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)

waltlantz Dec 10, 2011 5:12 AM

China throws money at EVERYTHING and we were not in a recession during the 50s.

Leo the Dog Dec 10, 2011 4:36 PM

San Diego is set to close up to 30 public schools this year in the city alone.

Now that it looks like SD is off the map, I think it would very difficult to get voters in SD county to approve to spend $billions for a train while the roads are literally crumbling and schools are closing in the city.

zilfondel Dec 12, 2011 3:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yankee (Post 5511355)
I say if your timeline for any project is more than 20 years you should just start building the thing that's gonna replace it. Or not even bother, I mean wtf China or 1950s America would have built this in 5 years.

It took about 35 years to build the US Interstate system. Source: first paragraph of wiki

Quote:

Construction was authorized by the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 and took 35 years.

But you're right, noone uses the freeway system anymore - its obsolete. (Well, parts of it are, but are generally over-used, not underused).

Infrastructure is interesting and unique - it can be upgraded over time, especially if enough ROW is allocated when it is established.

Some people may assume we will be using Stargate rings to teleport in 35 years, but I have a feeling that is an over-optimistic worldview.

tigernar Dec 12, 2011 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5506679)
SF City has less than 10 percent of the Bay Area population and good transit. The rest of the Bay Area requires a car for convenient travel. It spreads out for 70 miles, and SF isn't even close to the center.

Paris-Lyon is 200 miles non-stop; HSR is a clear winner. SF-LA is 400 miles with multiple stops; HSR is a clear loser.

Please reread my posts. Paris - Lyon was used for relative size comparison, while Madrid - Barcelona showed that the same effect seems to be true for distances around 400 miles. Another point is that hsr could make the bay area less dependent on car commuting: high speed commuting in the early hours before the trains from LA reaches the Bay?

I also had a look into your flight numbers, and I can't find any reason to take your 'hundreds of daily flights' claim serious. To be a guy that believes in case studies you don't seem to have looked very closely on the facts. Using flight compare I can only find 57 flights a day from SF to LA on a random February day. Looking at wikipedia the LAX to SFO is far from being the busiest in terms of flight movements (20th) nor seat capacity (18th). Even Madrid - Barcelona with very succesful hsr competition had more capacity in July 2010 (11th), a time when hsr already had taken more than 50% of the market share between the cities. Please remark that taking the train is more expensive than flying (and the driving) between these two cities, something cahsr seems to want to avoid, thus get even more uptake...

If you disagree with these numbers (which originates from CAPA - Centre for Aviation), please show me where you've got yours from.

pesto Dec 13, 2011 7:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigernar (Post 5513240)
Please reread my posts. Paris - Lyon was used for relative size comparison, while Madrid - Barcelona showed that the same effect seems to be true for distances around 400 miles. Another point is that hsr could make the bay area less dependent on car commuting: high speed commuting in the early hours before the trains from LA reaches the Bay?

I also had a look into your flight numbers, and I can't find any reason to take your 'hundreds of daily flights' claim serious. To be a guy that believes in case studies you don't seem to have looked very closely on the facts. Using flight compare I can only find 57 flights a day from SF to LA on a random February day. Looking at wikipedia the LAX to SFO is far from being the busiest in terms of flight movements (20th) nor seat capacity (18th). Even Madrid - Barcelona with very succesful hsr competition had more capacity in July 2010 (11th), a time when hsr already had taken more than 50% of the market share between the cities. Please remark that taking the train is more expensive than flying (and the driving) between these two cities, something cahsr seems to want to avoid, thus get even more uptake...

If you disagree with these numbers (which originates from CAPA - Centre for Aviation), please show me where you've got yours from.

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.)

The point you are missing is that LA and the Bay have convenient airports scattered around large, low-density areas. There are plenty of potential riders for HSR, but it's not clear to me why many of these people would switch to the much slower rail. The tourists can get $60 seats by pre-purchasing and business travellers don't care about price.

emathias Dec 13, 2011 8:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waltlantz (Post 5511419)
China throws money at EVERYTHING and we were not in a recession during the 50s.

The 50s had a couple short recessions in parts of 53-54 and 57-58.

drifting sun Dec 13, 2011 8:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5514984)
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.)

The point you are missing is that LA and the Bay have convenient airports scattered around large, low-density areas. There are plenty of potential riders for HSR, but it's not clear to me why many of these people would switch to the much slower rail. The tourists can get $60 seats by pre-purchasing and business travellers don't care about price.

I think what you are underestimating is that a significant amount of those people would appreciate, and prefer, the greater convenience of traveling by train - no security theatre BS, less time before and after, more comfortable (even short flights can suck if the seats are uncomfortable) - even if a properly implemented HSR is slower, I think that is debatable as well.

pesto Dec 13, 2011 10:10 PM

Well, you can't quantify those aspects so who knows. But time and cost vs. cars and air can be quantified and HSR loses badly. Meanwhile, traffic within the LA and Bay areas needs improvement desperately. Seems clear to me.

btw, HSR's business plan is now reporting that perhaps 1 out of 7 trains will actually be "non-stops", which in their lingo means they only stop at SJ on their way to SF. They will charge premiums for this service. They also do not include competition from electric cars in deriving their ridership numbers. So maybe add an hour LA-Bay (waiting for an express and stopping at SJ) and maybe another 50 bucks per person.

drifting sun Dec 13, 2011 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5515208)
Well, you can't quantify those aspects so who knows. But time and cost vs. cars and air can be quantified and HSR loses badly. Meanwhile, traffic within the LA and Bay areas needs improvement desperately. Seems clear to me.

btw, HSR's business plan is now reporting that perhaps 1 out of 7 trains will actually be "non-stops", which in their lingo means they only stop at SJ on their way to SF. They will charge premiums for this service. They also do not include competition from electric cars in deriving their ridership numbers. So maybe add an hour LA-Bay (waiting for an express and stopping at SJ) and maybe another 50 bucks per person.

I would argue that HSR "loses badly", in either time, or cost comparison to flights or other ground transportation. Let's pick time. Where are you getting numbers (from projections or HSR examples in other countries) from that show HSR losing badly compared with air travel? Remember to factor in the average time to arrive at the airport early enough to avoid security/check-in snafus, the time sitting on the runway before and after take-off, and the time to make your way out of the airport, find out where your going, call a cab, etc. Don't just compare the "time in the air" between cities like other people do.

202_Cyclist Dec 14, 2011 3:24 PM

High-speed rail board OKs hybrid Valley route (Fresno Bee)
 
High-speed rail board OKs hybrid Valley route


By Ameera Butt
The Fresno Bee
Dec. 13, 2011

"The California High-Speed Authority approved a hybrid route for the Merced-to-Fresno route during its board meeting Tuesday in Merced.

But the decision came amid a chorus of voices -- pro and con, urban and rural -- from about 100 people who crowded the City Hall council chambers and spilled over into the lobby and elsewhere in the building.

The route, a blend of the Union Pacific Railroad and Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks, would put stations in downtown Fresno on Mariposa Street and in Merced between Martin Luther King Jr. Way and G Street..."

http://www.fresnobee.com/2011/12/13/...id-valley.html

tigernar Dec 14, 2011 8:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5514984)
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.)

The point you are missing is that LA and the Bay have convenient airports scattered around large, low-density areas. There are plenty of potential riders for HSR, but it's not clear to me why many of these people would switch to the much slower rail. The tourists can get $60 seats by pre-purchasing and business travellers don't care about price.

Ah.. I start seeing why you're numbers are so inflated. First of all, what you should count is flight pairs, not a total of both ways. That reduces your number to less than 250 each way - which gives us a maximum of 1750 flights a week, less than double that of what Madrid - Barcelona had (and even then I have reason to believe that your numbers are inflated, especially as Delta Airlines just a couple of months decided to reduce their SF - LA frequency from 77 to 49). Secondly, these (maximum) 1750 flights tells us that there is a huge market in passenger transportation between SF and LA, which is an opportunity for the train, rather than too stiff competition. Thirdly, London - Paris is not very much flown anymore because of the Eurostar. It had 70% of the London - Paris market in 2007, before they opened the high speed railway on the UK side of the channel. Fourthly, being told informally that there are x number of flights between two cities/regions is not a good reference, and before you provide a proper source your argument is as good as any other.

Then, it is your argument that business people rather would choose air than rail, because they can pay more and its more convenient. Between Madrid and Barcelona business people pay much more for train than plane tickets, and they choose the train. The Transbay terminal is better placed for SF central than SFO, and in San Jose the airport and the railway station will be very close. Oakland will be better served by air, but it has a population of only 400,000. Evidence from all hsr running today shows that as soon as the travel time comes below 3 hrs, most people prefer hsr, even if it is more expensive (Madrid - Barcelona, and Spain is in a major recession atm).

202_Cyclist Dec 15, 2011 3:15 PM

If anyone is interested, the House Transportation & Infrastructure is having a hearing right now on CA's high speed rail plans. The hearing is televised via this link:

http://transportation.house.gov/singlepages.aspx/1202

202_Cyclist Dec 15, 2011 3:30 PM

Bullet train's travel-time mandate adds to ballooning of costs (LA Times)
 
Bullet train's travel-time mandate adds to ballooning of costs
The ballot measure for the project required that the L.A.-to-San Francisco trip take no more than two hours, 40 minutes. Achieving that would mean building more viaducts and tunnels, which are costly.


By Ralph Vartabedian and Dan Weikel
Los Angeles Times
December 15, 2011

"California's proposed bullet train will need to soar over small towns on towering viaducts, split rich farm fields diagonally and burrow for miles under mountains for a simple reason: It has no time to spare.

In the fine print of a 2008 voter-approved measure funding the project was a little-noticed requirement that trains be able to rocket from Union Station in downtown Los Angeles to San Francisco in no more than two hours and 40 minutes.

It was an aggressive goal, requiring cutting-edge technology, and was originally intended to protect the sanctity of the bullet train concept from political compromise. Whether the California High Speed Rail Authority can meet such a schedule is far from certain. Even some backers of the project now say it was a mistake to lock in the strict requirement..."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,1729184.story

pesto Dec 15, 2011 5:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifting sun (Post 5515225)
I would argue that HSR "loses badly", in either time, or cost comparison to flights or other ground transportation. Let's pick time. Where are you getting numbers (from projections or HSR examples in other countries) from that show HSR losing badly compared with air travel? Remember to factor in the average time to arrive at the airport early enough to avoid security/check-in snafus, the time sitting on the runway before and after take-off, and the time to make your way out of the airport, find out where your going, call a cab, etc. Don't just compare the "time in the air" between cities like other people do.

Well, I wasn't planning on getting any Christmas presents any way, so here's why I believe that air is faster and cars cheaper:

Pleasure: Armen and Mai Lin decide to drive from Downey to visit their Aunt Chandra in Pleasanton. They load little Manuelito and LaShonda into their 2030 Volt IV and arrive there 5 hours later. Total cost for electric vehicles is unclear, but let’s assume .10/ mile, or $80 RT (double it if you want).

Instead they could have loaded the family and driven to the nearest HSR station (1/4); bought a ticket and waited (1/2); riden to Union Station (1/4); waited for the express (1/2); riden to SF (4); exited and rented a car (1/2). Fortunately, the looters from the “Free Dolores Huerta” riot have drifted toward the Castro and it’s not a “Bikers Mess Up Traffic for Everyone Day”, so the ride to Pleasanton only takes ½. Total time: 6 1/2

Total cost: 4 RT tickets at 150 each; plus car rental, 4 days at 50: $800 RT (excluding parking or cabs to/from station).

Please note that I gave a good price on the HSR express, even though HSR has promised to charge a “premium” for express trains. The reality is that visitors for pleasure will take the milk runs.

Business: Louie needs to get from his home in the Marina to a meeting in SF. He can drive to LAX (1/2); board (1/2); fly (1); cab to SF (1/2). He doesn’t check luggage. Total: 2 ½

Or he drives to Union Station and parks (1); waits for the express (1/2); rides to SF (4); cab to meeting (1/4). Total: 5 ¾

Cost is irrelevant because this is a business meeting.

Sorry. I've got nothing against HSR in many parts of the world; but not on this route.

202_Cyclist Dec 15, 2011 5:38 PM

pesto:
Quote:

Pleasure: Armen and Mai Lin decide to drive from Downey to visit their Aunt Chandra in Pleasanton. They load little Manuelito and LaShonda into their 2030 Volt IV and arrive there 5 hours later. Total cost for electric vehicles is unclear, but let’s assume .10/ mile, or $80 RT (double it if you want).
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.

202_Cyclist Dec 15, 2011 5:47 PM

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.

drifting sun Dec 15, 2011 8:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5517715)
Well, I wasn't planning on getting any Christmas presents any way, so here's why I believe that air is faster and cars cheaper:

Pleasure: Armen and Mai Lin decide to drive from Downey to visit their Aunt Chandra in Pleasanton. They load little Manuelito and LaShonda into their 2030 Volt IV and arrive there 5 hours later. Total cost for electric vehicles is unclear, but let’s assume .10/ mile, or $80 RT (double it if you want).

Instead they could have loaded the family and driven to the nearest HSR station (1/4); bought a ticket and waited (1/2); riden to Union Station (1/4); waited for the express (1/2); riden to SF (4); exited and rented a car (1/2). Fortunately, the looters from the “Free Dolores Huerta” riot have drifted toward the Castro and it’s not a “Bikers Mess Up Traffic for Everyone Day”, so the ride to Pleasanton only takes ½. Total time: 6 1/2

Total cost: 4 RT tickets at 150 each; plus car rental, 4 days at 50: $800 RT (excluding parking or cabs to/from station).

Please note that I gave a good price on the HSR express, even though HSR has promised to charge a “premium” for express trains. The reality is that visitors for pleasure will take the milk runs.

Business: Louie needs to get from his home in the Marina to a meeting in SF. He can drive to LAX (1/2); board (1/2); fly (1); cab to SF (1/2). He doesn’t check luggage. Total: 2 ½

Or he drives to Union Station and parks (1); waits for the express (1/2); rides to SF (4); cab to meeting (1/4). Total: 5 ¾

Cost is irrelevant because this is a business meeting.

Sorry. I've got nothing against HSR in many parts of the world; but not on this route.


:haha::haha::haha:

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.

202_Cyclist Dec 15, 2011 8:54 PM

Quote:

I don't see the realistic need to rent a car.
In addition to much better local transit by 2030, there is likely to be car-sharing opportunities at the stations to address the last-mile issue that pesto says this hypothetical family will be required to rent a car for $200 for four days. It might be a $6 one-way ZipCar trip instead.

tigernar Dec 15, 2011 8:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5517715)
Business: Louie needs to get from his home in the Marina to a meeting in SF. He can drive to LAX (1/2); board (1/2); fly (1); cab to SF (1/2). He doesn’t check luggage. Total: 2 ½

Or he drives to Union Station and parks (1); waits for the express (1/2); rides to SF (4); cab to meeting (1/4). Total: 5 ¾

Cost is irrelevant because this is a business meeting.

Sorry. I've got nothing against HSR in many parts of the world; but not on this route.

That's some funny numbers you have there... According to Southwest Airlines, which is the more frequent airline between LA and SF, the flight time between LAX and SFO is about 1 hour 30 minutes. The same airline say you should be at LAX at least 90 minutes before your plane leaves. Tuesday to Thursday that is. Friday to Monday you are advised to come 2 hours earlier. But as your person doesn't have checked luggage, let's say 60 minutes (I have not had the pleasure to be in touch with the TSA myself, but according to what I've heard 60 minutes sounds quite fast including queueing). You have not even calculated any time for the guy to get from the car park to the check in counter. But let's say that goes within 30 minutes, then your total travel time is 3 hours 30 minutes on a good day.

Then I have no idea where you get the 4 hour travel time for the express from. If you had taken your time to read the cahsr website you would know it would only take 2 hours 38 minutes. Assuming that your business person is way more anxious to miss the train than his plane, I'll let the ludicrous waiting time go for this time, but usually they would time their arrival to come to the station only 10 - 15 minutes before the train left the platform. Anyway, reducing the journey time by 1 hour 22 minutes makes the total time about 4 hours. That gives a time difference of a little more than 30 minutes, much less than your first 'taken-out-of-the-sky'-guesses without root in reality. And that is without calculating any parking time at LAX, which I guess is somewhere with huge car parks anyway.

If you in addition take into account that one can be productive for 2 hours 30 minutes out of 4 in a train (because of more opportunities and space to use your laptop and phone), while working on a plane only goes for 1 hour 15 minutes max out of 3 hours 30 minutes, the train suddenly works out being better for businesses as employees can do more work (both absolutely and relatively) while getting paid for travelling anyway. Costs are not irrelevant for businesses, especially when they can improve their efficiency.

Furthermore, the more I read your posts, the less I think you have read of the business plan. CAHSR is actually expecting more boardings at Anaheim than at LA Union Station, an area which LAX is much less of a competitor than for the Marina (which is unfavourably a lot closer to LAX than the Union Station anyway).

If it sounds like a politician, if it walks like a politician, if it looks like a politician, it's probably a....?

tigernar Dec 15, 2011 9:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifting sun (Post 5517999)
....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.

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.

202_Cyclist Dec 15, 2011 9:11 PM

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 Dec 15, 2011 9:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigernar (Post 5518032)
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 Dec 15, 2011 9:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5514984)
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 Dec 15, 2011 9:52 PM

tigernar:
Quote:

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 Dec 15, 2011 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5518106)
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 Dec 15, 2011 10:12 PM

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 Dec 15, 2011 10:14 PM

Quote:

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 Dec 15, 2011 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5518143)
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):

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5518140)
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 Dec 15, 2011 10:42 PM

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 Dec 16, 2011 3:36 PM

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 Dec 16, 2011 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5517759)
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 Dec 16, 2011 6:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5517768)
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 Dec 16, 2011 6:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drifting sun (Post 5517999)
:haha::haha::haha:

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 Dec 16, 2011 7:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5518045)
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 Dec 16, 2011 7:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5519185)
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 Dec 16, 2011 8:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tigernar (Post 5518151)
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 Dec 16, 2011 9:30 PM

Quote:

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 Dec 19, 2011 1:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist (Post 5518175)
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 :jester:

202_Cyclist Dec 19, 2011 8:43 PM

Visalia guns for rejected rail station funds (Fresno Business Journal)
 
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 Dec 21, 2011 4:48 AM

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.

pesto Dec 21, 2011 7:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 5519467)
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.

Commuter cars in 2035 will be almost entirely electric or hybrid. Even the oil companies include this in their oil usage projections (it's why they are putting money into solar and natural gas).

zilfondel Dec 21, 2011 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5524626)
Commuter cars in 2035 will be almost entirely electric or hybrid. Even the oil companies include this in their oil usage projections (it's why they are putting money into solar and natural gas).

That's quite the prediction, Nostradamus. People in the 1950s also believed we would have flying cars by now.

By contrast, over the past 30 years, automobile technology has essentially stayed stagnant in regards to fuel consumption.



Also, even if all future cars were powered by antimatter warp-coil induced phase-shifted transmogrified diluthium crystals with infinte energy production, those cars will stay take up a lot of space on the freeways - necessitating massive, costly freeway expansion. The freeways in LA are what, 10 lanes now?

Not to mention that cars will be STILL be slower than taking a train.

Nice try tho. :whip:

fflint Dec 22, 2011 8:30 AM

Even if Pesto's baseless prognostication should come true, expanding freeways and runways to meet future demand will still cost more than building CAHSR to do the same thing.

pesto Dec 22, 2011 7:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zilfondel (Post 5524872)
That's quite the prediction, Nostradamus. People in the 1950s also believed we would have flying cars by now.

By contrast, over the past 30 years, automobile technology has essentially stayed stagnant in regards to fuel consumption.



Also, even if all future cars were powered by antimatter warp-coil induced phase-shifted transmogrified diluthium crystals with infinte energy production, those cars will stay take up a lot of space on the freeways - necessitating massive, costly freeway expansion. The freeways in LA are what, 10 lanes now?

Not to mention that cars will be STILL be slower than taking a train.

Nice try tho. :whip:

Thanks; wish I could say the same to you!

There are 3 huge highways connecting LA and the Bay and they move well most of the time. They certainly don't need expansion in the near future. (WITHIN the LA and Bay areas is a completely different story; this is often quite bad and that's where I would put transit money). Ditto for air: plenty of excess space in Ontario, SJ and Oakland, among others.

Train is slower and much more expensive; see my post above.

Prognosticating is difficult; that's why I let the industry analysts and professionals do it; you know, the ones who back up their b/s by putting billions of their money behind it. Naturally, opinions differ, but both the auto analysts and oil analysts have made predictions that over 50 percent of ALL cars will be electric or hybrid in 25 or 30 years. That number would presumably be larger for small to mid-size commuting vehicles (excluding SUV's, performance and luxury cars).

Again, just to be clear: I think HSR is great in some places; just not here.

fflint Dec 23, 2011 3:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pesto (Post 5525900)
There are 3 huge highways connecting LA and the Bay and...They certainly don't need expansion in the near future....

...Train is slower and much more expensive; see my post above.

Where are you getting these bizarre claims? The freeway and runway expansions necessary to handle population growth in the coming two decades would cost 70% more than CAHSR. It is clear to everyone you oppose the cheaper, cleaner railroad--but it's unclear why.

Transit choice: $98.5B for high-speed rail vs. $170B for roads, runways
David Goll
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
Tuesday, November 1, 2011

"...the escalating costs of high-speed rail still pales in comparison to the $170 billion needed to add 2,300 lane-miles of freeway, four additional airport runways and 115 airline gates to accommodate the state’s increasing transportation needs."

pesto Dec 23, 2011 5:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint (Post 5526367)
Where are you getting these bizarre claims? The freeway and runway expansions necessary to handle population growth in the coming two decades would cost 70% more than CAHSR. It is clear to everyone you oppose the cheaper, cleaner railroad--but it's unclear why.

Transit choice: $98.5B for high-speed rail vs. $170B for roads, runways
David Goll
Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal
Tuesday, November 1, 2011

"...the escalating costs of high-speed rail still pales in comparison to the $170 billion needed to add 2,300 lane-miles of freeway, four additional airport runways and 115 airline gates to accommodate the state’s increasing transportation needs."

Don't get into apples and oranges. HSR would AT MOST save some money on maintaining I-5, and not even much on that because it has to be maintained mostly for the huge number of trucks that use it as the main connection from LA harbor to the west coast. That's not including emergency vehicles and other public uses.

The construction of NEW freeways is an argument on MY side. I am arguing that if you put money into regional transit you need fewer (or no) new freeways; if you don't then you will presumably need to spend on them.

Ditto for airports: runways and gates are mostly for Europe, Asia, Latin America, Canada, the East Coast, midwest, south, Phoenix, LV, etc.

Cars on 5 are a microscopic percentage of what traffic there is on freeways WITHIN the LA an Bay areas.

fflint Dec 24, 2011 2:33 AM

Intra-state travel within California shall increase as the state adds millions of new residents over the next two decades. Our current transportation infrastructure won't be able to handle future demand; failure to plan for that growth would be the height of negligence and damage the state's economy, environment, and quality of life.

The choice the reality-based community must make is to accomodate future demand either by spending $100B for a clean and modern high-speed rail system or spending another $170B to pack more private cars onto jammed freeways and more exhaust-spewing jets onto crowded runways.

dimondpark Dec 26, 2011 4:48 PM

This is far more exciting than the California High Speed Rail imHo:

Quote:


BART planners begin work on new vision for future

Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, December 26, 2011

Way back in 1957, Bay Area planners were thinking big. Concerned about the booming population and worsening traffic congestion, they proposed a round-the-bay rapid transit network that eventually spawned today's BART.

Now, 54 years and 4 million people later, it's BART's turn to think big. Planners are working on a new vision for the future - one that could include express trains, all-night service, new stations along existing lines, trains traveling different routes and extensions to Livermore, Ocean Beach, Brentwood and Crockett.


"Over the past few years, we've just been trying to keep our heads above water," said Carter Mau, BART's executive manager of budget and planning. "Now that we've recovered a bit, it's time to start looking at our future."

The planning effort, which is just getting started, is called the metro concept, and will focus more on growth within the existing system and the urban core of the Bay Area than on extending the system outward. Still, it could include extensions within the BART district, which includes Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco counties.

Mau said the main goals are to increase capacity, enhance service and increase coverage, recognizing that BART's original role as a system hauling commuters from the suburbs into San Francisco needs to be transformed.

BART is already taking the first step toward increasing capacity, ordering a new generation of cars with three doors - to speed loading and unloading - and increasing the size of its fleet. But it will also have to modify stations, and increase service, to handle larger crowds.

The BART of the future would run more frequently between the most popular - and populous - areas, offering more "show up and go" service where riders don't need to check schedules. It could also feature express or skip-stop trains that would provide more-direct - and faster - trips for commuters.

Service could also be routed to provide speedier trips to the increasing number of suburban employment centers. And the addition of extra tracks, including crossovers that allow trains to switch tracks or change directions, could enable the addition of late-night or round-the-clock service.

"One of the problems we really need to solve is late-night service," said director Tom Radulovich.

The study will also contemplate where, and how, BART should expand. Some of that expansion could bring new stations to existing lines.

So-called infill stations have been suggested by various sources in the past at 30th and Mission streets in San Francisco, Jack London Square in Oakland and Solano Avenue in Albany. A station in Irvington, in Fremont on the under-construction Warm Springs extension, is also under consideration.

And while the focus is on improving the existing BART system, the plan would also consider extensions using BART technology to Livermore and possibly out to Geary Boulevard through the Richmond District, a project director James Fang calls "BART to the Beach."

BART's e-BART line, a diesel-powered link between BART's Pittsburg/Bay Point station and Antioch, could also be extended to Brentwood, and a similar system could be added from Richmond to Crockett.

BART planners expect to spend seven to eight months studying current and expected travel patterns and future development, looking at different ways of transforming BART, then developing a plan. The agency will ask for public input with a series of town-hall meetings.

BART has no estimated cost for remodeling the system but the effort would clearly run into the billions. And those desires would have to compete with - or wait in line behind - an estimated $7.5 billion in long-term maintenance and modernization needs over the next 25 years that have no source of funding.

"The BART system is 40 years old now," Mau said. "We need to replace not only our railcars but the system that powers those railcars and supports those railcars. Finding some way to maintain the system we have now is going to be critical."

E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.

Express trains? Express means they go faster since they arent stopping right? Like to, uh Sacramento perhaps?;) And what about tracks being crowded-would they build a separate track for express trains? I dunno but this concept of express trains is long overdue and is definitely worthy of consideration. I have long thought a way to expand the Richmond(or via Martinez) Line to El Sobrante, Pinole and Hercules would greatly alleviate traffic on the busiest freeway in NorCal(80) Also, apart from the areas mentoned above, Anyone whose ever driven on I-80 thru Solano County during commute times can attest that expanding BART into that area would be awesome.:yes:


Not to mention all-night service!:tup::tup:

An extension to Ocean Beach--interesting.


And why stop at Livermore when BART should really expand to the other side of the Altamont Pass since 200,000 cars are crossing the Alameda-San Joaquin county borders everyday.

Busy Bee Dec 26, 2011 8:26 PM

BART to Marin County sure would be SMART! ;)

drifting sun Dec 26, 2011 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 5528564)

Not to mention all-night service!:tup::tup:

An extension to Ocean Beach--interesting.

I agree with both of these sentiments, though some MUNI loyalists would not agree that an extension to Ocean Beach sounds interesting, they seem to think that BART should stay where it is - connecting the downtown core with the East Bay, and SFO. I think that a BART subway line across the city from the Bay to the Pacific would work better, and not suffer the same problems that plague MUNI lines like the N-Judah.


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:44 AM.

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