[HN Gopher] China unveils 600 kph maglev train
___________________________________________________________________
China unveils 600 kph maglev train
Author : awiesenhofer
Score : 199 points
Date : 2021-07-20 12:46 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| bfung wrote:
| This article sounds like pure fluff - the new train is
| "unveiled", but has it taken anyone from one side of Qingdao to
| the other yet? Will it really go as fast as it claims in
| production environment?
|
| I'm sure everyone's code is bug free and high performing before
| being deployed in production as well ;)
|
| http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| andrewzah wrote:
| The safety record of the Shinkansen lines in Japan is
| impeccable [0].
|
| The design and maintenance of train lines is not really
| comparable to typical software design.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen#Safety_record
| guenthert wrote:
| "While there are no inter-city or inter-province maglev lines yet
| in China that could make good use of the higher speeds, some
| cities including Shanghai and Chengdu have started to conduct
| research."
|
| So, what exactly has been unveiled? The vehicle itself? Yet
| another test ground (there has been such in Germany since the
| eighties)? It might be news-worthy that the new train can reach
| 600km/h, instead of the 450km/h earlier trains could, but ...
| just barely.
| samatman wrote:
| 133% increased performance under controlled conditions bores
| you?
| maattdd wrote:
| I'm not a native speaker, but shouldn't it be "33% increased
| performance" or "133% performance" instead ?
| mkl wrote:
| You are correct.
| Brendinooo wrote:
| Neat to see, wonder how realistic it is or if it's something that
| we should be skeptical of until it actually gets built.
|
| > By comparison, the journey would take 3 hours by plane
|
| Are they factoring in the security line? That flight should be
| two hours tops.
| yladiz wrote:
| I think by journey they mean the travel time including
| security.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| For what it's worth, this has been in the works for a long
| time, the news is that a prototype finally rolled out of the
| factory.
|
| China is hell-bent on making trains that can compete with air
| travel. I don't think they will give up until it's actually
| done, there is a huge need for an alternative to air travel in
| China for many, many reasons.
| guywhocodes wrote:
| This makes it ironic that boarding a train in China has
| airplane level security
| mijamo wrote:
| Except if it has changed in the last 4 years I disagree,
| security is nowhere near what they make you go through for
| flying. It's not even at the level needed to take the
| Eurostar.
| goodcanadian wrote:
| It does? I'll admit it has been a few years, but I don't
| recall any security of note when I visited.
| angio wrote:
| You need to pass your luggage through metal detectors to
| enter train stations in busy cities. Not comparable with
| airports where security takes much much longer.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| FWIW, if you factor in the security line and transition to/from
| airport, a 2 hour flight becomes a 5+ hour ordeal.
| adrianN wrote:
| I wonder what the CO2/(passenger*km) looks like for trains at
| those speeds, especially if you add in some amortized cost for
| all the infrastructure the train needs
| bluGill wrote:
| Don't forget that airplanes spend their time at altitude where
| this is much less wind resistance.
| frereubu wrote:
| This is an interesting read on that subject:
| https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2013/12/high-speed-trains-ar...
| One of the many complexities involved is the fact that high-
| speed trains on existing lines take up much more track space
| and push out slower-moving trains which link up the smaller
| stations. So city-to-city is fine, but towns and below get a
| reduced service, leading to more car traffic to get to stations
| (and more pure car journeys).
|
| This makes the point that the more trains are powered by clean
| electricity though, the better:
| https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2007/04/planes-on-whe-1.html
| dalbasal wrote:
| How do you amortize CO2?
| GrantZvolsky wrote:
| CO2/(passenger*km), not CO2.
| natpalmer1776 wrote:
| You take out a loan from the CO2 bank with CO2 bring charged
| as interest, and then slowly pay it back over the course of a
| few decades. How much you pay back is something the atom
| counters figure out, I'm naught but a humble Oxygen farmer.
| adrianN wrote:
| You guesstimate how much CO2 was released during
| construction, and divide by the expected lifetime of the
| structure and add a guesstimate for the CO2 used for
| maintenance.
| xster wrote:
| Also, how do you amortize the alternatives? e.g. the
| airports, getting to the airports (which are further from
| city centers than train stations), etc?
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Depends; if you use renewable energy, operating it could pretty
| much be neutral. Given that this is in China, I would expect
| them to mostly power this with renewables (wind, hydro, or
| nuclear). They do still build a lot of coal as well of course.
|
| Steel production for the infrastructure could long term also be
| a lot cleaner but is short term likely to have a substantial
| CO2 footprint. But that would be similar to other high speed
| rail options. Probably, over the life time of the installation,
| it would be quite good.
| fvdessen wrote:
| I remember some paper looking at this question, and if you took
| into account the train infrastructure, planes were not too far
| off. But train has other advantages such as reduced noise
| pollution, being able to bring you right to your destination,
| and not being hijackable into buildings.
| opinion-is-bad wrote:
| Are planes really more noise pollution? I agree they create
| more concentrated noise, but they seem to be less noisy
| overall than trains since planes are quiet once in the air.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I've lived ~250m from train tracks and ~10km from an
| airport, the latter was way more annoying.
|
| Honestly the most annoying part of living next to the train
| was waiting for the level crossing.
| pengaru wrote:
| I rented a warehouse in Millbrae near the SFO international
| airport for a year. The noise pollution is obnoxious, but
| the air pollution is way more of an issue.
|
| Commercial jets starting, idling, and taxiing are
| incredibly dirty machines - it's nowhere near their optimal
| operating conditions and it's not like they have catalytic
| converters cleaning up their exhaust.
|
| Furthermore, even though they're not supposed to jettison
| fuel before landing anymore, I'd find what were clearly
| oily droplet stains on my convertible's rag-top
| disturbingly often. Busy international airports are
| environmental disasters.
|
| HSR seems like a complete no-brainer for domestic travel
| from where I'm sitting, if only we could get the lines
| built in the US.
| Anechoic wrote:
| Yes. The noise impact of trains is measured in hundreds of
| feet (maybe thousands if a locomotive is blowing a horn at
| a grade crossing). The noise impact from an airport is
| measured in miles.
|
| Furthermore, for a given noise level, any number of surveys
| have shown that noise from planes is more annoying than
| from trains or roadways.
| melling wrote:
| The train infrastructure over 50 years? I doubt if air travel
| is even close to as environmentally friendly
|
| The real problem with not doing the trains is the right of
| ways become difficult.
|
| California wanted to build high-speed rail in the 1970s but
| the car culture won. They kept expanding the highways.
|
| Now they can't build directly between SF and LA, for example.
|
| People also overlook that trains can make a few stops along
| the way.
|
| China transports over a billion passengers a year by rail.
| Put them in the air
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Now they can't build directly between SF and LA, for
| example.
|
| Geography and geology make building HSR between LA and SF
| difficult. You'd need to bore through a bunch of mountains
| to get to the Central Valley and then bore through more
| mountains to get to the SFBA.
| melling wrote:
| i imagine building the more direct route in the 1970s
| would have been much cheaper, even after adjusting for
| inflation
| antihero wrote:
| Also by building dedicated express and high speed train
| lines (such as we're doing in the UK with HS2) you enable
| the stopping services to be far more efficient and
| frequent, which means more people can use them.
| adrianN wrote:
| The big advantage is that you can easily run trains off of
| CO2-neutral electricity. The answer to my question heavily
| depends on how the electricity mix looks like.
| credit_guy wrote:
| > The answer to my question heavily depends on how the
| electricity mix looks like.
|
| Yes, but the electricity mix will continue to move towards
| more renewables. Air travel will continue to use fossil
| fuels.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Indeed, there is pretty much 0 feasible way of moving air
| travel to carbon neutral energy. Even biofuels are simply
| not economically feasible and may well never be, and
| batteries are a no-go.
| ChemSpider wrote:
| Great, I love the Chinese train network. But unfortunately, as of
| today, it is mainly coal-powered. And they are still building
| more and more coal-fired power plants:
|
| https://e360.yale.edu/features/despite-pledges-to-cut-emissi...
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Well at least with a train system there's an _option_ to green
| it up medium term. Better than investments into air
| infrastructure, no?
|
| Of course, I'm blissfully unaware of China's air travel
| developments. I'd be surprised though if they were _not_ also
| huge. :D
| iso1210 wrote:
| United just ordered 100+ electric short haul planes.
| mimixco wrote:
| China doesn't have the national road network like the US, so
| they built out a train system. As far as air travel, their
| Comac airplane has been accused of being a copy of an Airbus.
| It has about 300 orders from Chinese companies and no
| deliveries, as far as I can tell:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comac_C919
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| China has also been rapidly expanding its national highway
| system. It's now larger than the US Interstate System.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressways_of_China
| mimixco wrote:
| I was not aware that it had gotten so large. That's cool.
| But it still doesn't run end-to-end, like ours did from
| the beginning. That feature lead to the development of
| both sides of the country.
| justicezyx wrote:
| I read and analyze a similar piece with same/similar title from
| foreign affairs. Maybe the exactly same article, but I did not
| verify.
|
| Disclaimer: I grew up in China and moved to US at age 24 in
| 2008.
|
| The article exhibits the typical myopic viewpoint of US news
| reporting. Take the coal powered energy, in the context of
| carbon emissions.
|
| China constantly broadcast her energy policy, there were never
| goal to reduce coal consumption, because there are cheap coals
| in China.
|
| In order to meet the carbon emissions targets, there are a
| plethora of measurements:
|
| * Higher efficiency coal power factory, where coal can be
| burned in cleaner generators and produces electricity for
| consumption.
|
| * Reduce the use of coal for non power use. Like my hometown in
| shanxi, now it's banned to burn coal for heat. People have to
| use something close to natural gas.
|
| * Close less efficient coal power factory.
|
| * Increase the use of renewable energy. The majority of the
| energy use increase are going to be provided by renewable and
| nuclear power. While coal consumption remain steady.
|
| * Reforestation and environmental projects to restore the
| natural carbon emissions capacity.
|
| Yet, these articles constantly slam on the non decreasing usage
| of coal, and pay no attention to the increased efficiency, and
| the shift of usage pattern from being coals directly to
| producing electricity.
|
| These are more like non technical but ideology charged reporter
| not understanding the delicacy of large scale social and
| economic problem, and refuses even to read some basic public
| policy documents.
|
| It's seeing a tree while ignoring the while forest.
| ChemSpider wrote:
| > and pay no attention to the increased efficiency,
|
| Other parts of the world also have efficient, modern and new
| coal plants, and they are also getting closed (but of course,
| old ones first). Even the most efficient oal-fired power
| plant produces huge amounts of CO2.
|
| And in other parts of the world, this is also causing social
| disruptions, e. g. for the people working in oal-fired power
| plants. None of these challenges are unique to China. But as
| the worlds #1 or #2 economic power, China has a huge
| responsibility to do the right thing.
| justicezyx wrote:
| No, my point was that for China, they believe the right
| thing to do is what they are planning to do, not closing
| all the coal plants right now.
|
| And the reporting we see here, gloss over the reasonings
| and mind bending on the idea that coal usage are not
| reducing.
|
| China cannot afford reducing coal usage because there are
| no easy way to provide the needed power. And there are
| other means to offset the carbon emissions, and it's been
| worked on.
|
| Of course, different nations would have different
| measurements to meet the carbon neutral goal, and precisely
| that what China are pursuing, I.e., a method that fits
| China's situation.
| dpix wrote:
| I wonder how fault tolerant maglev systems are. The tracks must
| have to be incredible straight and precise to have a train
| hovering over it at 600km/hr over those kinds of distances.
|
| With traditional rail it's relatively simple to fix up parts of a
| track or have areas where trains need to slow down to accommodate
| tricky sections of track. Must be a lot more difficult to repair
| a maglev track section?
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Where does it go? Is it real? Or a demo?
| throwaway4good wrote:
| From another source, on the economics of Maglev trains:
|
| https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202107/1229097.shtml
|
| China's speediest 600 km/h maglev rolls off assembly line in
| Qingdao city
|
| ...
|
| But Zhao Jian, a professor with Beijing Jiaotong University, said
| that it is unlikely to export China's maglev train and relevant
| technologies in the near future, as other countries lack the
| scale to make the maglev lines profitable.
|
| "The maglev lines can earn money only when a network of high-
| speed transportation is formed, with huge passenger flows," Zhao
| told the Global Times on Tuesday.
| throwaway4good wrote:
| I think only where the population density is very high, maglev
| trains make economic sense: China, Japan, maybe Germany.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Maglev or other high speed rail (by highspeed I mean
| 300km-400km/h, not this 1960s stuff California is talking
| about) is fine for dense cities between 200 and 1000km apart
| where there's enough traffic to justify the line (i.e.
| 200,000 passengers a day in each direction over the bulk of
| the line -- 1000 seats at 20 trains per hour in each
| direction)
|
| For much under 200km there's starts to be little benefit to
| high speed (10 minutes - station design and frequency far
| more important)
|
| For more than 1000km then you'll struggle to compete with
| planes -- although a 600kph maglev probably works at most
| scales -- certainly upto 3000km.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > (by highspeed I mean 300km-400km/h, not this 1960s stuff
| California is talking about)
|
| CAHSR is slated for 220mph, or 350km/h.
| jinto36 wrote:
| Obligatory Japan Rail Maglev mention, the present plan for the
| Chuo shinkansen (bullet train) maglev is for 500 km/h in
| passenger service, though it's already been tested at speeds over
| 600 km/h. This train will eventually connect Tokyo to Osaka with
| service taking a little more than an hour, compared to the
| present 2.5 hours on the fastest traditional shinkansen service.
|
| The original goal was to have the maglev in service by 2027, but
| they're presently negotiating routing through an area in shizuoka
| that would need to go under a river that seems to be causing some
| contention.
|
| I don't doubt that China can get their project built faster due
| to differences in how such projects are executed there. The
| maglev project in Japan has been in planning for decades, and
| under construction for about a decade.
|
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%A%C5%8D_Shinkansen
|
| Japan does have a commercial maglev service already, having built
| one for Expo 2005 in Nagoya. I've been on it, it's kind of neat,
| but it's quite slow and doesn't have the grand air of futurism a
| super-fast maglev does. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linimo
|
| Here's hoping for some progress in room temp superconductors, so
| that these projects are more feasible!
| EarthIsHome wrote:
| Incredible.
|
| I would love to have a good high-speed intercity train network in
| the United States connecting the major cities in each State.
|
| I just looked up an Amtrak from Atlanta to Dallas: 3 legs around
| 64 hours. _Cries in American._ (there 's no connection in New
| Orleans, so the trip planner routes to Chicago)
| grishka wrote:
| Here in Russia trains are rather popular. There are "high-
| speed" trains between Moscow and St Petersburg, they go around
| 200 km/h but they still take around 4 hours. Oh and they're
| made by Siemens, and they're capable of going faster, except
| their speed is limited by shitty tracks. Like you can't even
| walk in a straight line inside this thing while it's doing 200,
| so I imagine it'd shake itself apart if it tried accelerating
| any further. That's probably better than Amtrak, but Russian
| railways could still use a lot of improvement.
| Proven wrote:
| > I would love to have a good high-speed intercity train
| network in the United States connecting the major cities in
| each State.
|
| Of course.
|
| But you wouldn't want to pay for it.
| bluGill wrote:
| Even at 600 km/h Atlanta to Dallas is too far for a train when
| you could fly instead.
|
| There is a lot of potential for rail in the US, but Atlanta to
| Dallas isn't it.
| Darmody wrote:
| At that speed planes are better only for very, very long
| distances.
|
| Trains also are electric which is a plus.
|
| You can get to the station 2 min before it leaves and jump
| in.
| dmos62 wrote:
| In China for inter-city trains you have security checks and
| you wait in front of a gate. Experience is identical to an
| airport.
| Symbiote wrote:
| In China, you need to show your passport/identity card to
| buy the ticket, since free movement is restricted in this
| way. Therefore, they have to check when you board the
| train.
|
| In Europe, Japan and Taiwan etc, it's a good idea to be
| there a few minutes before (especially if you're not
| familiar with the station), but it's always less time
| than required for getting on a plane.
| dmos62 wrote:
| That's 2 hours at 600 km/h. A flight would take longer,
| because of security check, getting to-from airport, waiting
| for luggage, etc. Also, being on a plane sucks, in my
| personal opinion. If a train ride was 6 hours, and a plane
| ride 4, I'd take the train. If it were ~8 and 4, that's where
| I'd start considering taking a plane.
|
| I'd love overnight trains to come back to Europe.
| johncalvinyoung wrote:
| > I'd love overnight trains to come back to Europe.
|
| Are they gone? I've gone backpacking in Europe a couple
| times with a rail pass or tickets in the last ten years,
| and regularly used overnight trains.
| dmos62 wrote:
| What routes did you take an overnight train on?
| Symbiote wrote:
| http://www.night-trains.com/ has maps, the Europe map is
| pretty decent (fits my experience of what exists).
| bluGill wrote:
| They are in general going away. There are three problems:
| first, what do you do with the train during the day when
| nobody wants a bed (regular trains park at a station
| overnight and are ready to go the next morning). Second,
| they only are useful when the entire trip is about the
| length of a nights sleep - which limits the city pairs
| they work with (and note no changing trains in the middle
| of the night!). Third, how will you maintain the track if
| there are trains running on it.
|
| The last is the biggest. You need to close track
| regularly to maintain it, and closing all tracks for 8
| hours at night is the easiest for people to figure out.
| Symbiote wrote:
| If anything, they're coming back.
|
| > first, what do you do with the train during the day
| when nobody wants a bed (regular trains park at a station
| overnight and are ready to go the next morning).
|
| Most trains are taken (empty) to a depot for cleaning and
| maintenance -- the schedule is generally planned around
| this. It's also where the drivers turn up for work, and
| it's easier to cope with illness etc this way.
|
| A few trains will be left near a station to run the first
| train(s) towards the depot in the morning.
|
| Nevertheless, I imagine there are places where costs have
| been cut to the bone, and there aren't spare sidings for
| a night train.
|
| > Third, how will you maintain the track if there are
| trains running on it
|
| You plan the night train with sufficient slack in the
| schedule to take an alternative route. This can also help
| with the second point.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25420455 from 7
| months ago, etc.
| baybal2 wrote:
| > A flight would take longer, because of security check,
| getting to-from airport, waiting for luggage, etc.
|
| Which is a plain idiocity. A train derailment, even of a
| non-high speed train, will make for a many times bigger
| bodycount than an even A380 crash.
| bluGill wrote:
| There is no excuse for a train to derail. Do your
| maintenance and operations right.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I think people misunderstood my point. I was telling that
| a deliberate sabotage on a railway can be many times more
| deadly, not an accident from "natural" causes.
|
| Otherwise, yes, trains are almost as safe as air travel,
| if not even safer.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| No it won't. A few years ago, we had an Amtrak passenger
| train come off a bridge over I-5 between Olympia and
| Seattle at 78mph, ending up on the freeway.
|
| Three fatalities. Seventy-two people transported to
| hospital.
|
| Fun fact: I was on the first fire engine that arrived on
| that accident.
|
| Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Washington_tra
| in_derailme...
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Wow. I've heard firefighters are typically excited to get
| a call as opposed to being bored at the station, but how
| did you feel going into that? At the time, you can't
| imagine what you're about to see or what you're going to
| have to do...
| FireBeyond wrote:
| It really was a challenge. While oftentimes the dispatch
| information we get can be vague or inconsistent with
| reality (the number of times we go on structure fire
| calls that are really burn barrels, or a roof steaming in
| the sun, or a sunset reflecting in a window...), but with
| something like this, 911 is getting hundreds of calls and
| you know it's "real".
|
| There's a lot of adrenaline. I think even the most
| seasoned, salty veteran would be lying if they said they
| responded to that call all cool, calm and collected.
|
| But you go back to training. Which is instilled into you
| as "don't train until you get it right, train until you
| can't get it wrong".
|
| Scene safety. For yourself, crew, bystanders, the
| involved.
|
| Resource needs. More ambulances? Cranes?
|
| Then setting up for a mass casualty incident - usually
| broken down into triage, treatment, and transport -
| assigning resources to those.
|
| You're right though, it's hard - you want to not be
| bored, to have something to do, but you don't want
| someone to have a horrible day. There's a mental
| balancing act going on.
|
| I remember one of my EMT students, on her first ride
| along, was for a bad trauma (felled tree bounced and hit
| someone in the back, causing significant spinal damage
| and chest injuries). We rendezvoused with a helicopter,
| intubated, did needle decompressions of the chest, and
| off they went. My student was a little 'off' afterwards.
| I asked if she was okay. "I feel so guilty!". I
| completely misread her, told her nothing was her fault,
| and said it was okay that she didn't participate as much
| as possible in patient care versus assisting. "No, I feel
| so guilty because that guy is so sick, but that was f-ing
| awesome to see!"
|
| So yeah...
| [deleted]
| cossray wrote:
| You may want to look at the Japanese train 'bodycount'.
| They've arguably the most elaborate rail system and I
| believe it's still safer than air.
| ginja wrote:
| That's not true. Most derailments are minor and kill less
| than some 10% of passengers. Even one of the worst
| accidents in recent years in a western country[0] had 79
| deaths out of 222 people on board (plus it was
| preventable like many rail accidents and would be
| impossible today as automated speed controls were put in
| place).
|
| On the other hand, an aircraft crashing into a populated
| area will definitely kill everyone on board plus all the
| unlucky folks on the ground who happen to get hit by it.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela
| _derailm...
| baybal2 wrote:
| Well, none of that was a deliberate sabotage.
|
| A subversionist can easily sabotage the railway over a
| bridge, on a slope, or time it to have a collision with
| another train.
| jcranmer wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_derailment
|
| This is pretty much the worst-case kind of derailment:
| the train derailed mid-switch, causing half the train to
| go down one track and the other half to go the other
| track. The sideways car then crashed into the immediately
| adjacent road pillar, destroying the car and the road on
| top of it. The rest of the train then plowed into the
| carnage and folded up like an accordion.
|
| Total death count: 101, of 286 passengers.
|
| An A380 will carry more passengers (500-600, I think),
| and a typical plane crash will have a much higher death
| train.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It would be wayyyy faster than a plane Atlanta to Dallas. It
| would be a 2h30 minute journey from getting into the train
| station to leaving the train station. Compare that to the 3-4
| hours it would take from getting into the airport to leaving
| the airport (with 2h10 flight).
| thehappypm wrote:
| Trains aren't that great of an idea for long-haul intercity
| transit in the US. The distances in the US are pretty big
| outside of a few pockets of European or Japanese style
| population density. Airplanes are just better at a certain
| distance.
| gsnedders wrote:
| This is why you don't build HSR across all of the continental
| US, just where the population density justifies it.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| I mean, you could have had this for a long time already if
| there were political will. This _newly_ unveiled Chinese
| train is based on decades old German tech. They tricked
| Siemens into building them a "test track" in Shanghai ages
| ago, with the promise of giving them a contract for longer
| routes. Now they have the tech and plan to build it
| themselves.
|
| Btw, other countries determined the maglev tech to be
| uneconomical. I think India and Saudi Arabia and some other
| places were interested but ultimately nothing became of it.
| gsnedders wrote:
| I was talking generally about HSR, rather than
| specifically about maglev.
|
| Maglev is complex because:
|
| * it guarantees you can't run services beyond the limit
| of the new-built track,
|
| * the extra speed comes with higher operational costs
| (because drag, so you need the time saving to increase
| modal shift), and
|
| * higher construction costs (to get the higher speeds,
| you need to build it with very large radii corners, which
| limits your ability to choose one's route to minimise
| significant structures; and if you want city-centre
| stations, you have no choice but to build a new line all
| the way in, and it turns out that acquiring land in
| cities is expensive).
|
| I wouldn't _totally_ write off maglev, but there are
| relatively few corridors which align to make all of this
| worthwhile.
| bluGill wrote:
| Maglev at high speeds is cheaper operating costs than
| normal rail. (normal rail - in tests - has gone just as
| fast as existing maglev (not this future advance, what is
| running in production service) The limit to normal rail
| is actually the power supply (overhead wires) and not the
| wheels on steel rails. However as you go faster maglev
| operating costs are cheaper than normal rail at the same
| speed (more than slower speed normal rail). Also maglev
| needs less track maintenance which is a large advantage
| in operating costs.
| gsnedders wrote:
| I mean the record speeds for maglev and steel wheel
| trains aren't far apart -- 603 km/h v. 574 km/h. My
| understanding is the limits on steel wheel trains in
| practice are managing airflow on ballasted track (as the
| airflow can pick up lose ballast and propel it into the
| train or anything else nearby) along with pantograph-
| catenary contact as you mention.
|
| My understanding about maglev operational costs is that
| the energy consumption of each service is higher (due to
| the need to maintain the electromagnets, which end up
| consuming more energy than is used to overcome the
| rolling resistance of steel-on-steel), though the overall
| operating costs are hard to judge (especially when the
| only operational line is both short and there is little
| in the way of public data about its costs).
| thehappypm wrote:
| I wonder if you could beam power to an airplane instead,
| or maybe even have a low-flying airplane touch electrical
| wires. An airplane with no battery -- solves a lot of the
| Maglev problems.
| bluGill wrote:
| Touching electrical wires is the limit to existing HSR -
| you can only go so fast before you run into problems. I
| don't know if they can be engineered out.
|
| I don't know if beaming power is practical. Tesla was
| working on it long before we were born.
| codegeek wrote:
| I have made my peace with the fact that Car and Airline Lobby
| will not let this happen. I mean we are the richest frikin
| country in the world and we cannot build a decent high speed
| train network. Only reason is that some strong forces do not
| want this to happen. I hope I am wrong.
|
| I also hear funny arguments (in my opinion) about why high
| speed Rails are a bad idea. Oh it's too expensive. Oh it is ok
| for countries like China because they have lot of people etc
| etc. Excuses. I thought we like choices as Americans. Right
| now, if I don't want to drive, my only option is to fly mostly
| in a shitty plane cramped up with strangers on a 4 hour flight.
| I would gladly trade that with a train even if that takes say
| an additional hour or so. Are Amtraks the best we can do
| America ?
| mimixco wrote:
| The best explanation I've heard is that the interstate system
| killed the need for trains here. We're the only country in
| the world with anything like it. (Fun fact: It's the world's
| largest infrastructure project.)
|
| Because of highways, we're already connected in ways that
| wouldn't even be possible with trains. It's just faster and
| more practical to drive the entire way, or drive to an
| airport and from an airport to your destination, than to add
| a train station into the mix. In France, you can walk from
| your apartment to the metro, change to the regional train,
| and even go international without getting in a car. This will
| never be possible in the US because we build cities and
| suburbs around the highway system.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| > In France, you can walk from your apartment to the metro,
| change to the regional train, and even go international
| without getting in a car.
|
| This is absolutely possible to do in the USA. When I worked
| with an engineering team in Copenhagen I did it several
| times a year. I don't even live in NYC.
|
| Even domestically I can take the train from my West Coast
| city to the airport, fly and then take the train to my
| family in the Virginia suburbs.
| mimixco wrote:
| Yes, I was speaking of country-scale. Specifically,
| countries the size of the US, which are few and far
| between. This is not possible at country scale in the US.
| bluGill wrote:
| German drivers on the autobahn with no speed limits still
| drive about the same speed as US drivers on the interstate.
| Trains around the world regularly go much faster. That is
| before we get into how much safer trains are than even the
| best drivers (sorry humans, you all suck as drivers, it
| isn't "just the other guy"), or other environmental issues.
|
| There is plenty of room for more rail in the US because I
| want to get "there" faster and planes are not faster for
| many trips.
| mongol wrote:
| What makes the interstate system globally unique?
| mimixco wrote:
| Well, it's the only thing like it in the world! We are
| the only country that has a highway network (as in,
| multilane, graded, exits, safety areas, services, etc.)
| that runs "from sea to shining sea" and top-to-bottom as
| well. Literally every city in America can be reached from
| it and, paramount in its construction, every military
| base. A design requirement was that military airplanes be
| able to land on major highways if necessary for military
| maneuvers.
|
| The interstate helped make America what it is. It created
| a massive westward expansion even greater than the
| railroads. It turned San Jose from prune and peach trees
| into Silicon Valley. It turned Florida from a useless
| swamp into Miami. It enabled the escape from Detroit that
| led to that city's bankruptcy. It wiped out countless
| communities (especially communities of color and rural
| farm communities) when it skipped over them in its
| development, or put a pylon right through a local
| neighborhood.
|
| I think the history of the interstate and what it's
| become is fascinating. This fab promo video from the
| construction era shows some of the PR they used to sell
| it to the public:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnrqUHF5bH8
| michaelpb wrote:
| > It turned Florida from a useless swamp into Miami.
|
| ...I love poking at fun at the state of Florida as much
| as the next guy, but come on, "a useless swamp"? You
| really are asking for downvotes with that one lmao
|
| https://forest-monitor.com/en/Everglades-Is-Not-Swamp/
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Trans-Canada Highway has entered the chat
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Trans Canada Highway is on par with the major US federal
| highways, e.g. US2. It is not comparable to something
| like I90.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| hehe, I know it's nothing compared to the interstate
| system I just wanted to give it a shout for connecting
| across a good chunk of an equally large country etc
| charrondev wrote:
| > multilane, graded, exits, safety areas, services, etc.)
|
| As someone who actually just finished a month trip from
| eastern Canada to the Yukon and back, and drove almost
| the entirety of the trans Canada highway, it's laughable
| compared to the US road infrastructure.
|
| There are large sections that are 2 way single lane
| highway.
|
| There are parts of this "highway" that slow to 40km/hr as
| you drive through a small town.
|
| I mean I'm glad it's there, but I've also taken long road
| trips through states and found the interstates highways
| to be a big step up in quality.
| mimixco wrote:
| The Florida Turnpike system is the most amazing road I've
| ever been on. It's 309 miles with incredible Service
| Plazas that contain separate areas for trucks and cars, a
| gas station, sparkling restrooms with attendants (and
| sponsorships), branded restaurants, convenience stores,
| etc. All of this is open 24 hours, patrolled by lots of
| cops, road assistance services, etc.
|
| While not part of the Interstate system, it's of course
| connected. The road is quite expensive and the tolls make
| so much money for the State of Florida that they don't
| need to charge income tax or corporate tax. Pretty
| amazing.
| SonicTheSith wrote:
| Ehm, just so you every european country has such a
| system. Since you have to compare europe as whole to the
| US for size comparison. You can drive anywhere in europe
| through a system of highways and interstates. You can
| also fly to each city, but we still have a rail
| system.... That goes everywhere. You can drive from the
| northern most point in finland down south to the most
| southern point in italy. Same from west to east. You
| could even drive to moscow, china, korea and japan.
|
| Tldr the americans interstate system is nothing more than
| a copy of the german autobahn... And was never something
| unique.
| mimixco wrote:
| What's unique about the US system is its scale. It's
| 48,000 miles of graded, standardized highways with safety
| features, exits, services, etc. There's just nothing like
| that anywhere and it helped our country develop in the
| unique way that it did.
|
| The idea definitely germinated in the Autobahn. The proof
| is in the pudding. (I just love that expression.) The US
| used its scaled interstate system to achieve a range of
| product and population distribution that was
| unprecedented. It also clobbered passenger rail in the
| process. Conversely, Europe, not having a well developed
| interstate (would need to be inter-country to even scale
| to a few US states), did not develop or extend its road
| system in the way the US has. Instead, it built trains.
|
| It's not a matter of one is better than the other. Each
| one is better for the countries involved because of their
| size and geography.
| nicoburns wrote:
| This link[0] says that Europe had 77000km = 47845 miles
| of motorway in 2018. It's probably not quite as
| standardised as the US system, but it seems broadly
| comparable. See the second link[1] for a picture.
|
| [0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/449781/europe-
| eu-28-time...
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_E-
| road_network#/...
| kube-system wrote:
| You're comparing all European motorways to the largest
| category of motorways in the US. Not all motorways in the
| US are classified as part of the Interstate Highway
| System, even though they're connected to them. The US
| also has many motorways that are part of State Highway
| systems[0], and the Federal Numbered Highway system[1].
|
| If we're talking about all motorway style roads, there's
| some additional roads in the US that qualify: 67,353
| miles or 108,394km[2].
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbered_highways_in_t
| he_Unite...
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered
| _Highway...
|
| [2]: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistic
| s/2017/h...
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| What makes you think that European highways don't connect
| between countries? You can cross the continent without
| leaving a motorway.
|
| It's even standardized:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_E-
| road_network
| kube-system wrote:
| > The roads should preferably be motorways or express
| roads (unless traffic density is low so that there is no
| congestion on an ordinary road).
|
| That sounds more similar to the US Numbered Highway
| system than it is to the Interstate Highway System: https
| ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Numbered_Highway..
| .
|
| The Interstate Highway System is a different system -
| _entirely_ controlled-access motorways, with a minimum of
| 4 lanes, divided, and no at-grade crossings.
| NLips wrote:
| I don't think the parent is saying the whole E-road
| network is the equivalent; just that it provides examples
| of moving country to country without leaving motorways.
| rizpanjwani wrote:
| >You could even drive to moscow, china, korea and japan
|
| Japan eh?
| cheetor wrote:
| Reminds me of the good ol' days when google would tell me
| to kayak across the Pacific Ocean
| Toutouxc wrote:
| > Well, it's the only thing like it in the world! We are
| the only country that has a highway network (as in,
| multilane, graded, exits, safety areas, services, etc.)
| that runs "from sea to shining sea" and top-to-bottom as
| well. Literally every city in America can be reached from
| it
|
| No offense, but that sounds so violently American. Do you
| realize that most of Europe is covered by a network of
| standardized, multilane highways with exits and services
| that is much denser than the IHS?
| mimixco wrote:
| It wasn't meant to be violent but definitely American.
| Specifically, the fact that we developed this early in
| our history and instead of an expanded passenger rail
| network, while Europe went the other way. It simply is
| not true that other countries have both the same road
| systems as we have in the US _and_ functionally-
| equivalent passenger rail systems. Every country has one
| or the other. We are the country that first committed to
| total car-ization (with many unintended, unforeseen, and
| unfortunate consequences) and we took roads to a whole
| 'nother level of utilization and commercialization. I
| don't think that's in doubt. Is it?
| jbay808 wrote:
| Wasn't it basically modelled after the Autobahn?
| mimixco wrote:
| Exactly. And scaled massively. And overdone in the usual
| US style, with US-style repercussions.
| codegeek wrote:
| I love our Interstate Highways and wouldn't trade it for
| anything BUT why does it have to be 1 or the other. Why not
| both ? America can do it. I know we can.
| supertrope wrote:
| Desirable land is finite. Tax dollars are finite. Time is
| finite. Americans have spent generations and trillions of
| dollars building highways, roads, and parking to make
| driving really convenient. Every acre used for highways
| and parking is an acre that can't be used for train
| stations, apartments, and fully grade separated bike
| roads.
|
| Any discussion on reallocating some land or dollars to
| alternative transportation is immediately rejected by the
| car dependent majority. "Why should a portion of gasoline
| tax go toward public transportation?" "Bike lines
| increase traffic!" "The new development would change the
| neighborhood character!" "Add more lanes!"
| mimixco wrote:
| Great comment. It's just not practical to have two
| systems. Too expensive. Too hard to get anyone to sign
| off on both. Both take a lot of public money and it's
| hard to get people to duplicate spending when the other
| thing is "working." Worse is better, to use software
| speak!
|
| I wouldn't trade our Interstate for anything, either and
| anyone who says that the roads outside of Paris are
| anything like US interstates just hasn't been on the
| latter. Anyway, I also _love_ European trains and have
| spent lots of time on those. The benefits of going from
| Metro in France for a day trip to Belgium, then back to
| Paris in time for dinner is just fabulous. No car. No
| luggage. _That_ is simply not happening in the US.
| Symbiote wrote:
| This is next-level American exceptionalism.
|
| Here's a random bit of French motorway, not radiating
| from Paris, and a random bit of interstate.
|
| I don't see any difference.
|
| A89 https://maps.app.goo.gl/DfPWAMrsm4J4R3QQ8
|
| I70 https://maps.app.goo.gl/r34MPasPfxn6XTUg6
| mimixco wrote:
| I accept that accusation with exceptional American pride.
| I think everyone should be proud of the unique features
| of his or her country and how they led to its history.
|
| I love your definitely non-random town selection in the
| US. Excellent. My comment was aimed at the overall level
| of standardization and features of the American
| interstate, as well as its early and pivotal development
| in our country's history. That's all. It was not a slight
| at anyone else's roadways, however exceptional.
| 6510 wrote:
| > Oh it's too expensive.
|
| The Chinese probably have some funky calculation that shows
| it makes the country that much more efficient.
|
| For reference, it takes 4.5 hours to travel from one end of
| the Netherlands to the other by train. China is 231X larger.
|
| https://www.mylifeelsewhere.com/country-size-
| comparison/neth...
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| China can do this because their technocrats have no issue
| demolishing the homes of half a million rural folks to help
| the urban elites. There are trade offs in a democracy, it is
| designed to be slow because as a feature everyone has a
| voice.
|
| We don't get shiny trains, but we might have a more stable
| form of government?
| Fricken wrote:
| I don't understand the nuances of Chinese property law, but
| I doubt you would see things like this if Chinese
| authorities could run people off their land for any old
| reason:
|
| https://abcnews.go.com/International/slideshow/stubborn-
| nail...
| usefulcat wrote:
| > Right now, if I don't want to drive, my only option is to
| fly mostly in a shitty plane cramped up with strangers on a 4
| hour flight.
|
| Would high speed rail be that different? Not being snarky, I
| really don't know. I just figure that if it's very fast
| and/or expensive, it's probably not going to be very roomy on
| the inside. That Chinese train looks like it's about the same
| width or less than most airliners.
| porphyra wrote:
| As someone who has taken the Shinkansen in Japan, the seats
| and legroom are vastly bigger and more comfortable than on
| airplanes. Moreover, the view is nice and normal air
| pressure is nice too.
| codegeek wrote:
| Perhaps not but it is very tough to do anything normal like
| even a laptop/reading unless there is no turbulence which
| is never guaranteed.
| powersnail wrote:
| As someone who travels frequently with both plane and
| trains, (Modern) trains are much more pleasant to ride than
| planes.
|
| - More space (including the Chinese ones). While it might
| not be wider than a plane, it's order of magnitudes longer.
| So, each row has less seats, and rows are much farther from
| each other than on a plane.
|
| - More room for bags and suitcases as well. There's usually
| no need to check your luggage, unless you have an excessive
| amount of them.
|
| - No turbulence
|
| - You can stand, walk, eat, drink, open the table, work
| with electronics, etc. at any time.
|
| - No long-ass waiting time before and after. For a 8:00
| train, all you need is to be able to walk onto it at 7:59.
| Whereas for a plane, they won't let you on unless you are
| present at the gate before 7:45 (the exact time depends on
| the airport). And not to mention the security checks.
|
| - Quietness
|
| - Air is better
| jdavis703 wrote:
| I've ridden the Acela on the Northeast Corridor. It's about
| as roomy as first class on a jet.
| helen___keller wrote:
| In theory I agree, although in practice the experience is a
| lot different due to 1. less security theater (even in
| China, HSR security isn't as bad as American flights), 2.
| The vehicle itself is generally pleasant to ride on, as
| opposed to the turbulence, the takeoff/landing, and the air
| pressure that a passenger on a flight experiences, 3. It
| generally feels more scenic / touristy in the train because
| you can see the mountains and villages go by.
| nradov wrote:
| On most air routes severe turbulence is rare. Take off
| and landing only take a few minutes.
| jdavis703 wrote:
| Chinese surveillance allows them to operate the
| equivalent of TSA PreCheck without having to do a
| background check on people.
| mikeblackson wrote:
| With all the public and private surveillance, the US can
| do something similar.
| jmrm wrote:
| That's a really good question, and I think is better than a
| plane in this ways:
|
| - No need to wait in any way to out your bags or suitcases.
| Maybe a fast X-ray scanner where you put them in a side and
| pick them in the others in about 10 seconds.
|
| - You know and can select where you want to sit precisely
| during the ticket purchase, unlike AmTrack.
|
| - Due to the previous detail, you can show up to the train
| door even a minute before leaving without Any problem.
|
| - All trains have a previously programmed leaving and
| arrival time, so there's no need to wait for traffic
| control in normal conditions.
|
| With all of this, even with a train and a plane having the
| same travel duration, in a plane you will have to wait for
| a lot more of "bureaucracy" than in a train.
|
| All of this is based in personal experiences using mid-
| distance trains in Spain, and the fast long-distance ones
| are even better and more comfortable.
| SheinhardtWigCo wrote:
| It's too late now. It would take 20+ years; by then we'll
| probably have level 5 autonomous driving systems, making rail
| obsolete.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| 200 cars traveling between L.A. and Phoenix vs. one train
| traveling at 350 MPH? Why would we ever want that?
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Even in a state like California where the population is pro-
| rail and mass transit, the sheer cost of building high speed
| rail means the project won't come to fruition any time soon.
| The automobile and airline lobby is powerful, yes, but the
| sheer cost of public works projects in the US seems to be the
| biggest limiting factor.
|
| In the PRC, if the government wants to build a high speed
| rail line, it's getting built and F-U if you want to stop it.
| In the US the process is 'democratized' and every little
| busybody comes out to protest the construction, drag the
| process out, or get some variance approved for some hitherto
| unexpected concern.
| mullingitover wrote:
| There are some depression-era eminent domain laws that the
| federal government can use if they really want to.
| Literally the proper filings are made and the bulldozers
| can roll the next day.
|
| The reason we don't have nice things like China does is
| just political will, not any legal barriers.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I'd be curious to know what these laws say. Isn't eminent
| domain primarily governed by the Constitution (5A)?
| ggggtez wrote:
| It's complicated, but my understanding is that the
| government can take things, as long as it actually has
| plans to use the stuff it takes to help the public. E.g.
| building dams, highways, etc are the common use cases.
|
| Importantly those highways don't need to be free to use.
| The government can take land and build a for-profit
| railway, in conjunction with a private corporation if
| they want, as long as it was to benefit the public.
| larkost wrote:
| The Supreme Court recently ruled that this is pretty
| general. Specifically they ruled that Chicago could take
| land (with payment) in order to give it to a chocolate
| factory that wanted to expand:
|
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-02/suprem
| e-c...
| willcipriano wrote:
| It was found in 2005 that they can take your property and
| give it to another private party simply by making the
| claim that its for the public good. This has been used to
| take homes from people so they can be bulldozed and
| replaced with new construction, the idea being that the
| larger tax base is for the public good. This makes the
| power in effect limitless as you can claim almost
| anything is for the public good.
|
| A major problem I have with this is appraisal prices
| often don't jive with reality. For example in San
| Fransisco houses almost always sell above asking, if the
| government were to step in and give the land away to a
| private person at asking they would be in effect getting
| a discount. Similarly my own home has had a lot of work
| put into it that doesn't effect it's appraisal price
| meaningfully, if forced to sell at that price I'd lose
| money.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_Londo
| n
| mullingitover wrote:
| The federal power for eminent domain that allows for
| 'seize the land and deploy the bulldozers the next day,
| deal with the court stuff later' comes from the Taking
| Act[1].
|
| States have their own eminent domain powers which vary,
| however in general they're easy to sandbag in the courts
| for years, preventing the state from doing anything while
| the landowners argue over the money.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Declaration_of_
| Taking_...
| codegeek wrote:
| I hear you but it is weird to see America falling behind in
| these things while the rest of the world catches up.
| Americans built a World Class Highway System in the 50s and
| I am sure we had the same argument back then on how it is
| so expensive or democratized that we cannot take away
| people's land etc etc. Yes it is tougher in democratized
| countries and there are good reasons for it but do we
| really give up ? I cannot imagine that.
| bluGill wrote:
| The discussions on you can't take away land didn't start
| until the 1960s, and costs went way up as a result.
| kube-system wrote:
| Some of the current US backlash on eminent domain is a
| direct result of neighborhoods destroyed by the
| Eisenhower highway system... often poor black
| neighborhoods which nobody cared about in the 50s. The
| Voting Rights Act was passed 9 years later.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I know this is going to come across as an apologia for
| building highways through poor neighborhoods, but I see
| that as a natural consequence of the land simply being
| cheaper to acquire. I'm not denying that there was
| possibly some racial malice in the planning. It just
| seems obvious to me a government with limited funding is
| going to put the infrastructure through the cheapest path
| it can find. It was still a terrible thing to do to those
| neighborhoods, however.
| FreakyT wrote:
| The key argument against this is that many of the planned
| highways were _also_ supposed to go through richer
| neighborhoods, but never got constructed because the
| residents of those neighborhoods were able to
| successfully fight against them.
|
| (For one example, check out the incomplete stub at the
| eastern terminus of I-70 -- I don't believe the cost of
| the land was a major factor in that case)
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I did not know that. I will have to look up more about
| I-70.
| FreakyT wrote:
| Exactly -- you can't build big projects without stepping
| on someone's toes. What we really need is equal-
| opportunity toe-stepping.
| advrs wrote:
| The difference is that the interstate highway system was
| not simply built for mass civilian transit, but as part
| of a post-WW2 initiative, functioning as emergency
| landing strips and providing easier access between
| airports, seaports, rail terminals, and military bases
| (which tend to reside near interstate highways).
| bewbaloo wrote:
| the whole "emergency landing-strip" thing is a myth btw
| Xylakant wrote:
| In the US that's true (according to Wikipedia), but in a
| lot of places around the world, landing strips on the
| highway used to be (or still are) a thing.
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_strip
| bewbaloo wrote:
| yeah, i would think that, generally (maybe even
| universally), the interstate roads in the us are neither
| wide nor thick enough to support aircraft. i didn't
| realise that there are countries that actually did this
| though; that's pretty neat.
| bilbo0s wrote:
| What incenses me is that here in Wisconsin, they can
| declare farms that have been in our families for over a
| hundred years "blighted", and take them for a non-existent
| Foxconn plant with nary a peep. But if they need land for a
| high speed rail they can't do the same? If the people
| against high speed rail want to lie, OK, I get it. But why
| not come up with something consistent with the reality that
| the people are observing?
|
| At this point, they don't even pretend to respect the
| intelligence of the people.
| germinalphrase wrote:
| The Foxconn boondoggle (and wisconsin state level
| politics in general) always fires me up.
| powerapple wrote:
| Just to correct, in PRC if your property is in the road
| planning area, you would be very happy because the
| compensation is very good compare to what you have. Of
| course, in developed countries, things are more expensive,
| and maybe people already have nice houses so they don't
| want to move to a new building.
| narrator wrote:
| The way environmental legislation works in the U.S, if some
| environmental non-profit wants to start throwing spaghetti
| at the wall to stop infrastructure construction, they can
| stop it basically forever by tying it up in court for
| decades.
| FreakyT wrote:
| You're getting downvoted, but it's true -- CEQA is a
| great example of how well-intentioned environmental
| legislation can be abused by basically anyone to
| stonewall any project for any reason.
|
| A common-sense change might be requiring minimum
| quantities of local signatures to limit the potential
| impact of a small opposition.
| narrator wrote:
| Yeah CEQA is why the high speed rail project will never
| get built. It grants godlike powers to NIMBYs in
| California. Every single mile of the high speed rail
| project has the potential to get stuck in CEQA hell.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Qu
| ali...
|
| "In one case, anti-abortion activists filed a CEQA
| lawsuit to try to block a new tenant (Planned Parenthood)
| from using an already constructed office building in
| South San Francisco. They cited the noise caused by their
| own protests as the environmental impact requiring
| mitigation. This lawsuit delayed the new tenancy by at
| least 18 months."
|
| "Governor Jerry Brown, in an interview with UCLA's
| Blueprint magazine, commented on the use of CEQA for
| other than environmental reasons: "But it's easier to
| build in Texas. It is. And maybe we could change that.
| But you know what? The trouble is the political climate,
| that's just kind of where we are. Very hard to -- you
| can't change CEQA [the California Environmental Quality
| Act]. BP: Why not? JB: The unions won't let you because
| they use it as a hammer to get project labor agreements."
| "
| Retric wrote:
| America simply has an issue with construction costs, look
| at say the big dig in terms of millions per mile. HSR along
| reasonably flat terrain like most of the US isn't that
| expensive. The real issue is it's very easy to cut from
| budgets. Unlike highways you don't connect every city let
| alone town which makes it extremely unpopular at the state
| level.
| fouric wrote:
| Now seems like a good time to bring up Considerations on
| Cost Disease!
|
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-
| cost...
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I think the Texas high speed rail is running into issues
| with eminent domain along its proposed route and they're
| trying to use some 1800's era law to get around the
| lawsuits from the landowners looking to cash in.
| [deleted]
| DrBazza wrote:
| It's a Western problem. China just moves people out of the
| way. In the West, you have go around, under, or over. Labour
| costs are low. The CCP answers to itself. Can I build this?
| Of course you can!
|
| In the UK, there's archaeological surveys, bio-
| diversity/green considerations, carbon impact, political
| lobbying. The list just goes on and on and on.
|
| The US, at least, is largely an empty continent. You can
| probably draw a line between cities and not hit many things.
| Plus the US love-affair with cars means you could, if you
| wanted to, build terminals outside major cities and rent a
| car to drive the last part and still conceivably run a
| profitable service.
|
| In the UK, we must have our terminals in the city centres
| which adds so much more to the cost as we have to tunnel
| under and into the cities.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_1
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| I don't see what's stopping the US from building elevated
| rail over interstate highways. They already own the rights
| of way, and the radii of curvature are already pretty
| large. As a conservative lower bound, they should at least
| be able to match automobile speeds.
|
| Additionally, those highways typically enter cities, so
| stations could be built over them, often right in the city
| center. That does leave details about how those stations
| are accessed, but this seems minor since everything else
| has already been dealt with.
|
| I wonder if an executive order could make it happen.
| muskox2 wrote:
| Wouldn't it also be much, much more expensive than
| building the line on the ground?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It 's a Western problem_
|
| It's more accurately a common law problem. European states
| with Napoleonic law appear to avoid the cost spiral.
|
| > _You can probably draw a line between cities and not hit
| many things_
|
| The empty parts are away from cities. The California and
| Capitol corridors are (a) prime rail routes and (b) almost
| contiguous megalopolises.
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| > _European states with Napoleonic law appear to avoid
| the cost spiral._
|
| At least not in France. The "SNCF" had to be rescued by
| the French state three times since it was created in
| 1937. And it was created because the private companies it
| replaced were bankrupt. [0] (in French)
|
| Each year the French state gives ~16 Billion Euros to the
| company [1] (in French)
|
| [0] https://www.lemonde.fr/les-
| decodeurs/article/2018/03/19/cinq...
|
| [1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soci%C3%A9t%C3%A9_natio
| nale_de...
| distances wrote:
| Each and every country loves to complain about their
| railway services. I bet you're selling the French
| railways short here. I'd assume you're doing better than
| UK, and definitely an order of magnitude better than US.
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| I did not complained, I replied to:
|
| " _European states with Napoleonic law appear to avoid
| the cost spiral._ "
|
| Do you have any hint of other European states with
| Napoleonic law that avoided cost spiral?
| distances wrote:
| Right, I misunderstood your comment. I agree that costs
| have increased in continental Europe too, don't have any
| numbers.
| ttz wrote:
| > It's more accurately a common law problem. European
| states with Napoleonic law appear to avoid the cost
| spiral.
|
| Asking out of genuine interest - do you have any ideas as
| to why this might be?
| IdiocyInAction wrote:
| > It's more accurately a common law problem. European
| states with Napoleonic law appear to avoid the cost
| spiral.
|
| Germany alone has like 3 major extremely over-budget
| infrastructure projects I can think of.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Germany alone has like 3 major extremely over-budget
| infrastructure projects I can think of_
|
| I'm going off cost per mile to build rail and road. Even
| when European projects go over budget, they still clock
| in below the U.K.-on average-which clocks in way below
| the U.S. (The latter gap is best explained by
| institutional ineptitude.)
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| Even in the US the government needs to buy/take land from
| every individual in the way. In my experience that maybe
| wouldn't be a problem but they try to get it for a
| ridiculously low amount, so then people (understandably)
| fight. That leads to delays and more costs until that's
| finally settled. When the county replaced a road that ran
| next to my parent's property, they wanted to move it up,
| taking half of their 60 acres. They did this because they
| wanted to expand the county park (for RVers) that's across
| the road.
|
| They offered $500 an acre. That land is easily worth
| $10,000 an acre, and that would have also reduced the value
| of the rest of their land and house. Their house is on a
| hill and the view is wonderful, and the county also tried
| to put a water tower up right in front of their house.
|
| Long story short after a long fight a man with some pull
| got involved on my parents behalf, and the county ended up
| with some extra land (sold at a reasonable price) and the
| water tower was put behind a woods (from their perspective)
| instead, all of a few hundred feet away. It was years of
| stress for my parents.
| Forbo wrote:
| > carbon impact
|
| I must be missing something here. Surely trains have a much
| lower carbon impact than cars and planes do, right?
| m0llusk wrote:
| The stretch of California high speed rail currently under
| construction includes a costly grade separation roughly
| every one and two thirds miles. The result should be safe
| and robust, but the expense is evidence of something more
| than a largely empty continent. And that is in a largely
| wide open mostly agricultural area of the US.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| I assume you're referring to the Caltrain upgrade. It was
| completely wild to me that a railway line through a major
| metropolitan area would have level crossings. They're
| usually a rural thing in other countries.
| ggggtez wrote:
| Technically speaking, the US has eminent domain laws which
| allow it to force people out of the way (generally by
| paying fair market price for the land).
|
| The problem isn't legal, but entirely one of political
| will.
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| It's not that simple, people can and will legally fight
| it. Even if they're given fair market price for the land
| (big if), the rest of their land's/home's value will be
| reduced. Nobody wants a train going right next to their
| house for nuisance and danger reasons, it might split
| their land, etc.
|
| Some people will have an emotional attachment to their
| land/homes as well. The only way for something like this
| to work is to spend so far above market rate that people
| come out ahead.
| distances wrote:
| Maybe unpopular view, but another way is to just have
| stronger eminent domain. I don't think market price
| should be paid when land is assigned to infrastructure. I
| also think cities should use eminent domain (with nominal
| compensation) to acquire land before all zoning to be
| able to fund the urban infrastructure and control housing
| prices.
| DrBazza wrote:
| We have compulsory purchase orders in the UK that are
| often used on large infrastructure projects such as high
| speed rail to clear the route, but they're politically
| unpopular and not used as often as they perhaps should
| be. And politicians are nothing if not about self
| interest and popularity.
| 6510 wrote:
| IOW high speed rail is not popular.
| laurencerowe wrote:
| The UK's HS2 is really about freeing up more commuter
| capacity on the existing lines into London - currently
| both the express and stopping services use the same line
| requiring large gaps. By separating the fast and slow
| trains they'll be able to schedule more trains. If you're
| going to build a new line might as well make it high
| speed.
|
| If you've ever been on a London commuter service you'll
| see they're pretty packed.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Everyone says that the party can just build infrastructure
| anywhere but then why are nail houses so common in China?
| temp8964 wrote:
| Not common at all. News reports give you false
| impression.
| pstuart wrote:
| It's the rail line's issue too -- they only care about
| shipping freight and passenger traffic is a second class
| citizen. They also are pushing back against Positive Train
| Control because they don't want to spend the money
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_train_control) (sorry
| no citation on pushback because lazy).
|
| We could do much more with our existing rail lines if the
| will was there. I maintain that we should "nationalize" the
| rail lines (the literal rails and whatnot) and invest in
| making it safer and faster. Not maglev, but at least have
| passenger trains run at a decent clip and not have to be
| sidelined for freight.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| No, your country is bankrupt
| justaguy88 wrote:
| That would imply that the US can't pay it's debts, but it
| can by printing more money
| okprod wrote:
| _the fact that Car and Airline Lobby will not let this
| happen_
|
| I think another factor here in the US is the government
| bidding process that results in driving up costs, time, etc.
| fennecfoxen wrote:
| The bigger problem is the US "environmental review"
| process. That's its name -- it is only minimally
| environment-oriented. It allows anyone who comments to sue
| and delay the project by months or years, which means that
| every big project is a big shakedown, paying off and
| appeasing groups who would otherwise threaten to sue. This
| is the primary reason why the nation hasn't really brought
| big new infrastructure projects to the table since the
| 1970s. Some places like California and San Francisco add
| their own layers, which exacerbate local crises in housing.
| pradn wrote:
| The reasons why we wont have a high-speed train network any
| time soon, in priority order (my opinion):
|
| 1. Eminent domain and generally-high construction costs make
| the initial time and money outlays exorbitantly high,
| resulting in projects never getting off the ground or having
| to compensate with much-too-expensive tickets
|
| 2. Even if you get to the middle of another city, having to
| rent a car to get to where you need is a pain. It's easier to
| drive from Dallas to Houston in a car, because you have a car
| at the end of the trip. Only some cities have fast public
| transport; the rest are so big it's hard not rent a car or
| Uber everywhere, both options are expensive and time-
| consuming.
|
| 3. Trains likely take more time than flights for the mid-to-
| long distance journeys planes are good for.
|
| 4. A cultural lack of interest in passenger rail. It's just
| not a part of the culture, and is seen as weird/enthusiast
| thing to do, unlike in Europe, India, or China.
| dnautics wrote:
| 3 is underappreciated and incredibly important (it should
| be #1) for the simple reason than labor cost. You have to
| pay flight attendants/rail attendants and that starts
| adding up.
|
| Moreover a rail attendant/engineer for a long haul trip
| cannot be back at home to family at the end of the day, for
| a transcontinental flight attendant or pilot it's possible,
| so the labor pool is meaningfully different, and supply and
| demand is a thing.
| bluGill wrote:
| That is all false.
|
| You don't need attendants on rail at all - what is there
| for them to do? For flight you need them to oversee
| preparing for a crash trains should get this failure mode
| should be designed out - which does imply doing the
| regular maintenance and using good safety systems. Just
| give a small discount to anyone with current first
| aid/CPR and you can be sure there are more than enough
| regular riders to take care of the remaining issues.
|
| Even if you do decide you want attendants for some
| reason, train should stop not less than once an hour,
| which means the crews can get off the train after 4 hours
| and staff the one back home. (I don't believe freight
| rail shouldn't do the same, but they have different
| operations from passenger rail such that more than an
| hour between stops might be reasonable)
|
| Note that if the train really is going through the middle
| of nowhere at one hour you just pick a random dot on the
| map and grant it a station just to get your stops. The
| cost to stopping a train is less than 5 minutes for the
| full trip (this adds up if you stop every few km, but
| when it is once an hour it isn't a big deal)
| andrewzah wrote:
| > You don't need attendants on rail at all - what is
| there for them to do?
|
| * Check passenger tickets
|
| * Observe the cars & make sure people aren't breaking
| rules, etc
|
| * Serve food/drink if applicable (e.g. for business
| class)
|
| And so forth. This is how the KTX and Shinkansen work,
| and they know what they're doing.
| bluGill wrote:
| All things that are not needed.
|
| Checking tickets can be done by not allowing anyone on
| the platform. Or world best practice is random checks and
| large fines if you are caught without a ticket.
|
| Breaking rules is tricky. There is some need for that,
| though there are options, though in the end I will grant
| you this.
|
| Trains should never serve food or drink. Passengers can
| get off the train at a station when they need that, and
| get on the next train. Space used for the food and drink
| is space that could be used for more seats. There is a
| reason all railroads have been trying to do away with
| food and drink service. It is considered bad practice
| everywhere.
| vladTheInhaler wrote:
| > All things that are not needed.
|
| > There is some need for that.
|
| I see.
|
| > Trains should never serve food or drink. Passengers can
| get off the train at a station.
|
| There aren't going to be stations all across Nebraska or
| what have you. And even if there were, stopping
| repeatedly would defeat the purpose of high-speed rail.
| All that time speeding up and slowing down starts to add
| up very quickly.
| p_j_w wrote:
| >You don't need attendants on rail at all
|
| Not true. You need people manning the cafeteria car,
| cleaning the bathrooms, checking tickets, etc.
|
| >train should stop not less than once an hour
|
| The Southwest Chief goes from San Bernardino, CA to
| Albuquerque, NM in 14 hours. It makes 8 stops along the
| way, inclusive of the endpoints. Your point here still
| largely stands, but these long haul trains most certainly
| do not stop at least once an hour.
| bluGill wrote:
| > You need people manning the cafeteria car
|
| Best practice is to not have them.
|
| > cleaning the bathrooms
|
| Do it at the end of the line when the train is stopped.
|
| > The Southwest Chief
|
| Amtrak is a bad example for anything. They are running
| tourist trains, and should follow the practices of cruise
| ships not modern railroads.
| Xylakant wrote:
| > Moreover a rail attendant/engineer for a long haul trip
| cannot be back at home to family at the end of the day,
|
| That would be problematic for some long distance train
| connections in germany as well (north-south connections),
| but they just schedule around that: attendants change
| mid-journey as needed.
| berto4 wrote:
| We can argue all we want and present other points of view and
| narratives, but it seems the basic fact is just that the
| Chinese system is better...at least for these kind of big
| projects. Somehow America can't get it's act together for
| projects with some public good. we need to ease off the
| military shit for a while!
| shadilay wrote:
| Chines public rail projects tend to come with an
| interpretation of property law (that you have none) that
| would not fly in the west.
| akiselev wrote:
| Their system just hasn't been around long enough to accrue
| enough legal debt - pesky thing like "property rights",
| "environmental regulations", "labor laws", and "due
| process" that people start demanding as they go up Maslow's
| hierarchy.
| bllguo wrote:
| The enshrinement of property rights in America has led to
| such wonderful things as ridiculous housing prices,
| rampant income inequality, endemic homelessness, the
| absurdity of Prop 13, etc. and yet we still trumpet it.
| When do we start reexamining these foundations?
|
| We can always find something to justify putting on airs
| of superiority, but the fact remains that our
| infrastructure stagnates while the rest of the world
| manages to modernize. Forget the China comparisons if
| they are so triggering. Europe still manages public
| works. Individual rights have to give at some point for
| the good of society.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > When do we start reexamining these foundations?
|
| _Start_? The entire labor movement, the public
| accommodation portion of the civil rights movement, and
| the rest of the transition from gilded age capitalism to
| the modern mixed economy has been a process of
| reexamination of and evolutionary progress from the
| classic capitalist conception of properry rights. Just
| as, for that matter, the several centuries of evolution
| from feudalism and other pre-capitalist economic systems
| through Enlightenment liberalism to the peak of gilded
| age capitalism was such a reexamination of pre-capitalist
| ideas of property rights. And while you can conceptualize
| them roughly as successive and mobotonic, both of those
| are oversimplifications; elements of pre-capitalist
| patronage-oriented systems were still around past the
| peak of capitalism, and isolated points of reversions
| from capitalism to them or to purer capitalist models
| from their replacements occurred throughout the process
| and still do.
|
| But the idea that society is sitting on some static
| foundation of property rights that is waiting for a
| beginning of a reexamination is...not remotely tenable.
| bllguo wrote:
| Well touche, I'm fine with saying I'm wrong and that
| we've started. But it sure seems like a glacial pace.
| Whether we have already been reexamining property rights
| or not is IMO the least important part of my stance
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Fundamental reorganization of society tends to take place
| in one of two ways:
|
| (1) painfully slowly, or
|
| (2) catastrophically, with massive bloodshed.
|
| And while #2 often produces more rapid change considered
| over a short term, it also tends to be less secure change
| subject to equally rapid and equally bloody reversal.
|
| It's frustrating, but I'm not convinced its solvable.
| pedroma wrote:
| CPC: Here's some money to move out, take it or leave it.
| You're still moving out though.
| 5tefan wrote:
| You spend it on warfare and throw the rest after some
| billionaires.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Why do you make a comment like this when the US federal
| budget breakdown is clearly available online. Most goes to
| social services benefits, welfare, and socialized
| healthcare.
|
| https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/mandatory_spen
| d...
| fullshark wrote:
| I'd rather fly
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Everyone would love a high speed train going where they travel.
|
| They will never, for good reason, be built for most routes.
|
| Because they're very expensive, both to build and operate, so
| they're only sustainable between large cities at a mediums
| distances apart.
|
| China, with maybe 10x the population density of the US, has a
| huge number of such routes. The US does not.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_China_by_pop...
| r00fus wrote:
| If we had a rail system instead of an interstate road system,
| the same thing would be said about highways.
|
| In fact, the cost of building & maintaining the highway
| system is quite astronomic.
| thehappypm wrote:
| Highways are far more useful than HSR. They can connect
| much more than hub-to-hub, they can be used 24/7, they can
| be used by a wide variety of vehicles supporting a wide
| variety of industries. HSR is just for passengers.
|
| If we were designing the interstate system today, that's
| actually a fun thought experiment. What would we change? I
| would probably focus more on throughput -- cars can be half
| as wide and still seat tons of people, 5 lane highways
| today could easy be 8 lanes of narrower cars.
| justaguy88 wrote:
| I'm now imagining higher power Renault Twizys everywhere
| nradov wrote:
| Narrow vehicles are unstablea. A narrow vehicle capable
| of carrying 7 people would be ridiculously long, and
| impossible to park.
| wobblykiwi wrote:
| There have been several studies that more lanes tend to
| lead to more traffic, not less. Here's a wiki article
| about the phenomenon:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_demand
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| That's the point. More traffic more throughput. Nobody's
| saying the user experience is going to improve.
|
| Peak hours are always going to cause congestion.
| losvedir wrote:
| Yes, exactly. They said they're focusing on more
| throughput.
| majormajor wrote:
| Creating more throughput instead of a quicker route isn't
| the same as saying "more lanes do nothing." So maybe your
| new highway lanes didn't cure congestion, but they did
| help alleviate housing demand some by letting more people
| commute with the same (albeit bad) commute time.
| bluGill wrote:
| Wrong. More lanes doesn't lead to more traffic unless
| there are way too few lanes in the first place. I know of
| plenty of places where adding more lanes would not add
| more demand - North Dakota is full of them for example.
|
| The only problem is we can't afford to build enough
| lanes. There is a limit to how wide you can go, and up or
| down is vastly more expensive than at grade. We could do
| it if we wanted to spend the money - but most such places
| find that a better bus and (not or!) train network is a
| better investment.
| nradov wrote:
| That's not necessarily a bad thing by itself. It means
| more people get to go where they want to go. But of
| course that can cause some negative externalities.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| That really depends on what you mean by more traffic. I
| think there are very few examples of extra capacity
| increasing travel time.
|
| As you point out, several studies have shown that over
| time, travel time converges to the same value, despite
| additional capacity.
|
| However, I think it is important to note that more lanes
| means more people are still getting from point A to B.
| jcranmer wrote:
| > If we were designing the interstate system today,
| that's actually a fun thought experiment. What would we
| change? I would probably focus more on throughput -- cars
| can be half as wide and still seat tons of people, 5 lane
| highways today could easy be 8 lanes of narrower cars.
|
| Why would you go narrower? That makes problems worse for
| trucks and other cargo conveyance; note that in general,
| newer highway standards tends to _increase_ lane width,
| not decrease them compared to older standards.
|
| (I guess you can see the same effect with railroads--the
| UK railroads have smaller loading gauges than newer
| networks like the US, Germany, or Sweden).
| thehappypm wrote:
| In this thought experiment, we'd be able to redesign the
| whole road infrastructure. I'd say mandating smaller cars
| would be a huge savings in general.
| stared wrote:
| How about: Boston - New York - Philadelphia - Washington -
| Chicago?
| adrianN wrote:
| The US doesn't build high speed rail between large cities
| that are a medium distance apart either.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| True.
|
| I see that mostly as part of the larger problem that the US
| doesn't build much of anything these days.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| The US might have a low population density if you just take
| the population divided by the territory but it's obviously
| all in the geography and clusters and averaging is not
| helpful.
|
| The US has several population clusters[1] and for example the
| Northeast corridor in particular with 50 million inhabitants
| is a reasonably good target for a high speed rail network.
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_megalopolis#/media
| /F...
| JTbane wrote:
| A Shinkansen going from Boston to DC would be massively
| profitable.
|
| And I'm talking above 120mph. None of this 70mph "high speed"
| slow stuff.
| jcranmer wrote:
| The Acela is already above 120mph where it can. The biggest
| problem area is actually in Connecticut, and half of that
| issue is Metro North's fault, not Amtrak. (The other half
| is that the line is legitimately too curvy to support
| 120mph speed in large places, but Metro North is why it
| struggles to hit 70mph at times).
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| I seriously question "massively profitable", especially if
| you do it as a private company. You'd have to buy the
| right-of-way, and then pay taxes on it every year. That's
| some pretty expensive real estate. Then, the maintenance
| requirements on high-speed rail are pretty stringent. That
| costs, too. It's not just the cost of the train crews and
| the electricity (or fuel) that you have to think about.
|
| If you've got real numbers, I'd like to see them.
| JTbane wrote:
| I was thinking a retrofit of existing rails as well as an
| eminent-domain type acquisition of the land.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Eminent-domain doesn't solve the cost problem. You still
| have to pay for extremely valuable land.
| nradov wrote:
| Most of the existing tracks aren't straight enough for
| high speed rail.
| amelius wrote:
| Which makes me wonder ...
|
| How do you secure a railway?
|
| If trains go 600 kph, do we get a TSA circus along the
| length of all railtracks? Is this even feasible?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| You just don't, it's not really needed.
| pvaldes wrote:
| Never underestimate the poder of idiots in large amounts.
|
| "hundreds occupied high-speed railway tracks for around 3
| hours, blocking services linking Figueres, Girona and
| Barcelona,"
|
| https://www.thelocal.es/20181001/pro-independence-
| protesters...
| tatersolid wrote:
| A thick log or dead deer across the tracks of a high
| speed train could lead to catastrophe.
|
| I once rode the Eurostar from London to Paris and as I
| recall all the high speed sections were enclosed in very
| high, barbed wire fence. So some security is definitely
| needed. Collision energy goes up with the square of
| velocity.
| Darmody wrote:
| High speed railways are not that expensive. I'm not talking
| about 700km/h but around 300km/h.
|
| Spain has plenty of them, according to Wikipedia only China
| has more. And if I'm not wrong, Spain is building them in
| other countries too.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE
|
| https://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica/video/web-
| exclusiv...
| pvaldes wrote:
| Only Disney can do this, it seems, and the mexicans will pay
| for riding it
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Which is why these developments (faster rail and maglev) are
| so exciting. They change the economics of the travel
| decisions, potentially putting more connections into the
| "economically feasible" category. Of course, that's also
| dependent on construction & maintenance costs. I'd be
| interested to see where / if there are chances for economies
| of scale for maglev that are simply not there yet due to the
| tech's non-prevalence.
|
| If it takes only marginally more, or even less time to travel
| by train than by plane, I'm taking the train any day.
| wil421 wrote:
| Spirit has Atlanta to Dallas round trip for $61 on an 8am
| flight according to Google. That's not much more than I paid on
| a last minute booking in Germany. To drive it would be an 800+
| (~1300km) mile trip my my house North of Atlanta to Dallas and
| take 12 hours no stops.
|
| What trips in Europe are 1300km and how long is that train
| ride?
|
| I would love an Atlanta to Raleigh or Atlanta to Savannah train
| but I think your comparison is kinda extreme. A better
| comparison would be Atlanta to Athens/Columbus/Chattanooga.
| jjice wrote:
| It is a shame, but it's expected, right? How many edges would a
| well connected graph of the US have (or rather need if we use
| nodes as passthrough), how much would this cost to build and
| operate, and how much would these be used compared to planes? I
| want to say that I would love better train infrastructure as
| well, and spending some time in New England has shown me what a
| fraction of a good one could be and I love it. That said, I
| don't see how it can be done financially possible, with
| extremely rough overviews in my head.
|
| I'm very ignorant on the topic, so please enlighten me if I'm
| missing some stuff, which is very possible. I'd honestly love
| to know.
| lostapathy wrote:
| Our only hope is that, at some point, the US can reap the
| advantages of tech advances elsewhere and go straight to
| really great trains, rather than having a bunch of meh
| passenger rail we can't justify replacing.
|
| Kind of like how, supposedly, 4G networks were more
| widespread in pockets of Africa you'd never expect before
| they were widespread in the US, because those parts of Africa
| didn't have 2G/3G infrastructure to depreciate and customers
| to migrate off before 4G could be deployed.
| bluGill wrote:
| The problem is everyone is looking to the next advance and
| so nothing gets built. Eventually you have to commit to
| something and build it.
|
| Right not politicians are looking at things like hyperloop
| which maybe can be useful in the future, but right now are
| power point slides and other hype. Instead we could go with
| something that works - there is plenty of things much
| better than we have.
| equalsione wrote:
| Your comment reminded me of this video illustrating the
| travelling salesman algorithm on a US map (I love the music):
|
| https://youtu.be/SC5CX8drAtU
| jcranmer wrote:
| The viable HSR network for the US looks roughly like this:
|
| * Existing NEC (DC to Boston via Baltimore, Philly, NYC,
| Hartford/Springfield/Worcester or Providence)
|
| * NYC to Montreal and Boston to Toronto, with an interchange
| at Albany
|
| * Midwest star shape, centered at Chicago, with prongs to
| Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Louisville or
| Cincinnati. The southern Midwest region is kind of hard for
| me to crayon a network.
|
| * (Not part of the US strictly speaking) Detroit to Quebec
| via Windsor, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal. Basically all of
| Canada's population on one rail line, with easy access to the
| US via interchanges at three separate points.
|
| * Hooking up the Midwest to the NEC, although I'm somewhat
| dubious of the viability here.
|
| * Texas Triangle (Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio)
|
| * California: SF, San Jose, Sacramento, LA, San Diego, Las
| Vegas, Phoenix.
|
| * Maybe viable: Portland-Seattle-Vancouver
|
| * Maybe viable: SEHSR, from Miami to Atlanta, and thence to
| Midwest (via Nashville) or NEC (via North Carolina's Research
| Triangle and Richmond).
|
| (Citation: this is largely based on Alon Levy's crayoning,
| found here:
| https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-
| rai...)
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Existing NEC (DC to Boston via Baltimore, Philly, NYC,
| Hartford /Springfield/Worcester or Providence)_
|
| This is the problem. The real route is Boston - New York -
| D.C. The others are lower population, lower GDP and not in
| line with the other three. But if you build the core route
| and exclude Philadelphia, you'll have an uproar in the
| Senate.
| jbay808 wrote:
| One thing to consider is that these routes, if they get
| proper use, do tend to bring the population density and
| GDP along with them.
| jcranmer wrote:
| I was on the train a week ago. Of the three of us sitting
| at the table who got on at Boston, one was going to
| Philadelphia, one was going to Wilmington, and one was
| going to Baltimore.
|
| One of the chief advantages of trains is that you do not
| have to cater only to point-to-point routes; you can
| instead serve a combinatorial explosion in routes for
| comparatively little time: a stop adds only ~5 minutes to
| a HSR train, and that's the worst-case scenario.
|
| There is no advantage to bypassing Philadelphia: the
| amount of money it costs to bypass the city is going to
| be quite large, and you will miss out on all the
| potential revenue from stopping at the city itself. From
| my practical experience riding the train, the biggest
| factor in existing slow trains in Connecticut isn't all
| the stops it makes in Connecticut, but the incompetence
| of Metro North's dispatching that keeps a high-speed
| train plodding along below highway speeds between
| stations.
|
| (Also, side note: Philly's MSA is larger than Boston's,
| and Philly provides more Amtrak riders than Boston's 4
| stations combined--and one of those isn't even on the
| NEC!).
| majormajor wrote:
| > a stop adds only ~5 minutes to a HSR train, and that's
| the worst-case scenario.
|
| Is that accurate? When I road HSR in Japan, I remember
| the speed in-city being much lower than in the
| countryside, so bypassing cities seemed key to
| maintaining the high speed part.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Old HSR, yes. Maglev? No.
|
| The issue is that steel wheels on steel tracks doesn't
| provide enough grip to accelerate, so the train takes a
| lot of the time to get up to speed.
|
| Maglev, meanwhile, uses a linear motor, so you can
| accelerate _very_ fast if you want to.
| majormajor wrote:
| I think the bigger constraint would be noise. Wikipedia
| talks about a 70dba noise limit in residential areas
| after protests and such, but doesn't say what speed
| exactly they're running at to meet that.
|
| 70dba is rather a lot, though, I imagine you'd end up
| with a lower limit in the US since I don't think most
| people are going to be easily convinced that another
| inter-city transit method is going to be worth the noise
| to them.
| jcranmer wrote:
| So the penalty I'm calculating is the stop penalty of
| slowing from a cruising speed to a dead stop, waiting at
| the station, and then speeding back up to cruising speed
| versus maintaining cruising speed the entire distance;
| you can think of this as the time penalty that the Route
| 128 stop generates (being on a nice straight track that
| allows very high speed).
|
| What you're talking about instead is the penalties
| imposed by a more constrained right-of-way in urban
| environments. Except when we're talking about
| Philadelphia (or most of the Northeast in general), you
| can't really escape from a constrained right-of-way
| anyways--a quick crayoning suggests you're adding about
| 20 miles of railway route which, even at 200mph, adds
| more time than you're saving by itself.
|
| Consider again the cost of bypassing to save time. How
| many millions of dollars are you willing to save a minute
| of travel time? It is far cheaper to put that money into
| straightening the worst curves of legacy inner city track
| than to spend it bypassing the city altogether, not even
| accounting for the loss of revenue by not serving what
| are objectively large cities.
| patentatt wrote:
| Is there anything existing that avoids having to stop the
| whole train at each stop? For drop-offs, just detach the
| back train car at a stop. Everyone who wants to get off
| just moves to the back train car at each stop. For pick-
| ups, some relatively high-ish speed coupling to add a car
| at the front of the train. In this way, the train loses
| one car and gains one car per stop. And as the train
| progresses, it also slowly turns around, ready for the
| return trip. Sidings at each stop can allow the boarding
| and un-boarding process to happen without tying up the
| track for through-traffic. Seems like something like this
| must have been tried at some point. Why is this not a
| thing?
| Symbiote wrote:
| It would remove all flexibility in capacity between
| different towns, and require most people to move to a
| different carriage at least once after boarding -- which
| is especially inconvenient with bags. Even if you couple
| the carriages at high speed, how do you connect the doors
| between them sufficiently safely to allow people to move
| along the train?
|
| The coupling of modern high-speed trains is also a
| significant part of their crash safety. Keeping the train
| connected if it derails means there's less chance of a
| loose vehicle punching through another. (See how e.g. [1]
| has most of the vehicles pretty much intact.)
|
| I think in most cases, running an express train followed
| by a stopping train is good enough.
|
| [1] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c90
| 37ed915...
| mimixco wrote:
| Speaking only from my own experience, HSR stops take a
| lot longer than that. It takes the TGV five minutes to
| slow down and approach the station! The TGVs I've ridden
| also _do not_ do fast turnaround at stations. They sit
| there, like airplanes, while people board for the
| (obviously longer) trip. Yes, it 's faster than an
| airplane to turnaround (less TSA nonsense, etc.), but not
| 5 minutes and not like a local or regional train, in my
| experience.
|
| The whole reason the Houston to Dallas route is workable
| is that it does not stop _at all_ in between.
| bluGill wrote:
| TVG is a badly designed system and so it uses far more
| time to both at the stop and in acceleration. Try looking
| at shinkansen for an example of what is should be.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I've had this idea of feeder trains that rendezvous with
| the primary train by pulling along side, matching speed.
| Then a brief and orderly movement of passengers between
| feeder & primary train occurs. When complete, the feeder
| train disengages, slows back down -- the primary train
| continues to its next destination.
|
| Feeder trains bring new passengers on board the primary
| train. They leave the station a little ahead of the
| incoming primary train in order to accelerate up to its
| speed just at the rendezvous point.
|
| Another empty feeder had already rendezvoused with the
| primary before the station and passengers disembarking
| were offloaded onto it.
|
| In short, the feeders can be small. The primary train
| need not stop at all the points in between.
|
| I would love to model this graphically.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _no advantage to bypassing Philadelphia_
|
| Trains spend a lot of time speeding up and slowing down.
| A single stop adds much more than five minutes to total
| transit time. [EDIT: Apparently this doesn't apply to
| maglev. This could be a game changer for HSR in the
| American political landscape.]
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Maglev trains can start and stop much, much faster than
| regular trains.
| jcranmer wrote:
| Conventional trains' acceleration profiles are already
| limited by passenger comfort rather than engineering
| difficulties. Being able to start and stop much faster
| isn't helpful if it's already outside maximum operating
| guidelines.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| I was under the impression this wasn't the case.
| Passenger planes accelerate at around 3.5m/s/s. That's
| 100km/h every six seconds.
| jcranmer wrote:
| And when planes take off, all the passengers and crew are
| seated in seats with fastened belts, all luggage is
| stowed, and tray tables are closed.
|
| By contrast, when a train departs a station, there are
| frequently passengers who are still roaming the aisle
| with their luggage. And I might have a cup of coffee or
| something sitting on the table in front of me (or behind
| me, from the perspective of the train's direction of
| acceleration).
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Of course, you shouldn't have people roam in the aisle if
| you want to accelerate faster. If you're seriously
| considering rail as an alternative to airtravel, and at
| 600km/h you are, then having people stow their luggage
| and sit down is not a serious issue.
|
| For the sake of comparison - a Toyota Corolla will do
| 100km/h/6s. You don't need to fully stow your cargo, you
| just need not to have drinks on the table. Even standing
| you would be fine, though there is some danger you'd
| trip.
|
| Beyond that, buses see accelerations on the order of
| ~0.2G often, and that's with people standing up, in an
| unpredictable fashion.
| Symbiote wrote:
| There's not much point accelerating faster if it means
| waiting longer so everyone can find a seat.
|
| Perhaps this would be interesting to you, "Passenger
| Stability Within Moving Railway Vehicles: Limits on
| Maximum Longitudinal Acceleration".
|
| https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40864-015-0012
| -y
| jcranmer wrote:
| The root context of this discussion is basically whether
| or not it makes sense to add in intermediary stops on a
| rail line. If you're insisting that people have to be
| seated and have no drinks out for every intermediate
| stop, that rather sharply raises the discomfort level of
| stops. Another unpredictable element of train
| acceleration is the need to slow down to negotiate a
| curve, which isn't necessarily the case only in the
| immediate vicinity of a station.
|
| FWIW, the numbers I generally see bandied about for
| acceleration on (decent) trains is about 1 m/s^2.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| The "intermediate stop" being mentioned was Philadelphia.
| I don't think asking people to be seated for 45 seconds
| before and after each stop adds that much discomfort.
|
| 0.1g is the acceptable _lateral_ acceleration when
| _standing up_ without bracing. (https://link.springer.com
| /article/10.1007/s40864-015-0012-y)
|
| If you get caught standing up, even 3.5 m/s/s is not
| dangerous. It is uncomfortable, but in a high speed train
| you are expected to be sitting down.
|
| Also you wouldn't need to put drinks away. As I said,
| that's the acceleration of a Toyota Corolla. You would
| need the drinks to be covered though.
|
| The limiting factor in longitudinal acceleration in
| trains is that _we expect people to be standing up for
| the whole trip_. This isn 't the case in a high speed
| train.
|
| As for curves - the solution is not to go through any
| sharp curves unless you are already close to a stop and
| would have to slow down anyways.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Maglev trains can start and stop much, much faster
| than regular trains_
|
| Ah, wasn't aware of that. Thank you.
| bluGill wrote:
| > A single stop adds much more than five minutes to total
| transit time. [EDIT: Apparently this doesn't apply to
| maglev. This could be a game changer for HSR in the
| American political landscape.]
|
| That is false even for non mag-lev. Do the math as I did:
| at .7 m/s/s (which is what shinkansen does) it takes less
| than 90 seconds to get to 300 km/h. That leaves far more
| time than is needed at the station (1 minute is plenty if
| the train is designed right). You don't count stop time
| at all because it averages out with the acceleration.
| opinion-is-bad wrote:
| The US has world-class train service for freight. The lower
| population density of the US than Europe and East Asia makes
| planes a better investment in the US. Less rail to lay per
| person server makes a big difference.
| bluGill wrote:
| The midwest of the US has similar population density to
| France. The western half of the US with few people (not to
| mention Alaska) really skew the population density.
| jcranmer wrote:
| By way of Alon Levy's blog (although original credit goes
| to a Twitter user), here's the TGV overlaid on the
| Midwest: https://twitter.com/Artifact_Scott/status/137770
| 286794400973...
|
| The major Midwestern cities are remarkably close in
| distance from Chicago as major French cities are from
| Paris, and in terms of population counts, the US has
| consistently larger cities.
| multiplegeorges wrote:
| Sure, but the problem is what do you do once you get
| there?
|
| In France, the cities are dense with decent to great
| transit.
|
| In the US, you have low, flat, sprawling cities with no
| real transit to speak of. You have to drive.
| bluGill wrote:
| I have long said that we need to work on local transit
| before we work on HSR, but in truth the two do compliment
| each other. All cities of any size at all have at least a
| small amount of useful local transit. Expand the local
| system and make it useful would be a great investment and
| HSR will make it more useful.
|
| Most local transit systems are run by people who drive
| though, and it shows in how bad the majority of the
| system is.
| clairity wrote:
| > "...what do you do once you get there?"
|
| car rental, ridehailing, metro bus/train, taxi,
| friends/family pickup, etc., just as with air travel.
| soperj wrote:
| Same thing with planes except you start way outside the
| city.
| gsnedders wrote:
| This is why looking at the current number of aviation
| passengers on these routes that's often the most valuable
| thing. It shows where people think the time savings
| justify hiring a car/taking taxis.
|
| Clearly not having overheads of airport security will
| probably reduce the minimum distance required for this,
| but as a first pass it's good data source.
| mimixco wrote:
| It's interesting that Amazon (who spends a fortune on
| trucking) has created their own cargo airline and starting
| buying metal because it works out better for them than
| paying a trucking company. They make money on fast
| turnaround and big distribution warehouses close to
| population centers, then they truck the last mile with
| their own vans.
|
| Historically, the cheapest ways to ship anything are by
| sea, by rail, and by truck, in that order. Airplanes are
| still inordinately more expensive but folks are willing to
| pay for that quick delivery that trucks and rail simply
| can't do.
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| A triangle linking Dallas -> Houston -> San Antonio -> Austin
| -> Dallas would be economically revolutionary for Texas, even
| with non-maglev high-speed rail.
| majormajor wrote:
| How would it be a revolution? I used to fly between some of
| those cities easily when necessary, and the drive is pretty
| doable too. A train would be an interesting alternative to
| flying, depending on route and total times and stop
| locations, but I just don't see it enabling much truly "new."
| Mordisquitos wrote:
| Consider that the air route between Madrid and Barcelona,
| two cities that are about 620 km (~385 miles) apart, used
| to be the busiest air traffic route in the World by
| frequency of flights until 2007. And that was the case even
| though these cities were already well connected by
| motorways as well as by conventional train services.
|
| Now, since the high-speed rail link opened in 2008, the
| Madrid-Barcelona air route doesn't even make the top 20 of
| busiest routes worldwide. That is the case even though the
| flight is less than 1h 30m, both cities' airports are well
| connected to and close to the city centres, and high-speed
| train tickets have always been more expensive than flying
| on average. The killer feature of the high-speed train,
| particularly for business users, is to be able to get from
| one city centre to the other in at most 3h 20m --if it is a
| stopping train-- or 2h 30m --if it is direct. No need to
| travel to and from each airport, or deal with airport
| security, queues, delays, etc. No need to disconnect your
| phone during the trip. No need to switch off laptops on
| departure or arrival.
|
| And this example is for only two cities which are farther
| apart than each of Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio are from
| each other. Imagine if it were possible to get between each
| of their downtowns in 1h 30m or 2h at most, or from
| downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio in 30m. The
| synergistic effects on the economy are hard to predict, but
| they would be huge.
| mimixco wrote:
| It's coming! We will have the first true high speed rail in
| the US. It's Shinkansen hardware because the Japanese
| investors in the project insisted... and good for them and us
| that they did! It's also all new rail as Amtraks own the
| passenger rights to all existing rail in the US. It's also
| 100% grade separated (like TGV) so it doesn't cross traffic
| or people. ( _This_ is the #1 factor in making trains safer
| and faster than cars.)
|
| While I'm "not bullish on trains" in the US, as another
| poster put it, I do think it will work here. Houston is
| already America's 3rd largest city with 8M people and the
| route to Dallas (Hwy 45) is horrible, unsafe, and extremely
| busy, all the time.
| KoftaBob wrote:
| That's currently being built!
|
| https://www.texascentral.com/
| Miner49er wrote:
| Same. I think China's investment in infrastructure is going to
| give them a large economic advantage over the US in the years
| to come.
| bluGill wrote:
| It could, but their investment in government of insiders is
| in my opinion more than enough to overcome their economic
| advantages. They could do well, but their government of the
| elites is more likely to crack down on development.
| president wrote:
| It's amazing what a country can accomplish when they invest
| in themselves first and foremost. After rooting for the US in
| the last 2 years, I'm of the opinion that the US is too
| corrupted to ever regain its stature.
| thehappypm wrote:
| I'm not as bullish on rail. I love taking trains -- it's by
| far my favorite way of getting around -- but it's so
| expensive to set up and maintain. every inch of track for
| hundreds of miles needs to be completely spotless to keep
| trains running at 200 mph+. Prior to the pandemic, the trend
| was on cheaper, lighter, quieter aircraft, with more point-
| to-point routes connecting smaller metro areas, like Hartford
| airport or Providence airport growing with more and more
| routes, cheaper parking, etc. As airplanes continue to
| develop (electric is probably the future) flying will get
| cheaper and cheaper. Rail may be the luxurious way to get
| around, but might not be worth the trillions of upfront
| investment, when you consider that even small metros can
| afford to build an airport.
| jbay808 wrote:
| As a counterpoint, I think Japan's investment in rail
| networks has paid off considerably. I suspect that country
| would be _far_ worse off today if they didn 't have the
| transportation networks they do (both HSR and normal rail).
|
| Not only does it result in fast, convenient, walk-on travel
| between cities, it also results in a lot less gridlock
| meaning less commute time wasted, and more affordable,
| walkable real estate.
| leaveyou wrote:
| incredible yeah.. but Bezos went to space.. take that China.
|
| PS. Do I sense some missalocation of resources in the western
| world ?
| wiz21c wrote:
| I go to work with a train, not to space.
| barbarbar wrote:
| Yes - and it only took 10 minutes and some billions? But it
| is great - or maybe not. Actually useless.
| Proven wrote:
| > PS. Do I sense some missalocation of resources in the
| western world ?
|
| Yes, because your redistributionist sensors are
| malfunctioning.
|
| Bezos goes to space on his own dime (essentially; maybe he
| got some subsidies - I wouldn't be surprised - but those
| should be eliminated even if they're comparatively small).
|
| Public transportation is funded by plunder and debt (delayed
| plunder). And it's also incredibly wasteful and expensive
| (ever hear of "cost overruns"?).
|
| Recalibrate your sensors at mises.org, buddy!
| api wrote:
| Any investment in US infrastructure is government excess and
| waste.
|
| Now spending a trillion dollars to invade and try to remake a
| country in the Middle East... that's not waste. Neither is
| bailing out financial institutions so they can go back to the
| casino.
|
| If we don't get our priorities realigned, China will absolutely
| dominate the 21st century and we have no right to complain. We
| did this to ourselves.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| One reason China invests heavily in trains is that they provide
| large capacity.
|
| China needs to transport literally hundreds of millions of people
| over a week once or twice a year (National holiday and Chinese
| New year) on top on regular transport between megalopolis.
|
| " _All CRH trains are formed of eight or 16 cars with capacity
| ranging from 494 to 1299 seats. The busiest routes can be served
| by up to 101 services per direction per day, with up to eight
| trains per hour at peak times. Traffic density on such routes is
| estimated at about 30-40 million passengers_ " [1]
|
| [1] https://www.railjournal.com/in_depth/chinese-high-speed-
| an-e...
| russli1993 wrote:
| I think this is going to take a long time to be actually be
| deployed for public use. China's top transportation plans is
| signaling its taking a more conservative approach to hard
| infrastructure development in the next 10 years. It is balancing
| debt and cost. It calls for more local transportation between
| cities and their satellite cities/towns. These are slower and
| cheaper to build. It calls for more stringent review of 350km/h
| HSR lines. In the past, local governments have been rampant in
| building 350km/h HSR lines, even if the projected ridership is
| low. These lines cost a lot more to build and operate than lower
| speed HSR or regular lines, and cannot be used for freight. China
| currently lacks freight train capacity, and freight is more
| profitable and its revenue outlook continues to grow. The
| planning document calls for more commuter and freight duo use
| lines for middle and western part of the country.
| ghufran_syed wrote:
| "capable of reaching 600 kph"
|
| So I take that to mean it has never actually done it, but it
| "could"? Before getting excited about this, maybe we should wait
| until the system, including the track, is actually _built_? Or at
| least a test track with curves etc.
|
| I am not shocked this came from chinese state media originally,
| it comes across as a press release.
| troyvit wrote:
| Man. Remember when "Unveil" meant that they were actually
| taking a sheet off of a real product?
| Darmody wrote:
| By the way. If you like high speed trains, you should check
| Swisspod[1].
|
| They are developing a viable hyperloop. I know that word might
| sound like space travel to some of you because we've been hearing
| it over and over in the last years but it's far from that.
|
| It's also relatively cheap, eco friendly (batteries or hydrogen,
| you choose) and it has some nice tech behind.
|
| [1]https://swisspod.ch/
| thehappypm wrote:
| I don't think HSR is the future, personally. It's too centralized
| and inflexible, compared to flying. Any metro can plop an airport
| down and get some cheap routes out, and as planes get cheaper and
| maybe electrify, you can scale up and down routes and capacity by
| deploying more planes. Even laying a single HSR line is a multi
| billion dollar endeavor, and still doesn't solve the vast
| majority of actual routes. Just look at the airport departure
| board at any airport -- even small ones -- direct to a dozen
| cities hundreds or even thousands of miles away. That's never
| going to be achievable with rail without laying down tens of
| thousands of miles of rail.
| Anechoic wrote:
| > Any metro can plop an airport down
|
| Development of a new runway at an existing (US) is a $billion*
| endeavor and can take decades.
| thehappypm wrote:
| As a counterpoint to this, it is possible to scale existing
| airports up to meet consumer demand as-needed. There are
| thousands and thousands of airports in the US, but most don't
| have passenger service. Example: Paine Field in Everett
| (north of Seattle) became a commercial airport in 2019 to
| service an exploding Seattle metro. While it takes some time
| for regulations, it's straightforward compared to the
| billions needed to connect new cities with HSR.
| Clewza313 wrote:
| Props to China, but for time being Japan both holds the maglev
| speed record (603 kph) and is actually building the world's first
| long-distance maglev between Tokyo and Nagoya:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen
|
| A shame it's a largely useless and incredibly expensive prestige
| prospect that's not even projected to become profitable until
| 2070, but that's another story.
| iso1210 wrote:
| How profitable is the US interstate system?
| rorykoehler wrote:
| Some things should be done because they are the right thing to
| do and not just because they are profitable. We're only hurting
| ourselves with this myopic approach to infrastructure
| especially.
| clairity wrote:
| alternatively, it is likely profitable when you count the
| positive externalities to society.
| rorykoehler wrote:
| Yes, perfect way to put it. We're great at hiding negative
| and positive externalities.
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| To a government, the direct profitability of an infrastructure
| project should be a secondary concern.
|
| The actual concern is whether it helps the people and business
| of the country to thrive.
|
| Like think of the US highways... extremely not profitable to
| the government, but our country would fall apart without them.
| scrose wrote:
| > not even projected to become profitable until 2070, but
| that's another story.
|
| I wish that's how we looked at public transit in the US. Amtrak
| would be taking us coast to coast in a matter of hours at this
| point.
| opinion-is-bad wrote:
| Well Japan has a little bit of a population density advantage
| over the US. This seems to be an important factor when
| looking at where rail has been most successful for commuters.
| scrose wrote:
| I wonder if access to better transportation options plays a
| role in their higher population density. I don't know
| enough about Japan to really make any calls towards that
| though.
| iso1210 wrote:
| High speed rail isn't for commuters - certainly not daily
| ones. You need cities appropriate distance apart that can
| occupy the tracks at a decent rate (so 1000 passengers at
| 20tph). Commuter trains barely need to go much above 200,
| maybe 250kph.
|
| If you can supply say 20,000 passengers a hour for 15 hours
| a day - 300,000 passengers a day - then you just need the
| population centres.
|
| A 600kph maglev from New York to LA would take 7.5 hours. A
| flight takes 5.5 hours, so not much in it, especially if it
| were downtown to downtown.
|
| For New York to Chicago it would take about 2h10, same as a
| plane.
|
| Unlikely to provide 300k passengers, but if you added
| branches at each end and were routed Boston, NY, Washington
| branches meeting in western PA, then heading to Chicago
| (meeting a Toronto branch perhaps), Denver, Vegas then at
| the Western end splitting to LA, San Diego, Phoenix, San
| Francisco you might be able to occupy the bulk of the route
| tracks enough.
|
| Crucially you don't need to stop every train at every stop,
| as that adds big time penalties.
|
| Of course you're talking 6000km of maglev track minimum,
| and maglev means you can't just run it on traditional lines
| for the last 10 miles into the city.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| > that's not even projected to become profitable until 2070
|
| JR will make up the difference renting space at the new rail
| stations. It also isn't very useless, a lot of people go
| between Tokyo and Nagoya (and I assume they plan to extend to
| Osaka), so this will just make those trips faster, creating
| even more integration in the corridor.
| alach11 wrote:
| > JR will make up the difference renting space at the new
| rail stations
|
| This is something I just don't understand about transit
| design in the US. Why don't we take advantage of the property
| value increases next to transit?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Not enough critical mass. Airports are money makers, but
| most train stations (outside of those in NYC) are lucky to
| get a gift shop. They simply aren't central enough and
| don't have enough daily trips.
| Clewza313 wrote:
| The termini are Tokyo-Shinagawa and Nagoya, which are both
| existing stations and are already connected via the Tokaido
| Shinkansen bullet train, taking 97 minutes today. Shaving
| that down to 40 (if all goes as planned) is nice, but not
| earth-shattering.
| soperj wrote:
| Cutting the time by nearly 60% is definitely more than
| nice. You could actually have people commute daily on the
| 40 minute ride, the 97 minute ride not so much.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| More people, more traffic through the stations. That sort
| of speed has to increase daily capacity/throughput. If that
| capacity is used, they will do OK.
| Haemm0r wrote:
| I am quite sceptical about the whole thing. The train is finished
| and the track is not. The track seems to be hard part of the
| system. Chinese managed to copy the German maglev trains, however
| they seem to have problems with the track technology.
|
| Ever since the Shanghai maglev was built, every two to four years
| Chinese maglev projects hit the media big.
|
| Changsha maglev is all that they could get to work so far.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| According to CGTN a test track was built and tested, but not at
| a high speed
| (https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-06-21/China-s-600-km-h-
| high-...)
| fatjokes wrote:
| Investing in large infrastructure projects is a political deadend
| in American democracy with term limits. A politician needs to
| expend their political and financial capital on a project that
| won't complete until well after their term is done, at which
| point the fickle electorate will associate the success with
| whoever is in power at the time.
|
| I'm just bitter about the tunnels into NY Penn Station.
| clairity wrote:
| while overly cynical, yes, term limits do have such adverse
| effects. perhaps we could rather have yearly (electronic)
| reconfirmation votes (negative result triggers a full
| election), fixed publicly-funded campaign budgets (with temp
| staff completely separate from governance staff), and a
| rejection of corporate influence (i.e., citizens united) in
| elections. that would still hold politicians accountable to the
| people (not corps), but not impose hard and somewhat arbitrary
| limits.
| bluGill wrote:
| That all sounds good, but when you look at the details you
| discover it is worse than what we have.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Investing in large infrastructure projects is a political
| deadend in American democracy with term limits.
|
| Nonsense. We built the transcontinental railroad, the
| interstate system, and the biggest dams and bridges in the
| world with term limits. The problem comes down to vested
| interests. Those things were done when the US still had free
| land. But in a democracy that respects individual rights and
| private property, you now end up with an inability to do things
| for the greater good like an autocratic China can still do on a
| whim.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| Public works projects now take much longer and are much
| costlier than they used to be in the US. None of those
| projects you've listed could be completed today for both of
| those reasons.
| some_random wrote:
| Always interesting to see ultra-authoritarian apologists come out
| of the woodwork whenever the discussion of trains comes up.
| tw04 wrote:
| https://archive.is/JirpL
| psadri wrote:
| I wonder what's the optimal max speed considering the increasing
| cost of building it vs the utility of time saved. It seems higher
| speeds have higher utility for longer distances as the travel
| time dominates over boarding/disembarkation times.
| hintymad wrote:
| It's so refreshing to see 600 kph instead of those crappy mph.
| I'd rather the US replace imperial metrics with the metric system
| before seeing a high-speed rail. I mean, how many people suffered
| in their STEM class for not having intuition on metric units?
| SkyMarshal wrote:
| It's certainly annoying. I wonder how many anti-metric-system
| types would change their minds if they realized how much easier
| the metric system is to learn and work with - everything is
| just a power 10. So much easier for grade school children to
| learn.
| Caprinicus wrote:
| This is exactly why I anticipate every grade school teaching
| kids Esperanto any day now
|
| As someone who uses both but mostly metric, neither one is
| difficult to use. Metric relationships between volume and
| energy and heat are cool - but they are linked to the present
| day earth at sea level, which in the future might be just as
| archaic as Fahrenheit being linked to an erroneous human body
| temperature measurement
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| I wonder how high your social credit score has to be to get
| tickets for this.
| jl6 wrote:
| Just remember it's much easier to pull off megaprojects like this
| when you can evict anyone whose home or business lies in its
| path.
| wiz21c wrote:
| There's an airport close to my home. The airport management
| committee, assisted by the town's representative have evicted
| many homes. And yes, I live in a perfectly fine democracy...
| rtpg wrote:
| Eminent domain is a commonly used tool in most nations in the
| world, you know.
| bitwize wrote:
| In the US the government is constitutionally bound to provide
| just compensation for anything they appropriate for public
| use.
|
| I doubt the Chinese government is likewise bound.
| khqc wrote:
| In my experience, it's actually pretty common for folks to
| get massive compensation for land in China. There's even a
| term (Chai Er Dai ) that describes a whole generation that
| suddenly became rich after their parents' land was
| appropriated by the government.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Ther is a constitutional requirement to do so in China.
|
| The difference is that the vast majority of land isn't
| owned in China but leased by the Central government, so the
| compensation for the land itself may be very low.
| Structures built upon it are generally compensated
| properly, though there surely is sometimes corruption.
|
| Rural land is even less compensated, sometimes you may be
| assigned new land and compensated for the structure only.
| aeharding wrote:
| At least this is a public project. In the United States, we
| have no problem using eminent domain to tear down homes for
| private business interests (read: Foxconn in Wisconsin [1]).
|
| [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/08/wisconsin-
| fo...
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Sure.
|
| OTOH, in 2021 California it's very hard to pull off even minor
| projects, because so many people & institutions have veto
| power.
| [deleted]
| rsynnott wrote:
| I've actually always found it surprising how much _trouble_
| China seems to have with this:
| https://www.theguardian.com/cities/gallery/2014/apr/15/china...
|
| ~Everywhere has some form of eminent domain available for
| infrastructure projects; China does not seem to be notably
| effective in using it.
|
| Also, this article is about a train. Like an actual train, not
| a train line. While a couple of somewhat slower maglev lines
| exist in China, this article isn't about them.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| This isn't actually that true. Yes, China is pretty efficient
| at getting people to move out, but there were many projects
| that had to be built around people that refused to move out.
| The laws may have changed since then, though.
| vmception wrote:
| "Yes but no"
|
| Municipal governments in China are much more similar and
| relatable to western systems than the national government.
| kypro wrote:
| In the West we've just had a year and a half of thinking like
| this though. Perhaps in some cases it's okay to care less about
| what individuals and businesses want if there is a clear
| societal good. I'm a property owner and I strongly believe in
| property rights, but the right (and legitimacy) of an
| individual owning and occupying land for their own personal
| interests when land is limited commodity which we all need
| access to is questionable to me.
|
| Just saying because it sounds like you're framing this in a
| negative way, but I'm not sure it is. IMO the West probably
| respects the right an individual has to land a little too much.
| MiddleEndian wrote:
| I think it's a bad combo in the US. Since while it is a
| struggle to build a train track in the US, at the same time,
| when you own your own land, you still need your neighbors'
| permission to build anything or even to keep your taco shop
| open past midnight.
|
| Really it's just anti-development and anti-activity as a
| whole.
| russli1993 wrote:
| No. There is a lot of laws and regulations for eminent
| domain/land acquisition in China. For property in cities/towns,
| normally a third party will come in to assess the land and
| property value. "Regulations on the Expropriation of Houses on
| State-owned Land" governs land acquisitions in this case, and
| it says: "The compensation for the value of houses to be
| expropriated shall not be less than the market price of the
| real estate comparable to the houses to be expropriated on the
| date of the public notice of the house expropriation decisions.
| The value of the houses to be expropriated shall be assessed
| and determined by real estate appraisal agencies with
| appropriate qualifications in accordance with the procedures
| for evaluating houses to be expropriated". source:
| https://urbanlex.unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/urbanlex/...
|
| For rural land, legally it is known as "village collective
| owned land". Land acquisition is governed by "Land
| Administration Law of PRC". The village committee votes to
| accept a land acquisition compensation scheme. Section 48
| says:" Compensation for people under land acquistation must
| ensure their quality of life does not fall below before the
| acquisition". Compensation must consider current land use, its
| GDP value, its resources, and its location. Compensation must
| be given first before the land acquisition. Living standard
| should higher than before acquisition. In practice, the
| compensation of usually includes, lump sum cash, a new
| residential home, the community condition around the new
| residential home is also part of package. For example: my grand
| parent's village was land acquired. They used to have a pretty
| poor home by modern standards. Bathrooms not connected to city
| sewage, poor bathrooms, bad heat insulation, far from
| hospitals, grocery stores, school. The compensation was 500k
| RMB lump sum payment(the home had a living area of ~150m2,
| around 3333rmb/m2), a condo style home in the town center 10km
| away built in 2018(100m2, three bedrooms, valued at 15k
| rmb/m2). A community hospital, child care facility within
| 100m2. A large scale city hospital within 2km. Family thought
| it was a good deal. Actually, a lot of people joke about
| praying for land acquisitions because they can get a pretty
| large jump in quality of life. source:http://www.npc.gov.cn/npc
| /c30834/201909/d1e6c1a1eec345eba237...
|
| Also, people can sue the government for land acquisition
| disputes. Some sample cases are here:
| http://www.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-95912.html. Case 5, the
| plaintiff found the compensation decision to be "lacking in
| facts, determined using illegal procedures, selection and use
| of evaluation entity illegal, evaluation price clearly lower
| than market price". The court agrees with most of plaintiff's
| case, and order the government to rescind land acquisition
| order. Government appealed, higher court sided with plaintiff
| again.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| In the US, the time consuming part is not really the eminent
| domain, but rather the environmental regulations: even if the
| regulations themselves do little or no actual difference to the
| process of building, the amount of time you need to spend on
| doing analyses, getting reviews and approvals is very high, and
| it's pretty expensive too. You also need to deal with
| vindictive environmental litigants, who use the environmental
| law to either block the project altogether (by requiring more
| and more analyses and reviews), or extract spoils in exchange
| of dropping litigation.
|
| There are real benefits to environmental laws, the US is
| cleaner and nicer than it's been for greater parts of 19th and
| 20th centuries. At the same time, it is important to recognize
| the very real costs carried by environment protection. People
| these days seem to be all about "green" and "environment", and
| seem to be for any and every environment protection measure.
| What does not happen is analysis costs vs benefit of these
| measures.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Eminent domain in the US may not be the most time consuming
| part, but IIRC it is the most expensive.
| mm983 wrote:
| Don't forget about the unpaid "reeducation" workers who happen
| to be minorities or political opposition
| blackcat201 wrote:
| For reference, Boeing 747 average speed is 909 km/h (565 mph)
| with a top speed 986 km/h (613 mph). However maglev train saves
| time on landing and coordination makes it faster compare to air
| travel.
| gregoriol wrote:
| Not sure it has a huge advantage if you take into account the
| infrastructure: the track is very difficult to build, you need
| land, you need to take into account every hill or mountain,
| build bridges and tunnels while a plane can go anywhere without
| any additional stuff.
|
| Also, a new station at the center of a major city requires a
| tremendous amount of investment and work, and some new stations
| may end up outside or far from the center so you'll need time
| to get to the place you go anyway.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I would assume that ~all significant cities in China already
| have a train station or two...
| gregoriol wrote:
| With existing stations, you'll still need new tracks, and
| likely larger stations anyway as traffic will go up with
| new lines.
|
| Such projects are likely easier in China where the
| government has very effective power, not that easy to build
| in city centers in many other countries.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Yeah, high speed rail uses up huge amounts of land.
|
| I think acquiring all that land and getting it through
| environmental review is pretty much impossible in the US.
| jbay808 wrote:
| And frequency/throughput. At peak hours, the Shinkansen can
| depart about every two minutes(!). I would regularly step into
| the train station five minutes before my departure. Or just buy
| a ticket at the station when I get there, with no reservation,
| since I know the trains come so often I won't have to wait
| long.
|
| How long do you have to wait if you miss your flight? How
| certain are you of an on-time arrival? How early do you arrive
| at the airport, to make sure you'll catch your plane?
| bluGill wrote:
| At one time (before 9/11) you could walk into the airport in
| Minneapolis and be in the air to Chicago in 20 minutes
| (airplanes left every 15 minutes), buy your ticket at the
| gate. Of course this is a busy route and the airline decided
| it was worth running empty seats to ensure it could happen.
|
| There is no technical reason airplanes couldn't do this for
| any city pair. There are reasons that airplanes don't operate
| this way, but they are not because it is technically
| impossible. Politically you can't get rid of the security
| theater, and yield management probably is the most profitable
| way to run airplanes, but both could change if we wanted to.
| egeozcan wrote:
| According to the article, Germany is also looking to build one...
| Just assign the task to the Deutsche Bahn, what could possibly go
| wrong!
|
| Before corona times, there used to be stations closing because
| too many people are called in sick or at vacation. Trains
| stopping in the middle of nowhere and conductor announcing,
| "eerm, yeah, we are having technical difficulties" and you just
| sit there for at least an hour without any updates. Not sure how
| it is now but...
| ginko wrote:
| I think they're referring to the Transrapid, which essentially
| got scrapped. The only non-test track ever built is in
| Shanghai.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| No, this is a completely new design. The ultimate goal is for
| rail transport to be faster than air transport and build it
| to connect Shanghai and Beijing.
|
| Transrapid was never going to be built on a large scale, it
| wasn't a domestic design and it wasn't fast enough to be a
| real alternative to air transport. Perhaps this iteration
| even won't be, but eventually there will almost certainly be
| such a line built - the need is too great.
| rob74 wrote:
| Completely new? If you look at how Transrapid trains "hug"
| the rail from both above and below (https://en.wikipedia.or
| g/wiki/Transrapid#/media/File:Transra...), the train in the
| picture is doing exactly the same. So I would be a bit
| skeptical about such claims...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| That is indeed the basic design of a maglev train. If you
| look closely, you will see that almost every maglev train
| "hugs" the tracks from above and below. This is necessary
| to prevent the train from derailing and everyone on board
| from dying. Some use different means of not derailling
| but surrounding the rail is the simplest.
| rob74 wrote:
| Not any maglev train. According to
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev, there are three
| different types, and even the EMS type can have some
| variation ("single beam" or "double beam":
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HSST-Double-Beam.png).
| I'm not sure which type is more widespread though (since
| none of them can really be called "widespread").
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Even dual beam EMS looks exactly the same : https://en.m.
| wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_Surface_Transport...
|
| There aren't three different types of Maglev systems.
| There's EMS and EDS. Indutrack is a type of EDS.
| ginko wrote:
| I was referring to the one Germany was working on. I know
| that the 600 kph train presented in this article isn't a
| Transrapid.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Ah ok sorry, because the previous maglev train in China
| is also a Transrapid :P
| gruez wrote:
| I thought German trains were supposed to be super punctual? Or
| is that Japan?
| jinto36 wrote:
| Trains in Japan are only off-schedule when something really
| bad happens- collisions and severe weather delays. Both of
| those affect local lines much more than the Shinkansen
| (bullet train) since the latter does not share tracks with
| other services, and does not have any street-level crossings.
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42024020
| bellyfullofbac wrote:
| The German reputation is maybe a few decades old.
|
| I remember a few years ago seeing someone holding a ticket
| envelope for Deutsche Bahn ticket. The front of it was
| promoting their app, and said very proudly: "Now with delays
| notification!".
| Kelteseth wrote:
| No. Swiss trains are, but German trains are famous for being
| late. A little snow in the winter? Well, guess what:
| Schienenersatzverkehr! (Rail replacement bus service)
| rsynnott wrote:
| I mean, it's all a question of perspective. The sort of
| train delay that's objectionable in Germany is so normal
| that no-one would even notice it in Ireland, say.
|
| Irish Rail defines punctuality as within 10 minutes of
| schedule for intercity and within 5 minutes of schedule for
| commuter and metro. Based on that rather generous
| definition, most lines manage 90-95% punctuality...
| bluGill wrote:
| Just because some places are worse doesn't mean we should
| excuse Germany. Trains should be within 5 seconds every
| single time. With dedicated infrastructure and absolute
| priority this isn't hard. (I'll make an exception only if
| the wind is faster than 200km/h, or earthquakes - every
| other weather event should be normal and designed out -
| the exact wind speed can be debated of course). It goes
| without saying that collisions are not acceptable.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _sort of train delay that 's objectionable in Germany
| is so normal that no-one would even notice it in Ireland_
|
| New Yorker here. I noticed. Germany's trains were
| erratically delayed in a way that was frustrating,
| noticeable and opaque. Our LIRR and Metro North, on the
| other hand, run on time. As did Trenitalia when I was
| traveling from Roma to Napoli last week.
| rob74 wrote:
| We have that in Germany too. Any delay between 0 and 4
| minutes 59 seconds is "no delay". Any delay between 5:00
| and 9:59 is "5 minutes". Any delay between 10:00 and
| 14:59 is "10 minutes", and so on...
|
| In Germany the whole fiasco started with the
| "privatisation" of the Federal Railways (Bundesbahn) in
| the mid-nineties. Since then, Deutsche Bahn behaves like
| a private company, but is still 100% owned by the federal
| government (who sometimes taps them for money), and is
| three things at once: train operator (in which role it
| competes with other operators), infrastructure owner (in
| which role it sells track usage rights to itself and
| other operators) and station owner (in which role it
| sells station usage rights to itself and other operators,
| plus makes a lot of money as landlord at bigger stations
| while neglecting smaller ones). Which leads to all kinds
| of conflicts of interest. Mainly, DB is "profit-
| oriented", i.e. it tends to dislike investing any of its
| own money in infrastructure expansion or maintenance -
| all such works must be requested and paid by either the
| federal government or the state (Bundesland) governments.
| And since these governments hate to be seen as
| "subsidizing" a "private company", most of the
| infrastructure (except for a few shiny new projects that
| make politicians look good) is just languishing in the
| state it was almost 30 years ago, with minimal
| maintenance.
| yorwba wrote:
| And the percent on time is not much better than the
| 90-95% quoted for Ireland above, too: https://www.deutsch
| ebahn.com/de/konzern/konzernprofil/zahlen... Long-
| distance trains are delayed more than 5 minutes [?]25% of
| the time in bad months.
|
| Also fun: a planned stop that was cancelled doesn't count
| as delayed, it's simply removed from the statistics. (An
| occasional [?] delay would really hurt the average.)
| rsynnott wrote:
| Huh, that's worse than I'd have thought; maybe I've just
| been lucky when I've been in Germany not to hit
| significant delays.
| FabHK wrote:
| FWIW, Germany did build a maglev that runs up to 500 km/h, the
| "Transrapid" [1]. Development was started in 1969, and a test
| route was built in 1987. However, it was only ever deployed in
| production once, in 2002 - guess where? In Shanghai, connecting
| the Pudong airport to downtown (Correction: Not downtown, but
| to an interchange station connecting to a few metro lines.)
|
| And hey presto, 20 years later China has a maglev. Honi soit
| qui mal y pense [2].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transrapid
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honi_soit_qui_mal_y_pense
| throwaway4good wrote:
| So why didn't the Germans put these trains all over Germany?
| rob74 wrote:
| Yup, and except for a sleeker design, the two trains look
| pretty similar to me...
| larusso wrote:
| Yes I wanted to comment the same. And Germany is, as far as I
| know no longer looking into this anymore.
|
| Edit: I mean for the usage in Germany. It's sadly a very
| political topic because lots of money went into this project.
| FabHK wrote:
| Yes, it is a pity. On the other hand, Germany is only
| around 1000 km north to south, and most distances can be
| done in a few hours with conventional high speed trains.
| And it doesn't look like there'll be export opportunities
| for a Transrapid anytime soon to, say, the US, or China...
| bluGill wrote:
| If you limit yourself to Germany you are correct. However
| the EU is a thing, and could be made a lot better if the
| countries started acting together more. Maglev from Italy
| to Finland with stops in Germany for example.
| giantrobot wrote:
| The Alps would have a word.
| publicola1990 wrote:
| Aren't they building a tunnel through it, for
| conventional rail of course.
| nixass wrote:
| Alps are full of tunnels, some being high speed for that
| matter
| bluGill wrote:
| The entire world is full of difficult terrine. Either you
| quit making excuses and learn to deal with it, or you
| make excuses and make flying easier. I visit Europe about
| once every 20 years, so I'm not really in position to say
| what Europe should do.
| IceHegel wrote:
| That's the way the cookie crumbles when you ride Deutsche Bahn.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-20 23:03 UTC)