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

151–156 of 156 posts

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

#151

Post by _delirium »

mch82 wrote: post #68
_delirium wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$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.

If that actually works, I'm fine with it. I don't care that much about the tech... the Paris Metro uses rubber tires instead of steel rails, but it's functionally the same as any other metro system from a customer's perspective. If LA-SF comes up with a "high-speed rail" solution that runs on rubber wheels on asphalt, but has fast, frequent, and reliable schedules, then sure, sounds good to me! That's the key though... will I be able to buy these tickets the way I can buy TGV tickets in France?

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

#152

Post by my123 »

_delirium wrote: post #151
mch82 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If that actually works, I'm fine with it. I don't care that much about the tech... the Paris Metro uses rubber tires instead of steel rails, but it's functionally the same as any other metro system from a customer's perspective. If LA-SF comes up with a "high-speed rail" solution that runs on rubber wheels on asphalt, but has fast, frequent, and reliable schedules, then sure, sounds good to me! That's the key though.…

The Paris metro system actually has both rubber and rail lines. :-)

Autopilot got deployed since the 60s, and 100% driverless lines since the late 90s (currently line 1 and 14 are automatic, and line 4 is becoming automatic too)

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

#153

Post by qwhelan »

jedberg wrote: post #137
qwhelan wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The single LAX-SFO pair is about 10% of LAX's daily takeoffs, completely ignoring SJC and OAK. Throw in BUR and HSR effectively amounts to a significant capacity increase for non-short haul flights.

Except that the HSR wouldn't get close to LAX or SFO. It at best would replace SJC to BUR, and even then not really since it will only go to Bakersfield. So most of those flights would probably stay, because why take the HSR if you still have to drive an hour on each end?

Nope, the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. They'll be kept for expensive international connections, but the frequency will be dramatically cut.

Also, who cares about actually going to an airport? It's only a means to getting where you need to go, which is probably downtown SF or LA

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

#154

Post by jedberg »

qwhelan wrote: post #153
jedberg wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that the HSR wouldn't get close to LAX or SFO. It at best would replace SJC to BUR, and even then not really since it will only go to Bakersfield. So most of those flights would probably stay, because why take the HSR if you still have to drive an hour on each end?

Nope, the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. They'll be kept for expensive international connections, but the frequency will be dramatically cut. Also, who cares about actually going to an airport? It's only a means to getting where you need to go, which is probably downtown SF or LA

I was just using the airport as a proxy. But sure let's look at where people actually want to go. If you arrive in San Jose on HSR, and want to go to downtown, you still have to drive an hour or take a train for 90 minutes. And if you arrive in Bakersfield and want to go downtown, you're looking at two hours in the car or three on a bus.

> the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets.

So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars so they can remove those flights? Sounds like we already have a system that works and is subsidizing other flights as well.

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

#155

Post by shalmanese »

supernova87a wrote: post #86

Simply put, even if all the environmental / lobbying / no-car-at-the-destination issues were resolved, the distances of California (and population densities) would still make it economically challenging to have HSR a slam dunk compared to flying. HSR breaks even with flying at about _200-300 miles_ journey. That is, if the planned journey is within that range, for similar pricing, people will choose 50-50 rail over f…

The market share equation is based on time, not distance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Market_shares

Madrid - Barcelona is basically the same distance as SF - LA and used to be the busiest air route in the world and is now 63% rail since the 2.5 hr HSR got built. https://www.globalrailwayreview.com/news/66620/barcelona-mad...

While there are still flights from Tokyo to Osaka, it is now 85% rail market share. https://www.railway-technology.com/features/faster-flying-hi...

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

#156

Post by qwhelan »

jedberg wrote: post #154
qwhelan wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. They'll be kept for expensive international connections, but the frequency will be dramatically cut. Also, who cares about actually going to an airport? It's only a means to getting where you need to go, which is probably downtown SF or LA

I was just using the airport as a proxy. But sure let's look at where people actually want to go. If you arrive in San Jose on HSR, and want to go to downtown, you still have to drive an hour or take a train for 90 minutes. And if you arrive in Bakersfield and want to go downtown, you're looking at two hours in the car or three on a bus. > the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus te…

> So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars

Because adding comparable capacity to SFO and LAX would be $100B+

Post reply on HN