6 ms·

i take the plane in this route about once a month and it’s super fast, cheap and easy. not convinced train would be that much of an improvement.

ndnxhs 8y ago
Well for one, plane trips release massively more carbon. I saw the stats on it and for one route the kg of co2 per person on a train was 3kg and the same trip by plane was over 100kg
bnegreve 8y ago
Trains are much easier to board. You can arrive two minutes before departure and take your seat without having to queue or wait. A two hours train trip is generally much shorter than a one hour plane trip.
- jerkstate 8y ago
  This will only be true until a terrorist decides to bomb a train for whatever reason, and the "public" "demands" "security"
  - bnegreve 8y ago
    Yes, but trains may be a little safer from that perspective. They have hundreds of doors instead of just two, and each door lead to the land, not to a free fall. So you can threat the driver, but I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops. Now I agree that terrorist can be creative sometimes
    - Someone 8y ago
      ”I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops.” Stop the train between stations, in an area with free views all around for at least a hundred meters, put two terrorists with a gun and night vision devices on each end of the train, one on each side. Because of the height of the step down to the track, many people would already find it difficult getting out of the train if there is no platform, even if they wouldn’t be shot at.
      - bnegreve 8y ago
        You can hijack a plane with two people in the cockpit. People won't go out and police won't get in for obvious reasons. With trains, you need an army of guys spread along the train to shoot at people trying to get out. Each one of this guy can be neutralized by the police from outside or even or passengers from the inside (see thalys train attack). I'm not saying it's impossible but it certainly qualifies as more difficult. Well anyway, trains are more comfortable. That's the main reason why I like them better.
        Someone 8y ago
        I’m not claiming trains are the perfect hijacking target, but they aren’t that bad, either: 1. I doubt you’ll need an army. Chances are most of the passengers will be too scared to even try running away. 2. You probably can afford to lose a few of the most adventurous passengers. 3. In many trains, it isn’t that hard to lock the doors using chain locks you bring in. You can even (partly) do that before your hijack starts. 4. If you don’t start shooting hostages, the police won’t go in for the obvious reason that they want to keep the hostages alive. From the viewpoint of a terrorist big disadvantage of hijacking a train is that you give up leaving the scene alive and free (airplanes used to have that as a possibility, as you could negotiate for kerosine and fly to a friendly country)
        landryraccoon 8y ago
        The US is a little unusual in that we don’t have a ton of trains already. Europe and Asia have tons of passenger trains that millions of people ride on every day. Why do you think the risk is that great? These trains already exist and they don’t get hijacked all the time. There are reasons to be against trains I suppose but fear of terrorism seems very farfetched. There are much softer targets around. It’s not like a train is a force multiplier like a plane is, you can’t take it anywhere.
        Someone 8y ago
        ”Why do you think the risk is that great?” Where do you get the impression I do? I just replied to a remark ”I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops” with an IMO (but not in HN’s opinion, it seems) reasonable scenario.
  - acct1771 8y ago
    You could just fight back against this abusive behavior, instead of keep building new modes of transportation, new forms of encryption, etc.
  - magduf 8y ago
    However, this somehow just isn't a problem in Japan, China, or all of Europe.
    - baroffoos 8y ago
      "There is simply no way we could avoid this issue - says the only country where this is an issue"
- acchow 8y ago
  You can also miss your train and just hop on the next one. This is the main reason why showing up 2 minutes before your train is normal but people don't do that for flights.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  If HSR would have ever been built in the US, the security measures would have been similar to flying. There's a lot more people on a moving train and it would be moving at dangerously fast speeds. So it's not obvious that getting on one would be so much easier and faster than onto an airplane. Certainly the one door boarding/deboarding is a problem with airplanes, but since the world has transitioned away from 747s and toward 737s, this issue isn't particularly troublesome.
  - acchow 8y ago
    > the security measures would have been similar to flying No it wouldn't. You can't redirect a train into skyscrapers. And the failure modes of taking out the "pilot" on a train are much safer than those of a plane.
bobthepanda 8y ago
Planes have issues with weather delays. SFO is one of the worst airports in the country with respect to on time performance. And short haul flights usually get shafted first. CAHSR would also have the benefit of reducing the need for short haul flights to use up landing slots at busy airports like SFO and LAX.
acchow 8y ago
Plane is not that fast. SFO is 20-40 minutes from SF (pending traffic) plus security lines plus some extra time for padding. Plus flight delays. LA falls within the ideal distance for HSR. Your monthly travel is also cheap because you scheduled it far ahead of time. Spontaneous flights to LA are expensive. If I want to fly to LA tbis saturday (one way) it will be $140.
- alkibiades 8y ago
  have you taken high speed rail in japan? it’s expensive. i remember it was cheaper to fly from tokyo to seoul than train from tokyo to osaka

ndnxhs 8y ago

Well for one, plane trips release massively more carbon. I saw the stats on it and for one route the kg of co2 per person on a train was 3kg and the same trip by plane was over 100kg

bnegreve 8y ago

Trains are much easier to board. You can arrive two minutes before departure and take your seat without having to queue or wait. A two hours train trip is generally much shorter than a one hour plane trip.

jerkstate 8y ago
This will only be true until a terrorist decides to bomb a train for whatever reason, and the "public" "demands" "security"
- bnegreve 8y ago
  Yes, but trains may be a little safer from that perspective. They have hundreds of doors instead of just two, and each door lead to the land, not to a free fall. So you can threat the driver, but I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops. Now I agree that terrorist can be creative sometimes
  - Someone 8y ago
    ”I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops.” Stop the train between stations, in an area with free views all around for at least a hundred meters, put two terrorists with a gun and night vision devices on each end of the train, one on each side. Because of the height of the step down to the track, many people would already find it difficult getting out of the train if there is no platform, even if they wouldn’t be shot at.
    - bnegreve 8y ago
      You can hijack a plane with two people in the cockpit. People won't go out and police won't get in for obvious reasons. With trains, you need an army of guys spread along the train to shoot at people trying to get out. Each one of this guy can be neutralized by the police from outside or even or passengers from the inside (see thalys train attack). I'm not saying it's impossible but it certainly qualifies as more difficult. Well anyway, trains are more comfortable. That's the main reason why I like them better.
      - Someone 8y ago
        I’m not claiming trains are the perfect hijacking target, but they aren’t that bad, either: 1. I doubt you’ll need an army. Chances are most of the passengers will be too scared to even try running away. 2. You probably can afford to lose a few of the most adventurous passengers. 3. In many trains, it isn’t that hard to lock the doors using chain locks you bring in. You can even (partly) do that before your hijack starts. 4. If you don’t start shooting hostages, the police won’t go in for the obvious reason that they want to keep the hostages alive. From the viewpoint of a terrorist big disadvantage of hijacking a train is that you give up leaving the scene alive and free (airplanes used to have that as a possibility, as you could negotiate for kerosine and fly to a friendly country)
        landryraccoon 8y ago
        The US is a little unusual in that we don’t have a ton of trains already. Europe and Asia have tons of passenger trains that millions of people ride on every day. Why do you think the risk is that great? These trains already exist and they don’t get hijacked all the time. There are reasons to be against trains I suppose but fear of terrorism seems very farfetched. There are much softer targets around. It’s not like a train is a force multiplier like a plane is, you can’t take it anywhere.
        Someone 8y ago
        ”Why do you think the risk is that great?” Where do you get the impression I do? I just replied to a remark ”I don't see how you can prevent passengers from going away as soon as the train stops” with an IMO (but not in HN’s opinion, it seems) reasonable scenario.
- acct1771 8y ago
  You could just fight back against this abusive behavior, instead of keep building new modes of transportation, new forms of encryption, etc.
- magduf 8y ago
  However, this somehow just isn't a problem in Japan, China, or all of Europe.
  - baroffoos 8y ago
    "There is simply no way we could avoid this issue - says the only country where this is an issue"
acchow 8y ago
You can also miss your train and just hop on the next one. This is the main reason why showing up 2 minutes before your train is normal but people don't do that for flights.
yostrovs 8y ago
If HSR would have ever been built in the US, the security measures would have been similar to flying. There's a lot more people on a moving train and it would be moving at dangerously fast speeds. So it's not obvious that getting on one would be so much easier and faster than onto an airplane. Certainly the one door boarding/deboarding is a problem with airplanes, but since the world has transitioned away from 747s and toward 737s, this issue isn't particularly troublesome.
- acchow 8y ago
  > the security measures would have been similar to flying No it wouldn't. You can't redirect a train into skyscrapers. And the failure modes of taking out the "pilot" on a train are much safer than those of a plane.

bobthepanda 8y ago

Planes have issues with weather delays. SFO is one of the worst airports in the country with respect to on time performance. And short haul flights usually get shafted first. CAHSR would also have the benefit of reducing the need for short haul flights to use up landing slots at busy airports like SFO and LAX.

acchow 8y ago

Plane is not that fast. SFO is 20-40 minutes from SF (pending traffic) plus security lines plus some extra time for padding. Plus flight delays. LA falls within the ideal distance for HSR. Your monthly travel is also cheap because you scheduled it far ahead of time. Spontaneous flights to LA are expensive. If I want to fly to LA tbis saturday (one way) it will be $140.

alkibiades 8y ago
have you taken high speed rail in japan? it’s expensive. i remember it was cheaper to fly from tokyo to seoul than train from tokyo to osaka