6 ms·

Oh please, just stop with the romanticism of high speed rail. It has little viability outside of very select areas and even the EU isn't exactly being well serv

Oh please, just stop with the romanticism of high speed rail. It has little viability outside of very select areas and even the EU isn't exactly being well served by it. This loss of funds is probably the best result for California because now they can blame Trump for its collapse. The sheer audacity of continuing the project with a limited route between two small cities shows just how much political weight is invested in this. [1] The ECA's new report [2] shows that it suffers from cost over runs, little inter connectivity, and has issues achieving the speeds promised. Can it be fixed, not without a lot of time, money, and cooperation between competing groups. That last is probably impossible. Yet we must understand that is the smaller areas needed to travel it is far more suited to Europe than America except in very narrow corridors and even that is stretching the truth. Where it works is where the population numbers are large enough to support and other travel options are highly limited. However in the US and EU it servers mostly well to do people. higher middle income and up and rarely if ever the lower ends of society who don't have the means for travel. It is a political toy that results in lots of press opportunities and largess spread among supporters, both in the US and EU [1] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-high-speed-rail-consultants-20190426-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-hi... [2] https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_19/SR_HIGH_SPEED_RAIL_EN.pdf https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_19/SR_HIGH...

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
China has HSR in its hinterlands. SF to LA is nothing when compared to Lanzhou to Urumqi at 200-250kph.
- LanceH 7y ago
  The problem with SF to LA is the hundred other required stops you'll have to make to get approval. And detours, and spurs, etc...
- ummonk 7y ago
  Sf to la was pitched at peak speeds of 220 mph though.
asdff 7y ago
SF to LA is probably one of the most traveled domestic air routes and airport pollution is devastating for cities. It's not sustainable environmentally and in terms of public health.
- rayiner 7y ago
  Airport pollution is not “devastating” for cities. Studies show that particulates, etc., are higher near airports but still within legal limits. California HSR, by contrast, would have been a CO2 disaster: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-rail/492 https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-hig.... It would need to have 10 million riders per year to break even in terms of CO2 footprint. The SF-LA flight traffic is just a third of that.
  - asdff 7y ago
    Studies show that airports pollute far more than people realized, particularly LAX which is conveniently located upwind from the millions who live in south LA: https://news.usc.edu/63466/new-concerns-raised-about-air-pollution-at-lax/ https://news.usc.edu/63466/new-concerns-raised-about-air-pol... Currently those ultra fine particles are not regulated at all, so I guess yes we are in legal limits until regulation catches up with the science. The SF to LA flight path is also only 20k passengers short of being the most trafficked air route out of any U.S. airport.
- masonic 7y ago
  Most airliner pollution doesn't even affect ground level directly; it's in the upper atmosphere, doing more damage.
thatfrenchguy 7y ago
> than America except in very narrow corridors and even that is stretching the truth There is 7 and 20 million people living in NorCal/SoCal, that’s much more than people living between Paris and Bordeaux on that line.
- rayiner 7y ago
  And almost none of those people have decent public transit to get to a rail station in the city.
  - kenneth 7y ago
    An Uber to the train station is still far better than having to drive the whole way.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      The cost of HSR would make it an alternative to flying, not driving. SF to LA is a $50 of gas. HSR tickets would be at least $100, and maybe $50 of Uber’s. For a family of four, a $50 trip turns into a $500 trip. We know all that because we have inter-city rail on the east coast. It’s an alternative to air travel, not driving. Normal people can’t afford $500+ round trip for a family trip from NYC to DC.
      - asdff 7y ago
        SF to LA is the second most trafficked air route in the U.S. carrying 3,507,702 in 2017, only roughly 20,000 flyers fewer than JFK to LA which is number one. This is very much supposed to be an alternative to flying and the resulting pollution.
        rayiner 7y ago
        3.5 million passengers per year isn’t enough to overcome the carbon footprint of building HSR in the first place. To just break even in that front, HSR has to replace every SF-LA flight, and also seven million car trips a year on top of that: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-rail/492/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-hig...

seanmcdirmid 7y ago

China has HSR in its hinterlands. SF to LA is nothing when compared to Lanzhou to Urumqi at 200-250kph.

LanceH 7y ago
The problem with SF to LA is the hundred other required stops you'll have to make to get approval. And detours, and spurs, etc...
ummonk 7y ago
Sf to la was pitched at peak speeds of 220 mph though.

asdff 7y ago

SF to LA is probably one of the most traveled domestic air routes and airport pollution is devastating for cities. It's not sustainable environmentally and in terms of public health.

rayiner 7y ago
Airport pollution is not “devastating” for cities. Studies show that particulates, etc., are higher near airports but still within legal limits. California HSR, by contrast, would have been a CO2 disaster: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-rail/492 https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-hig.... It would need to have 10 million riders per year to break even in terms of CO2 footprint. The SF-LA flight traffic is just a third of that.
- asdff 7y ago
  Studies show that airports pollute far more than people realized, particularly LAX which is conveniently located upwind from the millions who live in south LA: https://news.usc.edu/63466/new-concerns-raised-about-air-pollution-at-lax/ https://news.usc.edu/63466/new-concerns-raised-about-air-pol... Currently those ultra fine particles are not regulated at all, so I guess yes we are in legal limits until regulation catches up with the science. The SF to LA flight path is also only 20k passengers short of being the most trafficked air route out of any U.S. airport.
masonic 7y ago
Most airliner pollution doesn't even affect ground level directly; it's in the upper atmosphere, doing more damage.

thatfrenchguy 7y ago

> than America except in very narrow corridors and even that is stretching the truth There is 7 and 20 million people living in NorCal/SoCal, that’s much more than people living between Paris and Bordeaux on that line.

rayiner 7y ago
And almost none of those people have decent public transit to get to a rail station in the city.
- kenneth 7y ago
  An Uber to the train station is still far better than having to drive the whole way.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The cost of HSR would make it an alternative to flying, not driving. SF to LA is a $50 of gas. HSR tickets would be at least $100, and maybe $50 of Uber’s. For a family of four, a $50 trip turns into a $500 trip. We know all that because we have inter-city rail on the east coast. It’s an alternative to air travel, not driving. Normal people can’t afford $500+ round trip for a family trip from NYC to DC.
    - asdff 7y ago
      SF to LA is the second most trafficked air route in the U.S. carrying 3,507,702 in 2017, only roughly 20,000 flyers fewer than JFK to LA which is number one. This is very much supposed to be an alternative to flying and the resulting pollution.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        3.5 million passengers per year isn’t enough to overcome the carbon footprint of building HSR in the first place. To just break even in that front, HSR has to replace every SF-LA flight, and also seven million car trips a year on top of that: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-rail/492/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-hig...