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

Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 75 posts

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#11

Post by betterunix »

kylemhill wrote: post #5
david_shaw wrote: post #2

I think that now, perhaps more than ever, America and Americans would benefit from domestic high-speed rail. As someone who travels occasionally--albeit somewhat infrequently--for both business and pleasure, I share the opinion that flying is not altogether pleasant. From arriving at the airport several hours early, to dealing with TSA, to sitting in the cramped aircraft seating, it's not a stretch to say that it's a…

Do you not think that a major government initiative in HSR (which it would require, tax dollars or not) wouldn't come with the standard TSA security theater in tow?

Probably not -- they know full well that people take trains to avoid the TSA and that they would have substantially reduced ticket revenue if they put people through that nonsense.

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#13

Post by rayiner »

tunesmith wrote: post #6

So there's this puzzle that people enjoy thinking about regarding space travel. Say that it finally becomes possible to reach a planet of a nearby star. It's a new technology that enables it, and we can build a spaceship that will support several generations of people during the trip. Maybe it takes 500 years to get there. Well, 500 years is a long time. It's not as if our technological development will stop in the m…

Infrastructure technology progresses extremely slowly, in a way I think is hard for people used to the progress in computer technology to understand. Most electricity in the U.S. is still produced by coal power, in plants that usually aren't dramatically more efficient than they were a century ago. 2050 is 37 years from now. 37 years ago was 1976. Most of the transit infrastructure we use today was already built by 1976, down to the physical rail cars used on Amtrak today. On the train line I take to work every morning, they're just now replacing 1970's train cars with ones built in the 2000's.

Holding infrastructure development hostage to starry-eyed visions of what we might have in the future is just foolish. The fundamental building blocks of society--power, water, transit, etc, have been pretty much unchanged since the 1960's. It's unlikely that they will do so in a dramatic way by the time HSR gets built.

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#14

Post by pm90 »

tunesmith wrote: post #6

So there's this puzzle that people enjoy thinking about regarding space travel. Say that it finally becomes possible to reach a planet of a nearby star. It's a new technology that enables it, and we can build a spaceship that will support several generations of people during the trip. Maybe it takes 500 years to get there. Well, 500 years is a long time. It's not as if our technological development will stop in the m…

There is always some amount of risk that a new technology will make all your investment worthless. The most extant example of this is the US telephone system: billions invested to have a copper wire in every home which is pretty much useless now (and appears to be a reason why US operators charge such high rates). Countries like India and many African states are bypassing this investment in infrastructure by going directly with mobile phones. Does that mean that the US should not have invested all that money? No! The system was very useful while it lasted; there was a demand which it satisfied. It made its owner ATT immensely profitable, and gave it enough legroom to start a research lab where eccentric geniuses could hack away on projects that would be so much more useful than what anyone could have ever imagined

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#15

Post by natermer »

tunesmith wrote: post #6

So there's this puzzle that people enjoy thinking about regarding space travel. Say that it finally becomes possible to reach a planet of a nearby star. It's a new technology that enables it, and we can build a spaceship that will support several generations of people during the trip. Maybe it takes 500 years to get there. Well, 500 years is a long time. It's not as if our technological development will stop in the m…

High speed rail:

It's like combining a buss and a plane. Except that it's going to be either slower (then a plane), more expensive (then a bus), and doesn't actually want to go were you want to go (compared to either).

It's a huge step backwards. There is a reason why people stopped traveling by rail in the USA years ago. And (hint) it wasn't because of lack of government subsidies.

Automobiles and busses get you were you actually want to go, were as with rail, more then likely, you have to travel a few hours to get on the train and then you have then travel a few more hours to get were you want to actually go. And beyond intermediate distances a plane is just obviously faster then either.

So that leaves passenger trains purely as a nitch product. They have to fill the gap between "farther then I'd like to drive or ride a bus" and "closer then flying makes economic sense" and it still needs to be combined with: "enough people want to do this very specific route every day to fill the trains". There are only very few areas of the country were that makes sense and they are already serviced by trains perfectly fine.

High speed rail is a boondoggle. It's a waste of money and resources that is much better spent on something that people actually will use. The only way high speed rail will be a success is if the Federal government managed to make travelling by plane so unpleasant that people will be willing to take sleeper cars across the country. This is extremely unlikely because the Feds are going to make train travel as unpleasant and stressful as they made the airliners.

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#16

Post by oijaf888 »

rayiner wrote: post #13
tunesmith wrote: post #6

So there's this puzzle that people enjoy thinking about regarding space travel. Say that it finally becomes possible to reach a planet of a nearby star. It's a new technology that enables it, and we can build a spaceship that will support several generations of people during the trip. Maybe it takes 500 years to get there. Well, 500 years is a long time. It's not as if our technological development will stop in the m…

Infrastructure technology progresses extremely slowly, in a way I think is hard for people used to the progress in computer technology to understand. Most electricity in the U.S. is still produced by coal power, in plants that usually aren't dramatically more efficient than they were a century ago. 2050 is 37 years from now. 37 years ago was 1976. Most of the transit infrastructure we use today was already built by 1…

I think coal plants are vastly more efficient than they were in 1913 from improvements in materials technology, higher pressures and more efficient combustion.

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#17

Post by jacquesm »

oijaf888 wrote: post #16
rayiner wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infrastructure technology progresses extremely slowly, in a way I think is hard for people used to the progress in computer technology to understand. Most electricity in the U.S. is still produced by coal power, in plants that usually aren't dramatically more efficient than they were a century ago. 2050 is 37 years from now. 37 years ago was 1976. Most of the transit infrastructure we use today was already built by 1…

I think coal plants are vastly more efficient than they were in 1913 from improvements in materials technology, higher pressures and more efficient combustion.

What we can do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aved%C3%B8re_Power_Station) vs what we do most of the time are two different things.

Avedøre shows we can do 91% thermal and 49% electrical efficiency if we set our minds to it. But the fact is that most plants don't do better than 33% at both (because they're not that efficient and because they throw out all the heat).

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#18

Post by newbie12 »

First we need to fix regular passenger rail in this country. As long as interstate passenger rail is controlled by the Amtrak monopoly, and its attendant unions, rail travel in America will continue to fall behind the rest of the world. There's not even regular rail service between most major US cities 3-8 hours apart, even though tracks exist and demand would exist if trains ran as fast as driving.

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#19

Post by oijaf888 »

wtvanhest wrote: post #4

Historically I have been a big supporter of trains in the US. Recently, I have decided that the cost may not be worth the benefit if future technology is considered. The future is going to involve self driving busses, self driving cars, self driving trucks etc. The primary thing I enjoy about the train is the additional space. Fundmantally, that is the problem with trains too. If they jammed people on a train the way…

Trains are substantially more efficient to move freight. I don't think that self driving trucks will be able to compete insofar as bulk movement of freight goes.

Re: Map Shows Where 220mph Trains Would Go in the U.S.

#20

Post by uvdiv »

jarcoal wrote: post #10
rayiner wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that in 20 years we'll have self-driving cars on any substantial scale is totally ridiculous. If I had to bet money, we won't even have a substantial electric car deployment by then, much less self-driving cars. Also: the physics of high-speed cars makes the concept of cars traveling as fast as bullet trains totally ridiculous. The fact that a car is self-driving doesn't change the physics of tire/road frict…

I won't argue that 2030 will be the magic year, but self-driving is a far greater incentive for most people than being electric powered.

You'll get both, because they're complementary. Self-driving cars will cut the economic cost of electric vehicles: autotaxis will replace private ownership, and their high upfront costs will be split between many users [1]. Conversely, self-driving cars will push performance envelopes, so the EV's enormous efficiency advantage will be desirable.

[1] The economics DO NOT work this way yet, because batteries degrade too quickly (Tesla is what, 500 charge-discharge cycles?). Heavier use means proportionally shorter life; no advantage. Solve battery life, and you've solved economics.

Post reply on HN