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

Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

asteriskmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 476 posts

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#101

Post by porphyra »

rsync wrote: post #13

One issue with "CA HSR" is that it isn't even "high speed". We may have happily referred to is as "high speed rail" 30 or 40 years ago but, given a possible completion date of 2035 (or whatever) the 2:40 travel time from SF LA is unimpressive ... and even that will not be achieved: "California legislative overseers do not expect the 2 hr 40 min target will be achieved."[1] The simple fact is that the I-5 corridor is…

The operating speed on the fast stretch is actually one of the fastest in the world at 350 km/h, it's just that it has to waste half an hour on the Caltrain tracks from San Francisco to Gilroy and from Burbank to Anaheim. It's kinda like how the TGV from Paris to Nice goes from Paris to Marseille super fast but then has to spend hours to go from Marseille to Nice even though the latter part is a small fraction of the distance.

And yes, I agree that this "blended" design that has a lengthy slow section is very lame and bad. If only Caltrain could be quad tracked elevated viaducts.

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#102

Post by potato3732842 »

GenerocUsername wrote: post #21

Even if it succeeds on its current trajectory, it will be studied for 100 years as a massive failure.

I doubt it. People were literally gaslighting people into thinking the Big Dig was a good deal for the money as the roof panels were falling on cars. This will be a "failure" for 20yr, tops.

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#103

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

andbberger wrote: post #83
DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The route through Fresno is only 50 km longer than the I-5 route. It's a difference of 7% in total length. Going through the two biggest cities in the Central Valley is worth a 7% increase in track length.

the opportunity cost isn't a 7% increase in length, it's the tens of billions in extra infrastructure to build 350km/h right of way straight through the middle of every town all the way down the central valley, and the massive hit to SF-LA run time that will come with that. beyond the stop penalty, HSR just doesn't run at full speed through city centers anywhere in the world. doesn't happen.

As I wrote elsewhere, the average speed of CA HSR (as planned) is 250 km/h, which is very competitive, internationally. It's about as fast as the fastest French TGV routes. It only really lags behind the fastest Chinese routes, which run at average speeds of about 290 km/h.

If CA HSR can go through the cities in the Central Valley and still achieve an average speed of 250 km/h, that's well worth it.

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#104

Post by TimTheTinker »

queenkjuul wrote: post #96
TimTheTinker wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Adams in particular was not a slave owner, and he called slavery an "evil of colossal magnitude." So he and those like him (and there were many) shouldn't be condemned in any sense along that line. I agree that slavery and ill treatment of Native Americans were egregious problems. But on both issues, there were prominent voices speaking out in favor of what was right, including among the founding fathers -- Ben…

It is hypocrisy to preach about freedom and the equality of man while also owning slaves and believing some men to be unequal. It's not that this was unknown at the time either. Abolitionism was not a new idea in 1798.

edited my comment already before I saw your response. Yes, I agree.

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#105

Post by rayiner »

andbberger wrote: post #84
legitster wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately there simply isn't enough demand between SF and LA alone to justify the insanely long stretches of a direct rail project. A better way would have been to build it out from the city into the suburbs first as a commuter rail project. There isn't a ton of intercity demand for this rail, but there is tons of traffic in and out of each singular city to justify even medium speed rail.

there absolutely is, SF-LA is an ideal city pair

Do people actually travel between SF and LA?

It makes sense in the east coast: traveling from the seat of government in DC to the seat of finance in NYC. But does california have that dynamic?

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#106

Post by iknowstuff »

legitster wrote: post #58

The reality is for every government constraint, there are even more difficult economic constraints that it has to work against. A 90-minute flight between these SF and LA can be had for ~$80 or less. A 7-hour bus ticket between these two cities is ~$50. To put it another way, the train would have to be only half-again more expensive per passenger to operate than a bus to beat a flight on price. I get it that there ar…

Trains are routinely competitive with flights on corridors like this. Thats why its being built in this stretch

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#107

Post by GeekyBear »

gruez wrote: post #69
GeekyBear wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thunk it boils down to the fact that acquiring land near San Francisco or LA through imminent domain would be both hideously expensive and extremely unpopular. Building "High Speed Rail to nowhere" in the Central Valley allowed them kick that can of political infighting down the road.

>and extremely unpopular Who's shedding a tear for some farmer getting paid above market rates (presumably) for their land? California is probably the last place I'd expect people to think using eminent domain in this case is a slipper slope to communism or whatever.

Eventually you will have to build out the rail line in densely populated areas (especially near San Francisco and LA). High speed rail requires that you to avoid unnecessary curves.

At that point, you're going to have to start using imminent domain.

Putting it off until after you have billions of dollars in sunk costs in the Central Valley doesn't change that.

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#108

Post by iknowstuff »

xnx wrote: post #56

California "high-speed" rail is failing because it doesn't make sense. For all the billions already spent and planning to be spent, the delivered product is severely underwhelming. Trains go few of the places people want to go on the schedule they want to go. Planes, by comparison, are an absolute bargain. Travel between almost any two cities quickly and affordably. By most calculations, planes also have less environ…

Travel more buddy because holy shit.

Also, stop spewing unresearched garbage about emissions. Its not 1990.

https://chatgpt.com/share/680fe50f-3cec-8009-bd5e-609bb1e485...

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#109

Post by rayiner »

cuuupid wrote: post #7

The problem with local infrastructure projects is their responsibility and execution fall to local community leaders (in this case local = state of California). These leaders are far less efficient and impactful than the federal government, a bar which is already way too low. Nearly every city in the US has had recent collisions with corruption, blatant mismanagement, ideological forces co-opting process, etc. and so…

That doesn’t make sense. California is bigger and richer than all but the largest European countries. It has some of the top universities in the world. Why shouldn’t it have a higher caliber of public official than say Denmark?

Re: Reports of the death of California High-Speed Rail have been greatly exaggerated

#110

Post by queenkjuul »

TimTheTinker wrote: post #104
queenkjuul wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hypocrisy to preach about freedom and the equality of man while also owning slaves and believing some men to be unequal. It's not that this was unknown at the time either. Abolitionism was not a new idea in 1798.

edited my comment already before I saw your response. Yes, I agree.

Well sure, Adams in particular maybe not, but for him to warn about this hypothetical scenario while it was ostensibly unfolding in front of his eyes is still something i can find a bit ridiculous.
Post reply on HN