SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   Transportation (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   California High Speed Rail Thread (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180558)

DePaul Bunyan Jul 13, 2019 4:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8628906)
Republicans have been intentionally starving public works for decades to set the stage for privatization of...everything. They'd sell off the interstate highways to their Wall St. buddies if given the chance.

Democrats do this constantly in Chicago and other parts of Illinois...

mousquet Jul 13, 2019 11:21 AM

Obviously, the private sector can take over things as soon as they turn out profitable.
:shrug: I don't see any problem about that and always found this traditional political conflict between private and public sectors completely idiotic when both have actually always backed each other.
It's a strange and dumb thing that people would put themselves into rivalries when in real life, they need each other.

The public sector is here to back things that are only indirectly profitable to society, which is yet typically the case of mass transit. It may not always be profitable to corporations/agencies running it and require some effort from taxpayers, it nonetheless remains a significant strategic advantage from a macroeconomic standpoint.

All economists, whether rather liberal, social democratic or conservative constantly insist on private investments and projects we get here in Greater Paris thanks to our advanced transit infrastructures, which makes of us one of the world's wealthiest and better educated metro areas. Same goes to London.

That's clearly the reason why private businesses should not complain too much when they have to fund public transit. Because they actually grow wealthier and more influential from it.

Obadno Jul 13, 2019 8:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8629058)
No, apparently we needed a civics lesson from a simpleton :haha:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ea/af...e4625fde1a.jpg

If you represent a normal Californian no wonder the ill conceived rail project failed spectacularly

SFBruin Jul 14, 2019 1:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mousquet (Post 8631389)
That's clearly the reason why private businesses should not complain too much when they have to fund public transit. Because they actually grow wealthier and more influential from it.

That makes sense.

Busy Bee Jul 14, 2019 3:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan (Post 8631322)
Democrats do this constantly in Chicago and other parts of Illinois...

Outside of the parking meter debacle or toying with tollway privatization, which robbing-peter-to-pay-paul ventures, I'm not sure what you mean about starving PT. Care to elaborate?

badrunner Jul 14, 2019 10:49 PM

This Obadno guy is fuming :haha:

badrunner Jul 14, 2019 11:03 PM

Toll roads are un-American and anti-freedom. There will be riots if they ever privatize the highways and leave us with a Randian system of privately owned infrastructure. The ancap libertarian types who promote these things are con artists who know full well nobody is stupid enough to actually implement these policies. They do however profit off those who are stupid enough to believe them.

electricron Jul 15, 2019 2:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by badrunner (Post 8632270)
Toll roads are un-American and anti-freedom. There will be riots if they ever privatize the highways and leave us with a Randian system of privately owned infrastructure. The ancap libertarian types who promote these things are con artists who know full well nobody is stupid enough to actually implement these policies. They do however profit off those who are stupid enough to believe them.

Wiki link for list of toll bridges in the USA, 138 in total:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...#United_States
Wiki link for list of toll roads in USA, 133 in total:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._United_States
Another 32 highways used to be toll roads.
List of toll tunnels in the USA, 15 in total:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._United_States

List of States with either a toll bridge, toll roads, or toll tunnels:
Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia.
35 of the 50 States toll something! How unAmerican to have so many! Where are the riots??? :runaway:

badrunner Jul 15, 2019 2:38 AM

Reading is fundamental :uhh:

Busy Bee Jul 15, 2019 1:25 PM

Toll roads/bridges/tunnels are not "un-American" in the slightest. I actually think there should be more auto infrastructure with user fees. What I am deeply uncomfortable with though is the concept of toll roads being owned/operated by foreign entities(gov's, corp's etc) or really private corporations in general. Public accessible transport infrastucture where private vehicles would access for any reason should be ultimately owned by the people, i.e. the State.

SFBruin Jul 15, 2019 5:09 PM

How do other countries do it?

I visited a foreign country (China--don't ask me how I paid) once, and they had them. My belief is that many countries have toll roads.

Is there a country or set of countries whose systems we should study?

This, of course, is predicated on deciding that we should have toll roads.

202_Cyclist Jul 15, 2019 5:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by electricron (Post 8632362)
Wiki link for list of toll bridges in the USA, 138 in total:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...#United_States
Wiki link for list of toll roads in USA, 133 in total:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._United_States
Another 32 highways used to be toll roads.
List of toll tunnels in the USA, 15 in total:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._United_States

List of States with either a toll bridge, toll roads, or toll tunnels:
Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia.
35 of the 50 States toll something! How unAmerican to have so many! Where are the riots??? :runaway:

I am not against privatizing some of our infrastructure where it makes sense but, please, be honest about the performance of private toll roads.

Private Toll Road Backed By $430 Million in Federal Funds Goes Bust

O.C. toll road agency requests federal bailout

Lessons from bankruptcy of South Bay Expressway

Foreign-owned operator of Indiana toll road files for bankruptcy

Cirrus Jul 15, 2019 6:24 PM

Hi folks. I see a lot of name-calling. Consider this a moderation warning to cut it out.

I'm not sure what happened to the old system of "updates only" for this thread, with debate about the pros/cons of the project banished to a separate thread. But if folks are interested in that then I can investigate why that system ended, and maybe bring it back.

SFBruin Jul 15, 2019 9:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 8632853)
I'm not sure what happened to the old system of "updates only" for this thread, with debate about the pros/cons of the project banished to a separate thread. But if folks are interested in that then I can investigate why that system ended, and maybe bring it back.

I would be in support of that. Sorry for getting off topic about the project.

northbay Jul 16, 2019 1:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus (Post 8632853)
Hi folks. I see a lot of name-calling. Consider this a moderation warning to cut it out.

I'm not sure what happened to the old system of "updates only" for this thread, with debate about the pros/cons of the project banished to a separate thread. But if folks are interested in that then I can investigate why that system ended, and maybe bring it back.

Support the idea 100%!

urbanview Jul 31, 2019 12:36 AM

On the subject of the train: The fact that they are making this train to nowhere is embarrassing. If you're going to start it, just finish it. You know eventually you're going to do it anyway, might as well do it now.

plutonicpanda Aug 1, 2019 7:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8566032)
because there won't be any grade crossings.

Whelp the latest renderings show at grade crossings for the bay area. This project is a total failure in every way and it isn't even finished. Unreal.

plutonicpanda Aug 1, 2019 7:58 AM

IMO, this project really needs to be indefinitely suspended. Fix our current rail system first and bring up to par what we already have! A complete overhaul of California's environmental laws and regulations in regards to infrastructure building needs to be looked at. Union influence should also be looked at. A project of this significance should be exempt from many environmental rules and regulations as well as union requirements to bring costs down.

urbanview Aug 2, 2019 9:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda (Post 8646941)
IMO, this project really needs to be indefinitely suspended. Fix our current rail system first and bring up to par what we already have! A complete overhaul of California's environmental laws and regulations in regards to infrastructure building needs to be looked at. Union influence should also be looked at. A project of this significance should be exempt from many environmental rules and regulations as well as union requirements to bring costs down.

No thanks. Just build it as soon as possible, no delays. Delays just mean it could be cancelled outright by some idiot. Just gives them an excuse to cancel it.

202_Cyclist Aug 2, 2019 1:49 PM

Virgin Trains seeking $800M in bonds for high-speed rail project
 
Virgin Trains seeking $800M in bonds for high-speed rail project

https://www.reviewjournal.com/wp-con..._xpressweb.jpg
Image via the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

By Mick Akers
Las Vegas Review-Journal
August 1, 2019

"Virgin Trains is looking to finally get the long-talked about high-speed train project between Las Vegas and Southern California on track by applying for tax exempt bonds from the two states it will run in.

Under the name of its parent company, Florida East Coast Industries, Virgin Trains USA is seeking authorization from California authorities to sell $600 million in tax-exempt private activity bonds, according to the California State Treasurer’s Office.

The company also is seeking approval from Nevada to sell another $200 million in bonds, according to Terry Reynolds, deputy director of the Nevada Department of Business and Industry..."

https://www.reviewjournal.com/traffi...oject-1816513/

aquablue Aug 2, 2019 8:37 PM

The costs are too high. I read that Morocco got a HSR line built for nothing, (less than 10 billion or so) and even Spain did for peanuts. Its just ridiculous for the system to cost 77 billion dollars just beause its the USA/Cali.

plutonicpanda Aug 3, 2019 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by urbanview (Post 8647759)
No thanks. Just build it as soon as possible, no delays. Delays just mean it could be cancelled outright by some idiot. Just gives them an excuse to cancel it.

We need to get the best bang for our buck. We need new laws that prevent NIMBYs from interfering with priority infrastructure projects. We need to remove red tape. We need to look at the feasibility of Japan building MagLev for the Union Station to San Diego portion. This project needs to be done the RIGHT way. With extra monies freed from reducing costs more money can be funneled into local transit to and from the HSR route giving people better accessibility to it.

Busy Bee Aug 3, 2019 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 8648256)
The costs are too high. I read that Morocco got a HSR line built for nothing, (less than 10 billion or so) and even Spain did for peanuts. Its just ridiculous for the system to cost 77 billion dollars just beause its the USA/Cali.

Morocco and Spain and California are different places, with different variables and different economic realities. News at 10.

aquablue Aug 4, 2019 6:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8648665)
Morocco and Spain and California are different places, with different variables and different economic realities. News at 10.

How are you even allowed to post with this hostile way you have? You're such an arrogant poster. Listen captain obvious, if you have something useful to say and offer, show it. We don't need your snark here.

You can sit on that high horse all you want, but you know I'm right. 77 billion dollars projected for a HSR line or two, lol. What a lark! Something is seriously wrong. France could build their whole system for that. America has a problem with infrastructure project costs compared to the other developed nations, it's time something is done about it.

plutonicpanda Aug 4, 2019 8:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aquablue (Post 8649111)
how are you even allowed to post with this hostile way you have? You're such an arrogant poster. Listen captain obvious, if you have something useful to say and offer, show it. We don't need your snark here.

You can sit on that high horse all you want, but you know i'm right. 77 billion dollars projected for a hsr line or two, lol. What a lark! Something is seriously wrong. France could build their whole system for that. America has a problem with infrastructure project costs compared to the other developed nations, it's time something is done about it.

+1

BusyBee often contributes nothing other than snark or thinks every solution can be solved with a streetcar a bike lane conveniently forgetting a larger and likely overwhelmingly majority of the population prefers autos and suburbs. His savior Jeff Speck is a joke and any city that takes his advice like Savannah has outrageous housing costs. It should be no surprise he dismisses the real issue with infrastructure cost.

Here are just a handful of articles on the issue from a quick Google search:

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/...expensive.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.4974f7c7d8b0

https://www.engineering.com/BIM/Arti...nt-the-US.aspx

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/0...countries.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...eat-to-economy

https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04...y-should/8799/

Meanwhile China on top of their expansive HSR system and metro subway networks is building a national freeway network that is poised to make ours look like Mexico's Federal Auto-route system.

Not to mention many cities and countries in Europe are aggressively expanding their freeway networks as well with the exception of the loon taking up the mayors office in Paris. This all comes when they still are able to fund and build adequate HSR and intercity rail travel as a viable alternative instead of the joke that is mass transit in the US. It then causes what we see here a radical opinion of extremes on each side only wanting their preferred mode share funded instead of a truly multi-mode share funded infrastructure plan. We need to get on the ball and stop fucking around because it appears the U.S. is quickly becoming a backwards country when it comes to infrastructure. I have been keeping track of various infrastructure projects around the world and I've considered compiling them into a list on a new thread here as a general catch all for mega projects. Things like a massive capacity addition for Los Angeles Downtown Freeway Ring should be had adding minimum of 5 lanes each way but two reason why that isn't happening is because of the moronic anti-car crowd and the politicians who lack the competency to do what they are doing in Houston and their road network. What an embarrassment it will be for California if Texas is able to build their HSR system in the next decade.

https://research4committees.blog/201...a-way-forward/

Busy Bee Aug 4, 2019 2:30 PM

^I'm 100% confident you are confusing me with someone else but I really don't care about that.

I'm also not dismissing US construction costs or just adding pointless snark. My point was those that throw out things like "Morrocco just built hsr" don't really add much either. What, because it rides over arid terrain that means it's like the California project? That means they had to tunnel miles to drop thousands of feet into a basin? They had to fairly purchase billions of dollars of private property for row acquisition? Aside from mentioning a Morocco, or a Kazakhstan, or a Spain for that matter as conjecture and a reminder of how sad it is we can't pull off the same thing, what good is it to even bring it up? The specifications and construction of those projects have very little to due with CHSR other than it's a fast train and there's a lot of sunshine? CHSR is an immensely complicated project on a massive scale and NO ONE should be surprised it's going to cost what it is. Could certain things be done better? Sure. I think the construction of "signature bridges" in Fresno is a perfect example. There is no need for anything other than a guideway that looks just like all the other guideway. If you want an example of something that drives up cost unnecessarily, look at that. People need to understand that just throwing out "Morocco just built..." or Saudi or Kazakhstan doesn't prove anything because you DON'T know the details of those project costs or the realities on the ground even though you pretend to.

jtown,man Aug 4, 2019 11:44 PM

Great points all around.

People in America are either extremist on either side. They are the car-only crowd(vast majority of americans) or urbanism-at-all-costs crowd(majority here). We need to face the realities of our public transportation systems in America; they are too costly and not preferred by most people.

Only one of these issues can be fixed "easily." There is no reason why the Japanese or Europeans can build what they build so little compared to us. We can't pretend they are Dubai or some low-wage and low-protection of the environment countries. They are further along than we are on those fronts. Our transit-usage issues will take generations to change but they have *nothing* to do with how ridiculous our politicians waste our money on these projects.

The California HSR debacle has become 100% political. It seems like some who initially supported it will ignore any and all complaints and chant "just build the damn thing." No. Don't. I am scared this thing will scare others from attempting something so grand in the USA. We should expect better. I would never vote on a project like this for many reasons, but one is painfully obvious.

Why can other countries build these things for so much less? I know there are articles out there, there are some posted on this very thread. So until we adopt polices that help bring down the costs we shouldn't expect massive new projects. Which is a shame...because problem #1(Americans prefering the car) will never be cured until they have more reasons to leave their cars.

plutonicpanda Aug 5, 2019 5:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8649207)
CHSR is an immensely complicated project on a massive scale and NO ONE should be surprised it's going to cost what it is.

I just want to note I read everything else you posted and don't have much to say about it as I don't necessarily disagree with any of it.

But the part of I quoted I will address. I don't think it's as much to do with anyone being shocked at the true cost(maybe they are, maybe they aren't) but I think where we are at now is what was promised and what we have. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but based on what I have read, the original project costs were to be anywhere ranging from a conservative 20 billion to a more liberal 40 billion. Now with prop. 1a being passed by a very slim margin do you really think if the cost estimates today touted around 100 billion and seemingly increasing twice a year would succeed another vote? My bet is the project would be shut down entirely. President Trump did the right thing and took away monies that were promised as California went back on its promise. Be real and tell it like it is. This project has turned into a shit show. I'd love to see HSR built(though I'd prefer widening I-5 to eight lanes first between LA and SF) but for the uncontrollable costs, why not expedite projects in the bay area and LA first?

We all know the 2028 plan is complete horseshit and relies on the congestion pricing plan to make it work and that plan has a fat change of happening in LA. Have you been keeping up with the proposal in NYC? I bet it doesn't even happen there. It has failed in Europe with makeshift solutions like the Stockholm solution being needed to keep it bring in profit. Congestion pricing is flat out unsustainable and does NOT help mass transit, it burdens the working class, and DOES NOT REDUCE CONGESTION! Agree or disagree with that the fact is once again the chances of true congestion pricing being implemented in Los Angeles are very slim. That is basically the only shot Garcetis 28 by 28 plan has. But canceling the HSR plan and diverting those funds to local transit needs has a very real shot at accomplishing this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...igh-Speed_Rail

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics...t-13621347.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_C...Proposition_1A

For the last time, I would love to have the option of taking HSR to San Fran or San Diego or Las Vegas. But for the money it would take due to the unnecessary red tape and other reasons I just can't support it as we could get the same quality rail line and service for much cheaper.

plutonicpanda Aug 5, 2019 5:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtown,man (Post 8649426)
Great points all around.

People in America are either extremist on either side. They are the car-only crowd(vast majority of americans) or urbanism-at-all-costs crowd(majority here). We need to face the realities of our public transportation systems in America; they are too costly and not preferred by most people.

Only one of these issues can be fixed "easily." There is no reason why the Japanese or Europeans can build what they build so little compared to us. We can't pretend they are Dubai or some low-wage and low-protection of the environment countries. They are further along than we are on those fronts. Our transit-usage issues will take generations to change but they have *nothing* to do with how ridiculous our politicians waste our money on these projects.

The California HSR debacle has become 100% political. It seems like some who initially supported it will ignore any and all complaints and chant "just build the damn thing." No. Don't. I am scared this thing will scare others from attempting something so grand in the USA. We should expect better. I would never vote on a project like this for many reasons, but one is painfully obvious.

Why can other countries build these things for so much less? I know there are articles out there, there are some posted on this very thread. So until we adopt polices that help bring down the costs we shouldn't expect massive new projects. Which is a shame...because problem #1(Americans prefering the car) will never be cured until they have more reasons to leave their cars.

That is true. There were around 6 million people or so who voted yes.

Yes 6,680,485 52.6
No 6,015,944 47.4
Valid votes 12,696,429 92.4
Invalid or blank votes 1,046,748 7.6
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00

Would many of those who voted yes vote the same way after all of this? I'm not so sure. But I heavily agree there are a large portion who going the route of the ostrich by sticking their head in the sand and blindly saying "yes yes yes build it." Though frustrating much of the blame lies on the politicians hands, IMHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_C...Proposition_1A

SFBruin Aug 5, 2019 3:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda (Post 8649574)
there are a large portion who going the route of the ostrich by sticking their head in the sand and blindly saying "yes yes yes build it."

Tbf, there are people in the "no" crowd who do this too.

Busy Bee Aug 5, 2019 5:01 PM

^Understatement of the century?

jmecklenborg Aug 5, 2019 5:45 PM

Sure, CAHSR is going to be much more expensive, per mile, than virtually any other corridor in the U.S. because of the big tunnels and the complicated approaches to LA and SF. But that's also why it's going to make such a profound difference - it's pretty tough to drive into LA or SF from the Central Valley, and it's a long and unpredictable drive between LA and the Bay. California doesn't have alternate routes, unlike flat places like Texas or Indiana or Michigan or wherever.

Crawford Aug 5, 2019 6:17 PM

That doesn't make sense, though, because HSR's competition is in the air, not the ground. And roadways obviously navigate the scenery already.

jmecklenborg Aug 6, 2019 3:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8649910)
That doesn't make sense, though, because HSR's competition is in the air, not the ground. And roadways obviously navigate the scenery already.

CAHSR at full build-out, with its 256 scheduled daily trains, will devastate in-state airline travel - not only the direct NoCal-SoCal route, but also air service to the Central Valley.

For example, right now there are 10 flights per day from LAX to Sacramento, 7 to Fresno, and 5 to Bakersfield. There are almost zero flights to the Central Valley from any of the other LA airports. CAHSR will get nearly all of that business since it's so much easier for so much of the LA metro to reach the Burbank, Union Station, or Anaheim stations than it is to drive to LAX, which is on the extreme edge of the metro area.

When you look at how lousy road and airline access is at present to and from the Bay and LA to the Central Valley, and then how robust the 256 scheduled daily trains is, you start to see what a cosmic shift CAHSR is going to enable.

SFBruin Aug 6, 2019 4:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8649882)
But that's also why it's going to make such a profound difference - it's pretty tough to drive into LA or SF from the Central Valley, and it's a long and unpredictable drive between LA and the Bay.

I agree with this point, that when you are driving to SF or LA, one of the hardest parts is negotiating the traffic on approach of these areas.

I guess I could see High Speed Rail being successful IF enough people are willing to live in the central valley (and not just Sacramento) upon it's completion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8650392)
256 scheduled daily trains

I don't think that we can speculate on the number of trains at this point.

SFBruin Aug 6, 2019 4:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Busy Bee (Post 8649845)
^Understatement of the century?

Possibly. I will admit that a lot of people call this a boondoggle without providing data.

It is a hard-to-predict project that, sigh, deserves serious consideration.

jmecklenborg Aug 6, 2019 1:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8650423)
I don't think that we can speculate on the number of trains at this point.

A full build-out timetable (Phases 1 & 2, including the Sacramento branch) was developed maybe 6-8 years ago when the blended service was designed for the Peninsula. It was kind of a mind-bend to look at. There were fewer trains midday, which would enable the schedule to reset if there was a wrinkle in the morning, but suffice to say the morning and evening schedules were very, very tight. The schedule also showed how revenue service would begin on the day's first trains from Gilroy into DTSF and from Palmdale into DTLA, enabling easy early-morning commuting for those people but creating a crunch outbound in the afternoon peak hours.

Also, service to the Central Valley was obviously about half of the trains, and all of those trains are local or limited stop, but it'll open access to DTLA and DTSF in a way that just plain doesn't exist right now. The Central Valley will also gain direct access to Orange County thanks to the Anaheim terminus, which isn't a huge deal, but again it's something that absolutely does not exist right now since there are zero direct flights between John Wayne and any of the Central Valley cities.

Crawford Aug 6, 2019 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8650392)
CAHSR at full build-out, with its 256 scheduled daily trains, will devastate in-state airline travel - not only the direct NoCal-SoCal route, but also air service to the Central Valley.

If there were really 256 HSR trains between LA and SF, yes, this would devastate the air markets.

But I think the chances of a full HSR buildout are basically 0, and the chances of having 256 trains at full buildout are less than 0.

Do you realize what kind of service you're envisioning? There are like 30 daily Acelas in a vastly more rail-friendly corridor. The Frankfurt-Paris HSR route, in the wealthiest, densest part of Europe, has like 30 trains. How many Shinkansen run between Tokyo-Osaka daily? Looking at the schedule, not much more than in Europe (though I could be reading it wrong; it's in Japanese so I can only read times and stations):

https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/i...bound_0620.pdf

So super-sprawly, decentralized California is gonna have significantly higher capacity LA-SF service than existing Tokyo-Osaka service? Sounds outlandish.

jmecklenborg Aug 6, 2019 4:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8650586)
If there were really 256 HSR trains between LA and SF, yes, this would devastate the air markets.

But I think the chances of a full HSR buildout are basically 0, and the chances of having 256 trains at full buildout are less than 0.

Do you realize what kind of service you're envisioning? There are like 30 daily Acelas in a vastly more rail-friendly corridor. The Frankfurt-Paris HSR route, in the wealthiest, densest part of Europe, has like 30 trains. How many Shinkansen run between Tokyo-Osaka daily? Looking at the schedule, not much more than in Europe (though I could be reading it wrong; it's in Japanese so I can only read times and stations):

https://global.jr-central.co.jp/en/i...bound_0620.pdf

So super-sprawly, decentralized California is gonna have significantly higher capacity LA-SF service than existing Tokyo-Osaka service? Sounds outlandish.


I wasn't able to quickly find the newer timetable I was speaking about, but Page 10 of this circa-2008 document envisioned 260 daily trains:
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs...s_TM4_2R00.pdf

The Caltrains blended service on the peninsula is a bit of a bottleneck which the newer timetable dealt with by simply having some trains terminate at San Jose. This is where a lot of the outrage over CAHSR really heated up -- San Jose will have significantly better service than Transbay. Not only will it have more trains, it will have a 45-minute shorter transit time to LA than Transbay.

My conspiracy theory is that Newsom's delay on proceeding with the Pacheco Pass tunnel is to prevent the thing from being built to San Jose before Transbay can be turned into a thru station via the second transbay tube.

ALSO, the Altamont corridor was, in initial planning, going to serve San Jose as a spur. When you see how San Jose was upgraded from an afterthought to the #1 station in NoCal via the Pacheco Pass alignment, you see why SF interests started harassing the entire project.

orulz Aug 6, 2019 4:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8650586)
How many Shinkansen run between Tokyo-Osaka daily? Looking at the schedule, not much more than in Europe (though I could be reading it wrong; it's in Japanese so I can only read times and stations):

I count 190 daily westbound departures from Tokyo, headed toward Nagoya/Osaka.
There are an equal number of eastbound arrivals, so a total of 380 trains per day at Tokyo on the Tokaido Shinkansen.

I will agree that 256 is ambitious. But not outlandishly so.

The Tokaido Shinkansen, even at 380 trains per day, is basically overcrowded. The Shinkansen opened in 1964, and now 55 years later, two new lines in this corridor are under construction. One of those lines truly is conceived as a relief line (Linear Maglev / Chuo Shinkansen) and another is meant to serve a separate market but has the same endpoints (Hokuriku Shinkansen).

Assuming that the full CAHSR begins operating in 2030, certainly there won't be 256 trains on day one. But who's to say what things will look like in 2085?

Crawford Aug 6, 2019 4:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orulz (Post 8650798)
I count 190 daily westbound departures from Tokyo, headed toward Nagoya/Osaka.
There are an equal number of eastbound arrivals, so a total of 380 trains per day at Tokyo on the Tokaido Shinkansen.

All 190 departures are Shinkansen? If true that's amazing, almost unfathomable.

But that still means that CA HSR will have roughly 1/3 greater train frequency than Tokyo-Osaka HSR, which sounds a tad unrealistic.

orulz Aug 6, 2019 5:14 PM

(Double post)

orulz Aug 6, 2019 5:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8650802)
All 190 departures are Shinkansen? If true that's amazing, almost unfathomable.

But that still means that CA HSR will have roughly 1/3 greater train frequency than Tokyo-Osaka HSR, which sounds a tad unrealistic.

Fathom it. :)

The 260 number for CAHSR encompasses both directions, so you would have to compare this with the 380 number for Japan. So that's roughly 1/3 *less* than Japan.

To top it off, most of the Shinkansen trains plying the Tokaido Shinkansen in Japan are enormous 16 car ordeals with a seated capacity north of 1300 passengers, which I don't believe is contemplated for California. And even at that, with an average of over 450,000 passengers per day, it's sometimes too crowded, to the point of requiring the two under-construction relief lines.

So, I stand by my statement. 256 is ambitious but not ridiculous for CAHSR.

ardecila Aug 6, 2019 5:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 8650586)
Do you realize what kind of service you're envisioning? There are like 30 daily Acelas in a vastly more rail-friendly corridor. The Frankfurt-Paris HSR route, in the wealthiest, densest part of Europe, has like 30 trains.

Not that 256 trains is necessarily realistic, but to do an apples-to-apples comparison you'd have to include Northeast Regional trains and the other various Amtrak trains that are part of NEC service.

You'd also have to include a fair number of commuter trains from MARC, NJT, Metro-North, SEPTA and MBTA since (I believe) some of the service on the high-speed corridor was designed to supplement the limited service available today on Caltrain, Metrolink and Coaster, and compensate for the limited ability to upgrade those services due to heavy freight usage or just stubborn host railroads.

jmecklenborg Aug 7, 2019 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ardecila (Post 8650856)
Not that 256 trains is necessarily realistic

Yeah I don't think CAHSR has any intention of actually doing 256 trains since jamming 12 trains per hour, per direction between LA Union and Palmdale leaves no time slot for service to Las Vegas. And remember 30 miles was added to the CASHR mainline by diverting to Palmdale in order to make a Las Vegas connection possible.

The amount of airline traffic between LA's airports and Las Vegas is pretty significant. I just counted the following:

LAX - 24 planes each way per day
Burbank - 8 planes each way per day
Ontario - 1 flight per day each way
Orange County - 7 planes each way per day

It seems like building political support for the southern half of CAHSR could be better accomplished if a line to Las Vegas is integral in the plans.

I don't think the Virgin Trains thing to Victorville is going to be very successful, and it's likely that the whole plan for that effort is to sell out to CAHSR at some point to take over the line and tie it into the true HSR network at Palmdale.

SFBruin Aug 7, 2019 1:01 AM

Okay, so I am starting to get on board with this project.

It sounds like it is a giant commuter system between central valley cities (which presumably will see development) and the two major metropolitan areas, with the bonus that people can travel end-to-end from SF to LA.

I could see that as being successful, and more successful than a line that merely replicates the already-robust air service between SF and LA.

SFBruin Aug 7, 2019 1:11 AM

How many people would have to move to the central valley to make this line operationally sustainable? Are the numbers plausible?

orulz Aug 7, 2019 10:48 AM

Much as people have argued that the entry into the Bay Area should be via Altamont instead of Pacheco, the LVHSR should go via Mojave instead of Victorville so it provides a reasonable trip to the bay area, not just LA.

Oh well.

plutonicpanda Aug 7, 2019 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8649772)
Tbf, there are people in the "no" crowd who do this too.

Yes there are people on both sides of the equation who do it. It's a not an intelligent way to go about it. I'm against continuing the train which is why I mentioned those in favor of it doing it but that isn't to try and hide the fact those against it do it as well. I am certainly not doing that and if you have something to tell me that can sway me I'll all ears.

Let me just state this again: I support high speed rail transit in California between LA and SF. But that does not mean I support this proposal.

plutonicpanda Aug 7, 2019 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg (Post 8649882)
Sure, CAHSR is going to be much more expensive, per mile, than virtually any other corridor in the U.S. because of the big tunnels and the complicated approaches to LA and SF. But that's also why it's going to make such a profound difference - it's pretty tough to drive into LA or SF from the Central Valley, and it's a long and unpredictable drive between LA and the Bay. California doesn't have alternate routes, unlike flat places like Texas or Indiana or Michigan or wherever.

California also doesn't have alternate routes because they don't invest in any. There are ways locally to continue a grid like(non freeway) street network through some of the smaller hills separating the basin from the Valley but they purposely leave those disconnected to prevent thru traffic in neighborhoods. Kind of off subject, kind of not. The mentality of transportation planning might no be known to the general population but what is known are the result. As another poster said, the main competition here would be air in this case maybe with the exception of the proposed CA "autobahn" with no speed limits but unfortunately that project will likely never see the light of day.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:56 PM.

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