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

41–50 of 75 posts

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

#41

Post by dyno12345 »

ams6110 wrote: post #28
lutusp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the argument for high-speed rail isn't that it will serve as a stopgap measure until we have self-driving cars, it is that a railroad train is vastly more efficient than any imaginable car technology. Railroad trains are very energy-efficient, compared to cars driving along a road, or even trucks driving along a road. And if we suddenly had self-driving cars, packed close together and safer than the existing syst…

The reality is not quite that simple, you need to consider the energy required by and environmental impact of building out and maintaining a high speed rail infrastructure. Rail efficiency is also highly sensitive to occupancy, a train carrying a small number of passengers could well be less efficient than transporting that number of people by auto. And cars are getting more fuel efficient as well And if the governme…

All these criticisms seem to apply equally to roads and bridges

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

#42

Post by trevorstrohman »

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…

The new high speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles is projected to cost $68 billion. Atlanta built a new international airport terminal for $1.4 billion. I'd think at those prices we could fix the TSA delays between LAX and SFO for less money than building a high speed rail line to link them.

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

#43

Post by bjelkeman-again »

waterlesscloud wrote: post #25
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…

37 years prior to 1976 was 1939, when none of the interstate highway system was built. By 1976, it was largely in place as we know it today. Infrastructure does not always move slowly. When it's time, it actually moves quite quickly.

It seems we were relatively richer then though. The Stockholm subway and train infrastructure, with hundreds of stations, was built in this period with miles and miles of tunnels, and several dozen underground station. Today we have to go trough hell and high water for a two station tunnel extension. My dad worked a builder, rebuilding the core of the city centre those days. The bonus from 2-3 months work bought him a new car. Try that today. It seems two to three decades after the second world war for countres that wasn't devastated by the war was a really strong growth period.

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

#44

Post by nostrademons »

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…

That could be because the attention in the US has been focused on the computer and medical revolutions, not in heavy machinery and infrastructure. If you look at the US from 1946-1960, the whole face of society changed as the interstate highway system was built, car ownership extended to the masses, people moved out to the suburbs, tractor-trailers enabled nationwide networks of retail chains, and quick jet travel between cities became practical.

These things run in cycles. The fact that infrastructure hasn't changed much since 1970 doesn't mean that infrastructure takes forever to change, it means that attention has been elsewhere since then.

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

#45

Post by rayiner »

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.

"Vastly" is a relative term. See: http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/refshelf/role... page 10.

Focus on the chart showing tons of greenhouse gas emissions per megawatt-hour. 1913 was still in a period of rapid technological development, but the curve necks around 1930. From 1930 to 2000, GHG emissions per megawatt hour dropped from around 1.5 tons/MWh to 1.0 tons/MWh.

This is what technological progress looks like. You have periods of rapid improvement followed by a plateau with extremely gradual improvements.

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

#46

Post by krschultz »

newbie12 wrote: post #30
lutusp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the argument for high-speed rail isn't that it will serve as a stopgap measure until we have self-driving cars, it is that a railroad train is vastly more efficient than any imaginable car technology. Railroad trains are very energy-efficient, compared to cars driving along a road, or even trucks driving along a road. And if we suddenly had self-driving cars, packed close together and safer than the existing syst…

The table is missing railroad unions-- the anti-efficiency factor that's ruined American passenger rail.

Amtrak makes good money where there are customers, even with the same unions. It's almost 100% the fault of politicians that won't let Amtrak shut down low passenger volume lines. If we shut down the losers and actually invested the profits from the Northeast Corridor back into that line, you would see great growth.

You know, the way a company would do it.

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

#48

Post by uvdiv »

jellicle wrote: post #31
uvdiv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 friction. Friction losses aren't significant. These cars are limited by aerodynamic drag power -- this scales as speed^3, and dominates all other losses.

Friction losses aren't significant. These cars are limited by aerodynamic drag power -- this scales as speed^3, and dominates all other losses. No. "Of the energy output of fuel in a car engine, 33% is spent in exhaust, 29% in cooling and 38% in mechanical energy, of which friction losses account for 33% and air resistance for 5%. By comparison, an electric car has only half the friction loss of that of a car with a…

These cars are limited by aerodynamic drag power...

I mean future self-driving cars travelling at bullet-train speeds. For these, losses are dominated by drag.

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

#49

Post by guelo »

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…

Coincidentally, the modern conservative movement was born in the 60s with Goldwater and took hold in the 70s and 80s with Reagan.

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

#50

Post by jarcoal »

thrownaway2424 wrote: post #39

Hilarious comparison with the self-driving cars. The whole POINT of a train is you arrive in an actual PLACE. Not some god-forshaken dump surrounded by parking lots. In 2011 I was in Zurich during "street parade" which is one of those crazy european things where lots of people gather to dance to awful music. Anyway, the attendance was nearly a million. Substantially all of these million people arrived by train in the…

I don't know if the self-driving car would survive your "street parade", but at least they can drop you off and then leave the city to park somewhere else until you need them again.
Post reply on HN