High speed rail in the US.

California seems perfect for this. Wonder why it took so long. Car culture in the US?

http://news.yahoo.com/california-oks-funding-high-speed-rail-line-230224919.html

Really? I live in California, and I don't see it. Since this is the Science forum, not the Politics forum, maybe you have a scientific case you'd like to make?

ETA: I mean, something along the lines of "there are X people in San Francisco; Y good reasons for them to be in Los Angeles; and HSR is the most optimal, cost-effective method for getting them there, based on this pile of evidence Z."
 
Last edited:
ETA: I mean, something along the lines of "there are X people in San Francisco; Y good reasons for them to be in Los Angeles; and HSR is the most optimal, cost-effective method for getting them there, based on this pile of evidence Z."

I don't want to sound like I am piling on, but in addition to the above, I would also like to see some reasons why the train's death toll will not be astronomical when the next 6.8 hits.
 
Speaking from the New England perspective here, it was only about a hundred years ago that local trolleys and railways dotted the region. Where I lived in the 70's and 80's, Western Connecticut, there was once a street railway that ran all the way up half the state edge and into Pittsfield, Massachusetts. There was also an East-West railway running from Hartford across the top of the state until the 1950's, a North-South railway running along the western edge, and another North South railway across the line in New York, running up the eastern edge of that state until the 1970's. All but the North south line are gone, turned either back to pasture or into bikeways, and the North South has been freight only for about 50 years, except for scenic rides on a seasonal schedule. In addition, every town of any size had trolleys that went through the city and out to the suburbs, all done in by the 1950's and paved over.

Depending on your point of view, the time for rail travel ended, or the automotive culture, and (so I read) the clever act by General Motors of buying up old trolley lines and replacing them with buses, spelled a permanent end to mass rail transit here, or the government made a big mistake by subsidizing highways and letting rail travel wither. It will never be remotely practical now to regain the rights of way that railways gave away or allowed to lapse in past years.
 
I don't want to sound like I am piling on, but in addition to the above, I would also like to see some reasons why the train's death toll will not be astronomical when the next 6.8 hits.
Why should it be? Why would this line be more dangerous than the Shinkansen for example? It's never had a fataility due to earthquake. And only one derailment due to earthquake, with no deaths or injuries. Any reason to think California's lines will be worse in this regard?
 
Wouldn't it be possible (and advisable) to have siesmic monitoring equipment hooked into the fail-safe mechanisms?
But aside from that, and aside from the job-creation aspect...Will it be profitable?
 
Wouldn't it be possible (and advisable) to have siesmic monitoring equipment hooked into the fail-safe mechanisms?
But aside from that, and aside from the job-creation aspect...Will it be profitable?
It's only profitable if you assume Californians living near the tracks will ride the train at twice the rate of any other HSR system on the planet.

A dubious proposition IMHO.
 
HSR is so 1950s, the future is electric cars.
I have heard of electric cars, but not that they will drive as fast as high speed rail. I don´t see how electric cars are an answer superior to HSR for any intercity travel needs. Not to talk of intercontinental travel needs, for which purpose China and Russia are planning a HSR from Beijing to Paris. Needs to be helluva electric car to serve that distance in a way superior to HSR.
 
Last edited:
It's only profitable if you assume Californians living near the tracks will ride the train at twice the rate of any other HSR system on the planet.

A dubious proposition IMHO.
A dubious claim IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail (even the costs cited in the "criticism" section don't preclude profitability).

http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2011/06/high-speed-rail-operation-surplus.html (I didn't verify all the numbers here but the couple I checked were correct)
 
I have heard of electric cars, but not that they will drive as fast as high speed rail. I don´t see how electric cars are an answer superior to HSR for any intercity travel needs.

The wikipedia entry in my prior posts includes some comparisions to highway costs.
 
Because it will accomplish nothing except for being a black hole into which gobs of cash will be thrown, never to be seen again.

HSR is so 1950s, the future is electric cars.

Thank you. These things are always several times more costly than promised, and cost more to run than promised, requiring regular cash infusions from government to keep up the fraud of reasonable, competative ticket prices.

Private capitalism has lead to plane tickets that are cheaper than rail or Greyhound even in some cases.
 
I have heard of electric cars, but not that they will drive as fast as high speed rail. I don´t see how electric cars are an answer superior to HSR for any intercity travel needs.
They can go wherever there's a road, and there's lots of roads. Not much railroad track by comparison.People traveling in an electric car can stop and see the sights they're driving by, enjoy a meal in a restaurant, play whatever music they like without headphones, etc etc etc.

And short to medium distances can actually be travelled faster in a car, since the train station may be an hour or 2 out of the way. Cheaper too, since you don't have to rent a car once you get to your destination and the more passengers you have, the cheaper the ride unlike trains where everyone has to pay.

Not to talk of intercontinental travel needs, for which purpose China and Russia are planning a HSR from Beijing to Paris. Needs to be helluva electric car to serve that distance in a way superior to HSR.
For that distance airplanes are much less expensive, you only need to build airports. No need for tens of billions of dollars in infrastructure and all its necessary maintenance costs in between destinations.
 
Thank you. These things are always several times more costly than promised, and cost more to run than promised, requiring regular cash infusions from government to keep up the fraud of reasonable, competative ticket prices.

Private capitalism has lead to plane tickets that are cheaper than rail or Greyhound even in some cases.
"these things"? How is building a railway different than building an airport with public money? And operation of the trains could be privatized (I don't know what the plan is for public vs private operation in California).
 
A dubious claim IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail (even the costs cited in the "criticism" section don't preclude profitability).

http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2011/06/high-speed-rail-operation-surplus.html (I didn't verify all the numbers here but the couple I checked were correct)
Here's an actual published study done by academics with lots of letters after their names, not by train aficionados trying to get everyone else to pay for their fetish: http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2010/RR/UCB-ITS-RR-2010-1.pdf

But hey, California has billions of dollars they don't know what to do with I suppose...
 
Why should it be? Why would this line be more dangerous than the Shinkansen for example? It's never had a fataility due to earthquake. And only one derailment due to earthquake, with no deaths or injuries. Any reason to think California's lines will be worse in this regard?

To me it looks like all of California's tracks will be close to major faults. But I will completely concede the point on the condition that if 26 years from now there are deaths from an earthquake I get to say "I told you so."

Unconditionally conceded.
 

Back
Top Bottom