HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2781  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2019, 5:01 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is online now
Leftist Correctist
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 6,279
^Understatement of the century?
__________________
Trumpism is the road to ruin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2782  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2019, 5:45 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 884
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.

Last edited by jmecklenborg; Aug 5, 2019 at 6:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2783  
Old Posted Aug 5, 2019, 6:17 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,237
That doesn't make sense, though, because HSR's competition is in the air, not the ground. And roadways obviously navigate the scenery already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2784  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 3:21 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2785  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 4:16 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
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 View Post
256 scheduled daily trains
I don't think that we can speculate on the number of trains at this point.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2786  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 4:26 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
^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.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2787  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 1:42 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2788  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 1:50 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2789  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 4:33 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2790  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 4:53 PM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2791  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 4:58 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,237
Quote:
Originally Posted by orulz View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2792  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 5:14 PM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 573
(Double post)

Last edited by orulz; Aug 6, 2019 at 5:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2793  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 5:29 PM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2794  
Old Posted Aug 6, 2019, 5:34 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 13,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2795  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2019, 12:43 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2796  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2019, 1:01 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 299
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.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2797  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2019, 1:11 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 299
How many people would have to move to the central valley to make this line operationally sustainable? Are the numbers plausible?
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.

Last edited by SFBruin; Aug 7, 2019 at 6:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2798  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2019, 10:48 AM
orulz orulz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 573
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2799  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2019, 10:58 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2800  
Old Posted Aug 7, 2019, 11:02 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

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

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.