5 ms·

This is great for China. Hopefully, US will be working in implementing this soon too.

by ujjwalg 17y ago

patio11 17y ago
I hope not. The shinkansen is lovely, don't get me wrong (+), but they estimate $40+ billion (which is likely about 40% of what it would actually cost given the persistent cost overruns in infrastructure projects) just to connect Sacramento through San Diego. The only thing that would come close to making trains economical in the US is a massive firebombing campaign of every city you hope they're going to run through, and even that would be pushing it, since even with cheap right-of-ways you'd still have to string them across the country. See, in general, http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-high-speed-rail-plan-is-fundamentally-flawed/ http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-h... + If you priced US high speed rail like Japan prices the shinkansen, it would cost you about $250 for a round-trip ticket from New York to Boston. I do the Nagoya to Tokyo circuit every once in a while for work. The system is one of the wonders of the modern world but, holy cow, is it expensive. (Its expensive to ride, its expensive to subsidize, and HOLY COW was it expensive to build. Shinkansen-related debt hit nearly 30 trillion yen -- that's in the general vicinity of $300 billion, folks. And that is for a country that would fit in California, with room to spare.)
- ardit33 17y ago
  and the alternative is? to build more highways? Is it any cheaper to raze down more buildings, to open more lanes. 101, and 280 in SF are already 5 lanes and full of traffic (101 is becoming like a parking lot, even in recession). The Bay Bridge is already 5 lanes each way, and always chocked. It is pretty clear that the highway system is not scaling well. Spending billions of dollars for more lanes, just wont work. And everytime me and you ride the highway, are are not paying for the full cost of it. Or gas taxes are just a mere fraction of the real cost. Just saying. And the projection of the SF to LA ticket cost, are about $55-60. Please no more FUD.
- ujjwalg 17y ago
  I understand what you are trying to say, and not being an expert or possessing enough knowledge about it, all I can say is it works in Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2009.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Eu... I am also very biased towards a well developed rail system, because I hate flying/driving. Being from India, I have traveled in train system, a lot, even though its not a high speed rail system. I loved it. I have been to europe a lot and am a fan of it. I know its a huge investment, and probably wont be profitable any time soon, but IMO, it will benefit in a very long term.
- jrockway 17y ago
  I doubt the use case in the US is to link every major city. The air network does this far more efficiently. Places in the US are way too far apart. High-speed trains would do well where conventional trains are too slow and regional jets are too expensive. (Example, Chicago-Madison). I also see high-speed trains as being useful for city/airport links. Oslo has a high speed train between its central station and the airport, which effectively abstracts away the fact that the airport is in the Middle Of Fucking Nowhere. (Tokyo suffers from this problem, as well. While flying from HKG to NRT recently, the thought crossed my mind that landing in KIX and taking the train to downtown Tokyo might actually be faster...) Even in cities like Chicago where the airport is close to downtown, conventional trains are too slow. (It takes me at least 45 minutes to get from Clark/Lake to O'Hare. A high-speed train could do that in 6 minutes! I would gladly pay a premium for this convenience.) Finally, cost is not an issue as infrastructure is never profitable. The interstate system is not making money, the airlines are not making money, and conventional trains are not making money. Society needs the infrastructure regardless, which is why we pay taxes.
- yuan 17y ago
  > See, in general, http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-h.. http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-h.... Too much hot air. How about some real numbers from historical data? From "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" by David McKay, p.121. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/Books.html http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/Books.html Energy consumption (kWh per 100 p-km) ------------------ Car 68 Bus 19 Rail 6 Air 51 Sea 57 ------------------ Table 20.8. Overall transport efficiencies of transport modes in Japan (1999).

This is great for China. Hopefully, US will be working in implementing this soon too.

by ujjwalg 17y ago

This is great for China. Hopefully, US will be working in implementing this soon too.

I hope not. The shinkansen is lovely, don't get me wrong (+), but they estimate $40+ billion (which is likely about 40% of what it would actually cost given the persistent cost overruns in infrastructure projects) just to connect Sacramento through San Diego. The only thing that would come close to making trains economical in the US is a massive firebombing campaign of every city you hope they're going to run through, and even that would be pushing it, since even with cheap right-of-ways you'd still have to string them across the country. See, in general, http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-high-speed-rail-plan-is-fundamentally-flawed/ http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-h... + If you priced US high speed rail like Japan prices the shinkansen, it would cost you about $250 for a round-trip ticket from New York to Boston. I do the Nagoya to Tokyo circuit every once in a while for work. The system is one of the wonders of the modern world but, holy cow, is it expensive. (Its expensive to ride, its expensive to subsidize, and HOLY COW was it expensive to build. Shinkansen-related debt hit nearly 30 trillion yen -- that's in the general vicinity of $300 billion, folks. And that is for a country that would fit in California, with room to spare.)

ardit33 17y ago
and the alternative is? to build more highways? Is it any cheaper to raze down more buildings, to open more lanes. 101, and 280 in SF are already 5 lanes and full of traffic (101 is becoming like a parking lot, even in recession). The Bay Bridge is already 5 lanes each way, and always chocked. It is pretty clear that the highway system is not scaling well. Spending billions of dollars for more lanes, just wont work. And everytime me and you ride the highway, are are not paying for the full cost of it. Or gas taxes are just a mere fraction of the real cost. Just saying. And the projection of the SF to LA ticket cost, are about $55-60. Please no more FUD.
ujjwalg 17y ago
I understand what you are trying to say, and not being an expert or possessing enough knowledge about it, all I can say is it works in Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2009.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Eu... I am also very biased towards a well developed rail system, because I hate flying/driving. Being from India, I have traveled in train system, a lot, even though its not a high speed rail system. I loved it. I have been to europe a lot and am a fan of it. I know its a huge investment, and probably wont be profitable any time soon, but IMO, it will benefit in a very long term.
jrockway 17y ago
I doubt the use case in the US is to link every major city. The air network does this far more efficiently. Places in the US are way too far apart. High-speed trains would do well where conventional trains are too slow and regional jets are too expensive. (Example, Chicago-Madison). I also see high-speed trains as being useful for city/airport links. Oslo has a high speed train between its central station and the airport, which effectively abstracts away the fact that the airport is in the Middle Of Fucking Nowhere. (Tokyo suffers from this problem, as well. While flying from HKG to NRT recently, the thought crossed my mind that landing in KIX and taking the train to downtown Tokyo might actually be faster...) Even in cities like Chicago where the airport is close to downtown, conventional trains are too slow. (It takes me at least 45 minutes to get from Clark/Lake to O'Hare. A high-speed train could do that in 6 minutes! I would gladly pay a premium for this convenience.) Finally, cost is not an issue as infrastructure is never profitable. The interstate system is not making money, the airlines are not making money, and conventional trains are not making money. Society needs the infrastructure regardless, which is why we pay taxes.
yuan 17y ago
> See, in general, http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-h.. http://green.venturebeat.com/2008/04/11/why-the-california-h.... Too much hot air. How about some real numbers from historical data? From "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" by David McKay, p.121. http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/Books.html http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/mackay/Books.html Energy consumption (kWh per 100 p-km) ------------------ Car 68 Bus 19 Rail 6 Air 51 Sea 57 ------------------ Table 20.8. Overall transport efficiencies of transport modes in Japan (1999).