33 ms·

So cost, energy usage (weird to lump fossil fuels and nuclear together), and soil from tunneling are opposition reasons? Benefit is faster trip and potential to

• ciconia 2y ago
  It would be interesting to measure the environmental cost, which is substantial, against the benefits: 40 minutes instead of 50 from Tokyo to Nagoya, 67 minutes instead of 90 from Tokyo to Osaka. Is this reduction in travel time worth consuming 3 to 4 times the energy?
  • gravescale 2y ago
    Tokyo to Nagoya now is about 95-100 minutes: 50 minutes is the time difference, not the current duration. It's a little over twice as fast. I also imagine that like the (cancelled) HS2 in the UK, a major driver is not only faster journeys (though HS2 was a much more marginal time saving, certainly not half) but relieving capacity on the existing "stopping" line, which has 365 trains a day, 450,000 daily passengers and is the busiest high speed line in the world.
    • danw1979 2y ago
      HS2 is only cancelled if you live in the north east and pay no tax.
      • eynsham 2y ago
        This misses the main benefit of HS2 which is making the network as a whole more efficient by eliminating bottlenecks. When people say ‘we should improve regional rail services’, they ignore that HS2 is what that looks like. And, frankly, if HS2 doesn’t reach Euston, it’s nearly cancelled for many Londoners due to the inconvenience. https://www.londonreconnections.com/2023/hs2-a-high-speed-beeching/ https://www.londonreconnections.com/2023/hs2-a-high-speed-be...
        • danw1979 2y ago
          What bottleneck between London and Birmingham exists that is making my journeys from York to Leeds so fraught ? Are you trying to convince me that HS2 is worth my tax £s because it’ll make TPE services better ?? No more capital expenditure should be allocated to London bound rail services until the northern corridor line (Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, York, Hull) has been substantially upgraded or replaced.
          • eynsham 2y ago
            I agree that the segment north of Birmingham was important for removing bottlenecks, including those that affect services from London. That is precisely why I think it makes little sense to regard HS2 as meaningfully cancelled only for those in the northeast. The cancellation is a problem for everybody.
          • switch007 2y ago
            I do love it when HS2 is sold as the solution to all rail congestion everywhere in the UK. Absolutely hilarious that in fact a separate rail upgrade project is underway between Manchester and York, unrelated to HS2
• asdajksah2123 2y ago
  The vast majority of opposition isn't from environmentalists. At least that's not what the article says. In fact, the only person quoted speaking about the environmental impact is a local dairy farmer, who's more concerned about loss of local "nature" rather than broader environmental concerns. I can't speak to whether this is a good project or not. The article doesn't provide enough details for that, but what is pretty clear is that the article provides no evidence that any opposition is due to environmentalists. Also, thanks to environmentalists millions fewer people are dying each year. Or I guess you really like lead in your air, or burning rivers, or smog, or skin cancer, or asthma... And we haven't even touched on the impacts of climate change yet.
  • ben7799 2y ago
    Isn't this train much more efficient than the alternatives though? Cars will be vastly worse and take vastly longer. Airplanes are worse. The only possible better alternative is a slower train.
• Affric 2y ago
  Nuclear and fossil are both non zero marginal cost energy sources that Japan pays global market prices for. Makes sense to group them from a cost perspective at least.