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

Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

desertsun.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#61

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

mch82 wrote: post #54

High speed rail is a bad investment. Rail systematizes discrimination, typically loses money, and struggles to provide a last mile solution. $60B can buy at least 600,000 electric vehicles with 3 million seats. Semi-autonomous vehicles are already capable of operating as a “train” in a dedicated freeway lane and autonomous operation is likely by 2033 (when California’s HSR would begin operation). This solution could…

> autonomous electric vehicles

Not to argue, but this doesn’t exist. Not really. Not on the market. Rail, however does exist. Further, what is the mileage equivalent of cars vs rail? I don’t know, but I think it would favor mass transit rail.

You also compared electric cars to taxi drivers - that’s odd.

> Rail systematizes discrimination

Can you expand further on this?

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#62

Post by rb808 »

yongjik wrote: post #42

I think any talk about HSRs in the US should be able to explain US highways. American highway system is arguably one of the best in the world - it's also a gigantic government project, and it's constantly being extended. So how come America, with its proven track record of great highways, is totally impotent with high speed rails? The answer can't be just "American government doesn't work" or "the country is too big.…

> American highway system is arguably one of the best in the world

No, I'd say the German Autobahn system is the best in the world, followed by France (expensive) then UK, before USA.

USA is good because they tend to go to central cities, where European motorways deliver to a ring road. You can commute to work on a US motorway, but between cities they aren't special.

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#63

Post by ralphie02 »

almost_usual wrote: post #44
yongjik wrote: post #42

I think any talk about HSRs in the US should be able to explain US highways. American highway system is arguably one of the best in the world - it's also a gigantic government project, and it's constantly being extended. So how come America, with its proven track record of great highways, is totally impotent with high speed rails? The answer can't be just "American government doesn't work" or "the country is too big.…

It’s because we already have highways and our car culture is hard to change. Highways were also originally built for national defense with the economic benefits as a secondary force. Defense projects traditionally get tons of funding in the US. Convincing a generation that witnessed two world wars to back a massive defense project wasn’t difficult.

Can you elaborate on the national defense? How is the highway useful with defending the country? Defending from who?

I can only think of highways as secondary runways for planes but I'm unsure as to how much that helps your case.

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#64

Post by hollerith »

ralphie02 wrote: post #63
almost_usual wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because we already have highways and our car culture is hard to change. Highways were also originally built for national defense with the economic benefits as a secondary force. Defense projects traditionally get tons of funding in the US. Convincing a generation that witnessed two world wars to back a massive defense project wasn’t difficult.

Can you elaborate on the national defense? How is the highway useful with defending the country? Defending from who? I can only think of highways as secondary runways for planes but I'm unsure as to how much that helps your case.

War puts enormous strain on a country's ability to move things around the country.

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#65

Post by Gibbon1 »

CalChris wrote: post #33

The route chosen for CA high speed rail guaranteed failure. SF out to the Central Valley and then in to LA meant a really expensive project which would result in a slow train. This single route through everywhere was necessary for political, particularly Congressional, backing. I'm glad Gavin Newsom cancelled it and I still want HSR. They should start with SLO to San Diego and then a Central Valley line. Finally, con…

Have you read any of the official product planning documents?

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#66

Post by ghaff »

almost_usual wrote: post #44
yongjik wrote: post #42

I think any talk about HSRs in the US should be able to explain US highways. American highway system is arguably one of the best in the world - it's also a gigantic government project, and it's constantly being extended. So how come America, with its proven track record of great highways, is totally impotent with high speed rails? The answer can't be just "American government doesn't work" or "the country is too big.…

It’s because we already have highways and our car culture is hard to change. Highways were also originally built for national defense with the economic benefits as a secondary force. Defense projects traditionally get tons of funding in the US. Convincing a generation that witnessed two world wars to back a massive defense project wasn’t difficult.

>Highways were also originally built for national defense with the economic benefits as a secondary force.

That's the standard story. From what I've read though, Eisenhower wanted to build the Interstate Highway System for a number of reasons of which defense was only one--and possibly a fairly minor one. But he knew that playing up the defense angle was a good strategy to get the plan passed.

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#67

Post by vinay427 »

toastal wrote: post #49
jedberg wrote: post #39

The California HSR has a lot of problems not matched in Taiwan. Firstly, once you get from San Jose to Bakersfield, then what? We don't have good public transit in LA, much less to Bakersfield. But even if the train went all the way to Union Station in Los Angeles, you'd still need to rent a car to get anywhere useful, or take Uber/Lyft. And same thing on the other end. What happens when you get to San Jose? You stil…

Could that not be a chicken and egg issue? There's no reason to build bus lines to a nonexistent train station. And without the attractive high-speed train option, who's going to take these buses in meantime? Sounds like the train could be a catalyst.

I think it is, but unfortunately this still holds the train back compared to in a place like Taiwan.

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#68

Post by mch82 »

_delirium wrote: post #60
mch82 wrote: post #54

High speed rail is a bad investment. Rail systematizes discrimination, typically loses money, and struggles to provide a last mile solution. $60B can buy at least 600,000 electric vehicles with 3 million seats. Semi-autonomous vehicles are already capable of operating as a “train” in a dedicated freeway lane and autonomous operation is likely by 2033 (when California’s HSR would begin operation). This solution could…

$60B can buy zero autonomous vehicles, because there aren't any working ones! And won't be for years, regardless of the wrong predictions [1] Elon Musk keeps making. [1] He promised in 2016 that Tesla vehicles would have level-5 autonomy by 2017: https://futurism.com/elon-musk-every-tesla-car-will-be-fully...

We have the technology today to operate a “train” of self-driving vehicles in a dedicated self-driving freeway lane.

California high speed rail isn’t scheduled to open until 2033.

By 2033 I bet we’ll have self-driving vehicles capable of last mile transportation, at least in dedicated lanes on the road.

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#69

Post by steve19 »

ralphie02 wrote: post #63
almost_usual wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because we already have highways and our car culture is hard to change. Highways were also originally built for national defense with the economic benefits as a secondary force. Defense projects traditionally get tons of funding in the US. Convincing a generation that witnessed two world wars to back a massive defense project wasn’t difficult.

Can you elaborate on the national defense? How is the highway useful with defending the country? Defending from who? I can only think of highways as secondary runways for planes but I'm unsure as to how much that helps your case.

Wars are won with logistics not guns. Getting troops and supplies across the country would be key to defending it from an invasion.

The interstate highway system was built in part for military purposes and partly designed by the Army:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

Re: Taiwan managed to build high-speed rail. Why can't California?

#70

Post by wwweston »

pxeboot wrote: post #13
pretendscholar wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is why? Why are some government entities better at managing large infrastructure projects than other?

The people managing these projects are often hired based on political connections, not expertise. And cost overruns usually lead to higher profits, so there is little incentive to keep costs down.

While I’m always a fan of remembering that incentives matter (and believe that some degree citizen attention is a price for a well-functioning government), I would think that a forum full of software engineers could think of other reasons projects go over budget than graft.
Post reply on HN