View Single Post
  #3114  
Old Posted Mar 31, 2021, 2:01 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp View Post
All very, very true. I can see the logic of the IE route, and if funding/politics I probably would make the decision CAHSR did (well, if I really had my way we would build on both routes, and add a new transbay tube to link SF an Sacramento. My dream CAHSR map is a massive figure 8 that connects all of CA's major cities)

But, bluntly, I don't think Phase II in its current for will ever be constructed. The money and political will simply aren't there, even if a Biden infrastructure plan goes through. So for rather selfish reasons I would like to see HSR come to San Diego, and LOSSAN seems like the best bet by far. The ROW is there, there's public support for improvements, and the corridor is already extremely popular with commuters. A ~1 hour travel time won't just compete with air travel, it would be faster than diving in daytime traffic. A service like that would immediately popular and well used.
I understand why so many want higher speed trains on LOSSAN between LA and SD. Much of the line is single track, although there are consistent efforts to double track it. But to really run both slow speed local trains and high speed regional trains on the same corridor, it needs to be quad track like in the UK. I believe the powers to be at CHSR realized this as well, which is why they wished to build an entirely new dedicated HSR line via the IE so as to avoid quad tracking an existing line. Just discussing double tracking some are discussing expensive tunnels, imagine the costs of quad track tunnels.

LA to SD is 120 miles. The existing Surfliners take 2.75 hours to travel that distance averaging 43.6 mph. Metrolink and Coaster trains on this corridor average even slower speeds.
How fast is fast enough. How long should the trip be to be effective?
2 hours = average 60 mph
1.5 hours = average 80 mph
1 hour = average 120 mph
0.5 hour = average 240 mph
Keep in mind that the faster the average speed needs to be; the fewer station stops the trains can make, and the higher the fares will be.
Then consider that on a good day you can drive it in 1 hour and 48 minutes per Google for just the price of gas - assuming you already have a car in your driveway.

I strongly believe people should look at HSR projects with 3 fare prices in mind.
The cheapest being an all stop local bus or train service with monthly passes with steep subsidies
The medium fares for slow regional and long distance trains with smaller subsidies
The most expensive HSR and airline fares with zero subsidies

There are potential passengers in every fare category. Those wishing to pay the highest fares want and expect as fast service over distances as airlines. The 3 hour elapse time rule I keep repeating over and over again. LA to SD is already less than 3 hours, maximizing its' average speed is not going to increase its' market share as fare prices climb respectfully. In the LA to SD market, planners should be looking at maximizing riders balancing fares and speeds. I do not think a 200 mph train speed is needed to maximize ridership.

Last edited by electricron; Mar 31, 2021 at 2:30 PM.
Reply With Quote