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

141–150 of 171 posts

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

#141

Post by brudgers »

_delirium wrote: post #23
rdl wrote: post #4

We have $2/gallon gas, from massive domestic production (and similar or lower prices for Jet-A). There are traffic congestion reasons for mass transit in cities, but we're pretty sorted for inter-city.

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.

The danger when drawing comparisons between England and the US is scale. England is slightly smaller than Alabama.

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

#143

Post by grecy »

bobthepanda wrote: post #127
grecy wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of passenger trains in service around the world that go faster than 200mp/h, today.

Those are all in China. Wikipedia tells me that max achievable speed in regular service in every country except China is 320km/h. China does 350km/h, but you need to be traveling at quite a long distance for a measly 30km/h increase in speed to be worth it, and China runs much longer high speed rail services than other countries (Beijing to Hong Kong is 9 hours). Besides, the more important thing is average speed. Ac…

> Those are all in China

You're probably right. America shouldn't aim to achieve speeds of high speed rail in ~2025 that China achieved in ~2015. That's aiming too high.

Best to aim lower so we don't disappoint anyone.

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

#144

Post by beerlord »

amaccuish wrote: post #118
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?

The US has optimised its rail network for freight.

By modal share, the US ships 44% of its freight by rail.

France, the subject of this article, ships only 15%

I would argue that rail is better optimised for freight than passengers. Building rail to send huge amounts of heavy freight at relatively slow speeds is very cheap, and removes a lot of trucks. Building HSR is very expensive, and the network would need to be duplicated since none of the existing tracks could be used.

People who comment on these articles base their opinion on ideals, rather than facts. I'd suggest that few people have even travelled in Europe by rail, where actually most passengers will go on slower trains which are less expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...

Hub-to-hub transport is dying out. Airlines have recognised this, Uber has recognised this, Escooters have recognised this. Spending billions on HSR is a waste of money. Better to invest in autonomous busses and cars, so that for the same number of vehicles on our roads, we can carry 2x the number of passengers, immediately solving congestion with minimal additional infrastructure spend.

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

#145

Post by the8472 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #112
shdh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 brid…

> and the curve radius increases exponentially vs speed.

It's merely quadratic if I recall correctly

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

#146

Post by melling »

soheil wrote: post #136
melling wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Who said they would? 2. Also, it appears that many states already get a lot more than they contribute. That subsidy probably isn’t going in the direction you think it is. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-s...

> 1. Who said they would? That's my question. > 2. Also, it appears that many states already get a lot more than they contribute. That subsidy probably isn’t going in the direction you think it is. Sure, I'm not arguing that the distribution of federal money is 100% fair.

“Then there is the argument why should the rest of the country pay for something that will only be used in the coasts or densely populated areas?”

This isn’t a real question. You’re making up a reason that you haven’t proven exists.

There is no funded HSR outside of California.

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

#147

Post by _delirium »

brudgers wrote: post #141
_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.

The danger when drawing comparisons between England and the US is scale. England is slightly smaller than Alabama.

Overall yeah, but that's why I focused on similar-scale regions. For long distances, like SF-NYC, I think the current US solution of planes is basically the practical one and am not expecting a coast-to-coast bullet train. What's slow and could be improved in the US is regional-scale travel, the 150-400 mile range. I was disagreeing with the person who started this thread who argued that that kind of intercity travel in the US is already solved by autos. It is sort of, but only if you don't mind slow and tedious travel...

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

#148

Post by innocenat »

grecy wrote: post #143
bobthepanda wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are all in China. Wikipedia tells me that max achievable speed in regular service in every country except China is 320km/h. China does 350km/h, but you need to be traveling at quite a long distance for a measly 30km/h increase in speed to be worth it, and China runs much longer high speed rail services than other countries (Beijing to Hong Kong is 9 hours). Besides, the more important thing is average speed. Ac…

> Those are all in China You're probably right. America shouldn't aim to achieve speeds of high speed rail in ~2025 that China achieved in ~2015. That's aiming too high. Best to aim lower so we don't disappoint anyone.

And China pretty much stopped running train at 350km/h.

Steel-on-steel rail is realistically limited to top service speed of 320km/h, maybe 360 at most. The maintenance is just too high when you increase speed beyond that. Newer Japanese Shinkansen line only operate at 260km/h, for example.

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

#149

Post by soheil »

melling wrote: post #146
soheil wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Who said they would? That's my question. > 2. Also, it appears that many states already get a lot more than they contribute. That subsidy probably isn’t going in the direction you think it is. Sure, I'm not arguing that the distribution of federal money is 100% fair.

“Then there is the argument why should the rest of the country pay for something that will only be used in the coasts or densely populated areas?” This isn’t a real question. You’re making up a reason that you haven’t proven exists. There is no funded HSR outside of California.

What part of it is not a "real" question? Are you saying there are assumptions in the question? Of course, the entire argument is hypothetical since currently there isn't a train system as described above in the US. The point of the comment was to seek predictive reasons in favor and against a hypothetical scenario. This has nothing to do with existing funding inside or outside CA. You seem confused.

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

#150

Post by corodra »

jeffbax wrote: post #137
Theodores wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is a pretty big place too, they didn't just give up. I have been on a fair bit of the train from Chicago out to LA, the flat bit through cornfields where you go to sleep and wake up a few hours later to the same view. On that train I was shocked that it was six hours late. It got even later so I didn't get to see anything of Chicago, my day seeing the sights was not going to happen, the next train I was to catc…

Sorry, but an "Authoritarian Government" absolutely makes it FAR easier because it can chase any kind of developmental boondoggles it wants to. See China's ghost cities. It has stupid cheap labor supply and can relocate hundreds of thousands of people in the snap of a bureaucrat's finger because they have no rights to fight the state. They also have cities with 30 million people in them, and dominate the cities with…

You’re right, it is a political hammer. The thing is, it never survives feasibility studies. The Tampa Orlando hsr has been a talking point for at least 20 years that I know of. There just isn’t enough people who even say that they MIGHT use it. But politicians love promising it and fancy 3D renders. Hsr in the states is exactly like that bridge to nowhere in Alaska everyone got on Palin back during Mcain v Obama. If they applied the exact same logic, not enough people will be using it to justify cost, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

I just don’t see the appeal. First off, I’ve done long distance trains. They suck just as much as planes and they’re slower. The tickets won’t be that much cheaper than puddle jump flights. And since it’s a longer trip, a negative, it has to be cheaper than plane. There are still checked bags on a train. Still a 20 min on boarding process from entering station to train. That’ll get worse as more people use it.

I just mostly want to understand how trains are an indicator of a country’s tech prowess now. Or whatever fantasy they think comes with them. Trains are literally the symbol of old school social elite and unbridled capitalism and social control. God damn Vanderbilt? The car was the turning point of democratic maneuverability. People could go where ever they wanted and when. Well, that’s mostly true for Jeep owners at least. The hell happened?

Post reply on HN