You'll very likely to need to take a car (maybe an autonomous one) from the end points. And given that, flying seems even better. There are 3 big SFBA airports and 5 in the LA metro area; direct flights between those are more likely to get you closer to your endpoints.

The more legitimate case for CAHSR is really opening up the middle of the state. But that could have been done much cheaper.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#114

Post by DrScump »

IshKebab wrote: post #112
mmt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains in the rush hour Especially given the picture you provide, I think you're talking about intra-urban rail (subway, metro, even suburban commuter). That's a far cry from a 350-mile, 3-hour inter-city link. Show me the picture for the London-Edinburgh "rush hour".

Done: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article158562.ece/ALTE... Southend to Liverpool is 3-4 hours on the train.

How close does it get to the stated 25,000 passengers per hour throughput metric?

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#115

Post by mmt »

IshKebab wrote: post #112
mmt wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Trains in the rush hour Especially given the picture you provide, I think you're talking about intra-urban rail (subway, metro, even suburban commuter). That's a far cry from a 350-mile, 3-hour inter-city link. Show me the picture for the London-Edinburgh "rush hour".

Done: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article158562.ece/ALTE... Southend to Liverpool is 3-4 hours on the train.

Not done.

That's only, what, 240 miles? Which means it's not exactly high speed, is it? It could probably reach the 25k/hr that my sibling commentor is asking for, but not the 100k claimed for HSR.

Additionally, if it's Southend-on-Sea, that's not a major urban area. At 25k/hr, you could move the entire population to Liverpool in a little over 7 hours. I smell a contrivance.

Lastly, the name of that picture describes the train carriage as "busy" not something like "typical", so even then I'm skeptical.

Try again. London to Edinburgh. High speed. Typical rush hour.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#116

Post by mmt »

DrScump wrote: post #114
IshKebab wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Done: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article158562.ece/ALTE... Southend to Liverpool is 3-4 hours on the train.

How close does it get to the stated 25,000 passengers per hour throughput metric?

Keep in mind that's for light rail, only 1/4 of what the commenter claimed for HSR.

With 3 occupants per vehicle, 4 freeway lanes could carry 25k, not as outlandish-sounding as 25.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#117

Post by AFNobody »

mmt wrote: post #108
AFNobody wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you bothered to look around when you drove through it? The amount of tunneling/demolition involved is quite viable. lol.

Umm.. I'd say that merely looking , especially by a non-expert, is more than just a little naive. A famous civil engineer, no less than William Mulholland, had his career ended by the geology of those hills.

A dam built on a 1920s understanding of geology and dam construction is your argument.

And you are ignoring the fact they are trying to tunnel through something with very similar geology.

Okay.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#118

Post by mmt »

AFNobody wrote: post #117
mmt wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Umm.. I'd say that merely looking , especially by a non-expert, is more than just a little naive. A famous civil engineer, no less than William Mulholland, had his career ended by the geology of those hills.

A dam built on a 1920s understanding of geology and dam construction is your argument. And you are ignoring the fact they are trying to tunnel through something with very similar geology. Okay.

My argument is twofold:

Firstly, that merely visually observing the surface of a mountain ("look around when you drove through it") is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about the overall geology from an engineering perspective, especially by a non-expert.

Secondly, that even experts have been confounded by the geological features of that particular mountain range.

If you're implying that my referring to an engineering project from approximately a century ago somehow makes it irrelevant, then you'd need to point out some fundamental engineering changes in tunneling and/or demolition (or the study of geology) as they relate to viability thereof, to be an actual argument/refutation.

Re: Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

#119

Post by AFNobody »

mmt wrote: post #118
AFNobody wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A dam built on a 1920s understanding of geology and dam construction is your argument. And you are ignoring the fact they are trying to tunnel through something with very similar geology. Okay.

My argument is twofold: Firstly, that merely visually observing the surface of a mountain ("look around when you drove through it") is insufficient to draw meaningful conclusions about the overall geology from an engineering perspective, especially by a non-expert. Secondly, that even experts have been confounded by the geological features of that particular mountain range. If you're implying that my referring to an…

You are aware it literally has a train line through it used by no less than the LA metro right?
Post reply on HN