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

341–350 of 476 posts

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

#341

Post by deadfoxygrandpa »

nostrademons wrote: post #143
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.

It’s also less than that in travel time, since CAHSR goes at its full 350 km/h on the Central Valley vs just 130 km/h on the Caltrain corridor from SF to Gilroy. It adds about 10 minutes to non-stop travel time. The real benefit is opening the Central Valley to commuter development. San Jose to Madeira on CAHSR is around 45 minutes, not much more than commuting from Palo Alto with current traffic on 101, and so it’d…

cashr doesnt go anywhere at any speed

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

#342

Post by pests »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #331
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW at least the LAX Automated People Mover will be opening up next year and you can avoid the hell on Earth that is driving in/out of LAX.

That will be a relief. Though if I may rant a bit to a bikeshed: I really hate that thr naming scheme of "people mover" was probably part of the reason this project is coming next year and not 2035. The phrase itself just oozes this sentiment that no one politically involved was allowed to say "train" or "rail" so it doesn't scare off investors.

Doesn’t help the Detroit People Mover much sadly. It’s also a train.

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

#343

Post by deadfoxygrandpa »

vondur wrote: post #180
1970-01-01 wrote: post #174

In the exact same amount of time, China has gone from 0 to 25,000 miles in high speed rail. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lin...

It probably helps when you can simply take the land you need. One major issue with the California project has been the difficulty in securing land rights. Additionally, California’s strict environmental laws have made construction even more challenging. In contrast, China can largely ignore these obstacles.

do you have any data to back any of this up?

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

#344

Post by corranh »

WalterBright wrote: post #261
upelephants wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only light rail operating in Washington State is LINK Light Rail, which Sound Transit operates using Siemens Mobility’s S700 model (although some older train sets are still used on the same tracks). Looking at the Wikipedia page for the S700, you can find these trains all over the US, including California, Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina, Minnesota, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia. They seem to be popular in Europe,…

No, I am thinking the Sound Transit light rail. I wouldn't be surprised if they canceled the "design for the PNW" cars and bought off the shelf ones. Before it was built is when they said they would be custom cars.

All light rail cars are custom in the same way that every airplane is custom but we wouldn’t say that a 737 is expensive because of the seat and entertainment choices.

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

#345

Post by johnnyanmac »

cheinic40081 wrote: post #338
johnnyanmac wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> LAX -> SFO is 1.25 hours. After a potential 30 minute commute (even if you live downtown already) and some 2 hours of checking, yes. Only 1.25 hours. >there's going to be similar issues at the train station I suppose it will vary on popularity, but train parking lots tend to be relatively empty compared to navigating LAX and the lag time of the worst case scenario of "buying a new train pass" was 10 minutes, after…

> After a potential 30 minute commute (even if you live downtown already) and some 2 hours of checking, yes. Only 1.25 hours. HSR stations are no different. 45-60 minute uber from Berkeley or Cupertino to the SF HSR station? Then another 45-90 minutes on the LA end? You’d rather just fly SFO (or SJC, OAK) nonstop to Orange County or Ontario or Burbank or Palm Springs or Long Beach or … Not to mention if you are an ex…

I've been on multiple other kinds of subways and trains across the state, and I can't say there's ever been more than the 10 minute lag needed to purchase a tram pass (a one time act). I don't know how even the strictest HSR would compare to the TSA process and the sluggish seating process of a plane.

The commute may not be different in the long term, but as of now LAX's traffic is legendarily bad, even by LA traffic standards.

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

#346

Post by blackqueeriroh »

porphyra wrote: post #94
femiagbabiaka wrote: post #17

It's absolutely critical that a country with California's GDP learns how to rearchitect itself to build again -- literally critical for America's progression. Nothing in this article makes me feel any better about the prospects of that happening.

Other countries can build entire rail lines entirely on viaducts for the same cost as it takes to grade separate a single Caltrain station. For example it was recently estimated that grade separating Broadway Station with a center platform would take $889 million and 5-5.5 years [1]. This is mind boggling. [1] https://burlingameca.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=bu...

The author covers this. Other countries build far more rail lines.

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

#347

Post by SllX »

pests wrote: post #337
SllX wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax increases and bond measures have to go through the voters. The alternative is to get enough of the legislature, including probably some in Central Valley, to agree to cut a bunch of other more popular programs in order to fund it out of the general fund.

What does California do with all its income?

Same shit. Different State. Maybe a little extra compared to a Red State or a smaller State, and on a larger scale. You can dig into it here: https://ebudget.ca.gov/

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

#348

Post by golemiprague »

blackguardx wrote: post #258
trollbridge wrote: post #237

This was both a very good read and thoroughly depressing. It makes a lot of sense to connect San Diego/LA/Sacramento/San Francisco. It makes a lot less sense to try to connect Merced, Bakersfield, Fresno, et al. People there like to have cars, like to drive, there isn't a lot of traffic. Once you arrive in those places, there is very little transit infrastructure. You basically need a car. And they're far more centre…

I agree with you, but infrastructure is often built to expand future regions. Before the Golden Gate and Bay Bridges, there was a lot less commuting to SF. They only had ferries. Building the bridges allowed the broader region to expand and prosper.

[dead]

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

#349

Post by Karrot_Kream »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #331
Karrot_Kream wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW at least the LAX Automated People Mover will be opening up next year and you can avoid the hell on Earth that is driving in/out of LAX.

That will be a relief. Though if I may rant a bit to a bikeshed: I really hate that thr naming scheme of "people mover" was probably part of the reason this project is coming next year and not 2035. The phrase itself just oozes this sentiment that no one politically involved was allowed to say "train" or "rail" so it doesn't scare off investors.

Actually a "people mover" is a term of art [1]. I had the same reaction when I heard the term (or thought it was some other political gloss to get the thing approved faster), but it's actually a somewhat well-defined term.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_mover

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

#350

Post by steveBK123 »

slt2021 wrote: post #244
andbberger wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

people who need to get from SF to LA as soon as possible are already served by the airplanes. Your business class traveler from LA/orange county to SF bay is already well served by the many airports in both metro areas. the HSR is about connecting the rest of the state to economic opportunities in these large metro areas

SF-LA ~380mi is actually a real sweet spot for HSR. Flight time of 90 minutes but the hassle of getting out to airport, check-in, boarding.. and then the opposite on the other end makes your all-in travel time about 4~5 hours. With HSR you are generally going city center to city center, and 380mi is achievable in 2~2.5 hours all-in.

I took a 700mi HSR in Japan that was probably on the very far end of being competitive time wise with flying and was still great. 5hr train vs 2hr plane segment, but all-in door-to-door travel times were comparable (5h45m vs 5hr).

Train 5hr45m door to door with majority of time sat in a comfy quiet train with big comfy seats and high speed internet. A flight which is 5hr door to door is mostly a ton of hurry-up-and-wait with small blocks of 30-90min here or there you can read a book.

Post reply on HN