5 ms·

Did you know there are nice and fast trains in Europe outside of the Paris region?

by NegativeLatency 3y ago

b112 3y ago
Which carry all those people mentioned, around? Europe is crazily, densely populated.
- bigDinosaur 3y ago
  Perhaps you'll be shocked to hear that countries like Sweden have HSR despite not being particularly densely populated? It's absurd how much money is poured into roads and yet never attracts the same criticism.
  - jaggederest 3y ago
    The areas in Sweden with railroads are more populated than the Van/Sea/Pdx corridor, by about 1.8x, more if you drop a couple outlying small towns that don't make sense in themselves to connect except for network completeness reasons. Also, railways in Sweden are more middle-speed trains these days, running 200km/h as far as I am aware. These people are proposing 300km/h+ which requires a significantly higher level of track investment - you can't just use standard sleepers and bolted rails.
jaggederest 3y ago
Yes. I've ridden on many of them. I'm a huge HSR proponent. I just don't think it works for Eugene to Vancouver. If we had double the population it would be a no-brainer. The math is very clear. Below about 25,000 people per linear kilometer of lines, they require massive subsidies and never really pay off. Eugene to Vancouver BC is <12,000 people per linear kilometer. Honestly I would love to be wrong.
- NegativeLatency 3y ago
  We massively subsidize highways, so I don’t really see a problem with having other options that aren’t “profitable”
cyberax 3y ago
The whole WA is just around 7 million people. Portland area is around 2. Yet the distance between Seattle and Portland is the same as between Frankfurt and Munich. There's simply not enough traffic to justify a train. Another lane on I-5 would help a lot more.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  > Another lane on I-5 would help a lot more. That rarely works out how you would think: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
  - jaggederest 3y ago
    To play devil's advocate, induced demand is a good thing - more people getting to go where they want to go. I'm all in favor of HSR but you have to balance the viewpoint - roads are a good thing, in general, they just should be a (much smaller) part of the mix instead of the only answer. Most freight should move by boat and rail, most passengers should move by rail and bus, and roads should be mostly for adhoc trips and deliveries rather than daily commutes.
    - cyberax 3y ago
      Why should buses EVER be a part of any solution? They are terrible, and always will be. It's simple math: buses have to either have long intervals, or be horribly wasteful (and thus too expensive). At the moment, the most realistic solution is to just wait 10 years for the self-driving cars to mature and then build infrastructure around them.
      - jaggederest 3y ago
        Is that the most realistic? Because I don't think they're ever going to get L5 automation to work.
        3y ago

Did you know there are nice and fast trains in Europe outside of the Paris region?

b112 3y ago

Which carry all those people mentioned, around? Europe is crazily, densely populated.

bigDinosaur 3y ago
Perhaps you'll be shocked to hear that countries like Sweden have HSR despite not being particularly densely populated? It's absurd how much money is poured into roads and yet never attracts the same criticism.
- jaggederest 3y ago
  The areas in Sweden with railroads are more populated than the Van/Sea/Pdx corridor, by about 1.8x, more if you drop a couple outlying small towns that don't make sense in themselves to connect except for network completeness reasons. Also, railways in Sweden are more middle-speed trains these days, running 200km/h as far as I am aware. These people are proposing 300km/h+ which requires a significantly higher level of track investment - you can't just use standard sleepers and bolted rails.

jaggederest 3y ago

Yes. I've ridden on many of them. I'm a huge HSR proponent. I just don't think it works for Eugene to Vancouver. If we had double the population it would be a no-brainer. The math is very clear. Below about 25,000 people per linear kilometer of lines, they require massive subsidies and never really pay off. Eugene to Vancouver BC is <12,000 people per linear kilometer. Honestly I would love to be wrong.

NegativeLatency 3y ago
We massively subsidize highways, so I don’t really see a problem with having other options that aren’t “profitable”

cyberax 3y ago

The whole WA is just around 7 million people. Portland area is around 2. Yet the distance between Seattle and Portland is the same as between Frankfurt and Munich. There's simply not enough traffic to justify a train. Another lane on I-5 would help a lot more.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
> Another lane on I-5 would help a lot more. That rarely works out how you would think: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
- jaggederest 3y ago
  To play devil's advocate, induced demand is a good thing - more people getting to go where they want to go. I'm all in favor of HSR but you have to balance the viewpoint - roads are a good thing, in general, they just should be a (much smaller) part of the mix instead of the only answer. Most freight should move by boat and rail, most passengers should move by rail and bus, and roads should be mostly for adhoc trips and deliveries rather than daily commutes.
  - cyberax 3y ago
    Why should buses EVER be a part of any solution? They are terrible, and always will be. It's simple math: buses have to either have long intervals, or be horribly wasteful (and thus too expensive). At the moment, the most realistic solution is to just wait 10 years for the self-driving cars to mature and then build infrastructure around them.
    - jaggederest 3y ago
      Is that the most realistic? Because I don't think they're ever going to get L5 automation to work.
      - 3y ago