7 ms·

I have a question to all the naysayers and praisers of the future autonomous car: have any of you ever been on a high speed rail link in europe? Assuming everyt

by fijal 11y ago

I have a question to all the naysayers and praisers of the future autonomous car: have any of you ever been on a high speed rail link in europe? Assuming everything else equal, they're just a far superior way to travel, where you can walk around, drink coffee, work in a relatively quiet and steady environment and all of that going 300 km/h. That said, there are obvious questions why the project is far more expensive than a comparable one in Europe, but that is a completely separate question.

Lazare 11y ago
The original plan called for a LA to San Fran trip time of less than 2 hours or 40 minutes, which would have required peak speeds of over 350 km/h (faster than any other train in the world), and average speeds of 320 km/h. This would be difficult to achieve anywhere, but it's especially hard (read: utterly impossible) to achieve on that route, since for regulatory reasons the train will be limited to 160 km/h for significant portions of the route. Since then, the plan has changed repeatedly, and not for the better. It currently looks like average trip times will be in the 4-6 hour range. That is hopefully achievable (although they haven't built it yet), but one thing it isn't is high speed. (They're hoping to work in some "express" trains which will do better, but it's an open question whether they're manage it, and even if they do, they won't be remotely as fast as Europe, China, or Japan.) You're talking about trains going 300 km/h, but California is looking to build a train that will be doing literally half that. By many common definitions, it's not even "high speed rail". > I have a question to all the naysayers I love high speed rail, and I hope maybe one day California will try and build a high speed rail network. :) Naysaying what they're actually building doesn't mean I don't like rail.
- jvzr 11y ago
  Curious as to what the regulatory reasons are?
  - jrockway 11y ago
    I assume the issues are related to sharing the tracks with Caltrain. I'm not sure if they are going to fully grade-separate the line from San Jose to San Francisco, so that harms top speed as well. It's too bad too because 350km/h from San Francisco to Mountain View would mean you could make the trip in 11 minutes.
- fulafel 11y ago
  Wikipedia says about speed limits "220 mph (350 km/h) from San Jose to LA (about 422 mi (679 km)) 110 mph (180 km/h) from San Jose to San Francisco (about 57 mi (92 km))[2] " Is this what you are referring to? 90 km at "half-speed" out of 770 km doesn't sound too bad.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  High speed rail between Moscow and Sankt Peterburg takes 4 hours exactly. This includes leaving Moscow urbanized area from city centre, a few intermediate stops, and traversing Sankt Peterburg to city centre. I don't see why traveling from SF to LA would take more than 3:30 given that the distance is 100 kilometers shorter. (It also costs around $50 currently but obviously don't expect that)
  - fulafel 11y ago
    WP says that train only goes 250 km/h and that the railway is congested, with another rail being built for just the high speed. So it is really a low lower bound.
tw04 11y ago
Which is great if the train goes from A to B and you need to go from A to B. If you're a contractor like me bouncing between customers all day, a train just isn't going to cut it. An autonomous car lets me get work done while I travel just like the train. Only it actually gets me from one stop to the next. Taking a train 90% of the way there, then spending an hour walking or finding a taxi to get the last 10% is borderline useless. Great if you sit at a desk all day I suppose.
- icebraining 11y ago
  An autonomous car lets me get work done while I travel just like the train. You're lucky; many of us get terribly motion sickness from reading anything in a car. For me, train is fine, though. Taking a train 90% of the way there, then spending an hour walking or finding a taxi to get the last 10% is borderline useless. Why would you take an hour? If we're assuming autonomous cars, then reliable and cheap taxi service for the last mile should be fairly common.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Autonomous cars and trains coexist, and trains are more efficient for long distance travel. In a world where autonomous cars are available, you'll probably be able to get one from your door to the train and from your train to the final destination, rather than walking or trying to "find" a taxi by any means more onerous than having tapped a button in an app, possibly integrated with the workflow of buying a train ticket. And, for long distances, trains will probably be both faster and more reliable than cars, automated or otherwise.
jerven 11y ago
I would be interested to hear what a similar capacity highway on the same stretch of land would cost. I would be extremely surprised if that would be an order of magnitude different.
CamperBob2 11y ago
Assuming everything else equal, they're just a far superior way to travel, where you can walk around, drink coffee, work in a relatively quiet and steady environment and all of that going 300 km/h.... and end up in a place that's not actually where you wanted to go. Trains are going to start to seem really quaint and retro-chic, right around the time this one is finished. Also, California isn't Europe.

by fijal 11y ago

Lazare 11y ago

The original plan called for a LA to San Fran trip time of less than 2 hours or 40 minutes, which would have required peak speeds of over 350 km/h (faster than any other train in the world), and average speeds of 320 km/h. This would be difficult to achieve anywhere, but it's especially hard (read: utterly impossible) to achieve on that route, since for regulatory reasons the train will be limited to 160 km/h for significant portions of the route. Since then, the plan has changed repeatedly, and not for the better. It currently looks like average trip times will be in the 4-6 hour range. That is hopefully achievable (although they haven't built it yet), but one thing it isn't is high speed. (They're hoping to work in some "express" trains which will do better, but it's an open question whether they're manage it, and even if they do, they won't be remotely as fast as Europe, China, or Japan.) You're talking about trains going 300 km/h, but California is looking to build a train that will be doing literally half that. By many common definitions, it's not even "high speed rail". > I have a question to all the naysayers I love high speed rail, and I hope maybe one day California will try and build a high speed rail network. :) Naysaying what they're actually building doesn't mean I don't like rail.

jvzr 11y ago
Curious as to what the regulatory reasons are?
- jrockway 11y ago
  I assume the issues are related to sharing the tracks with Caltrain. I'm not sure if they are going to fully grade-separate the line from San Jose to San Francisco, so that harms top speed as well. It's too bad too because 350km/h from San Francisco to Mountain View would mean you could make the trip in 11 minutes.
fulafel 11y ago
Wikipedia says about speed limits "220 mph (350 km/h) from San Jose to LA (about 422 mi (679 km)) 110 mph (180 km/h) from San Jose to San Francisco (about 57 mi (92 km))[2] " Is this what you are referring to? 90 km at "half-speed" out of 770 km doesn't sound too bad.
guard-of-terra 11y ago
High speed rail between Moscow and Sankt Peterburg takes 4 hours exactly. This includes leaving Moscow urbanized area from city centre, a few intermediate stops, and traversing Sankt Peterburg to city centre. I don't see why traveling from SF to LA would take more than 3:30 given that the distance is 100 kilometers shorter. (It also costs around $50 currently but obviously don't expect that)
- fulafel 11y ago
  WP says that train only goes 250 km/h and that the railway is congested, with another rail being built for just the high speed. So it is really a low lower bound.

tw04 11y ago

Which is great if the train goes from A to B and you need to go from A to B. If you're a contractor like me bouncing between customers all day, a train just isn't going to cut it. An autonomous car lets me get work done while I travel just like the train. Only it actually gets me from one stop to the next. Taking a train 90% of the way there, then spending an hour walking or finding a taxi to get the last 10% is borderline useless. Great if you sit at a desk all day I suppose.

icebraining 11y ago
An autonomous car lets me get work done while I travel just like the train. You're lucky; many of us get terribly motion sickness from reading anything in a car. For me, train is fine, though. Taking a train 90% of the way there, then spending an hour walking or finding a taxi to get the last 10% is borderline useless. Why would you take an hour? If we're assuming autonomous cars, then reliable and cheap taxi service for the last mile should be fairly common.
dragonwriter 11y ago
Autonomous cars and trains coexist, and trains are more efficient for long distance travel. In a world where autonomous cars are available, you'll probably be able to get one from your door to the train and from your train to the final destination, rather than walking or trying to "find" a taxi by any means more onerous than having tapped a button in an app, possibly integrated with the workflow of buying a train ticket. And, for long distances, trains will probably be both faster and more reliable than cars, automated or otherwise.

jerven 11y ago

I would be interested to hear what a similar capacity highway on the same stretch of land would cost. I would be extremely surprised if that would be an order of magnitude different.

CamperBob2 11y ago

Assuming everything else equal, they're just a far superior way to travel, where you can walk around, drink coffee, work in a relatively quiet and steady environment and all of that going 300 km/h.... and end up in a place that's not actually where you wanted to go. Trains are going to start to seem really quaint and retro-chic, right around the time this one is finished. Also, California isn't Europe.