Merits of CA HSR + other HSR spin-off thread

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Biggest obstacle is:

1) Extremely high unit costs
2) Only like 3 viable corridors (Coastal California, NEC, Texas?)
3) Lack of transit in destination cities. Even SF and LA have shitty transit.

There are other "viable corridors" if people were more accepting of the whole idea:

- LA to Las Vegas

- SF to Sacramento

- Portland--Seattle--Vancouver

- Gulf Coast (Houston--New Orleans--Mobile--Orlando)

- Charlotte--Greensboro--Raleigh-Durham

- St. Louis--Chcago--Milwaukee--Minneapolis

Off the top of my head.

As for SF's "shitty transit"--this is such a tiresome subject but SF Muni gets from anywhere to anywhere in the city without having to walk more than 2 blocks and without having to wait more than 15 minutes on most routes. That's not bad. What's getting worse about the system is the riders: Crime, crowding, interruptions for everything from "protests" to breakdowns. But it functions. On the other hand, for those lucky enough to afford it, Uber or Lyft can now get you almost anywhere in the city for under $10 (usually $6 to $8 in the "west of Twin Peaks quadrant of interest to most out-of-towners). I have lived car-free in SF for over a decade and don't want a car--it works well enough for that which isn't so common in the US. Using a combination of Muni to go some places, especially downtown, and Uber when I'm in a hurry, works just fine. And I think that's how most people use transit even in relatively transit dense NYC.

I don't think someone arriving in SF by rail would find themselves wishing they had a car at all (and if they do, there's, ZipCar). Parking is such a nightmare, no one with any sense visiting the city would want a car.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

2) Only like 3 viable corridors (Coastal California, NEC, Texas?)

Add to that:
Florida (ATL-JAX-Orlando-Tampa/Miami)
DC-NC-ATL
Keystone
Empire Corridor
NYC-Montreal
Cleveland Hub
Chicago Hub
LA-PHX-Tucson
LA-Vegas-SLC
Vegas-PHX
Cascadia

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

There are other "viable corridors" if people were more accepting of the whole idea:

- LA to Las Vegas

- SF to Sacramento

- Portland--Seattle--Vancouver

- Gulf Coast (Houston--New Orleans--Mobile--Orlando)

- Charlotte--Greensboro--Raleigh-Durham

- St. Louis--Chcago--Milwaukee--Minneapolis

Off the top of my head.

As for SF's "shitty transit"--this is such a tiresome subject but SF Muni gets from anywhere to anywhere in the city without having to walk more than 2 blocks and without having to wait more than 15 minutes on most routes. That's not bad. What's getting worse about the system is the riders: Crime, crowding, interruptions for everything from "protests" to breakdowns. But it functions. On the other hand, for those lucky enough to afford it, Uber or Lyft can now get you almost anywhere in the city for under $10 (usually $6 to $8 in the "west of Twin Peaks quadrant of interest to most out-of-towners). I have lived car-free in SF for over a decade and don't want a car--it works well enough for that which isn't so common in the US. Using a combination of Muni to go some places, especially downtown, and Uber when I'm in a hurry, works just fine. And I think that's how most people use transit even in relatively transit dense NYC.

I don't think someone arriving in SF by rail would find themselves wishing they had a car at all (and if they do, there's, ZipCar). Parking is such a nightmare, no one with any sense visiting the city would want a car.

Do you even live in SF? When I lived in the Outer Sunset, it took an hour to get downtown on the L- Taraval (about a 7 mile distance). I run at about a 7.5 mph pace. You don't have a good transit system when a brisk jog can get you to your destination quicker.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mt_climber13

Do you even live in SF? When I lived in the Outer Sunset, it took an hour to get downtown on the L- Taraval (about a 7 mile distance). I run at about a 7.5 mph pace. You don't have a good transit system when a brisk jog can get you to your destination quicker.

Living 7 miles from downtown in SF is hardly living in SF (puts you in the Pacific or maybe Daly City). I, on the other hand, live within walking distance of downtown--takes maybe 20 minutes on foot (takes maybe 20 minutes to Union Square). But I ride to Union Square, the FiDi or, fairly often, the Ferry Building by Muni quite regularly.

You are complaining about the speed. First of all, very few people coming to SF by HSR would want to go west of Twin Peaks. So your complaints would be almost irrelevant to them. Second, the fact remains you can get there by transit and if you are in a hurry you can take Uber. You would in no way be stranded arriving in SF by HSR which was the issue.

And oh by the way, have you driven from the far reaches of the Sunset or Richmond downtown lately? The traffic gets ever worse and while it's no doubt faster than Muni, it isn't that much faster. I go to the VA Hospital at 42 Ave and Clement often enough (more often than I'd like). Takes maybe 25 minutes driving rather aggressively.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Yeah i think the whole concept of induced demand confuses people more than it illuminates.

The way I always thought about is that there is X demand for trips, and expanding highways increases the capacity so more trips can be taken.

The reason to oppose highway expansion isn't induced demand, its that highways take up valuable urban space to move a relatively little amount of people. 1 lane of freeway can move about 2,000/hour vs 1 ROW of heavy raill which can move about 40,000/hr.

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-t...nduced-demand/

Ask LA and Toronto if their 12-lane highways work.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

https://www.wired.com/2014/06/wuwt-t...nduced-demand/

Ask LA and Toronto if their 12-lane highways work.

You clearly didn't understand my post.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

There are other "viable corridors" if people were more accepting of the whole idea:

- LA to Las Vegas

- SF to Sacramento

- Portland--Seattle--Vancouver

- Gulf Coast (Houston--New Orleans--Mobile--Orlando)

- Charlotte--Greensboro--Raleigh-Durham

- St. Louis--Chcago--Milwaukee--Minneapolis

Off the top of my head.

All of those places should be served by high quality subway like rail that makes local stops like Caltrain, not HSR. They're different modes.

As for SF's "shitty transit"--this is such a tiresome subject but SF Muni gets from anywhere to anywhere in the city without having to walk more than 2 blocks and without having to wait more than 15 minutes on most routes. That's not bad. What's getting worse about the system is the riders: Crime, crowding, interruptions for everything from "protests" to breakdowns. But it functions. On the other hand, for those lucky enough to afford it, Uber or Lyft can now get you almost anywhere in the city for under $10 (usually $6 to $8 in the "west of Twin Peaks quadrant of interest to most out-of-towners). I have lived car-free in SF for over a decade and don't want a car--it works well enough for that which isn't so common in the US. Using a combination of Muni to go some places, especially downtown, and Uber when I'm in a hurry, works just fine. And I think that's how most people use transit even in relatively transit dense NYC.

I don't think someone arriving in SF by rail would find themselves wishing they had a car at all (and if they do, there's, ZipCar). Parking is such a nightmare, no one with any sense visiting the city would want a car.

You can get anywhere in LA too with transit, it just isn't fast or frequent enough so most people drive.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

There are other "viable corridors" if people were more accepting of the whole idea:
1 - LA to Las Vegas

2 - SF to Sacramento

3 - Portland--Seattle--Vancouver

4 - Gulf Coast (Houston--New Orleans--Mobile--Orlando)

5 - Charlotte--Greensboro--Raleigh-Durham

6 - St. Louis--Chcago--Milwaukee--Minneapolis

1 - Private firm attempting to raise funds to make it happen, no luck so far.
2- - SF to Sacramento is part of CHSR, if CHSR raises the money.
3 - Cascades trains already at work, with maximum speeds of 90 mph. Neither state, Oregon or Washington, wants to spend the money to go faster.
4 - No one is looking at implementing faster speeds than 79 mph, and the Houston leg west of New Orleans only see 6 trains per week.
5 - NCDOT presently double tracking passing sidings for maximum speeds of
79 mph. FRA studying faster 110 mph speeds north of Raleigh, no construction money allocated yet.
6- IDOT presently upgrading track and signals for 110 mph maximum speeds. A study underway for implementing faster speeds, but Illinois is almost bankrupted because of retirement packages of various state employees. IDOT isn't likely to get more funding for faster speeds.

Unless you consider 110 mph maximum speeds HSR, which I doubt you do, only two of the six corridors on your list is actually looking at building 150-200 mph maximum speeds trains.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

You clearly didn't understand my post.

Well you have a valid point concerning highways taking space, but it's barely scratching the surface. Adding more cars on a wider road equals more congestion, so more economic costs, more CO2 emissions, more wasted time and delays, long-term health effects... There's a lot more in play.

I'm not saying we shouldn't build or extend any highways of course, but widening existant, congested highways isn't the way to go, and I believe we both agree on that.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by electricron

2- - SF to Sacramento is part of CHSR, if CHSR raises the money.

Not directly.

3 - Cascades trains already at work, with maximum speeds of 90 mph. Neither state, Oregon or Washington, wants to spend the money to go faster.

Not HSR and it's a viable route whether they want to spend the money on it now or not.

4 - No one is looking at implementing faster speeds than 79 mph, and the Houston leg west of New Orleans only see 6 trains per week.

Unlike you, I suspect, I have actually ridden this route many times (all the way to Central Florida when you could do that). It's not popular with AMTRAK because it loses money as it has existed (packed coach cars/empty sleepers where the money is made). But it's a very viable route, serving lots of Gulf Coast communities lacking air service who really want the trains back. You are certainly correct no one is looking at HSR--doesn't mean they shouldn't be. In someplace like China or Japan they likely would be if they hadn't already built it. But even in the US, even Republican Congressman (which this area mostly has) are supportive of restoring some kind of train service.

6- IDOT presently upgrading track and signals for 110 mph maximum speeds. A study underway for implementing faster speeds, but Illinois is almost bankrupted because of retirement packages of various state employees. IDOT isn't likely to get more funding for faster speeds.

Once again, the fact it isn't likely to happen anytime soon doesn't mean it isn't a viable route. Frankly, I doubt the US will see ANY operational HSR in my remaining liftime, and maybe yours.

Unless you consider 110 mph maximum speeds HSR, which I doubt you do, only two of the six corridors on your list is actually looking at building 150-200 mph maximum speeds trains.

Repeat paragraph above.

I go back to what I said a while ago. HSR will come to the US only when air travel become insufferable. Trains of any kind got a bad rep in the dying days of private passenger rail and, unfortunately, AMTRAK hasn't improved it much mostly due to inadequate funding and the stupid rules under which they operate that hand their dispatching, and thus their ability to achieve on-time performance, to the track-owning freight railroads. So now we are in the situation that that rep has to be overcome to achieve political support for HSR which almost everyone views as competitive with air travel. Air travel certainly IS getting nastier. The question is will the airlines see how they are killing their own goose before it's too late or will the public become desparate enough to try anything, even trains (a little sarcasm there--I love trains).

[Busy Bee]

Frankly, I doubt the US will see ANY operational HSR in my remaining liftime,...

I guess it depends on how old you are

...and maybe yours.

With all due respect, I'm 35 and I fully expect to see California HSR, LA-LV, a greatly improved NEC and probably Texas T-Bone well within my lifetime. I think you may be underestimating the generational paradigm shifts of public opinion that will be affecting transportation in this country in the coming years.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

With all due respect, I'm 35 and I fully expect to see California HSR, LA-LV, a greatly improved NEC and probably Texas T-Bone well within my lifetime. I think you may be underestimating the generational paradigm shifts of public opinion that will be affecting transportation in this country in the coming years.

We disagree.

Go to a religious institution somewhere in 50 years or so and ask an angel to tell me how it turned out.

[Busy Bee]

Impossible. Angels aren't real.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Impossible. Angels aren't real.

Call it a metaphor. Gosh I hope you are joking (not because I care if you believe in angels but because I care whether you can just grin at something like this or really feel compelled to argue religion).

[aquablue]

Why is the speed limited to 220 mph? The new HS2 in England requires a top speed of 250 mph according to the articles I've seen. And England is much denser land area with major cities that are closer to each other than California! California should be the one with the faster train, it must makes sense.

Also, who thinks that hyperloop could make this thing obsolete? The only issue is see is that there is no view/windows with hyperloop concepts which would be pretty awful. I suppose they could have video walls.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by aquablue

Why is the speed limited to 220 mph? The new HS2 in England requires a top speed of 250 mph according to the articles I've seen. And England is much denser land area with major cities that are closer to each other than California! California should be the one with the faster train, it must makes sense.

Also, who thinks that hyperloop could make this thing obsolete? The only issue is see is that there is no view/windows with hyperloop concepts which would be pretty awful. I suppose they could have video walls.

Do you know how much time is saved going 250 mph instead of 220 mph over a distance of 250 miles?
Here's the math =
250 miles / 250 mph = 1 hour
250 miles / 220 mph = 1.136363636363636 hours, or 8.181818 minutes, or 8 minutes and 10.90 seconds

Worse yet, the CHSR train isn't going to run at the full speed of 220 mph over 20% of the route at least. So the amount of time saved going faster is even less than 8 minutes calculated earlier.

I don't think being 8 minutes shorter is worth the extra expense.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by electricron

Do you know how much time is saved going 250 mph instead of 220 mph over a distance of 250 miles?
Here's the math =
250 miles / 250 mph = 1 hour
250 miles / 220 mph = 1.136363636363636 hours, or 8.181818 minutes, or 8 minutes and 10.90 seconds

Worse yet, the CHSR train isn't going to run at the full speed of 220 mph over 20% of the route at least. So the amount of time saved going faster is even less than 8 minutes calculated earlier.

I don't think being 8 minutes shorter is worth the extra expense.

You may think its not worth it, but England sees a needs for it obviously.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by aquablue

You may think its not worth it, but England sees a needs for it obviously.

Really? HSR2 line is only 119 miles in length for phase 1, and just 216 miles in length for phase 2. It'll only be saving a few minutes of travel time...

Just because a train can go faster doesn't mean it will in actual operations.
Windage losses and higher power costs usually limit HSR trains to a slightly lower speed. That's the reason hyper loops have become fashionable today in these discussions, there much lower windage losses in a vacuum.

[Busy Bee]

^Both HS2 and CHSR are being engineered to 250mph design speed specifications. I'd would be amazed if HS2 trains will actually travel much if at all above 220.

Gosh I hope you are joking

It's times like these that I really wish there was a way for a forum to hear tone of voice...

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Well you have a valid point concerning highways taking space, but it's barely scratching the surface. Adding more cars on a wider road equals more congestion, so more economic costs, more CO2 emissions, more wasted time and delays, long-term health effects... There's a lot more in play.

I'm not saying we shouldn't build or extend any highways of course, but widening existant, congested highways isn't the way to go, and I believe we both agree on that.

The whole, "induced demand" this is mostly just a convenient myth people use to oppose highways. Sure, if you widen the highway more people will use it, but those trips aren't people driving in circles, they are people going to work, going to the store, etc. They are contributing to the Economy and improving infrastructure helps grow the Economy. Yes, eventually it catches up again but at a higher overall level. The few examples NIMBYs like to use of why widening freeways doesn't work usually involve widening one section of road in a large road network. Obviously one small improvement to one part of the network isn't going to solve much as cars just flow from other routes to the newly widened one, the whole network has to be expanded.