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

As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

thetransportpolitic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 171 posts

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#91

Post by corodra »

skywhopper wrote: post #40
kiran-rao wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people would rather take a 4.5hr flight

Add 2-3 hours for airport time wasted on both ends. But regardless of the time, I would much rather take a 10 hour train ride in comfortable, roomy seats, with all my luggage within reach, than crammed for five hours into an airplane seat literally as small as it can possibly be and that I can't get out of for half the time, especially if it's cheaper, which it probably would be.

Have you ever ridden on a cross country train?

Because it sounds like you haven't. I think you're confusing Harry Potter with reality. The I-5 Amtrak is great and all between Seattle and Portland, but it sucks after the first hour. Now, do 10 for long distance. I'd rather have the same suck for 4 hours instead of 10.

Plus, trains especially don't really do straight shots for long distance. Lot's of connecting trains. Just as bad as plane connections.

The only benefit is the food car. But it's just as expensive as a plane.

And no, the ticket is not cheaper. The big price difference, you don't save all that much between buying a ticket a month ahead of time and day of. The price is the price. Planes reward you for being able to plan ahead. Trains don't.

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#92

Post by craigzucchini »

anonacct37 wrote: post #78
craigzucchini wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have, have access to, are able, or want to drive a car, then at best it's reasonable option for places outside of denser areas, albeit far more expensive than the cost of gas. While cars are certainly good in some ways at getting people around to places that don't make sense to service with more significant options, they shouldn't be considered first when thinking about new development imo.

> at best it's reasonable option for places outside of denser areas AKA 99% of North America.

Places yes, not population though.

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#93

Post by NeedMoreTea »

kiran-rao wrote: post #32
_delirium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traffic congestion is a pretty big issue for intercity too in some regions. Dallas-Houston is a mere 240 miles but often takes 5 hours to drive. Even in "light" traffic, 4 or so is common. You can do a lot better than that with even decently upgraded "legacy" rail, never mind a Shinkansen/TGV type system. For example, London-Manchester is 210 miles, and trains take only 2 hours.

Is there a solution to the last mile problem? It's every difficult to get to the final destination in sprawled suburban cities even if there's a direct center-center high speed rail line.

Manchester has a great central tram network. London has the underground.

Driving in London is mainly an exercise in stress and pointlessness.

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#94

Post by toufiqbarhamov »

soheil wrote: post #76
toufiqbarhamov wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Security lines are shorter because you can’t fly a train full of jet fuel into a pair of skyscrapers.

Sure you can't do that exact thing but who would have thought of flying planes into skyscrapers before 9/11 except a few crazies anyway? We didn't exactly have a pandemic of people flying planes into skyscrapers for decades prior.

Sure you can't do that exact thing but who would have thought of flying planes into skyscrapers before 9/11 except a few crazies anyway?

Tom Clancy? In ‘Debt of Honor’ it’s a major plot-point after all. The issue here is not that making a train into a cruise missile is hard to imagine, it’s actually impossible. You can attack the train, or use the train to attack a station or something close to the tracks, and that’s it. It’s also a purely kinetic event, rather than adding the complexity of so much fuel.

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#95

Post by reindeerer »

soheil wrote: post #73
skywhopper wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is suggesting building high speed rail from Chicago to LA? Why would you pick that particular example? It takes even longer to drive, and yet we have built multiple highway routes that connect LA and Chicago. Instead of picking dumb examples to discredit the idea, how about looking at obviously good places: The entire East coast from Boston to Miami would be a good corridor to build in. Or start in Chicago, Dalla…

It's actually a helpful example to support the conclusion. Why would the author provide a "better" example that supports his/her idea less? LA to Chicago may not be a commonly travelled route nor one that would lend itself to train travel best, but the author's point still stands, which is in the US on average distances between major cities are much longer than any individual country in Europe, hence the immense cost…

> in the US on average distances between major cities are much longer than any individual country in Europe

Have you done the math ? Split US into west coast and east coast populuous regions, and nope, not the case.

Also, don't let yourself be fooled by the Mercator projection:

https://thetruesize.com

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#96

Post by avn2109 »

kiran-rao wrote: post #32
_delirium wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traffic congestion is a pretty big issue for intercity too in some regions. Dallas-Houston is a mere 240 miles but often takes 5 hours to drive. Even in "light" traffic, 4 or so is common. You can do a lot better than that with even decently upgraded "legacy" rail, never mind a Shinkansen/TGV type system. For example, London-Manchester is 210 miles, and trains take only 2 hours.

Is there a solution to the last mile problem? It's every difficult to get to the final destination in sprawled suburban cities even if there's a direct center-center high speed rail line.

You hop in an Uber.

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#97

Post by yason »

One thing high speed rail, or any rail for that matter, requires is dense walkable cities.

If the rail link requires driving to the station and renting a car at the destination it's not going to be comparable with one where you can walk or take the tram/subway to move within the endpoints, and there it loses the appeal of convenience.

The best thing that trains offer is direct connection from one city centre to another city centre. These centres need to be such that they have places to go to, reachable by at most public transit and a bit of walking. If they aren't then your single train trip effectively becomes three separate trips.

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#98

Post by kingosticks »

shdh wrote: post #64
quickthrower2 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article talks about a train that can go 200mph. That makes having people drive between cities seem a rather slow option. Plus you can get work done on a train. On a car it is not possible as a driver (other than phone calls) and pretty hard as a passenger. I take your point about planes, but it's good to have more than one option and trains are good for middling distances, as there isn't all the need to check in,…

Why just 200mph

Because it's here today. It's easy with simple investment, it's got huge benefits over the joke that is the current U.S train service.

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#99

Post by WalterBright »

rdl wrote: post #36
randomsearch wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about climate change?

Since cars have a 10-20 year lifespan, and electric is becoming superior, that will probably solve itself over the next 10-20 years (maybe they'll be EV powered by natural gas for a while, but that's still a win, and then the grid might get greener.) Aviation fuel is the highest and best use of hydrocarbons (along with some chemical production), so we can deal with that last, after lots of power generation, demand re…

Airliners have gotten far more efficient over the last 40 years, starting with the 757/767. (The 757 design got its start from more efficient engines and a new wing shape.) In fact, efficiency improvements are the primary factor driving new airliner models and sales. At the time of the 757 launch, fuel was 40% of the operating cost of air travel.

Re: As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)

#100

Post by melling »

soheil wrote: post #73
skywhopper wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is suggesting building high speed rail from Chicago to LA? Why would you pick that particular example? It takes even longer to drive, and yet we have built multiple highway routes that connect LA and Chicago. Instead of picking dumb examples to discredit the idea, how about looking at obviously good places: The entire East coast from Boston to Miami would be a good corridor to build in. Or start in Chicago, Dalla…

It's actually a helpful example to support the conclusion. Why would the author provide a "better" example that supports his/her idea less? LA to Chicago may not be a commonly travelled route nor one that would lend itself to train travel best, but the author's point still stands, which is in the US on average distances between major cities are much longer than any individual country in Europe, hence the immense cost…

The author’s point does not stand.

No one is saying build high-speed rail between cities that are extremely far apart.

Find the handful of places where it does make sense then build there. If it only makes sense in 4 locations then build there. You can safely ignore the other 20 locations.

Post reply on HN