HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2041  
Old Posted May 18, 2018, 1:00 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2042  
Old Posted May 18, 2018, 1:22 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,189
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound so combative.

I think that discussions about the federal budget are complicated and I don't want to get into one. It is CA's right to spend its own money on a high speed rail system, just as it is any other state's right to do the same.

I should acknowledge this and hope that we can all be friends.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2043  
Old Posted May 21, 2018, 10:24 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
Personally, I'm not super worried about the high costs of a ticket. High speed rail has generally shown to have a high market share in other parts of the world, even when the price of a ticket is high (no source for this).

I am worried, however, about the high capital costs. I hate to be aspirational (JK, I don't), but isn't it indulgent to spend $60B + on a high speed rail project on a medium-density corridor when the country as a whole is facing a debt crisis?
Unfortunately the ticket prices will tend to be high because they are not building the 2x platforms. The capacity of any HSR line is limited by the amount of space necessary to stop a train. It doesn't matter how large that train is. A faster system (300mph) actually has a *lower* capacity because of the longer distance (more time) necessary to stop a train. So all of these calls for Maglev, etc., don't make any business sense.

If the system can operate 12 trains per hour per direction, and each train has 500 passengers instead of 1,000, well then do the math on fares. The higher the capacity, the more the operator is incentivized to fill trains with lower-priced tickets.

24 trains per hour x 1,000 passengers = 24,000 people departures between, say, 5pm and 6pm on a Friday. So 12,000 people headed from SF to LA and 12,000 people headed from LA to SF. If they each pay $100 that's $2.4 million in gross revenue in a single hour.

Halving the train sizes means half the potential gross revenues, if the fares remain constant. So a $200 one-way fare to collect the same gross revenue.

Part of the goal of California HSR should have been cheap fares, and running a bunch of huge trains would have enabled them to do very cheap fares in order to fill the off-peak trains.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2044  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2018, 4:10 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 444
Do we know how firm the platform length decision is? Could this easily be changed before the tunneling through the mountains in the Bakersfield-LA portion begins?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2045  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2018, 4:26 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Do we know how firm the platform length decision is? Could this easily be changed before the tunneling through the mountains in the Bakersfield-LA portion begins?
I believe it will be set in stone when the tunnel is built connecting Caltrans and the Transbay Terminal. If they do 800-foot platforms then the tunnel can curve immediately outside the terminal, which might be less expensive, but will permanently doom the terminal to shorter platform lengths.

It's theoretically possible for long platforms to only be built at SF, SJ, and LA, and to only operate the long trains express, but the feds might not permit it since it would make unloading a train at a shorter station in case of a technical issue a very clumsy event.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2046  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2018, 4:30 PM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
I believe it will be set in stone when the tunnel is built connecting Caltrans and the Transbay Terminal. If they do 800-foot platforms then the tunnel can curve immediately outside the terminal, which might be less expensive, but will permanently doom the terminal to shorter platform lengths.

It's theoretically possible for long platforms to only be built at SF, SJ, and LA, and to only operate the long trains express, but the feds might not permit it since it would make unloading a train at a shorter station in case of a technical issue a very clumsy event.
Got it, thanks.

Does anyone else find the claim of "under 3 hour trips" frustrating and disingenuous given that the authority's own schedules show zero LA-SF trips actually making it in 3 hours?

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/bus...ethodology.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2047  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2018, 7:15 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Thanks for the link.

Section 4.2 specifies station passing siding track lengths of 1,410 feet. Trains will be 660 feet w/450 seats. Stations will accommodate double trains lengths of 1,320 feet. This information contradicts previous public information. So I'm not sure who or what is wrong. Articles were definitely published 3-4 years ago that declared double trainsets were dead.

The second big point is the graphic on Page 3. Herein we see where so much of the dark anti-HSR effort comes from. We see clearly that the winner in all of this is San Jose, which will have more trains than San Francisco. And with completion of BART to San Jose by the time HSR opens, East Bay residents and workers won't have to ride all the way in to SF.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2048  
Old Posted Jun 5, 2018, 7:22 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Also, check the bottom page of the link for the total annual mileage -- 32,000,000 miles! So about 87,000 miles of scheduled service per day, 365 days per year!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2049  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 12:12 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
It's theoretically possible for long platforms to only be built at SF, SJ, and LA, and to only operate the long trains express, but the feds might not permit it since it would make unloading a train at a shorter station in case of a technical issue a very clumsy event.
New Jersey transit trains that are longer than the platforms of many of the stations they stop at are a thing. They just ask people in the last few cars to walk up to disembark. Never seemed like a huge issue and if it can save a lot of money then why not?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2050  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 12:18 AM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Thanks for the link.

Section 4.2 specifies station passing siding track lengths of 1,410 feet. Trains will be 660 feet w/450 seats. Stations will accommodate double trains lengths of 1,320 feet. This information contradicts previous public information. So I'm not sure who or what is wrong. Articles were definitely published 3-4 years ago that declared double trainsets were dead.

The second big point is the graphic on Page 3. Herein we see where so much of the dark anti-HSR effort comes from. We see clearly that the winner in all of this is San Jose, which will have more trains than San Francisco. And with completion of BART to San Jose by the time HSR opens, East Bay residents and workers won't have to ride all the way in to SF.
Interesting, so if this is correct, the capacity will be roughly double what's been discussed the past few pages?

I'm not train savvy enough to know where to look, but you might find more information about which is correct in one of these documents:

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/About/Business...ness_Plan.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2051  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 10:02 PM
Car(e)-Free LA Car(e)-Free LA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 260
Villaraigosa lost so we're all screwed with HSR.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2052  
Old Posted Jun 6, 2018, 11:08 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Interesting, so if this is correct, the capacity will be roughly double what's been discussed the past few pages?
Yes. The max capacity of the system is gigantic. 252 scheduled trains per day. So single-length trains would mean a daily system capacity of a little over 100,000 passengers. Doubling the train lengths obviously doubles the maximum capacity. Type whatever average ticket price you think the thing is going to have into a calculator and you'll see quite quickly that annual revenue will be in the billions.

The other really interesting point is that NoCal trains will sleep overnight in Gilroy. There will be 4 revenue service trains between 6am and 7am that will serve Gilroy, San Jose, SFO, and SF Transbay. So it absolutely will be possible to commute between Gilroy and downtown SF using HSR instead of Caltrains (although the fare will likely be higher). Caltrains is planning limited stop service after electrification and its trains will operate at the same speed as HSR but there will be at minimum 5-6 stops versus just 2.

A mirror operation will occur in Palmdale. So SoCal's trains will be stored overnight in Palmdale and shoot into LA and Anneheim starting at 6am with only one stop at Burbank Airport. So here we will really see commuting into DT LA enabled by HSR since there will be no competing service on the same track ala Caltrains.

The thing I'm worried about with this system is that it's going to be so big-time with the daily schedule so jam-packed that a slight disruption will cause a wave that the schedule can't recover from.

With time they'll be able to anticipate which trains should be double-length. The published schedule was very complicated so I couldn't figure it out but I would assume that if they send a double-length train out for the day it will be slotted for the bigger runs. What you don't want is a 1/4-full double-length train because the wear on the vehicles and the track is significant.

My guess is that zero double-length trains will run between SF and Sacramento and between LA and Sacramento.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2053  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 12:25 AM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Yes. The max capacity of the system is gigantic. 252 scheduled trains per day. So single-length trains would mean a daily system capacity of a little over 100,000 passengers. Doubling the train lengths obviously doubles the maximum capacity. Type whatever average ticket price you think the thing is going to have into a calculator and you'll see quite quickly that annual revenue will be in the billions.

The other really interesting point is that NoCal trains will sleep overnight in Gilroy. There will be 4 revenue service trains between 6am and 7am that will serve Gilroy, San Jose, SFO, and SF Transbay. So it absolutely will be possible to commute between Gilroy and downtown SF using HSR instead of Caltrains (although the fare will likely be higher). Caltrains is planning limited stop service after electrification and its trains will operate at the same speed as HSR but there will be at minimum 5-6 stops versus just 2.

A mirror operation will occur in Palmdale. So SoCal's trains will be stored overnight in Palmdale and shoot into LA and Anneheim starting at 6am with only one stop at Burbank Airport. So here we will really see commuting into DT LA enabled by HSR since there will be no competing service on the same track ala Caltrains.

The thing I'm worried about with this system is that it's going to be so big-time with the daily schedule so jam-packed that a slight disruption will cause a wave that the schedule can't recover from.

With time they'll be able to anticipate which trains should be double-length. The published schedule was very complicated so I couldn't figure it out but I would assume that if they send a double-length train out for the day it will be slotted for the bigger runs. What you don't want is a 1/4-full double-length train because the wear on the vehicles and the track is significant.

My guess is that zero double-length trains will run between SF and Sacramento and between LA and Sacramento.
Great to hear, thanks for the breakdown!!

On another note, the same articles that stated that the platform lengths would be shortened also stated that the operating speeds would be dropped to 200mph. The 2018 business plan contradicts both of those points. These articles were from 2016, so my guess is that these decisions were reversed in the 2018 business plan versus the 2016 one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2054  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 12:30 AM
SoCalKid SoCalKid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Car(e)-Free LA View Post
Villaraigosa lost so we're all screwed with HSR.
I'd argue the takeaway from last night's election was the exact opposite. The big threat to HSR was Prop 70, which would have effectively allowed Republicans to cut off HSR from cap and trade funding in 2024. Since that was voted down, HSR is all but guaranteed cap and trade funding until 2030. Now, the Democratic state house, senate, AND the governor would have to actively vote to redirect funding in order to stop revenue from going to HSR. 25% of cap and trade funds go directly to HSR outside of the appropriations process without the need for any votes. That's a massive win.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2055  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 2:54 AM
northbay's Avatar
northbay northbay is offline
Sonoma Strong
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cotati - The Hub of Sonoma County
Posts: 1,882
The CAHSR Blog (http://www.cahsrblog.com) has a good analysis of the election results and the impact on California high-speed rail.
__________________
"I firmly believe, from what I have seen, that this is the chosen spot of all this Earth as far as Nature is concerned." - Luther Burbank on Sonoma County.

Pictures of Santa Rosa, So. Co.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2056  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 3:50 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Holy shit! CAHSRBlog is back! I had no idea!
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2057  
Old Posted Jun 7, 2018, 5:26 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,134
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoCalKid View Post
Great to hear, thanks for the breakdown!!

On another note, the same articles that stated that the platform lengths would be shortened also stated that the operating speeds would be dropped to 200mph. The 2018 business plan contradicts both of those points. These articles were from 2016, so my guess is that these decisions were reversed in the 2018 business plan versus the 2016 one.
Yeah I think we read the same stuff.

The other interesting feature of the timetable is that the express travel time between SF and LA and SJ and LA will be equal. I don't know of politicians got involved but basically the situation is that there will be no true express for the LA-bound trains that originate in San Jose. They will stop 2-3 times in the central valley and that will add enough time to where those two travel times will be virtually equal.

But since all trains will stop in San Jose, the express trains between SF and LA will have a significantly faster SJ-LA run.

Also, 30+ years from now, a second HSR mainline paralleling I-5 would be 30~ miles shorter but inevitably involve San Jose as a hub once again. San Jose's position can only get stronger as HSR grows, and SF real estate interests can't be liking that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2058  
Old Posted Jul 21, 2018, 12:28 AM
wiseguy205 wiseguy205 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3
July Aerials

There's a pretty solid construction update on their Flickr page. 28 aerial photos of most of the Package 1 construction.

July Aerials on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2059  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2018, 2:39 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by wiseguy205 View Post
There's a pretty solid construction update on their Flickr page. 28 aerial photos of most of the Package 1 construction.

July Aerials on Flickr
The way this is being build is just so backwards. Normally you start on the most difficult sections first since they will take longer to build, but CAHSR is building the simplest sections first which means much longer delays getting the whole system up and running.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2060  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2018, 2:44 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,302
Do you have an allergic inability to say anything positive about this project? Also, you are completely wrong regarding the construction strategy. When political consensus is weak and funds limited, it absolutely makes the most sense to make real progress on the easiest and most obtainable segments, and for the CHSR right now, that means in the flat Central Valley. Starting out building ten mile long tunnels that most would never see would be strategically incompetent. People start to say wow when the skyscraper reaches twenty floors not when the caissons are being drilled in the basement, if you will. The sight of highly visible and tangible progress will propel further public and political support in a way that hidden work under a mountain will not.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
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 9:27 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.