Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bullet train

Re:Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bul... by mmt on Saturday May 26, 2018 @02:12PM (#17163465)

> Trains in the rush hour

Especially given the picture you provide, I think you're talking about intra-urban rail (subway, metro, even suburban commuter).

That's a far cry from a 350-mile, 3-hour inter-city link.

Show me the picture for the London-Edinburgh "rush hour".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bul... by IshKebab on Saturday May 26, 2018 @04:58PM (#17164211)

Done: https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article158562.ece/ALTE...

Southend to Liverpool is 3-4 hours on the train.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bul... by mmt on Saturday May 26, 2018 @07:01PM (#17164648)

Not done.

That's only, what, 240 miles? Which means it's not exactly high speed, is it? It could probably reach the 25k/hr that my sibling commentor is asking for, but not the 100k claimed for HSR.

Additionally, if it's Southend-on-Sea, that's not a major urban area. At 25k/hr, you could move the entire population to Liverpool in a little over 7 hours. I smell a contrivance.

Lastly, the name of that picture describes the train carriage as "busy" not something like "typical", so even then I'm skeptical.

Try again. London to Edinburgh. High speed. Typical rush hour.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bul... by DrScump on Saturday May 26, 2018 @06:23PM (#17164557)

How close does it get to the stated 25,000 passengers per hour throughput metric?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Only 31% of California voters want to keep paying for bul... by mmt on Monday May 28, 2018 @04:01PM (#17174502)

Keep in mind that's for light rail, only 1/4 of what the commenter claimed for HSR.

With 3 occupants per vehicle, 4 freeway lanes could carry 25k, not as outlandish-sounding as 25.

[ Parent | on HN ]