3 ms·

> California hadn't been able to build a train a fraction of that distance without delays and squandering[??] massive amounts of money. It costs money and time

by rpearl 2y ago

> California hadn't been able to build a train a fraction of that distance without delays and squandering[??] massive amounts of money. It costs money and time to build HSR. Fine. The J(N)R director who ran the shinkansen project literally lied to multiple levels of government to shield the (2x+) budget overruns. He resigned and then within a year of it opening he was given a medal for extraordinary contributions to Japan. > Because nationwide high speed rail isn't as easy - or practical - as you think. Who is claiming that it is easy? However, it is practical! It takes 6 hours to drive Tokyo to Osaka; it's 2hr by train. Trains leave every 5 minutes. A west coast HSR network is just obviously practical! Beijing-Shanghai HSR is 1300km; SF to Seattle would be the same. It'd be 4-5h on a train. Right now it's 2.5 hours on a plane plus a recommended 1.5 hours for security and boarding plus transfers on each side--I'd rather take a high speed train If I could! SF to LA could be ~3h. 90 minutes on a plane plus lead time and transfer times and it's competitive. Again. > There are US states similar in size to EU countries with comparable rail networks. Oh, which ones?

ajmurmann 2y ago
I think it's relevant that Shanghai and Beijing are 5x the size of SF and Seattle while construction cost are a significant upfront barrier and don't go down much by needing to service fewer travelers.
monkeywork 2y ago
>A west coast HSR network is just obviously practical! Beijing-Shanghai HSR is 1300km; SF to Seattle would be the same. It'd be 4-5h on a train. Right now it's 2.5 hours on a plane plus a recommended 1.5 hours for security and boarding plus transfers on each side--I'd rather take a high speed train If I could! SF to LA could be ~3h. 90 minutes on a plane plus lead time and transfer times and it's competitive. Again. So just to be clear you are saying at best the time difference between flight and HSR would be minimal - so where is the payoff for the billions the infrastructure would take to build. If it's purely capacity couldn't you spend a fraction of the billions you'd spend on the new infrastructure to bolster the existing system?
- saagarjha 2y ago
  Environment? Comfort?
  - monkeywork 2y ago
    That's worth the price tag, environmental impact, and government land repossession that will be required?
    - saagarjha 2y ago
      Often, yes. Have you considered how the alternatives fare on those?

by rpearl 2y ago

ajmurmann 2y ago

I think it's relevant that Shanghai and Beijing are 5x the size of SF and Seattle while construction cost are a significant upfront barrier and don't go down much by needing to service fewer travelers.

monkeywork 2y ago

>A west coast HSR network is just obviously practical! Beijing-Shanghai HSR is 1300km; SF to Seattle would be the same. It'd be 4-5h on a train. Right now it's 2.5 hours on a plane plus a recommended 1.5 hours for security and boarding plus transfers on each side--I'd rather take a high speed train If I could! SF to LA could be ~3h. 90 minutes on a plane plus lead time and transfer times and it's competitive. Again. So just to be clear you are saying at best the time difference between flight and HSR would be minimal - so where is the payoff for the billions the infrastructure would take to build. If it's purely capacity couldn't you spend a fraction of the billions you'd spend on the new infrastructure to bolster the existing system?

saagarjha 2y ago
Environment? Comfort?
- monkeywork 2y ago
  That's worth the price tag, environmental impact, and government land repossession that will be required?
  - saagarjha 2y ago
    Often, yes. Have you considered how the alternatives fare on those?