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

111–120 of 171 posts

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

#111

Post by craigzucchini »

rdl wrote: post #88
craigzucchini wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, though I don't know where that number comes from. If it's purely gas mileage, then it doesn't account for cost of insurance, cost of the car, risk of an accident, cost of storing the car, cost of general maintenance, and, while sort of ancillary, cost the urban area if everyone relies on driving. If it's not pure gas mileage, I'd be curious how that formula works out, but there remain problems with that as a…

That's all-in cost, including depreciation and fuel and insurance and maintenance. This is why UberX sort of works for some drivers. The rate for a new car is much closer to the federal reimbursement rate ($0.545/mi), mostly depreciation. Obviously driving a new lambo at 100mph will be more like $4/mi.

I'm really not finding how this can work out to $0.15. Could you clarify about what the federal reimbursement rate is? Again, if that number were true—which it may be but so far it seems unlikely—the remaining issues are important. AAA, CAA, and other news sources, it takes a very generous amount of miles to get there.

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

#112

Post by bobthepanda »

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

As you increase speed, you need to take turns at larger and larger curves to reduce g-forces on passengers, and the curve radius increases exponentially vs speed. The bigger the curve, the more land you need to buy, and depending on which country you're in property rights extend above and below the land so the cost is unavoidable. (If you can avoid it by going underground or overground, the cost of tunneling and bridges is expensive.) It becomes increasingly costly to increase speed, and on top of that you get diminishing returns with travel time (speeding up from 80 to 120MPH is worth a lot more than going from 200MPH to 240MPH). And above a certain point you spend too much time accelerating and decelerating from top speed, and not enough time actually at the top speed to make it all worthwhile.

Regardless of motive technology, curve-radius will always be a relevant problem, because one of the major advantages of the train is that you can walk around and about. We could design trains with sharper corners and harder acceleration/deceleration, but no one wants to be strapped into a vomit comet for three hours.

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

#113

Post by corodra »

andys627 wrote: post #53

I would like to preemptively suggest that the author is focusing on dense areas of the country. He is suggesting high speed rail between Portland-Seattle, Dallas-Houston, NYC-DC, etc. Not Los Angeles-Chicago or DC-Seattle.

Portland-Seattle is already a terrible candidate. I use to travel between the two once a month for a year. The Amtrak was empty as hell. If Amtrak didn't get as much in subsidies as it did to keep that going, it would have shut that shit down long ago. I never road the ORCA for Seattle-Tacoma, but that station near the amtrak always looks pretty busy during commute times.

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

#114

Post by phlakaton »

Let me summarize the argumemts here for convenience:

- HSR is dumb because it's too expensive to build a HSR from coast to coast

- HSR is dumb because it's slower than flying

- HSR is dumb because self-driving cars do everything HSR does, but better

- HSR is dumb because electric scooters are much better for getting around town

I am wondering what this mythical HSR is, that electric scooters and coast-to-coast flights are somehow both the nails in its coffin. Straw men doesn't even begin to describe it!

HSR is of course complementary to all of the technologies above. Heaven forfend, though, that we pursue a future transit system in more than one mode at a time...

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

#115

Post by realityczeque »

rdl wrote: post #110
realityczeque wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure your math checks out. EVs are < 1% of fleet and < 2% of sales in the USA. As you say, cars last 10-20 years and this number is rapidly getting longer. Vehicles older than 16 years are the most-rapidly-growing segment of the US vehicle fleet. The average age of US light passenger vehicles hit 12 years in 2016. In 2020 there will still be 80 million cars on the road that were built 1995 or earlier, none of whi…

What matters is miles driven, not number of vehicles. For someone with a 1-2h each way commute (sigh), replacing a 2010 truck with a 5-year-old 2025 EV in 2030 will make sense on a 2 year cash return basis. For someone who drives 1-2k miles/year, it probably isn't worth upgrading.

Yeah but EVs make up a far smaller proportion of miles driven than they do the fleet by units. For obvious reasons: many EVs are short-range vehicles and the people who buy them are self-selecting as people who are both environmentally conscious and able to live with the range problems. People with long commutes who can't afford a Tesla are obligated to burn gas.

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

#116

Post by joshuaheard »

gniv wrote: post #107
joshuaheard wrote: post #102

As an American that live in France for several years, the high-speed trains were great for certain trips, but they wouldn't work in the U.S. because they are not as efficient. By efficiency I mean cost over time. For instance, to go from Paris to Bordeaux by car is about 8 hours, the price of gas is $5/gal and all the freeways are toll roads. Total trip would be about the same to fly. To Fly is about $500 for one-hou…

> The train is about 8 hours and $100. Small correction: It's 2 hours from Paris to Bordeaux.

That's true, I should have used Nice as my example.

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

#117

Post by jboles »

shdh wrote: post #62
andys627 wrote: post #53

I would like to preemptively suggest that the author is focusing on dense areas of the country. He is suggesting high speed rail between Portland-Seattle, Dallas-Houston, NYC-DC, etc. Not Los Angeles-Chicago or DC-Seattle.

Build small parts of the network first Larger portions later

Exactly, start with linking neighbor cities where the density supports it. Once the infrastructure and expertise is in place, then it starts to make sense to link the existing lines together into a bigger network.

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

#118

Post by amaccuish »

beerlord wrote: post #33

I would prefer to live in the US than any of these countries funding HSR. Electric cars and electric scooters are enough to get around the city and around the state, with flights for anything much longer than that. Autonomous vehicles available via subscription will make that even better.

Is there any reason why a country can't have both?

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

#119

Post by melling »

joshuaheard wrote: post #102

As an American that live in France for several years, the high-speed trains were great for certain trips, but they wouldn't work in the U.S. because they are not as efficient. By efficiency I mean cost over time. For instance, to go from Paris to Bordeaux by car is about 8 hours, the price of gas is $5/gal and all the freeways are toll roads. Total trip would be about the same to fly. To Fly is about $500 for one-hou…

Yes, i’ve been hearing it won’t work for about 40 years. You’re wrong, of course.

Unfortunately, now it’s incredibly expensive to build HSR.

China, the same size as the US, will have 25,000 miles of HSR within a few years.

Your calculus is wrong but let’s just check back in 2025. At some point, we’ll realize the advantage that all that HSR gives China.

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

#120

Post by eli_gottlieb »

joshuaheard wrote: post #116
gniv wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The train is about 8 hours and $100. Small correction: It's 2 hours from Paris to Bordeaux.

That's true, I should have used Nice as my example.

Nah, that's basically just a knock-down argument that high-speed rail really works: it takes one fourth of the time by train as it does by car, and is less expensive.
Post reply on HN