Hacker News Reader

#1, it's not exactly cost-free to increase capacity at major airports. LAX currently operates near its maximum capacity. There's a $15 billion upgrade project, but it's not going to add all that much capacity. And given noise abatement and spacing requirements, there are fundamental limits to how much capacity can be added.

#2, planes are dirty and we lack the technology to make them clean. Perhaps by the time HSR is built, we'll all have solar-powered e-fuels, or a major battery revolution that enables electric planes. But we don't have that yet and it's not clear we'll have it any time soon.

#3, the flying time between LA and SF is quick, but there is much time getting to airports, waiting at airports, delays at airports due to weather and inbound flights, and getting back to city centers.

#4, there are all sorts of other locations on the route. For instance, the Bay Area is a major economic center, but housing is extremely expensive. HSR enables people to live in Stockton or Modesto and get to San Jose, or Oakland in under an hour. It will invigorate Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, Fresno, Madera.

> It will invigorate Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, Fresno, Madera.

“Monorail! Monorail!”

Sorry couldn’t resist.

There is no good public transit even within bay area (where SFO and SJC are located). Without public transit HSR is close to useless. How HSR will make public transit to appear?

SF is small enough for Uber and Lime to solve the issue - trying to use your own car to get around in SF is not the best idea.

For South Bay, if you're there for business, yeah - you probably need a car.

Public transport will grow from the trunk line, which is essentially what High Speed Rail becomes. The state of public transport and the car centric focus of the state is because the public infrastructure isn't there, rather than in spite of it.

> If you are not directly along the metro lines in LA and headed to a place that's also on the lines ( and the entire westside is a desert) you are driving

This is a problem with every type of transport. You still have to drive to the highway, to the airport, to intercity the bus station. You might see as 'burbs served well by the HSR become popular and developments form near them, that the stations become hubs for business and commerce.

The public transit around the bay area, which is served by Bart and Caltrain, is not very good.

I think there is a subset of US government officials that have a weird obsession with trains. It's a cargo cult. They see asian/european trains, and just think that if we make trains it will somehow solve transportation problems.

I saw in my former city a bus line get replaced by a train. It was infuriating. They tore up the roads and replaced the busses with trains which are worse in every imaginable way. They did this while also passing local laws which made it harder to operate scooter/bike rentals (bird scooters and the like).

But these politicians just think literal trains are the solution. Again, its' weird cargo cultism.

A legit high speed rail (300kph) line that went from Seattle to San Diego, or from Minneapolis to New Orleans would be great. It doesn't seem like anybody is even trying to do that.

I don’t know: San Jose - Seattle is ~900 miles or 1400km-1500km. That is 5-6 hours direct train at best at 300kmh. I don’t see this as something beneficial to a plane. Borderline comparable to flying and only because of slow TSA.

SeaTac is out in the middle of nowhere and easily one of the most unpleasant airports I've ever flown out of. Last time I had to go through immigration at SEA there was vomit smeared all over the floor.

Meanwhile the Amtrak station in Seattle is centrally located, about fifteen minutes to downtown by tram. The Amtrak station in Portland is pretty much right in the middle of downtown. I don't know that I'd want to go from the Bay Area to Seattle on a train, but something like Portland to Seattle would benefit greatly from HSR (currently it's about a 4 hour trip).

There are plans for HSR between Vancouver, BC and Portland, OR. Washington state just allocated a few hundred million to advance design. I think they are waiting for some matching federal grants before proceeding. I think they are hoping for a high speed line within 10 years or something.

I actually think that if the High Speed line is built all the way south to Eugene it kind of makes sense to build a traditional electrified rail way between Eugene and Redding CA. through Medford, and a higher speed line to Sacramento where it could interline with California High-Speed Rail to LA. Connecting Medford with Redding and Eugene with a traditional rail should be worth it on its own, but with the surrounding high speed lines it becomes possible to operate a west coast sleeper between Seattle and LA in like 10-13 hours (as opposed to the current 36 hours).

There's so little between Eugene and Redding (which itself is mostly just meth) that HSR almost makes more sense for that stretch.

150 000 people live in the Medford urban area. There are popular tourist activities close by. This stop would serve both the locals in the Medford area and tourists alike. In fact it could really help Medford’s economy as the drive from Seattle or San Francisco is intense, it would enable tourists to take an easy train ride there and rent a car for further tourist activities (or simply take the bus to Ashland for some hot springs or a Shakespeare play).

But more importantly though, this portion is very mountainous, making finding a high speed alignment without unrealistic amount of tunneling impossible. A traditional electrified train with speeds up to 120 MPH is far more likely to actually happen, and would do plenty to enrich the area as well as provide an alternative to flying between the Pacific North West and California.

You’re really missing the point. These places are remote and neglected. Meth is a symptom. Connect them to jobs and opportunity and we can develop thriving communities along the rail corridor. That’s where midwest and west coast cities originated in the first place.

King Street Station is a fifteen minute walk from “downtown”. It’s basically in downtown already and by light rail is one stop to the first “downtown” stop at University Street. It’s more like 4 minutes by train. They come every 10 minutes so that’s 15 minutes worst case.

The same light rail will take you anywhere from the airport in the south to the northern edge of the city. Within a decade it will go as far south as Tacoma. In a couple years a new connecting line will reach Bellevue. Eventually as far as Redmond (Microsoft). My own neighborhood of West Seattle will connect in 2035.

The future is bright for the west coast. If HSR connects us all this will be the most desirable place on Earth.

~5h is how long a train takes from Warsaw to Berlin, compared to ~1h by plane (~2-3h including getting to and from airport), and I know multiple people who still prefer the train - even when they are able to easily afford any mode of transportation.

With the train, you have way more freedom in choosing the time and the hour. You have multiple trains leaving during the day, and you can choose 30 min before needing to hop onto one. Also, if you miss one, you just wait for the next one.

Also, on the train you can work, relax and stretch your legs or eat freely. So it doesn't feel like lost time really. Planes often do, even if you travel business.

That's roughly the same time as Paris-Nice, which is a very heavily used high speed rail corridor. Not enough to make the plane route unviable like it did with Paris-Lyon and Paris-Bordeaux, but there are drastically less planes now, so it's still a massive net win.

> saw in my former city a bus line get replaced by a train. It was infuriating. They tore up the roads and replaced the busses with trains which are worse in every imaginable way

Trains are faster, have more capacity and usually grade separated so flow is easier to manage. In what way is any form of train worse than a bus besides the few obvious ones - needs infrastructure and upfront costs.

This train is not grade separated (it drives with the cars, and creates massive confusion in the vehicles lanes) and doesn’t hold more people than the busses did. It also requires overhead power lines, and has fewer stops than the busses it replaced.

I don't see how a train could be creating confusion - it's just a vehicle (apparently, what a shit implementation).

I find it hard to believe that even the smallest light rail/tram deployment won't have higher capacity than your average bus deployment (not BRT). Can you name the system so that we can check the passengers per hour capacity?

Overhead power lines means electric propulsion, so lower noise and less pollution (electric buses are a rarity and only work on short routes).

Maybe they can do both (high speed rail and better metro transportation)

And indeed they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R#Measure_M

Money earmarked for HSR is not money that can be applied for LA transit. LA transit can only be funded by increasing transit appropriations by LA residents.

Nobody said that's the miracle solution to bring public transportation for all, that's a key step to it though. Public transports in California cities need to be built too!

Keeping on doubling down for cars/flights will surely never bring any sustainable and environmental solution.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think some lawmakers in CA think they can get public transportation to rival cities like New York. It will never happen in places like LA/SD unfortunately. There is far too much sprawl. Most ppl in NYC can step off a subway and walk a couple blocks and be at there destination. In SD, where I live, it doesnt seem financially possible.

Recently SANDAG approved a $160 billion dollar Transit Plan. That would equate to $110k per resident if we paid out of pocket; hopefully they can do some financial voodoo so that's not the case.

A few weeks ago SANDAG officials were forced to withdrawal the most controversial part of their plan, a mileage tax that would tax San Diegans for every mile they drive (obviously very unpopular among residents). But, this tax was the main source of funding for the $163B Regional Transportation Plan, so they are forced to find a new funding mechanism. I'm curious what they will come up with.

It’s a throughput play. Assuming population and economic growth continues that $100 one hour flight will run into airport capacity issues sooner or later. The train will start looking attractive when the flight is either frequently delayed or becomes $500.