HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2921  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 1:32 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 7,115
Hit the road
__________________
IF I HEAR THAT HUMIRA SONG ONE MORE TIME I'M GOING TO TRAVIS BICKLE MY TV
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2922  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 2:40 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
It was also Republicans like Jeff Denham who threw up one procedural roadblock after another.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...entral-valley/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
I guess I would just ask that if President Obama hadnot lost Congress in 2010, what reason do you have to believe they would not have continued to pass HSR funding for the next 6 years???
My point was you are wrong in saying Republicans are to blame for HSR being delayed(perhaps indefinitely) in California. I disagree with you. I've made my points so I guess we will see when inevitably the next Democrat becomes president and presumably has a Democratic majority house and senate. But, IMO, to assume Rep. are to blame for this fiasco just shows people wanting to blame anyone but themselves.

PS, I want this project to be a reality. I am however not happy with the costs as other countries have shown it can be done for much cheaper with same quality. We should have Japan build our system, IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
This thread has no subject any more. Now we're conflating the private and failed Las Vegas-to-Nowhere high speed rail with CAHSR (they have separate threads for a reason that some here apparently refuse to consider), and the usual partisans are busy posting about national partisan politics.

Mods should just shut this sad thread down.
The LV HSR rail would prove ultimately to be of great significance in a truly regional HSR network. Imagine people claiming the entire interstate system is irrelevant to I-40 which is a major part of it. It all works together. We need the LV HSR but as proposed this is sure to fail and ultimately hurt HSR as a whole because of the way it has marketed to the public and their opinion that is sure to become once they see this fail. Who in their right mind that lives in SoCal would take HSR to Vegas from Victorville after having driven for hours!? Now if it were from Union station then I agree.

Also this project needs to be concurrent to a widening of I-15 to 6-8 lanes. That should be something Caltrans is doing. Then build the HDC(WITH THE FUCKING FREEWAY) and include HSR. Then have private interest tunnel through the Cajon pass and Antelope Valley. This would serve commuter and regional traffic. Could all be done concurrently. Would be a mix of private and public funds.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2923  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 7:45 AM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,908
I am pro-rail as anyone on here but the federal government should be investing very little into HSR. VERY few routes make sense. I think BOSWASH and California do make the most sense but California is probably making this harder and more expensive than it needs to be. The fact is this, HSR in California will replace plane rides with train rides. Basically the citizens of California(and there is a want for everyone else to pitch in more) are subsidizing the travels of middle to upper-class people who are making a statement by taking the train or cutting some time off their business commute.

Even if Dems do control everything in a year, I don't want them to commit any funding to HSR. Let me give that cash to cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2924  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 3:58 PM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
I am pro-rail as anyone on here but the federal government should be investing very little into HSR. VERY few routes make sense. I think BOSWASH and California do make the most sense but California is probably making this harder and more expensive than it needs to be. The fact is this, HSR in California will replace plane rides with train rides. Basically the citizens of California(and there is a want for everyone else to pitch in more) are subsidizing the travels of middle to upper-class people who are making a statement by taking the train or cutting some time off their business commute.

Even if Dems do control everything in a year, I don't want them to commit any funding to HSR. Let me give that cash to cities.
The issue of how to connect HSR in cities like Houston and Dallas to their existing transit lines is something I have been wondering about but you make a good point that a large, arguably majority, of commuters will be middle-middle upper class so their trips will likely originate by car regardless just as they do for planes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2925  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2020, 9:16 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,253
Lightbulb

Keeping in mind what makes sense, all one has to do is study the results Amtrak gets with Acela. While many advocacy pundits look at miles traveled, the realistic pundits look at elapse times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
NY to DC averages 2.75 hours elapse time over 225 miles achieves 75% market share
NY to Boston averages 3.5 hours elapse time over 231 miles achieves 54% market share.
The market share being limited to just trains and planes, completely ignoring buses and private vehicles.
It was not the additional 6 miles that lowers the NY to Boston market share 21% lower than the NY to DC market share, it was the additional 45 minutes of elapse time.
Which reinforces the idea that trains are really competitive with routes of less than 3 hours.

Anther consideration to account for is how congested the highways are. In the higher density areas of the NEC and California, the attractiveness of trains are much higher than in the less dense areas found in the rest of the country for travel of less than 3 hours.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2926  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2020, 12:18 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,890
Quote:
California Outlines Progress Toward North America's First High-Speed Rail System

“Electrified rail is advancing in all three regions of California—the Bay Area, Central Valley, and Southern California,” according to a draft of the 2020 Business Plan published by the California High Speed Rail Authority. Comments on it will be accepted through April 12.

The plan noted that construction is underway or will soon begin on 350 miles of high-speed rail: a 171-mile line in the Central Valley; 51 miles of electrified commuter rail in the Bay Area; and a 130-mile line being built by a private company between Las Vegas and San Bernardino County, California.

Work is now underway at 30 construction sites in the Central Valley. There are roughly 3,500 workers and 539 small businesses “engaged in building bridges, viaducts, grade separations and other high-speed rail infrastructure,” according to the report . . . .

The Central Valley high-speed line, which is expected to be in operation by 2028, will cut travel times from Merced to Bakersfield by up to 100 minutes. The full line is projected to be in operation in 2040 and will slash travel times from the Bay Area to Los Angeles to under 3 hours—versus a 7- to 8-hour drive. The system will carry 40 million riders annually, and the greenhouse-gas reductions will be the equivalent of taking 400,000 cars off the road . . . .

(San Joaquin River Viaduct)

https://www.hsrail.org/newsletter-dr...d-b736c309c09b
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2927  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2020, 12:24 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,890
Quote:
New high-speed rail plan keeps pushing toward Merced, Bakersfield for interim operations
BY TIM SHEEHAN
FEBRUARY 12, 2020 02:19 PM

With construction under way on 119 miles of its route through the central and southern San Joaquin Valley, the California High-Speed Rail Authority continued Wednesday to try to make the case for completing development of an electrified bullet-train line between Merced and Bakersfield as an interim step toward connecting the Valley to San Jose.

The agency released a draft version of its 2020 business plan, a document it is required to submit to the California Legislature every other year. It highlights the authority’s determination to expand the current construction boundaries – from north of Madera to north of Bakersfield – by about 52 miles total into downtown Merced and downtown Bakersfield.

Wednesday’s release of the draft plan marks the start of a two-month public comment period before a final version is adopted by the rail authority’s board of directors.

Merced-to-Bakersfield is being promoted by the rail authority to be its first operational segment by 2028-2029. Between its three current construction contracts and the one it plalns to make later this year for installation of tracks and electrical systems, the agency expects to spend a total of $12.4 billion. Extending the line from 119 miles to 171 is expected to add another $4.8 billion to the costs in the Valley, including an estimated $700 million to buy the line’s first electric trains . . . .

Thus far, in addition to work in the Valley, Kelly said the authority has committed about $2.9 billion to rail and infrastructure improvements on the San Francisco Peninsula and in the Los Angeles Basin to pave the way for a statewide bullet-train line connecting the Bay Area and Southern California . . . .
https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local...240234126.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2928  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2020, 8:59 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Playa del Rey, CA
Posts: 2,341
The ridership from Merced to Bakersfield is going to be abysmal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2929  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2020, 11:29 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAsam View Post
The ridership from Merced to Bakersfield is going to be abysmal.
It looks like they want to get real HSR trains for this segment instead of using diesel or electric commuter trains that could eventually be shifted to Caltrains or and eletrified LA metrorail. It actually makes a lot of sense to build shops only for HSR trains and get experience maintaining them and operating them instead of having a phase-out and phase-in of HSR at some future point.

Also, no doubt they will have all trains run local, so a trip from Bakersfield to Merced will involve no less than 3 full stops, which will add about 15 minutes to the trip. I also wonder if they'll operate HSR trains but not regularly run them at top speed in order to minimize wear.

I also would like to see an estimate for Merced to Sacramento, which has always been listed as Phase 2. The distance is roughly 120 miles. Assuming Trump is given the boot in November, the funding situation will be much different 12 months from now, and the line to Sacramento could be built quickly and possibly open at the same time as the initial operating segment between Merced and Bakerfield, and well before completion of the Pacheco Pass Tunnel.

The project needs wins. I think Bakersfield to Sacramento is a much bigger operation that proponents can point to than Bakersfield to Merced, and it'll likely cost less than the 13-mile Pacheco Pass Tunnel.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2930  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2020, 11:59 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 7,115
Real suggestion...

The authority ought to look into purchasing second hand high speed trainsets from Eurostar and give them a rehab. The first generation Alstom locomotives and trailers are being removed from service as the new Siemens built Eurostar 2 equipment comes online. Seems like a sensible frugal idea to me and leave procurement of new purpose built trainsets for the future when they are actually needed.


_
__________________
IF I HEAR THAT HUMIRA SONG ONE MORE TIME I'M GOING TO TRAVIS BICKLE MY TV
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2931  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 12:01 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,890
Quote:
How will we pay for the high-speed train to San Francisco?
By Adam Brinklow Feb 19, 2020, 9:48am PST

. . . for now, all the real work focuses on “phase one,” the SF-to-LA corridor. And even that is biting off more than enough to chew, according to the new draft plan. Here are a few key takeaways.

The good news is that costs have not significantly changed since last year: The authority still estimates a likely “base” cost of $80.3 billion (up slightly from $79.1 billion), with the worst-case scenario of $98 billion down a bit since 2019, and the pie-in-the-sky happy projection of $63.2 billion exactly the same. Voters originally approved a $45 billion plan in 2008—which comes out to roughly $55 billion in modern currency.

Right now the budget until 2030 runs as high as $23.4 billion. “While this amount of funding is considerable, it is not enough to build the entirety” of the SF-to-LA connection, says project CEO Brian Kelly. So far, the bullet train project has spent about $6.2 billion.

The only big milestone that Bay Area commuters will see in the near future for the larger project is that the state hopes to get the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) clearances for the region’s rail connection cleared up within the next two years. The major construction being done in the Bay Area is the ongoing Caltrain electrification, which will eventually allow HSR trains to use those tracks for the final stretch into San Francisco. However, this is a separate project that Caltrain would be undergoing anyway.

. . . construction is expanding . . . there are now 30 active build sites in the Central Valley and that construction is up to “600 onsite workers per week.” In March of 2019, that same figure was just 217 . . . .

(There are) some potential future moneymakers, including the eventuality of using fares from yet-to-be completed sections of the railway in the Central Valley. The most optimistic estimates put service five years away.

If the state extends the current cap-and-trade system to 2050, it could crank out up to $15 billion for high-speed rail.

Maybe the simplest solution is to “secure the remaining Proposition 1A construction funds at the appropriate time”—that is to say, collect on the rest of the nearly $10 billion that voters already approved that has yet to be appropriated . . . .
https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/19/2114...rain%20to%20SF

Just keep building with whatever money can be scraped together. Eventually I believe the value of this project will be recognized as air travel becomes nastier and more brutish and less efficient, and the available airport gates/runways will become ever more clogged with transcontinental and transoceanic flights.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2932  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 12:12 AM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 16,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
It looks like they want to get real HSR trains for this segment instead of using diesel or electric commuter trains that could eventually be shifted to Caltrains or and eletrified LA metrorail. It actually makes a lot of sense to build shops only for HSR trains and get experience maintaining them and operating them instead of having a phase-out and phase-in of HSR at some future point.
Quote:
In January 2015 the California High Speed Rail Authority issued a request for proposal (RFP) for complete trainsets. The proposals received will be reviewed so that acceptable bidders can be selected, and then requests for bids will be sent out. The winning bidder was projected to be selected in 2016, but plans have not yet been finalized.

It is estimated that for the entire Phase 1 system up to 95 trainsets might be required. Initially only 16 trainsets are anticipated to be purchased. Trainset expenses, according to the 2014 Business Plan, are planned at $889 million for the IOS (Initial Operating Segment) in 2022, $984 million for the Bay to Basin in 2027, and $1.4 billion for the completed Phase 1 in 2029, for a total of $3.276 billion.

In February 2015 nine companies formally expressed interest in producing trainsets for the system: Alstom, AnsaldoBreda (now Hitachi Rail Italy), Bombardier Transportation, CSR, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki Rail Car, Siemens, Sun Group U.S.A. partnered with CNR Tangshan, and Talgo (CSR merged with CNR in June 2015, bringing the number of companies down to eight).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...igh-Speed_Rail
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2933  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 12:27 AM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Real suggestion...

The authority ought to look into purchasing second hand high speed trainsets from Eurostar and give them a rehab. The first generation Alstom locomotives and trailers are being removed from service as the new Siemens built Eurostar 2 equipment comes online. Seems like a sensible frugal idea to me and leave procurement of new purpose built trainsets for the future when they are actually needed.
I think most of them are getting scrapped but I'm not certain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2934  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 4:39 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Playa del Rey, CA
Posts: 2,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
It looks like they want to get real HSR trains for this segment instead of using diesel or electric commuter trains that could eventually be shifted to Caltrains or and eletrified LA metrorail. It actually makes a lot of sense to build shops only for HSR trains and get experience maintaining them and operating them instead of having a phase-out and phase-in of HSR at some future point.

Also, no doubt they will have all trains run local, so a trip from Bakersfield to Merced will involve no less than 3 full stops, which will add about 15 minutes to the trip. I also wonder if they'll operate HSR trains but not regularly run them at top speed in order to minimize wear.

I also would like to see an estimate for Merced to Sacramento, which has always been listed as Phase 2. The distance is roughly 120 miles. Assuming Trump is given the boot in November, the funding situation will be much different 12 months from now, and the line to Sacramento could be built quickly and possibly open at the same time as the initial operating segment between Merced and Bakerfield, and well before completion of the Pacheco Pass Tunnel.

The project needs wins. I think Bakersfield to Sacramento is a much bigger operation that proponents can point to than Bakersfield to Merced, and it'll likely cost less than the 13-mile Pacheco Pass Tunnel.
Sacramento to Bakersfield is better, but I still don't see a ton of demand for that route. I get that they are building the least expensive portion first... but I fear that people will look at it as a "proof of concept". This segment will not be successful, and could further jeopardize the remainder of the project.

In my opinion, the most valuable piece of the entire HSR project, for the California economy as a whole, is the connection of SF to Sac via HSR. SF is unsustainable right now from a housing perspective, and this would open up a huge area of sleeper communities... not to mention the boost it could provide Sac. The SF economy is huge to California, and the housing is more dire than Southern California. Make SF to Sac the proof of concept, then start expanding the network out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2935  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 4:42 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by LAsam View Post
Sacramento to Bakersfield is better, but I still don't see a ton of demand for that route. I get that they are building the least expensive portion first... but I fear that people will look at it as a "proof of concept". This segment will not be successful, and could further jeopardize the remainder of the project.

In my opinion, the most valuable piece of the entire HSR project, for the California economy as a whole, is the connection of SF to Sac via HSR. SF is unsustainable right now from a housing perspective, and this would open up a huge area of sleeper communities... not to mention the boost it could provide Sac. The SF economy is huge to California, and the housing is more dire than Southern California. Make SF to Sac the proof of concept, then start expanding the network out.
Haven't we gone over this already? The idea of this being used as a commuter train is very slim. VERY slim.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2936  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 5:06 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Playa del Rey, CA
Posts: 2,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
Haven't we gone over this already? The idea of this being used as a commuter train is very slim. VERY slim.
Why? Whenever I travel overseas, HSR is used as a combo commuter and intercity rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2937  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 5:59 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,253
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by LAsam View Post
Why? Whenever I travel overseas, HSR is used as a combo commuter and intercity rail.
The fare prices between the two types of passenger train services are different because of the different government subsidies. Just as an example, let’s assume you are commuting to New York City from New Haven.
Per https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/train/...s-ny/new-york/
And https://www.rome2rio.com/s/New-York/New-Haven

Amtrak Acela fare $85
Amtrak Amfleet fare $35
Metro North fare $17
Bus $9
Who with any logic would pay over $800 a week, or over $3,000 a month to commute by an Acela train when they can do so for over $150 a week or over $600 a month - 5 times cheaper?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2938  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 6:07 PM
LAsam LAsam is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Playa del Rey, CA
Posts: 2,341
^ Point taken, thanks. I'm just struggling to see the cost/benefit for us in CA in having this high speed line between LA/SF. Improved commuter rail seems like it would provide much better ROI. If a situation could exist where we leverage this new HSR to get improved commuter rail, that would seemingly make it more worth our while. You could have "Local" and "Express" lines.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2939  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 7:11 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 9,562
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
The fare prices between the two types of passenger train services are different because of the different government subsidies. Just as an example, let’s assume you are commuting to New York City from New Haven.
Per https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/train/...s-ny/new-york/
And https://www.rome2rio.com/s/New-York/New-Haven

Amtrak Acela fare $85
Amtrak Amfleet fare $35
Metro North fare $17
Bus $9
Who with any logic would pay over $800 a week, or over $3,000 a month to commute by an Acela train when they can do so for over $150 a week or over $600 a month - 5 times cheaper?
And yet 100 mile HSR commutes are a thing in Europe and Japan, and a good chunk of every HSR operator's revenue relies on commuter traffic. The typical profile isn't a daily commuter, but someone who goes in 2-3x per week. And with Bay Area home prices being what they are, I can see a ton of folks putting up with a 2-3x weekly 1.5 hr commute from Fresno at $400 a week. If CalHSR isn't actively planning on targeting this market, their business planners should be fired....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2940  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2020, 7:35 PM
Skintreesnail Skintreesnail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 369
Doesn't the MARC penn line operate at high speed? Couldn't discounted commuter high speed rail and express intercity rail share the same infrastructure like on the NEC? Sure acela is expensive, but MARC is fairly cheap and operates at 125 mph. SEPTA just purchased new engines that also are built to operate at 125 mph. Maybe the fact that the California HSR will be 2 tracks kind of restricts this, but I'll still ask the question.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:33 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.