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

High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 297 posts

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#21

Post by niftich »

jjawssd wrote: post #11
jimrandomh wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are also much, much cheaper per mile. Something is wrong with construction in the US that makes rail lines dramatically more expensive here.

I'm interested in finding out more about this issue

Some write-ups and musings on this:

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-04-08/why-u-s-i...

[2] http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/06/how-much-bang-...

[3] https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/us-r...

[4] https://pedestrianobservations.wordpress.com/2013/06/03/comp...

[5] http://theweek.com/articles/449646/why-expensive-build-bridg...

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#22

Post by iso-8859-1 »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #19
magila wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

> Existing high speed rail lines rarely run at 200 MPH even momentarily Really? Zaragoza to Barcelona does 310kph and very smoothly too. Much more comfortable than flying: https://dilemma-x.net/2014/03/14/high-speed-rail-in-spain-is...

That's 193 miles per hour, doesn't refute what your parent said

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#23

Post by jimmybobbyjones »

magila wrote: post #8
niftich wrote: post #2

Not sure why they decided to build an elaborate viaduct [1] to allow for a high-speed curve radius in Southeast Fresno, if Fresno will be a likely stop anyway. Just make all trains stop in Fresno, a place conveniently midway between SF and LA and desperate for improved connections with California's more prosperous areas. After all, isn't the whole point of HSR to improve connectivity between more than just the two te…

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

> The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA,

I have no trouble imagining that the train can compete with flying between SF and LA. Even if the train has to stop in several backwater towns along the way.

The shuttle flights between SFO/SJC and LAX are completely unreliable. When I was doing the SF-LA haul regularly, I'd be delayed (delayed!) by 6+ hours at least once per month. That's longer than it takes to drive. Do you really think the high speed train will take that long to travel between LA and the Bay Area?

So what if the minimum time of the train is a little longer than a flight? The expected time enroute is still much less.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#24

Post by CalChris »

erentz wrote: post #6

Huge supporter of rail but sadly I believe there are a number of mistakes being made. This is a classic example of how projects like this in the US need to be monolithic, self contained, and gold plated to the hilt. The correct action would have been for CA to incrementally acquire and build railways along a number of corridors. Take the SF bay for example. There should be one agency running Caltrain, the Capitol Cor…

> a repeat of the BART mistake.

Probably a different mistake but BART uses 5'6" rail gauge. Standard US rail gauge is 4'8.5". This means that every railcar, every everything, has to be custom made with no economies of scale.

No one can remember why they did this.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#25

Post by Animats »

erentz wrote: post #6

Huge supporter of rail but sadly I believe there are a number of mistakes being made. This is a classic example of how projects like this in the US need to be monolithic, self contained, and gold plated to the hilt. The correct action would have been for CA to incrementally acquire and build railways along a number of corridors. Take the SF bay for example. There should be one agency running Caltrain, the Capitol Cor…

What's the incompatibility? It's 4' 8.5" standard gauge with 25KV AC catenary. (BART is 5' 6" with 1KV DC third rail, both of which are unique to BART.)

The construction process does seem to be insufficiently standardized. There's all that falsework and ground paving. Compare the way it's done in China, with standardized bridge sections placed on pylons by a very specialized machine.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbaD2-2Ktwc

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#26

Post by WildUtah »

0max wrote: post #20
WildUtah wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can get the trains to take you directly into the city center, it can often be a better option. That's because Boston and NYC are both navigable without a car. Only one side of the SF-LA link can claim to be close to that ideal. But the time and hassle of airport parking and security and delays might be able to keep a 3.5 hour train ride viable even in CA. That would require a train system that allowed passenge…

You don't think Measure M passed last year would make any difference? http://theplan.metro.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/factshee...

You can't make a city transit and walking friendly by grafting rail infrastructure over a car-based design. You need to allow development on narrower streets without minimum parking requirements on every lot and you need more population density.

You'd have to actually change the rules and overcome the NIMBYs. Some problems can't be solved with cash.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#27

Post by magila »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #19
magila wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

> Existing high speed rail lines rarely run at 200 MPH even momentarily Really? Zaragoza to Barcelona does 310kph and very smoothly too. Much more comfortable than flying: https://dilemma-x.net/2014/03/14/high-speed-rail-in-spain-is...

310kph is probably the maximum cursing speed. I can't find precise distance information for AVE between Zaragoza and Barcelona, but it's somewhere around 320-330 km. The minimum travel time I see listed is about 1.5 hours. So conservatively the average speed is around 220 kph or 137 mph.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#28

Post by davidf18 »

melling wrote: post #12
magila wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

NYC to Boston is 230 miles, about 3.5 hours by "fast" train. It's about an hour flight. A lot of people still take the train. If you can get the trains to take you directly into the city center, it can often be a better option.

I'm one of those people that go NYC to Boston and NYC to DC. I work in the dining car with laptop and WiFi. Only take planes when taking early AM flights to get to Boston or DC early in the morning.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#29

Post by saosebastiao »

magila wrote: post #8
niftich wrote: post #2

Not sure why they decided to build an elaborate viaduct [1] to allow for a high-speed curve radius in Southeast Fresno, if Fresno will be a likely stop anyway. Just make all trains stop in Fresno, a place conveniently midway between SF and LA and desperate for improved connections with California's more prosperous areas. After all, isn't the whole point of HSR to improve connectivity between more than just the two te…

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

This is completely false. The entire flight demand of SF to LA is so pathetically low in comparison to the demand from the Cartesian set of intermediary routes that catering to just SF to LA would doom the project to failure. There isn't a successful HSR system in the world that hasn't already learned this lesson. Not only is Fresno crucial to ridership projections, but so are all the other small towns like Merced.

Re: High-speed rail taking shape even as opponents seek to kill it

#30

Post by joshuaheard »

magila wrote: post #8
niftich wrote: post #2

Not sure why they decided to build an elaborate viaduct [1] to allow for a high-speed curve radius in Southeast Fresno, if Fresno will be a likely stop anyway. Just make all trains stop in Fresno, a place conveniently midway between SF and LA and desperate for improved connections with California's more prosperous areas. After all, isn't the whole point of HSR to improve connectivity between more than just the two te…

> since those who want to go direct between SF and LA will always have a direct flight as an option Therein lies the problem. The cost of the line can't be justified unless it provides a viable alternative to flying between SF and LA, because that's the only conceivable way to get enough ridership. The problem is the distance between SF and LA means being competitive with flying in terms of travel time is incredibly…

According to the figures released before the project, it will cost the same, but take twice as long to go from LA to SF compared to flying. No one is going to take the train instead of flying, except maybe John Madden.
Post reply on HN