Conversation

This is an excellent article. Didn’t have an opinion before but now I think HSR is bullshit. Because physics. By similar analysis, I think hyperloops are bs as well though perhaps slightly less so because the load wear aspect is missing.
Quote Tweet
Article arguing that high speed rail is economically unviable caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/10/11/why
Image
Replying to
Hmm, this metaphor tracks surprisingly well. L1 ossification = property rights/topography Protocol changes after ossification = eminent domain Authoritarianism = more BDFL ability to force changes HSR = physics that forces straighter lines which only dictators can do
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
The other pro-airplane take is simply that HSR requires consensus-layer changes to L1 whereas airplanes are mostly L2 with relatively lighter L1 work required (pushing to change FAA and a few other regs), and doing things at L2 is 10x easier. twitter.com/VitalikButerin
1
7
I’m sure there are areas where it makes sense (close population centers with empty flat land in between), but I suspect potential is at best like 3x-5x today’s total miles. Barely a dent in either air or rail capacity. Most of earth’s surface does not have flat+empty routes.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @vgr
I read it and disagree. For the SF-LA route, maybe. But several problems with a more general conclusion because: - arbitrary 300kmph definition for HSR - mostly ignoring externalities vis. climate - JR East consistently profitable before covid.
1
3
As several people have pointed out, it’s a rough essay that misses several things, but not just points on the pro-HSR side. There’s also anti-HSR points he missed, like embodied carbon of tons of steel and concrete on a 5y replacement schedule. But the main point is solid.
1
5
I’m a big rail fan too, but I don’t think it’s sad. I think the arguments against ordinary rail are weaker and I actually like low-speed rail a lot more. My few rides in European TGVs and even semi-high-speed Acela felt boring by contrast.
Quote Tweet
sad day for train boys twitter.com/NGKabra/status…
2
6
OP is probably right that rail is overall just obsolete, but it won’t go to zero. Low-speed rail will continue shrinking down to a few high-value cargo routes as it has been for decades, high-volume passenger routes (like in India), and bits of vanity HSR everywhere.
3
1
Also something people don’t talk about: demand for mad dashing-around high-speed regional travel, where you want to do return day trips to SF from LA, is 99% bullshit business travel. That should be discouraged anyway. Most of us can afford to travel much slower, given good wifi.
2
15
Besides one-way family emergency travel, almost nothing needs to happen as fast as we’re used to, now that so much can be done virtually over wifi. In fact I wonder if transoceanic ship travel will make a comeback. Leisurely week-long trips across Atlantic, spend a month at least
3
18
Show replies
Replying to
The other pro-airplane take is simply that HSR requires consensus-layer changes to L1 whereas airplanes are mostly L2 with relatively lighter L1 work required (pushing to change FAA and a few other regs), and doing things at L2 is 10x easier.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @Noahpinion
My heterodox take on US transit is that if infrastructure problems are too hard to solve, the transit of the future is airplanes, and we should just make airplanes better by (i) making them zero-carbon, and (ii) improving comfort by greatly cutting down airport security
13
35
Replying to and
This is an incorrect analysis of the current problem. We don’t need rails to move people between SF and LA. We need rails to allow people to settle further out of the cities. Take a look at Tokyo. Airplanes solve none of it.
2
5
Show replies