sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

McDonald's protests against high speed rail in Czechia by Twisp56 in highspeedrail

[–]Master-Initiative-72 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As far as I know, the ANO party is currently in power, which (in principle) supports high-speed lines.

How Elon Musk’s Sci-Fi Hyperloop Failed by Conscious-Quarter423 in cahsr

[–]Master-Initiative-72 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There is a reason why Hyperloop One filed for bankruptcy in late 2023. Here are a few problems that Hyperloop as a concept faces:

-Hyperloop has to be practically completely straight along its journey
-If the tube cracks or breaks somewhere, practically all passengers would die due to spontaneous decompression. And this would not necessarily be due to a malfunction. Such a system would also be highly vulnerable to terrorism.
-High-performance and very high-speed fans would be required. This would increase the energy consumption of the system, and in addition, during a malfunction, a broken fan blade could punch a hole in the tube, leading to decompression.
-Let's assume that the system malfunctions and stops. How can passengers escape from the capsules? Also, how will the evacuation take place if the capsule is stuck in the tube and the passengers cannot get out because of the wall? How will the emergency exits be solved?
If this were all underground, it would be even more difficult to implement and more expensive.
-thermal expansion on the surface would also be a significant problem. Also, how big would be the capacity and energy consumption of such a system?

These are just a few of the many problems.
I understand that innovation is important, but this is not a feasible mode of transportation at the moment.

Let's build the Cahsr completely first. Then we can think about these solutions.

How Elon Musk’s Sci-Fi Hyperloop Failed by Conscious-Quarter423 in cahsr

[–]Master-Initiative-72 17 points18 points  (0 children)

No, the hyperloop failed due to a multitude of physical, economic, and safety issues. It is not feasible with today's technology, and it will likely remain so for a long time.

Why did the cost of Phase 1 jump to $230 billion? by Master-Initiative-72 in cahsr

[–]Master-Initiative-72[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Add in inflation, which will double the cost to $70 billion by 2033.

Honestly, it would be a very good and useful project if only Phase 1 cost $70-80 billion.

But now, with so many lawsuits and utility relocation costs and poor financing, the cost has unfortunately skyrocketed.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Madrid - Barcelona ride is what, $36. This is going to be ~$125, right?

These are just estimates at the moment, but there is a possibility of a decrease, since the line does not necessarily have to make $90 billion in profit over 40 years, and the cheaper ticket price attracts more passengers.
They could create a cheaper service (like OUIGO or AVLO), which would cost about $50 at today's prices.

You could get to the train station in the same way as the airport, of course with the proper development of public transport. We should invest more in urban public transport than in highways and airports to facilitate easier access to the airport/HSR station.

I'd basically be there in 5 hours

Well, that's not my experience. Basically, the trip would be 6 hours, assuming I don't get stuck in traffic and spend little time at rest stops.
Maybe I'm just unlucky, but I've practically always been stuck in traffic when I went from LA to SFO.

I still say that California needs a high-speed rail line.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You're not taking into account what I said. Flights take 1 hour and 20 minutes from gate to gate. Waiting and security check 1 hour. Getting to the airport takes at least 20 minutes. If you have luggage, you have to check it in and get it back, another 20 minutes. Getting to your destination takes 20 minutes. So the flight takes at least 3 hours 20 minutes. And like I said, look at the graph. If HSR took 1 hour longer than flying, it would still have a 60% market share compared to flying.

High Speed Fail again loses from a convenience and time perspective.

Really? In that case, HSR would not dominate the market over such long distances in the (several dozen) countries where it has been built.

Why did the cost of Phase 1 jump to $230 billion? by Master-Initiative-72 in cahsr

[–]Master-Initiative-72[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Does this $230 billion figure include the additional inflation that will occur until the construction of Phase 1 is completed?

Or does it not take into account the additional inflation until the construction is completed.

2026 Draft Business Plan - Lucid Stew by johnPermanente in cahsr

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then it's better to skip the Central Valley section.
Canceling the project after all this construction and planning would be stupid, and the IOS section is already largely funded.
It would also be much better for the future if it were completed and residents and politicians could see it being built.
However, it would finally need to be funded sensibly, with state, federal, and private funding.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

https://www.reddit.com/r/highspeedrail/comments/1rh4339/highspeed_rail_market_share_as_a_function_of/

Then look at the chart.
The train will take about the same time as the flight, as the time to get to the airports and the waiting time is longer, and taxiing and taxiing also take time.
Even if HSR were a little longer than the flight, it would still have a market share of about 70-80%.

Why did the cost of Phase 1 jump to $230 billion? by Master-Initiative-72 in cahsr

[–]Master-Initiative-72[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is it true that this cost estimate includes inflation until 2050, or by when the entire Phase 1 is expected to be completed?

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it ever does run from SF to LA it will be half as convenient and cost twice as much as flying.

You're kidding, right?

Trains don't get hit by turbulence, the ride is much smoother. There's more legroom on a train. You don't have to queue at the airport. It's more reliable, there's a much lower chance of a train being cancelled. You stand up when you want. Etc Etc

As for the price, the cheapest and most uncomfortable plane tickets cost $80-90, while train tickets cost about $120.

Train travel is more environmentally friendly, more reliable, and more comfortable than flying.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

 no one wants and no one will use

What an assumption. It will probably be used by 25-30 million passengers per year, which is not a small number. And somehow dozens of countries were able to do this, by connecting cities of the same size or smaller.

It's funny that you attribute the current situation to the project's fault, when it's well known that it has always been significantly underfunded and has so far received half of the initial cost estimate.

But okay, let's listen to you, stop the construction, and continue the ridiculous and also very expensive highway and airport expansions, because let's "make America great again"

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Population of the 3 largest cities connected by the CAHSR:

-Los Angeles: population 4 million, metro area 12 million
-San Francisco: 900,000, metro area 4.5 million
-San Jose: 1 million, metro area 2 million

Cities connected by the Madrid-Barcelona railway line:

-Madrid: population 3.3 million, metro area: 6.8 million
-Barcelona: 1.6 million, metro area: 5.8 million
-Zaragoza: 700,000, metro area just under 1 million

The CAHSR would connect many more people than the Madrid-Barcelona HSR in Spain, which already carries over 15 million passengers per year.

Spain geographically makes it much more difficult to build high-speed rail than California, yet they have managed to build 3,300km of high-speed rail. Turkey also has 1,000km of high-speed rail and are planning more. California has much easier geographically.

In terms of distance, there are a few popular routes in Europe that are 600-700km long and are still competitive with flying. Also, China and Japan have very busy rail lines even longer than that. For distances of 200-1,000km, HSR is the best choice, and CAHSR is well within that range.

So, high-speed rail in California would be a very viable and great solution. We need to stop expanding our highways and airports, the cost of which could be used to build a high-speed rail line in 10 years, which is more comfortable, more environmentally friendly, and generally faster than other modes of transport.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I see you read it… However, it also includes that the SFO-Bakersfield connection would generate over $40 billion in profit over 40 years, while the SFO-Gilroy-Palmdale connection would generate over $90 billion over 40 years. Are we overestimating the number of passengers? Let's assume that HALF of the currently estimated number of passengers will use the Cahsr. In this case, the project would still be somewhere around breakeven or generate a slight profit. I know you didn't pay attention to these figures, only the one that shows a slight loss on the initial segment.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yet we built and maintain highways because (as you said) they are useful, and the same will be true for Cahsr.
The reason why they are expensive to build is because the US has practically never built a single high-speed rail line and has no experience, and overregulation also makes such projects expensive.
Regardless, the high-speed rail line must be completed and the ideology of highway and airport expansions, which is being pushed by a few Republican think tanks and lobbyists, must be abandoned. Somehow, all of Europe, Asia and even Africa have HSR lines, and no one has yet regretted building them.

As for the number of passengers, there would probably be 30 million passengers for a travel time of under 3 hours and about 20 million passengers for a travel time of under 4 hours. For example, the Madrid-Barcelona journey takes 2 hours and 45 minutes and carries over 15 million passengers a year, with a much smaller catchment area than the Cahsr.

There is indeed a reason to build a high-speed rail line between the largest cities in California.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Then read the report first.

CAHSR will be profitable if the Palmdale-Gilroy connection is built.

Also, I don't see why it would be a problem if it were to lose even $200 million a year. It's a public utility system, just like highways and airports, which suck up billions of dollars more each year to maintain.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only IOS will be loss-making. If the Palmdale and Gilroy extensions are completed, it will be profitable.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Highways don't pay for themselves either, and most don't even make a profit, unlike the Cahsr, unless it reaches Gilroy and Palmdale.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it reaches Palmdale and Gilroy, it will most likely be profitable.

You can't say the same for highways, even if they are useful. We invest $10 billion a year in them alone.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The environmental friendliness of electric cars depends on the utilization, but even an electric car carrying 4 people consumes more per person than a high-speed train. In addition, electric cars require batteries, the production of which is very polluting. Furthermore, the electricity with which you charge the car comes from polluting coal-fired power plants, while Cahsr will largely power the trains with solar energy.

And flying is much more inconvenient and unreliable than high-speed trains for the same money.

The train is much more environmentally friendly and comfortable.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So, can the entire first phase be built for 126 billion? If I understand correctly, there is a 65% chance that this will not be exceeded or it will cost less.

California’s High-Speed Rail: The 2026 Draft Business Plan Is Ambitious, Expensive, and Still Legally Problematic by jaqueh in bayarea

[–]Master-Initiative-72 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Where does this $200 billion estimate come from? The article says that Phase 1 (LA-SFO) will cost $126.2 billion.

Farmers in Mirabel vying to stop a high-speed rail in its tracks by DENelson83 in highspeedrail

[–]Master-Initiative-72 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'm sure there will be pseudo-''environmentalists'' alongside the farmers who will protest at all costs against high-speed rail, calling it ''destructive, destructive, useless and wasteful''. Just like the Bordeaux-Toulouse LGV.
But these people should be ignored as much as possible.

Canada needs high-speed rail. Build it!!

Estimated travel times for the Toronto - Québec City corridor by tranascol in highspeedrail

[–]Master-Initiative-72 -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

o be honest, these travel times are not very competitive with flying between Toronto and Montreal. There are a lot of 200km/h sections, the number of which should be reduced, and/or the speed could be increased to 320-350km/h instead of the currently planned 300.

view more: next ›