5 ms·

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...
    - asdff 7y ago
      Have you read your own article that you've been promoting all over this thread? They are projecting carrying between 30-40m people by 2040, the buck doesn't stop at 10m a year at all. A nice quote: "In short, it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that the California line will eventually offset the environmental damage caused by its construction, and then some." The damage from air traffic isn't just from the greenhouse gasses they emit, but from the ultrafine particulate pollution that is currently unregulated. This pollution is too fine to be blocked by your lungs, enters your bloodstream, and are shown to be more toxic than large particulate in animal and cellular models. https://news.usc.edu/63466/new-concerns-raised-about-air-pollution-at-lax/ https://news.usc.edu/63466/new-concerns-raised-about-air-pol...
      - rayiner 7y ago
        The article makes two points. One, it presents the results of a study that shows HSR requires 10 million passengers per year to break even in terms of CO2 emissions. The second is to reiterate California’s projection that HSR will have 30-40 million riders by 2040. The former is a mathematical analysis. The latter is speculation, and completely unrealistic speculation. It is completely unreasonable to conclude that HSR will have more riders than the Northeast Corridor, which connects the densest and most transit rich corridor in the entire country. It’s completely unreasonable to assume it will have triple the passengers annually of all flights between SF and LA, given that the estimated ticket price would be just a little lower than airfare. (Transit projections are routinely completely wrong. The Silver Line projections in DC were way too high, even though that was a relatively easy calculation since Metro had existing suburban lines to base the estimate on.)

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...
  - asdff 7y ago
    Have you read your own article that you've been promoting all over this thread? They are projecting carrying between 30-40m people by 2040, the buck doesn't stop at 10m a year at all. A nice quote: "In short, it seems entirely reasonable to conclude that the California line will eventually offset the environmental damage caused by its construction, and then some." The damage from air traffic isn't just from the greenhouse gasses they emit, but from the ultrafine particulate pollution that is currently unregulated. This pollution is too fine to be blocked by your lungs, enters your bloodstream, and are shown to be more toxic than large particulate in animal and cellular models. https://news.usc.edu/63466/new-concerns-raised-about-air-pollution-at-lax/ https://news.usc.edu/63466/new-concerns-raised-about-air-pol...
    - rayiner 7y ago
      The article makes two points. One, it presents the results of a study that shows HSR requires 10 million passengers per year to break even in terms of CO2 emissions. The second is to reiterate California’s projection that HSR will have 30-40 million riders by 2040. The former is a mathematical analysis. The latter is speculation, and completely unrealistic speculation. It is completely unreasonable to conclude that HSR will have more riders than the Northeast Corridor, which connects the densest and most transit rich corridor in the entire country. It’s completely unreasonable to assume it will have triple the passengers annually of all flights between SF and LA, given that the estimated ticket price would be just a little lower than airfare. (Transit projections are routinely completely wrong. The Silver Line projections in DC were way too high, even though that was a relatively easy calculation since Metro had existing suburban lines to base the estimate on.)