6 ms·

To put this into perspective, the distance from Tokyo to Osaka is 506KM. It's roughly comparable to: * Ottawa->Toronto (449KM) * LA->San Francisco (622KM) *

by ihsw 13y ago

To put this into perspective, the distance from Tokyo to Osaka is 506KM. It's roughly comparable to: * Ottawa->Toronto (449KM) * LA->San Francisco (622KM) * Washington DC->NYC (363KM)

rsync 13y ago
310 mph in 2013. As opposed to 220 mph top speed in the year 2029 for california "high speed" rail. What a bright, wondrous future we will all be living in!
- thu 13y ago
  Isn't the maglev to be used publicly only in 2027 ?
- larsbot 13y ago
  From the article: The line between Tokyo and Osaka is expected to cost approximately $90 billion and it won't be completed until 2045 I think California's high speed rail project should be cancelled, but big infrastructure projects do cost a lot of money and take a long time, both in Japan and the US.
  - melling 13y ago
    It's going to be even more expensive in 30-40 years to build a maglev between LA and SF. Much of the cost is in obtaining the land. Wouldn't it be cheaper to build the first train now then turn it into a 320 mph maglev in 40 years?
    - larsbot 13y ago
      The cost is going to be high, maybe $100 billion by the time the project is done. Even with the feds helping, that is a huge sum. Are we really going to get the most "bang" for our bucks? How often do people travel between LA and SF anyways? Improve BART, VTA light rail and CalTrain (in the Bay Area), and I suspect it will have a much larger positive impact on the lives of more people.
      - Anechoic 13y ago
        * How often do people travel between LA and SF anyways?* According to the WSJ, 6 million people per year travel between LA & SF via air every year. I can't find highway numbers, but I gotta believe it's about the same order of magnitude, if not higher. Improve BART, VTA light rail and CalTrain (in the Bay Area), and I suspect it will have a much larger positive impact on the lives of more people. All of the above need to be done, both will have a positive impact of even more people.
        larsbot 13y ago
        Cal-HSRA predicts that by 2040 the train will reduce highway miles traveled by 10 million miles a day[1]. For comparison, in May 2013, there were 15.3 billion miles of travel just on California highways[2]. A reduction of 10 million miles a day would be about 2%, and assuming people continue to move into the state, the number of highway mile traveled per day will likely be quite a bit higher in 2040 than it is today. I don't know, it just doesn't seem like a very compelling argument to me. The state doesn't have unlimited resources. Spend the money where it will do the most good. [1] http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/fact%20sheets/Good%20for%20the%20State,%20Good%20for%20the%20Environment.pdf http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/fact%20sheets/Good%20for... [2] most recent month with available statistics, lots more data available here http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/ http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/
        Anechoic 13y ago
        A reduction of 10 million miles a day would be about 2%, In highway terms, that's a significant reduction. A reduction on the order of 1-3% (it depends on a number of factors including number of lanes, and distance between exits) can get you from LOS F traffic (stop & go) to LOD C/D traffic (heavy, but moving traffic).
      - kposehn 13y ago
        There would be a huge benefit from a high speed rail network in California, for sure. My main issue is the way they are going about it, which is a highly politicized construction process along with some really out-of-order prioritization. It would be much better to start with the low hanging fruit, like grade separation and electrification of Caltrain. That line would benefit immensely from some major upgrades, such as longer station platforms. To be fair, the most recent round of upgrades (ctc, quadruple track sections, new rolling stock) have been very well done.
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    That's precisely why these kind of high speed trains have no future. They cost way too much in infrastructure.
    - e12e 13y ago
      Right. And the initial railways that crossed the US were affordable?
      - ekianjo 13y ago
        Right. Did we have planes, cars and so on when we build the initial railways? I thought so.
  - prawn 13y ago
    I think the Japanese route includes a lot of tunnelling, including under cities and through mountains.
- chiph 13y ago
  California will never build their line. They'll soak up the federal money in study after study, and will ultimately decide it's uneconomical. In the meantime, projects like the Southeastern High Speed Rail Corridor¹, which is actually acquiring right of way and straightening rail lines to permit high speed travel, will be starved of funds. ¹ http://www.sehsr.org http://www.sehsr.org
  - Anechoic 13y ago
    California will never build their line. CA HSR authority signed a construction contract with Tutor Perini to start construction in the coming weeks. It's happening. * In the meantime, projects like the Southeastern High Speed Rail Corridor [..] will be starved of funds.* This isn't an either/or situation, we can (and are) doing both.
    - kposehn 13y ago
      The section in construction is a line to nowhere that will see no high speed traffic for years, if ever. The portions that must be worked on first is the crossing of the Tehachapi mountains, as it is the most time consuming portion. Yet instead, they are constructing line in the southern Central Valley. I agree with the pessimists. Much as I want high speed rail, I doubt it will happen.
      - Anechoic 13y ago
        The section they are construction is a section that a) will need to be built anyway, and b) be used as a test section to iron out the inevitable kinks that will pop up. The logic is that if a project is going to run into problems (which any large project, including this one, will) you may as well do the easier part first to make the later harder parts go more smoothly.
        kposehn 13y ago
        It would be logical to do that if it were a section that would see some measure if high speed use. The section which would see that would be from Martinez to Davis. That segment sees many capital corridor trains daily and would immediately benefit from high speed service. What they are working on now sees a small fraction of the ridership, iirc.
- a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
  Are people really worried about the difference of one hour or so on intercity trips? I kind of doubt it's that big a deal. Rock solid on time schedule adherence is the key thing, which Amtrak can't even get close to now. The other important thing would be more and better business class cars at a fair price. Business class should have strictly enforced quiet, be spotlessly clean, with totally reliable internet access.

by ihsw 13y ago

To put this into perspective, the distance from Tokyo to Osaka is 506KM. It's roughly comparable to: * Ottawa->Toronto (449KM) * LA->San Francisco (622KM) * Washington DC->NYC (363KM)

rsync 13y ago

310 mph in 2013. As opposed to 220 mph top speed in the year 2029 for california "high speed" rail. What a bright, wondrous future we will all be living in!

thu 13y ago
Isn't the maglev to be used publicly only in 2027 ?
larsbot 13y ago
From the article: The line between Tokyo and Osaka is expected to cost approximately $90 billion and it won't be completed until 2045 I think California's high speed rail project should be cancelled, but big infrastructure projects do cost a lot of money and take a long time, both in Japan and the US.
- melling 13y ago
  It's going to be even more expensive in 30-40 years to build a maglev between LA and SF. Much of the cost is in obtaining the land. Wouldn't it be cheaper to build the first train now then turn it into a 320 mph maglev in 40 years?
  - larsbot 13y ago
    The cost is going to be high, maybe $100 billion by the time the project is done. Even with the feds helping, that is a huge sum. Are we really going to get the most "bang" for our bucks? How often do people travel between LA and SF anyways? Improve BART, VTA light rail and CalTrain (in the Bay Area), and I suspect it will have a much larger positive impact on the lives of more people.
    - Anechoic 13y ago
      * How often do people travel between LA and SF anyways?* According to the WSJ, 6 million people per year travel between LA & SF via air every year. I can't find highway numbers, but I gotta believe it's about the same order of magnitude, if not higher. Improve BART, VTA light rail and CalTrain (in the Bay Area), and I suspect it will have a much larger positive impact on the lives of more people. All of the above need to be done, both will have a positive impact of even more people.
      - larsbot 13y ago
        Cal-HSRA predicts that by 2040 the train will reduce highway miles traveled by 10 million miles a day[1]. For comparison, in May 2013, there were 15.3 billion miles of travel just on California highways[2]. A reduction of 10 million miles a day would be about 2%, and assuming people continue to move into the state, the number of highway mile traveled per day will likely be quite a bit higher in 2040 than it is today. I don't know, it just doesn't seem like a very compelling argument to me. The state doesn't have unlimited resources. Spend the money where it will do the most good. [1] http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/fact%20sheets/Good%20for%20the%20State,%20Good%20for%20the%20Environment.pdf http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/fact%20sheets/Good%20for... [2] most recent month with available statistics, lots more data available here http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/ http://traffic-counts.dot.ca.gov/
        Anechoic 13y ago
        A reduction of 10 million miles a day would be about 2%, In highway terms, that's a significant reduction. A reduction on the order of 1-3% (it depends on a number of factors including number of lanes, and distance between exits) can get you from LOS F traffic (stop & go) to LOD C/D traffic (heavy, but moving traffic).
    - kposehn 13y ago
      There would be a huge benefit from a high speed rail network in California, for sure. My main issue is the way they are going about it, which is a highly politicized construction process along with some really out-of-order prioritization. It would be much better to start with the low hanging fruit, like grade separation and electrification of Caltrain. That line would benefit immensely from some major upgrades, such as longer station platforms. To be fair, the most recent round of upgrades (ctc, quadruple track sections, new rolling stock) have been very well done.
- ekianjo 13y ago
  That's precisely why these kind of high speed trains have no future. They cost way too much in infrastructure.
  - e12e 13y ago
    Right. And the initial railways that crossed the US were affordable?
    - ekianjo 13y ago
      Right. Did we have planes, cars and so on when we build the initial railways? I thought so.
- prawn 13y ago
  I think the Japanese route includes a lot of tunnelling, including under cities and through mountains.
chiph 13y ago
California will never build their line. They'll soak up the federal money in study after study, and will ultimately decide it's uneconomical. In the meantime, projects like the Southeastern High Speed Rail Corridor¹, which is actually acquiring right of way and straightening rail lines to permit high speed travel, will be starved of funds. ¹ http://www.sehsr.org http://www.sehsr.org
- Anechoic 13y ago
  California will never build their line. CA HSR authority signed a construction contract with Tutor Perini to start construction in the coming weeks. It's happening. * In the meantime, projects like the Southeastern High Speed Rail Corridor [..] will be starved of funds.* This isn't an either/or situation, we can (and are) doing both.
  - kposehn 13y ago
    The section in construction is a line to nowhere that will see no high speed traffic for years, if ever. The portions that must be worked on first is the crossing of the Tehachapi mountains, as it is the most time consuming portion. Yet instead, they are constructing line in the southern Central Valley. I agree with the pessimists. Much as I want high speed rail, I doubt it will happen.
    - Anechoic 13y ago
      The section they are construction is a section that a) will need to be built anyway, and b) be used as a test section to iron out the inevitable kinks that will pop up. The logic is that if a project is going to run into problems (which any large project, including this one, will) you may as well do the easier part first to make the later harder parts go more smoothly.
      - kposehn 13y ago
        It would be logical to do that if it were a section that would see some measure if high speed use. The section which would see that would be from Martinez to Davis. That segment sees many capital corridor trains daily and would immediately benefit from high speed service. What they are working on now sees a small fraction of the ridership, iirc.
a8da6b0c91d 13y ago
Are people really worried about the difference of one hour or so on intercity trips? I kind of doubt it's that big a deal. Rock solid on time schedule adherence is the key thing, which Amtrak can't even get close to now. The other important thing would be more and better business class cars at a fair price. Business class should have strictly enforced quiet, be spotlessly clean, with totally reliable internet access.