Merits of CA HSR + other HSR spin-off thread

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

You're entitled to your opinion but there are so many wrongful statements in what you are saying that I won't even start a debate with you. Like I said, 1960's mentality from someone born in 1993.

Consider this: densification also means more growth, more money spent and taxes generated with a much smaller footprint and easier transit implementation.

I didn't write a novel. What statements did I make that are incorrect?

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

California's geographical and demographic specifics are virtually identical to the wildly successful AVE system in Spain. So I have no doubt it would be wildly successful in California.

That would be true IF all else were the same, but it's not the same. Building the same amount of HSR in California will take 10x as much money and take 3x as much time. The state of California does not have the Political will to build this project and every dollar spent at this point is just being flushed down the toilet because this system will never be completed.

[Busy Bee]

Do I need to put Jeff up again?

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Do I need to put Jeff up again?

Who Jeff Speck? Yeah, please do. I would love to have the opportunity to debate with him. Maybe he would actually respond to what statements I made that are incorrect unlike the other guy who just said "I'm not debating you" and ran off.

I'm not a troll here. I have great interest in LA and want to see it thrive. I am excited for the future of public transit in Los Angeles and California.

By all means, if it is Jeff Speck you're referring to, please, invite him here.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Roughly 2.5 million passengers per year travel between SFO and LA or San Diego. The time involved in getting center city to center city shouldn't be much more than flying with all the airport nonsense these days. HSR could easily be more convenient and comfortable than flying. I bet it could take much of that market share from the airlines.

How much is much?
Let's take a fresh look at CHSR project. It only goes very fast in the Valley. In Southern California and San Francisco Bay Area, where it will share the corridor and the tracks with local regional slower trains, it only goes the slower speeds so it would not run over or through (crash) into the slower trains.
It's 473 rail miles between downtown S.F. and downtown L.A. You can drive it in 382 miles, 91 miles less, but the fast train is taking the long way and not the shortcut. It'll go slow the 62 or so miles between L.A. and Palmdale, and the 83 or so miles S.F. to Gilroy. That's 145 miles of the 473 miles it will not be going fast, therefore it can only go very fast over 328 miles. But then it will have to slow down to a stop, and accelerate from a stop at intermediate stations.
How many HSR stations will there be between L.A. and S.F?
(1) Transbay (2) Millbrae (3) Diridon (4) Gilroy (5) Merced (6) Madera (7) Fresno (8) Hanford (9) Bakersfield (10) Palmdale (11) Burbank, and (12) Union Station. Every stop at a station along the way will cause the average speed of the train to be slower. So the train will not be going very fast over that entire remaining 328 miles.
And please do not suggest the HSR trains will not be stopping at these intermediate stations, I know better because CHSR is building the longer route to get to them. What's the purpose getting to them if you're not going to stop at them?
So what do we have, we have a train that will probably take 3 hours or more to run between downtown L.A. and downtown S.F. with a technology that could do it in less than 2 hours - and that will be celebrated as a success.

[mrnyc]

to even have stretches of hsr is indeed success in this country.

[CastleScott]

It's 473 rail miles between downtown S.F. and downtown L.A. You can drive it in 382 miles, 91 miles less, but the fast train is taking the long way and not the shortcut. It'll go slow the 62 or so miles between L.A. and Palmdale, and the 83 or so miles S.F. to Gilroy. That's 145 miles of the 473 miles it will not be going fast, therefore it can only go very fast over 328 miles. But then it will have to slow down to a stop, and accelerate from a stop at intermediate stations.

Yup this is certainly true its too bad they couldn't use the short cut which would have included some tunneling and elevated structures over Tejon Pass-the so-called Grapevine route (this would have made so much more sense).

Oh btw a higher speed streach from the Bay to Sacramento would work very well (110 mph like what runs between Chicago to St Louis).

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by electricron

How much is much?
Let's take a fresh look at CHSR project. It only goes very fast in the Valley. In Southern California and San Francisco Bay Area, where it will share the corridor and the tracks with local regional slower trains, it only goes the slower speeds so it would not run over or through (crash) into the slower trains.
It's 473 rail miles between downtown S.F. and downtown L.A. You can drive it in 382 miles, 91 miles less, but the fast train is taking the long way and not the shortcut. It'll go slow the 62 or so miles between L.A. and Palmdale, and the 83 or so miles S.F. to Gilroy. That's 145 miles of the 473 miles it will not be going fast, therefore it can only go very fast over 328 miles. But then it will have to slow down to a stop, and accelerate from a stop at intermediate stations.
How many HSR stations will there be between L.A. and S.F?
(1) Transbay (2) Millbrae (3) Diridon (4) Gilroy (5) Merced (6) Madera (7) Fresno (8) Hanford (9) Bakersfield (10) Palmdale (11) Burbank, and (12) Union Station. Every stop at a station along the way will cause the average speed of the train to be slower. So the train will not be going very fast over that entire remaining 328 miles.
And please do not suggest the HSR trains will not be stopping at these intermediate stations, I know better because CHSR is building the longer route to get to them. What's the purpose getting to them if you're not going to stop at them?
So what do we have, we have a train that will probably take 3 hours or more to run between downtown L.A. and downtown S.F. with a technology that could do it in less than 2 hours - and that will be celebrated as a success.

I'm not certain, but I would expect that there would be some level of express service similar to the NYC subway and other transit services. Essentially you have local and express trains. The local trains hit each stop. The express trains only stop at major destinations. Provided this is the scenario, someone in DTLA could go to DTSF in 2 hours. Someone in Palmdale going to SF would presumably be a "local" stop and would stop at each station, resulting in a longer trip. It could also be possible to transfer from a local train to an express train, though I'm not sure if the tracking would support the logistical challenges associated with this approach. This is all speculation, but it seems likely that every train will not have to stop at every locale along the way.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by spoonman

I'm not certain, but I would expect that there would be some level of express service similar to the NYC subway and other transit services. Essentially you have local and express trains. The local trains hit each stop. The express trains only stop at major destinations. Provided this is the scenario, someone in DTLA could go to DTSF in 2 hours. Someone in Palmdale going to SF would presumably be a "local" stop and would stop at each station, resulting in a longer trip. It could also be possible to transfer from a local train to an express train, though I'm not sure if the tracking would support the logistical challenges associated with this approach. This is all speculation, but it seems likely that every train will not have to stop at every locale along the way.

How many trains in percentages will stop at every HSR station? How many stations will express trains stop at? Details are lacking. On the NEC, just about all Acela trains stop at the very same stations. On the NEC, just about all the Amtrak regional trains stop at the very same same stations, although more than Acela trains.....but not that much more. It’s the commuter. trains that are stopping at every station, significantly more than Amtrak’s Amfleets and Acela trains. But every day Amtrak‘s fastest trains are slowed down by slower trains somewhere on the NEC. It’s extremely difficult to run faster trains on a double track line sharing the same tracks with slower trains (including all stops and express trains using the exactly same equipment).

It’ll be difficult for an express train to run all the way LA to SF without slowing down to match speeds of slower trains ahead of them. Remember, the distance will be 473 miles. A train running at 220 mph the entire way can travel that far in 129 minutes. A train running 150 mph can travel that far in 189 minutes. A train running at 80 mph can travel that far in 354 minutes. Note the hour (60 minutes) difference run time of the first two examples, and the 3.75 hours (225 minutes) difference between the first and third examples. No doubt about it, an express train will eventually catch up to a slower train with distances this far and speed differentials this high. And I’m pretty sure CHSR will wish to run trains twice an hour, if not more frequently during peaks, each and every day

So can we permantely nix the idea of they ever running a daily non-stop train the entire way?

[spoonman]

Originally Posted by electricron

How many trains in percentages will stop at every HSR station? How many stations will express trains stop at? Details are lacking. On the NEC, just about all Acela trains stop at the very same stations. On the NEC, just about all the Amtrak regional trains stop at the very same same stations, although more than Acela trains.....but not that much more. It’s the commuter. trains that are stopping at every station, significantly more than Amtrak’s Amfleets and Acela trains. But every day Amtrak‘s fastest trains are slowed down by slower trains somewhere on the NEC. It’s extremely difficult to run faster trains on a double track line sharing the same tracks with slower trains (including all stops and express trains using the exactly same equipment). It’ll be difficult for an express train to run all the way LA to SF without slowing down to match speeds of slower trains ahead of the,.

Agree. There would probably have to be quadruple track at certain locations to support express and local service. Not sure if this is in Jerry's plans.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by electricron

HAnd I’m pretty sure CHSR will wish to run trains twice an hour, if not more frequently during peaks, each and every day

So can we permantely nix the idea of they ever running a daily non-stop train the entire way?

Assuming this project is actually completed, I doubt they would ever run those frequencies.

You won't need 30 minute frequencies for this corridor. It's really not an ideal corridor for HSR, at all, because it isn't centralized, it has fantastic air connections, and it isn't transit dependent. In order to get successful HSR, you need to make it hard to drive. CA is like the best place on earth to drive.

I doubt they would run a nonstop either, because again, not centralized. Very few passengers would need to go from downtown LA to downtown SF.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

California's geographical and demographic specifics are virtually identical to the wildly successful AVE system in Spain. So I have no doubt it would be wildly successful in California.

Is this sarcasm? You can't be serious.

What does Spain share with CA?

Urban Spain is almost entirely dense multifamily, Urban CA is SFH, Spain is super-centralized, CA is sprawl, Spain is "poor", CA is rich, Spain has low car ownership and extreme gas prices, CA has high car ownership and low gas prices., Spain has extreme transit orientation and ridership, CA has minimal transit orientation and ridership.

They're basically polar opposites within the first world.

[caligrad]

If the Cali gov was being smart and not so political. It would have been smart to start the City-City segments first, open those lines and use that to keep costs lower.

Meaning. An LA--Anahiem-Oceanside(Maybe)- San Diego line would have been a big success. Not just with Locals, but Tourists especially.

Or. A SF-San Jose- (insert whatever city in the central valley here)

Because as of right now. The Central Valley portion will get done first (allegedly) literally the lowest density in the whole state. Whos going to use it????

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by caligrad

If the Cali gov was being smart and not so political. It would have been smart to start the City-City segments first, open those lines and use that to keep costs lower.

Meaning. An LA--Anahiem-Oceanside(Maybe)- San Diego line would have been a big success. Not just with Locals, but Tourists especially.

Or. A SF-San Jose- (insert whatever city in the central valley here)

Because as of right now. The Central Valley portion will get done first (allegedly) literally the lowest density in the whole state. Whos going to use it????

The segments you mention are the most expensive and politically difficult segments to build.

[caligrad]

Right. Politically difficult which shouldn't be the case. But most expensive. A lot of the infrastrure is already in the planning phases are built like The station in Anaheim which has been done for yeaaaars. The ROW between LA-Anaheim-SD shouldn't be insane, when you look at the tracks, most of it is already ROW next to passenger rail and freight rail, just need high speed upgrades, but that's if they stay to the coast between Anaheim and SD. Now if they decide to go alllllll the way around through riverside, that's a different story.

[SFBruin]

On a side-note: the LA-Anaheim-SD high speed rail line should exist regardless. My prediction is that this would have higher ridership than the SF-LA portion.

[BrownTown]

It's just ridiculous how slow this project is going. They're building a few segments in the middle of nowhere (no offense), but basically no work on any of the meaningful segments. It's not like this has to be built one piece at a time, they could be building it from multiple direction all at once if they actually wanted to succeed. Waiting makes no sense financially speaking because there's not way financing costs are going to go anywhere but up from here.

[Busy Bee]

They have the funds to build a significant section in the Central Valley. They do not have the funds to endeavor on the same scale in multiple segments. With the current funding, that they had to use or lose, would result in land clearing and little mounds of dirt from SF to LA and that's about it.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by caligrad

Right. Politically difficult which shouldn't be the case. But most expensive. A lot of the infrastrure is already in the planning phases are built like The station in Anaheim which has been done for yeaaaars. The ROW between LA-Anaheim-SD shouldn't be insane, when you look at the tracks, most of it is already ROW next to passenger rail and freight rail, just need high speed upgrades, but that's if they stay to the coast between Anaheim and SD. Now if they decide to go alllllll the way around through riverside, that's a different story.

The thing is, it is physically impossible to build HSR on coast from Laguna Niguel to San Onofre and from Solana Beach to San Diego without massive tunneling, so there isn't much of an advantage to routing through South OC over LA-Anaheim-Corona-Temecula-Esocondido-San Diego. Routing all the way through Riverside/San Bernardino is just stupid, however.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

They have the funds to build a significant section in the Central Valley. They do not have the funds to endeavor on the same scale in multiple segments. With the current funding, that they had to use or lose, would result in land clearing and little mounds of dirt from SF to LA and that's about it.

Yeah, that's the problem though. They're running off half cocked. They're going to get a section done that helps virtually nobody and then run out of money and so the vast majority of voters are just going to see Billions of dollars wasted for a barely used stretch of track.