11 ms·
As the U.S. fantasizes, the rest of the world builds new transport system (2017)
- giantsloth 8y agoWe (the USA) have an economy based around taxing the 99% and cutting societal benefits, not limited to just infrastructure. Wall Street doesn't see profits to be made by funding large public sector interstate projects, and they (along with corporate monopolies in tech and pharma, big oil, insurance and real estate) choose our policy and forego anything that would help stimulate production outside of debt collection/rent collection/patent trolling and stock inflation via buy backs. The fact is these sectors don't want to stimulate economic growth, they want to suppress wages, suppress the growth of future competitors and continue collecting massive amounts of unearned income via debt/rents/patent trolling/etc...
- andys627 8y agoI would like to preemptively suggest that the author is focusing on dense areas of the country. He is suggesting high speed rail between Portland-Seattle, Dallas-Houston, NYC-DC, etc. Not Los Angeles-Chicago or DC-Seattle.
- shdh 8y agoBuild small parts of the network first Larger portions later
- jboles 8y agoExactly, start with linking neighbor cities where the density supports it. Once the infrastructure and expertise is in place, then it starts to make sense to link the existing lines together into a bigger network.
- corodra 8y agoPortland-Seattle is already a terrible candidate. I use to travel between the two once a month for a year. The Amtrak was empty as hell. If Amtrak didn't get as much in subsidies as it did to keep that going, it would have shut that shit down long ago. I never road the ORCA for Seattle-Tacoma, but that station near the amtrak always looks pretty busy during commute times.
- aj7 8y agoUSA uses fleets of 737s and A320s. The mean distances are right.
- pseudolus 8y agoThe article might focus on the US but Canada shouldn't be overlooked for its own neglect of high-speed rail. The Toronto-Montreal corridor is a clear candidate for such a service which has been promised onwards of decades now.
- kiran-rao 8y agoCurrently, Toronto-Montreal isn't even bring considered for high speed rail. If anything, the Toronto-London corridor is what's being evaluated.
- sandworm101 8y agoCanada's size, terrain, and population density make it a special case. Ottawa-toronto might work, but vancouver-calgary would be insanely expensive if even possible. Linking across the country ... we might as well not bother charging for tickets and just call it a government project never intended to break even. And in the north, spaceX rockets might be cheaper.
- simongray 8y agoSeems like Canada could realistically cover almost 75% of the population: https://i.redd.it/sjbijiqb0u211.png https://i.redd.it/sjbijiqb0u211.png
- sandworm101 8y agoSimilar maps work for the us. East and west coasts are dense, so too the boarder with canada (the great lakes cities). Every developed country has population centers around ports. There just arent any ports in the north. (That may one day change.) https://wywing.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/us_population_density.png https://wywing.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/us_population_den...
- craigzucchini 8y agoThere is actually a little known port called Hudson Bay Port in the town of Churchill Manitoba. The town has an airport and a rail line, though unfortunately the rail line has fallen into disrepair in recent years, as the private company that owns it has chosen not to maintain it. I'm not sure on the current status, but I recall it being big news because it's lack of running cut off services to many northern communities, as well as rail service in general.
- reindeerer 8y agoCue the zealots hailing second coming of the lord savior Musk who will cure all of the US from it's transportation problems by digging a dumbass service tunnel
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- marnett 8y agoPerhaps he realizes that politically fail is impossible in the US? Not defending the guy, and I would much prefer HSR, but at this point acknowledging that automobiles rule and must be a part of the solution is worth trying.
- gitgud 8y ago"Hyperloop all the problems of space travel (vacuum, high speed, expensive) on the earth's surface!"
- TaylorAlexander 8y agoTunnels in cities and trains between cities are not at odds with each other. Let’s not be zealots about that. The tunnels seem fine to me within cities, but I am all for trains between cities.
- reindeerer 8y agoAs it happens, tunnels in cities are not some hitherto unheard of great invention. They form a fairly well known and efficient means of mass transportation systems across the world.
- haberman 8y agoI'm pro-transit (I vote for it whenever it is on the ballot, and take it frequently). I'm also skeptical of Musk at times, especially the promises about "full self driving" in Teslas. That said, I find the urbanist/transitphile community's response to Musk's tunnel ambitions off-putting. Most of the criticisms I've seen seem to presume that a person who has revolutionized space travel and electric cars can't perform basic math about passenger throughput. Excuse me if I have more faith in Musk than the naysayers.
- rdl 8y agoWe have $2/gallon gas, from massive domestic production (and similar or lower prices for Jet-A). There are traffic congestion reasons for mass transit in cities, but we're pretty sorted for inter-city.
- randomsearch 8y agoWhat about climate change?
- TomMarius 8y agoPlant a lot of trees using the rail money?
- rdl 8y agoSince cars have a 10-20 year lifespan, and electric is becoming superior, that will probably solve itself over the next 10-20 years (maybe they'll be EV powered by natural gas for a while, but that's still a win, and then the grid might get greener.) Aviation fuel is the highest and best use of hydrocarbons (along with some chemical production), so we can deal with that last, after lots of power generation, demand reduction/efficiency, etc
- WalterBright 8y agoAirliners have gotten far more efficient over the last 40 years, starting with the 757/767. (The 757 design got its start from more efficient engines and a new wing shape.) In fact, efficiency improvements are the primary factor driving new airliner models and sales. At the time of the 757 launch, fuel was 40% of the operating cost of air travel.
- rdl 8y agoA huge improvement (for the biggest planes) is going to twins and ETOPS (not just fuel, also maintenance cost, but also fuel). Not as relevant to domestic routes, though.
- 8y ago
- tomohawk 8y agoHigh speed rail is a non-starter in the US, except for in certain regions. It's 2000 miles from Chicago to LA. Optimistically, if you had a train that averaged 200 miles an hour, it would still take 10 hours. That's just not competitive.
- reindeerer 8y agoBecause people only ever fly cross country. Also ignore the carbon footprint. Also ignore the time to and from airports.
- rco8786 8y agoSo make it regional. There’s no high speed rail from Paris to Moscow either.
- corodra 8y agoThe economics still don't work. It becomes a "public work" project instead of a self-sustained business. If the car ended up being much more expensive to purchase and operate, like it is in countries mentioned that are doing so well in rail, then more Americans would ride them. Once you have a sufficient amount of usage, then it would lead to more high speed rails being developed. I wrote this up a few days ago for another HN post about the economics between Colorado Springs and Denver (I use to live in both, the springs for longer). It's about 21% of springs residents work in Denver. It's a ~60mile commute. There was the choice between widening the interstate by an extra lane ($350 mil) or make a rail for however many billions. Going by that second line they gave a price tag on, €3.4 billion for 182km, that's about $3.8 billion for 113 miles. About $30million a mile. That's a $1.8 billion price tag for one USA area that could theoretically use it. If you go just the shortest distance between the springs and Denver considered the "city limits" of either. Not center to center. Just the closest outskirts. So you tell me, what would a politician prefer to convince people on a tax hike? $350mil for more roads that a majority of the people would more than likely use? Or $1.8bil for something that SOME people MAY use. Let's ignore worker costs to operate the trains, rails, ticketing, security, etc. Also, let's ignore fuel/electricity costs. Also, let's ignore insurance. Oh, and preventive maintenance, upkeep and the sort. What sort of prices do they have to charge for about 57,000 to use the commuter to make it economically viable for the city(s)? Let's take $10 a day. 57k x $10 x 20work days a month(avg) x 12 = $136.8mil. It'd take 10+ years for it to break even. If everyone volunteers to work there and fuel was free. And no accidents. And no need to fix things. No paid janitors either. Or flushing toilets. All that costs more money. If you price it $10 or more a day, why would anyone logically change over from their car already? It costs $8-$12 in fuel a day to make a round trip in a car anyways. Plus you don't have to wake up any sooner to catch the right time train to get to work at a decent time. Plus, a majority of the vehicles heading north to Denver (I use to make this trip relatively often by the way) is filled with plumbers, carpenters, electrical workers, landscapers and the sort. They have their own trucks and vans to carry tools and materials. None of which you can take on a train for a practical expense or in practical effort. The economics for a high speed rail doesn't make sense with the cost in the USA. Fantastic they work well elsewhere. Great for them and their not car dependent society. They don't work out well here. It's time to mature and grow up to the fact that not all solutions solve all problems. And yes, the government should spend money to help society. I get that. But there are limits. Too many of these and the defense sector would no longer be the bad guy in government spending. And don't use the relaxing/reading argument. Obviously, you've never had to actually commute on a regular basis on public transit. I used to use a commuter in Portland for a few years. Your quality of reading comprehension sucks and you spend the first hour just trying to fully wake up because you wake up damn early to make your line jumps. It's not like "Oh, the commuter train takes me exactly where I want to go". Nope, now you have to jump onto buses or other lines to get to where you work. Because the stations are never where you need them. And god damn, when it snows and you're waiting outside. Fuck. Oh, and you have to work late that day? Guess what, the commuter only runs at peak hour work days. You don't get to hang out in the city. If you do, call a friend with a car. Oh, and you owe them gas money now too.
- StorytellerCZ 8y agoTexas Central is another interesting private initiative: https://www.texascentral.com/ https://www.texascentral.com/
- lunchbreak 8y agoWendover had a good video about China's rail network a while ago. [1] Major points are: 1. China is willing to build loves that aren't self sustainable - whereas the USA isn't (and the US doesn't factor in the social benefits) 2. China's airspace is mostly military - leading to only small flight corridors and therefore significant delays for flights - making trains more reliable 3. China is willing to make train lines that make no sense beyond connecting areas that are not as friendly to the government to areas that are in the hope of increasing government support in those areas [1] https://youtu.be/0JDoll8OEFE https://youtu.be/0JDoll8OEFE
- techsupporter 8y agoAnd, in general, where the government of China says a rail link goes is where it goes, with minimal planning and outside input from citizens and residents. In the U.S. and other Western-style governments, that's simply a non-starter.
- tanilama 8y agoMaybe US should rethink a little bit why it takes until 2029 to build a railway in between SF and LA, maybe the due diligence is exaggerated and wear the whole process down?
- masonic 8y agoit takes until 2029 to build a railway in between SF and LA SF to LA has had rail service for over 140 years. The failure of HSR in CA has nothing to do with "the US" and everything to do with graft internal to CA.
- beerlord 8y agoI would prefer to live in the US than any of these countries funding HSR. Electric cars and electric scooters are enough to get around the city and around the state, with flights for anything much longer than that. Autonomous vehicles available via subscription will make that even better.
- techsupporter 8y agoThe problem is that flights are not sustainable much longer. Flying uses an astounding amount of subsidized fossil fuels, requires infrastructure that takes up quite a large amount of space, and is increasingly both inconvenient and intrusive. They're also a separate matter from the last-mile problem that bicycles, scooters, and autonomous vehicles aim to solve (assuming we can structure AV use in a way that, during the transition period towards full subscription use, doesn't increase traffic like so-called ridesharing taxis do now). The United States can be one of these countries funding HSR. Countries that are quite pleasant to live in--and some that aren't, depending on your outlook--are already funding HSR and already have expansive rail networks. There's no reason we can't, too.
- ams6110 8y agoCommercial air travel is more efficient in fuel usage than driving, per passenger mile.
- TheCoelacanth 8y agoFossil fuel powered driving will also not be sustainable long-term.
- amaccuish 8y agoIs there any reason why a country can't have both?
- beerlord 8y agoThe US has optimised its rail network for freight. By modal share, the US ships 44% of its freight by rail. France, the subject of this article, ships only 15% I would argue that rail is better optimised for freight than passengers. Building rail to send huge amounts of heavy freight at relatively slow speeds is very cheap, and removes a lot of trucks. Building HSR is very expensive, and the network would need to be duplicated since none of the existing tracks could be used. People who comment on these articles base their opinion on ideals, rather than facts. I'd suggest that few people have even travelled in Europe by rail, where actually most passengers will go on slower trains which are less expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usage#Freight_modal_share_for_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag... Hub-to-hub transport is dying out. Airlines have recognised this, Uber has recognised this, Escooters have recognised this. Spending billions on HSR is a waste of money. Better to invest in autonomous busses and cars, so that for the same number of vehicles on our roads, we can carry 2x the number of passengers, immediately solving congestion with minimal additional infrastructure spend.
- Havoc 8y agoSeriously? Author plots kilometers built absolute numbers for China and Italy onto the same graph? Could someone politely inform said author that China is a little bit bigger than Italy. The part about the US needing to wake up rings true though.
- craigzucchini 8y agoThat's a good point, but I think the point the author was going for is that the U.S is comparable and much smaller countries in physical size are far surpassing them in absolute numbers.
- yason 8y agoOne thing high speed rail, or any rail for that matter, requires is dense walkable cities. If the rail link requires driving to the station and renting a car at the destination it's not going to be comparable with one where you can walk or take the tram/subway to move within the endpoints, and there it loses the appeal of convenience. The best thing that trains offer is direct connection from one city centre to another city centre. These centres need to be such that they have places to go to, reachable by at most public transit and a bit of walking. If they aren't then your single train trip effectively becomes three separate trips.
- joshuaheard 8y agoAs an American that live in France for several years, the high-speed trains were great for certain trips, but they wouldn't work in the U.S. because they are not as efficient. By efficiency I mean cost over time. For instance, to go from Paris to Bordeaux by car is about 8 hours, the price of gas is $5/gal and all the freeways are toll roads. Total trip would be about the same to fly. To Fly is about $500 for one-hour flight. The train is about 8 hours and $100. In America, gas is $3-4/gal, the flight from LA to SF (about 1 hour) is $200. Also, don't forget European cities were designed for pedestrians, while in the US, they were built for cars. I would say the most efficient way to travel in France is by train, while in the US, it is by plane.
- gniv 8y ago> The train is about 8 hours and $100. Small correction: It's 2 hours from Paris to Bordeaux.
- joshuaheard 8y agoThat's true, I should have used Nice as my example.
- eli_gottlieb 8y agoNah, that's basically just a knock-down argument that high-speed rail really works: it takes one fourth of the time by train as it does by car, and is less expensive.
- melling 8y agoYeah, and you should have included the time to get to the airport. The need to arrive early, trains make a few stops between destinations, etc That plane leaving SFO isn’t stopping in Fresno. I suppose when you’re contriving an example, you’re hoping that people aren’t really paying attention.
- melling 8y agoYes, i’ve been hearing it won’t work for about 40 years. You’re wrong, of course. Unfortunately, now it’s incredibly expensive to build HSR. China, the same size as the US, will have 25,000 miles of HSR within a few years. Your calculus is wrong but let’s just check back in 2025. At some point, we’ll realize the advantage that all that HSR gives China.
- phlakaton 8y agoLet me summarize the argumemts here for convenience: - HSR is dumb because it's too expensive to build a HSR from coast to coast - HSR is dumb because it's slower than flying - HSR is dumb because self-driving cars do everything HSR does, but better - HSR is dumb because electric scooters are much better for getting around town I am wondering what this mythical HSR is, that electric scooters and coast-to-coast flights are somehow both the nails in its coffin. Straw men doesn't even begin to describe it! HSR is of course complementary to all of the technologies above. Heaven forfend, though, that we pursue a future transit system in more than one mode at a time...
- brudgers 8y agoHigh speed rail is a circuit switched network. Air is packet switched. Surface roads are in between. Generally high local redundancy, occasionally bottle necked by geography. There's nothing wrong with circuit switched networks. POTS has great voice quality. ISDN tends not to drop packets. But we all carry cell phones because packet switching is more flexible in more places.
- soheil 8y agoPart of me thinks the word "fantasize" in the title is referring to the efforts by Elon Musk with the Boring company, Hyperloop, SpaceX intra-earth travel thus I'd like to see arguments for why that is when in fact Boring company is making non-stop progress given how busy Musk is and SpaceX constantly advancing the edge of what is possible with space tech, fantasy? Not one bit.
- andrepd 8y ago"Musk" was not mentioned or even alluded to in the piece, so maybe it's not a good idea to try to shoehorn the man into every situation. Also, wrt both Boring Company and Hyperloop, "fantasy" is exactly the word to describe them. Outlandish projects, with a lot of buzz and PR but no sense or reason and many real problems, some fatal.
- soheil 8y agoHe's been in the news almost constantly talking about both those projects and just announced a milestone with the Boring company, so I don't think it is completely out there to believe the author might have been referring to Musk's efforts. After all you think both those projects by Musk are outlandish and would use the word "fantasy" to describe them maybe so did the author, but forgot to mention Musk specifically or chose not to for whatever reason. Suffice it to say I don't think they are fantasies at all and not sure why people keep characterizing such Herculean efforts that require so much will and drive as such and are so keen to so easily dismiss them instead of admiring them.
- manicdee 8y agoAlso worth noting: where Europe designed their rail system to reduce fatalities by improving control of trains on the track, the US chose to make trains tougher to withstand the completely avoidable accidents. As a result no European train can run on US rails (technical compatibility aside) because trains like HSV are lightweight and do not meet US design rules.
- DeonPenny 8y agoI've never got the importance of HSR for the US. It's to sparsely populated. While europe can have trains going from big cities like Berlin to France you'd have to go from NYC to Chicago, NYC to LA, LA to SF, Chicago to Houston. The routes would be huge. It makes no sense.
- brudgers 8y agoIn 1869, Oakland and Council Bluffs Iowa were joined with a golden spike, completing the Pacific Railroad. From Oakland, it runs Sacramento, Truckee, Reno, Ogden, Cheyenne, Lincoln, and finally Omaha across the Missouri from Council Bluffs. I80 follows the same route today. Not because of travel demand between Oakland and Cheyenne, Wyoming (population 60k). Because of geography. The article asserts France has about 3000km of high speed rail. That will connect Oakland and Council Bluffs, with just enough left over to cross the bay to San Francisco. But not from SF to San Jose. From Council Bluffs to New York, it's another 2000km. That's all the high speed rail in Germany plus all the high speed rail in Italy (as asserted in the article). In European terms, it's like building a high speed rail line from Paris to Moscow. But if the Urals were in between. The US doesn't have a national high speed rail network because a national high speed rail network doesn't make sense. Between the Canadian and Mexican borders, there are three geographically reasonable rail routes to the Pacific. To the north of the I80 route, there's the I90/Great Northern route through North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. South of I80 is the I10/ATSF route across West Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. It is the only all-weather route to the Pacific in the US. The US obtained it via the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. The three routes alone would require the US to build the second largest high speed rail network. Using the US Interstate system as a first approximation, a US network would have about 77,000 km of high speed rail line. 77 Germanies or 26 Frances or 3 Europes. On completion, it would be larger than all currently existing and planned high speed rail.[1] There are places in the US where high speed rail makes some sense. Again, it's about geography. Maybe the article's DC to Charlotte is one of them...Dallas to San Marcos (population 44,000) probably not. The US is vast. Even at 3x the speed of high speed rail in optimum conditions, most of it is experienced as fly-over states. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-speed_railway_lin...
- eesmith 8y agoWhy doesn't the US have a good regional high speed rail network?
- brudgers 8y agoThe US does not have political subdivision at the regional level (except as might be reflected at the state level of political subdivision). For example, New England is not a political subdivision while California might be considered one incidentally. At the state level, a high speed rail will never benefit most residents. For example, a "northeast corridor" line is great for Philadelphia, Manhattan, and Boston. doesn't do anything for the citizens of Pittsburgh, Albany, and Springfield.
- dang 8y agoThis was posted last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14678504 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14678504