California High Speed Rail Thread

[202_Cyclist]

Kevin Neels from the Brattle Group has a good presentation, "The Effects of Schedule Unreliability on Departure Time Choice." Admittedly, you don't need to be connected to a wireless devise to be productive but there a lot of time, especially for short-haul flights, that is totally unproductive at airports and onboard the aircraft.

http://www.nextor.org/Conferences/20...sium/Neels.pdf

SFO is also one of the most delayed airports in the country, with one-fourth of all flights delayed more than fifteen minutes, because of the fog. If reliability is so important to your business traveler, they'd likely use a mode not prone to delays (high speed rail, or fly from Oakland or San Jose, adding ground access time.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_.../table_06.html

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by tigernar

220 mph is not really a stretch today. France is already running regular services at 200 mph and China did run services at both 220 mph and 235 mph, however, due to concerns about corruption and construction short cuts that lead to fears of less safe tracks they reduced the top speed to 186 mph. But American individuals would never cut corners on safety to enrich themselves in public projects would they?

Even with a top speed of 200 mph average station to station speeds of 167 mph are possible (France) which would let the SF to LA stretch be done in just under 2 hours 30 minutes.

Americans have this perverse need to avoid following the achievements of other countries. We should be able to build HSR out in several different regions of this country, with a minimum of fuss, and equal with the standards set by other nations (except China, they don't seem all that big on safety).
Nope, not here, no-siree, because this is America, and the same thing that happens to every other large-scale public works project is happening to this one. Anti-rail propaganda starts flying the minute something like this is announced in earnest. Then, the NIMBY's get trotted out, one group at a time, and projected costs start going up because the rail authority attempts to continually reposition the scope, scale, and execution of the project to satisfy said NIMBY's. Then, the various noisemakers on the various blogs start drumming up increased opposition - complaining on the one hand how much the cost is increasing, and how much the rail authority is doing their best to hose everyone on the other hand, while throwing about a lot of quasi-factual, cherry-picked data. Welcome to the show.

[tigernar]

Originally Posted by pesto

You might try Southwest's website. LAX-SFO is just one piece. Try LAX, OC, Burbank, LB and Ontario to SF, SJ, Oakland. Add Sacramento and SD if you want complete NorCal and SoCal numbers. I got over 100 and stopped. But you also have to add Alaska, United, American and everyone else that flies these routes. I have heard that this dwarfs London-Paris (combined airports) as the largest pair but I don't vouch for this. (Edit: I'm told informally that it's over 400 (total both ways) and may be near 500. I'm sure someone can supply us accurate numbers. You should probably add SD, since Ca HSR uses it in its comparisons.)

For definite numbers from LAX, Burbank, Long Beach and Ontario airports to SF, SJ and Oakland have a look here for any random day. Trying to my best to count all code share flights just once I came to a number just below 140 for a random tuesday in february 2012. This is far below the 250 daily flights you suggested, and not much more than between Madrid and Barcelona before the hsr was opened there (140 times 7 is 980). These are the official schedules from Los Angeles World Airports, and should be taken seriously. I cannot imagine Orange County having 100 flights a day to the Bay area...

[202_Cyclist]

tigernar:

These are the official schedules from Los Angeles World Airports, and should be taken seriously. I cannot imagine Orange County having 100 flights a day to the Bay area...

Orange County, Long Beach, and Burbank combined might have 50-75 daily flights to the Bay Area airports.

[tigernar]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Orange County, Long Beach, and Burbank combined might have 50-75 daily flights to the Bay Area airports.

Yes, but, as stated, the schedules from LAWA included Long Beach and Burbank.

[202_Cyclist]

I just checked on the FAA's Flight Schedule Data System for flights between LA/OC (LAX, ONT, LGB, BUR, and SNA) with the Bay Area (SJC, OAK, and SFO) for Tuesday, November 8, 2011. There were 166 flights, with 20,100 seats offered. The average time per flight is 1 hour 19 minutes.

[202_Cyclist]

Yes, but, as stated, the schedules from LAWA included Long Beach and Burbank.

Long Beach and Burbank aren't managed or operated by LA World Airports, only Ontario and LAX.

[tigernar]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Long Beach and Burbank aren't managed or operated by LA World Airports, only Ontario and LAX.

For some reason they were included in the schedules though (feel free to check the provided link), and it makes sense with the numbers you found (about 140 for LA except OC plus about 30 for OC):

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I just checked on the FAA's Flight Schedule Data System for flights between LA/OC (LAX, ONT, LGB, BUR, and SNA) with the Bay Area (SJC, OAK, and SFO) for Tuesday, November 8, 2011. There were 166 flights, with 20,100 seats offered. The average time per flight is 1 hour 19 minutes.

Which are rather different from the numbers that have been taken out of the sky by the opponents of cahsr. 166 x 7 = 1162 which is only 20% more than Madrid - Barcelona, and not hundreds a day.

Thanks for getting the definite numbers!

Conclusion: There is no argument agains CAHSR coming from too much competition from air.

[202_Cyclist]

The average flight time is 1 hr 19 min. As you've noted, you should be at the airport an hour before the flight for TSA frisking, etc... Since airports are spread out across Southern California and the Bay Area, I'll be generous and say ground access time is 25 minute for arrival and departure. That is 189 minutes for aviation. The estimated time, as the Los Angeles Time thoroughly noted this morning, for high speed rail is 160 minutes from LA - SF (and there is a 1/4 chance your flight might be delayed at SFO). For the time-conscious business traveler, then, it might be perfectly rational to take high speed rail when considering total trip time.

This also is just looking at the time, and not trip quality. When you include comfort, ability to be productive for the entire trip duration and other less quantifiable factors, high speed rail might be the clear winner.

[202_Cyclist]

Here is a pretty good analysis of yesterday's House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee hearing, courtesy of the California Institute (http://www.calinst.org/index.html).


Transportation: House Committee Holds Hearing on California High Speed Rail

"The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held an oversight hearing on December 15, 2011 titled California's High-Speed Rail Plan: Skyrocketing Costs and Project Concerns. Witnesses were heard on two panels. The first panel heard testimony from California Representatives, including: Rep. Kevin McCarthy (22nd District); Rep. Dennis Cardoza (18th District); Rep. Devin Nunes (21st District); Rep. Jim Costa (20th District); Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (46th District); and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (47th District). Panel two included testimony from: The Honorable Joseph Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration; Mr. Roelof Van Ark, CEO, California High Speed Rail Authority; The Honorable Jerry Amante, Mayor of Tustin, California, and Member, Orange County Transportation Authority Board of Directors; The Honorable Ashley Swearengin, Mayor of Fresno, California; Mr. Greg Gatzka, Director, Kings County Community Development Agency; Ms. Elizabeth Alexis, Co-founder, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design; and Mr. Kole Upton, Vice President, Preserve Our Heritage.
Reps. Cardoza, Costa, and Sanchez each urged the Committee to support high-speed rail as a necessary answer to increasing transportation problems as California's population grows to 60 million by 2050. Rep. Cardoza called it the right investment for the future, while Rep. Costa alluded to past leaders who in "tough times" did not succumb to "shortsightedness" but instead supported projects such as the transcontinental railroad, Hoover Dam, and the interstate highway system.
Rep. Sanchez testified on the transportation situation in southern California and argued that the state needs high-speed rail as a viable transportation alternative to travel by car and by air, both of which are especially problematic in the Los Angeles basin. She also noted that initial investment is never easy, but that in this case it would be worthwhile and widely used in Los Angeles.
Reps. Nunes, McCarthy, and Rohrabacher testified that the current high-speed rail project is not viable. Rep. Nunes argued that the project will not provide jobs, and that track route decisions were led by politics. He offered expansion of freight systems, to move trucks off highways and ease congestion, as an alternative.
Rep. McCarthy echoed that sentiment, stating that voters should be able to revote on the funding referendum, since it has changed substantially since its passage in 2009. He urged the panel to support H.R. 3143, which would provide time for more oversight by freezing federal funding for the project until September 2013. Rep. Rohrabacher stated that the state has other projects that are just as important - including water infrastructure - and that the uncertain rising costs of high-speed rail may hinder investment elsewhere.
Mr. Szabo emphasized that without high-speed rail, the state would have to spend $170 billion to achieve equal transportation capabilities using highways, air travel, and other existing transportation. Mr. Van Ark testified that starting construction in Central Valley is a "wise" decision as it is "the backbone" of the system. He also stated that the anticipated participation of private sector is based on sound predictions. Additionally, he outlined the new business plan for the project, calling it realistic and clear and emphasizing that within one year construction could be underway, with the project employing over 100,000 people overall.
Mr. Amante said he supports the latest business plan, calling it a marked improvement over the 2009 plan due to its blended approach. Ms. Swearengin also testified in support of the project, stating that it is cost effective and has a profitable business model, can be operated by the private sector, and does not need public subsidies for ongoing operations.
Mr. Gatzka and Mr. Upton both relayed to the Committee frustrations about how the High Speed Rail Authority has interacted with stakeholders. Mr. Gatzka stated that interactions with the Authority in his county have been through contracted right-of-way agents who "intimidate" citizens whose cattle, dairy, agriculture, or other property may be affected by imminent domain. Mr. Upton stated that the Authority has negated the project's impact on farmland, proposing routes that "take out entire water systems." Instead of integrating the project with existing infrastructure, he stated that the Authority has not worked with the community properly."

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

pesto:


First, racist at all?

Second, your analysis forgets the $30,000 purchase price of the vehicle. It also ignores the cost of anywhere between $12,000 - $40,000 for car-storage/parking.

Let's also look at passenger value of time. Even if we're all driving electric or plug-in electric cars by 2030, if the cost of driving is ten cents per mile in 2030, congestion would be far worse as the marginal cost of driving decreases. Similarly, the population of California is expected to be between 50M - 60M residents by 2050. Hybrid plug-ins and electric cars might be great for reducing pollution and reducing consumption of foreign oil but they'll do nothing about CA's already congested highways. The Texas Transportation Institute notes that LA/OC has the nation's most congested roads and highways. The Bay Area has the second most congested roads. Adding another 15-20 million residents will only worsen congestion, leading to far longer travel times.

According to Google maps, your little trip from Downey to Pleasanton takes 5 hours, 59 minutes, not five hours. Round-trip, this is an extra two hours above your estimate. This is also uncongested travel times and doesn't account for accidents like the tanker explosion yesterday that closed Hwy 60 or the daily congestion in either metro region.

First of all, please don't be offensive. These are mostly actual names of my family members and friends. Maybe everyone you know is named Bob, but not in my world.

The purchase price of the car is irrelevant. It was already owned (this is called a sunk cost and is normally allocated to the primary use of the vehicle, that is, the reasons for which it was purchased; these are work and local shopping and visiting. Uses undertaken after the purchas look only to variable costs associated with the use).

There is plenty of congestion within the Bay and LA areas, no doubt. Subways are desperately needed. But there is no congestion on 99, 5 and 101, except on certain holidays. I will be driving this route this coming Friday and will happily bet you that I will make it in 5 hrs.

Google is just wrong. They chronically over-estimate the time. But you miss the point: I'm not aruging that cars are faster; I'm arguing they are going to win because they are cheaper.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

The level of comfort for a 6-hour round trip on high speed rail versus a 12-hour round trip inside a four person passenger vehicle is vastly greater. You're able to get up and walk around, use the restroom, get something to eat, etc... Similarly, of course, when you're driving you can't use I-phones, I-pads, laptops, or use any other mobile computing device. There are 3,000 vehicle fatalities every single year caused by distracted driving. There are huge opportunity costs of being stuck behind the streeting wheel, having to pay attention every single minute of a 12-hour trip compared with being able to be productive every single minute of a 6-hour roundtrip. Unless your time has no value at all, most passengers will consider this when choosing the mode of travel for intercity trips.

Well, now we're getting into nits. I don't comment on wifi technology in the year 2030 but imagine it will be pretty good (or more likely replaced several times by new technologies).

Conversely, suppose you pass a fair in Buttonwillow or Fresno and the kids want to stop and ride the Ferris Wheel; can't do that on the train. Or decide to visit a winery or stop a couple of hours in Sequoia or King's Canyon? Or decide to come back via Carmel or Santa Barbara?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

Aunt Chandra can't get her ass out of the house to pick up her extended family from the HSR station? Does she live 20 miles out of town, in a big old farmhouse or something? I don't see the realistic need to rent a car. I like how you gave the train scenario the "worst case" - like waiting at each station for 1/2 an hour; I think our ethnically diverse family can manage better timing than that - while allowing the flight scenario the best case - everything clicks just right, Mr. Businessman (cause he's so polished) checks in, goes through security, and doesn't have to wait at the gate at all before boarding because he's a pro and knows just how to time it. In reality, most people (even frequent business travelers) don't mess around, they don't cut it that close. The ones that do cut it too close are the ones that usually end up delaying the flight's take-off time for everyone.

....and, how slow is your "Express" train going to take 4 full hours from LA to SF? I realize that 220mph is maybe a stretch at this point (but by 2030, who knows?) but 150 mph average should be easy. This should shave ~30 min.

You haven't spent much time with kids and luggage transferring from vehicle to vehicle. I think the times are reasonable considering that multiple locals can't be coordinated with occasional expresses very well.

Sorry! I should have said 3 hrs. not 4. The Express is hoping for 2:40 with no stops. But there will be no such animal; you HAVE to make at least one stop in SJ. That's why I assume 3 hrs. In all honesty, I believe it will be a miracle if this actually happens, given delays in boarding, the politics of adding Fresno to all "nonstops" and such. But I'll agree on 3 hrs. Will you add $100 RT per person for the promised "premium" now appearing in the HSR business plan?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Kevin Neels from the Brattle Group has a good presentation, "The Effects of Schedule Unreliability on Departure Time Choice." Admittedly, you don't need to be connected to a wireless devise to be productive but there a lot of time, especially for short-haul flights, that is totally unproductive at airports and onboard the aircraft.

http://www.nextor.org/Conferences/20...sium/Neels.pdf

SFO is also one of the most delayed airports in the country, with one-fourth of all flights delayed more than fifteen minutes, because of the fog. If reliability is so important to your business traveler, they'd likely use a mode not prone to delays (high speed rail, or fly from Oakland or San Jose, adding ground access time.

http://www.bts.gov/programs/airline_.../table_06.html

I tried to give HSR it's best case (going to SF) but you won't let me. I will give you that SFO is congested and foggy (although not as bad as you seem to think). The reality is that most business people are not going to SF, but to Silicon Valley and the East Bay, where 90 percent of the major corporations are. Say he is going to Palo Alto. This means he can't take the Express or has to change from one to the local somewhere to get to the Palo Alto station. This makes things more complicated and takes longer. Instead, he could fly either to SFO or SJ, whichever has the better timing (or weather) and take a cab.

But this is really getting nit-picky.

[drifting sun]

Originally Posted by pesto

First of all, please don't be offensive. These are mostly actual names of my family members and friends. Maybe everyone you know is named Bob, but not in my world.

The purchase price of the car is irrelevant. It was already owned (this is called a sunk cost and is normally allocated to the primary use of the vehicle, that is, the reasons for which it was purchased; these are work and local shopping and visiting. Uses undertaken after the purchas look only to variable costs associated with the use).

There is plenty of congestion within the Bay and LA areas, no doubt. Subways are desperately needed. But there is no congestion on 99, 5 and 101, except on certain holidays. I will be driving this route this coming Friday and will happily bet you that I will make it in 5 hrs.

Google is just wrong. They chronically over-estimate the time. But you miss the point: I'm not aruging that cars are faster; I'm arguing they are going to win because they are cheaper.

I would have to agree that a car is (largely) a sunk cost, except for continual maintenance, insurance, etc. Automobile travel probably maintains the cost edge, but what is debatable is the value that people place on the "premium" of smooth rail travel. You may not appreciate the idea of not having to drive yourself somewhere in this sick, mad world, but there are plenty of other folks that are perfectly willing to shell out more money for the convenience, comfort, zero road rage mode of travel that rail offers.

As someone that has had the fortune to travel on the Shinkansen, I can relate that yes, I know as a visitor I enjoyed significantly cheaper fare than locals, but on each journey from one end of Japan and back, there were plenty of other people that rode the train, accepting that for a premium price they got to ride in comfort and safety, being free to study, read naughty magazines, sleep, eat and socialize with others - all things that rail travel offers over both automobile and air travel.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by tigernar

For some reason they were included in the schedules though (feel free to check the provided link), and it makes sense with the numbers you found (about 140 for LA except OC plus about 30 for OC):



Which are rather different from the numbers that have been taken out of the sky by the opponents of cahsr. 166 x 7 = 1162 which is only 20% more than Madrid - Barcelona, and not hundreds a day.

Thanks for getting the definite numbers!

Conclusion: There is no argument agains CAHSR coming from too much competition from air.

Glad to see you guys agreeing with each other.

I said there were 400 flights daily between the 5 LA and 3 Bay airports. You guys claim only 330 (excluding Sacramento and SD). This sounds too low but I don't want to waste more time on this since I'm not sure what the relevance to your agument is.

There are multiple airports that have plenty of room for more flights and passengers and they are in the fastest growing areas of these regions (Ontario and SJ). There is no apocalypse of congestion coming that is going to strand people and the competition between airports keeps costs under control. How does this imply that HSR is needed?

[zilfondel]

Originally Posted by drifting sun

I would have to agree that a car is (largely) a sunk cost, except for continual maintenance, insurance, etc.

Cars are absolutely not a "sunk cost." They cost you real money to use and operate. Driving the 382 miles from LA to SF can be quite expensive - a 20 mpg vehicle filled up with $3.80/gal gas [current prices] in LA would burn 19.1 gallons on the trip, costing you $72.58.

That doesn't even include insurance, vehicle wear & maintenance, depreciation, tires, etc.


According to the AAA, the average costs for driving a car are:

small car: 36.6 - 56.4 cents/mile
SUV: 62.1 - 96.9 cents/mile

[AAA source]

That same trip of 382 miles would then cost:

small car: $140 - $215
SUV: $237 - $370

Rail can be cheaper, unless you like to ignore things like maintenance (I pay roughly $1,000/year to maintain my car). Sure, if you buy a 10-year old beater and drive it into the ground, and keep repeating, you can get by with a pretty low maintenance overhead - but don't be surprised if you end up using those little yellow telephones on the side of the California highways to call the highway patrol for help every now and then. Also, many people buy new cars and actually maintain them - particularly in California, which is renown for its "car culture."

Anyways, you will certainly have more productive and less-stressful time while in transit, and a high-speed train will be significantly faster than driving for many people.

Finally, note that San Francisco will be one of the 2 main terminuses for the CAHSR system. SF has a transit mode share of less than 40% for automobiles - one of the lowest rates in the United States. [source] This means there are a large potential market for non-automobile transportation around the state, as is evidenced by the 300-400 current daily flights mentioned above.

[ElDuderino]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

The average flight time is 1 hr 19 min. As you've noted, you should be at the airport an hour before the flight for TSA frisking, etc... Since airports are spread out across Southern California and the Bay Area, I'll be generous and say ground access time is 25 minute for arrival and departure. That is 189 minutes for aviation. The estimated time, as the Los Angeles Time thoroughly noted this morning, for high speed rail is 160 minutes from LA - SF (and there is a 1/4 chance your flight might be delayed at SFO). For the time-conscious business traveler, then, it might be perfectly rational to take high speed rail when considering total trip time.

This also is just looking at the time, and not trip quality. When you include comfort, ability to be productive for the entire trip duration and other less quantifiable factors, high speed rail might be the clear winner.

Agree. I fly out of LAX a few times a month for work, and I freaking hate that place. I live in Ventura which is an hour drive on a good day, but I have to leave 4 hours before my flight to make sure I make it. HSR to anywhere would be a huge improvement. I hope LAX sinks into the ground and dies. 300,000
+ miles this year

[202_Cyclist]

Visalia guns for rejected rail station funds


Written by John Lindt
Friday, 16 December 2011
Fresno Business Journal

"OK, don’t get your ticket yet, but if Kings County doesn’t want funding available to plan a high speed rail station near Hanford, Visalia will be happy to take the money and do the planning.

That’s the sum of agenda items being heard this month by the city councils of Tulare, Visalia and TCAG, the Tulare County Association of Governments — all located in the next county over.

“It looks like Visalia got a little itchy waiting to see what happens with high speed rail,” said Terri King, who heads up the Kings County Association of Governments (KCAG). ”Our county made it clear we are opposed to the project altogether...”

http://www.thebusinessjournal.com/tr...-station-funds

[ltsmotorsport]

Good for Visalia/Tulare County. If that silly county next door can't get it's act together, running the tracks through the more populous county could be better anyway.