High speed rail in the US.

[Puppycow]

Come on down, Cassandra, and tell us more about the great, big, wonderful promise of high-speed-rail between Podunk and Peedunk!

ftfy

 

[DC]

1. Theft is theft, even when the victim is compensated. Eminent domain is for *public* works, not simply private initiatives that use public money.

2. Compensation is politically determined and is rarely at anything close to market calue.

wow is that the case on your country? outragous. do you have some evidence for this?

 

[Puppycow]

That sentence is simply wrong. California's ridership projections are less than at least one other single line's current ridership. And less than double that of several others. And the ridership of Japan's HSR system is four times the current projected ridership for California's final HSR system as proposed now.

If you are comparing with Japan, some relevant facts:

Japan is roughly the same size as the state of California.

Population of Japan: 127,451,000
Population of CA: 37,691,912

Roughly 35 million people live in the greater Tokyo metropolitan area, while about 18 million live in the greater Osaka area, and almost 9 million live in the greater Nagoya area between the two. The Shinkansen goes from the heart of Tokyo to the heart of each of the other major cities as well as Kyoto, and is accessible by commuter train from anywhere in each of the respective cities.

The greater Los Angeles area is home to 17 million but it is quite spread out compared to the Japanese cities, and the greater San Fransisco area is home to just over 7 million, also considerably spread out. Fresno is half a million. Bakersfield is 350 k, and Merced is less than 80 k. The rate of car ownership in the US is about 50% higher than in Japan, where many people travel by train.

What this means is that ridership on CA's HSR system is likely to be considerably less than that in Japan

 

[BenBurch]

Looks good for the midwest. Several in-cab signaled high speed segments are under teat here now. Not dedicated high speed rail, but you get your foot in the door much cheaper with it.

 

[Kestrel]

Looks good for the midwest. Several in-cab signaled high speed segments are under teat here now. Not dedicated high speed rail, but you get your foot in the door much cheaper with it.

The problem is that 110 mph top speeds are better than driving, but only for short trips are they competitive with air travel. A 170 mph train from Chicago to St. Louis would be as fast as flying when airport delays are taken into account.

As for upgrading signaling, it seems to me that an in cab signaling system could be created using GPS technology, RFID markers next to the tracks and radio data links. Such a system would be easier and cheaper to install and maintain than the current systems that send information as pulses or audio frequency signals through the tracks.

 

[BenBurch]

The problem is that 110 mph top speeds are better than driving, but only for short trips are they competitive with air travel. A 170 mph train from Chicago to St. Louis would be as fast as flying when airport delays are taken into account.

As for upgrading signaling, it seems to me that an in cab signaling system could be created using GPS technology, RFID markers next to the tracks and radio data links. Such a system would be easier and cheaper to install and maintain than the current systems that send information as pulses or audio frequency signals through the tracks.

Actually, that is what PTC is; GPS and advanced digital radio.

 

[WildCat]

I did, but it wouldn't matter if I didn't. California's ridership projections can be looked up. The ridership statistics of other HSR projects can also be looked up. It's clear that California's projection for ridership are not twice that of what other HSR projects have achieved. They are lower than what other HSR projects achieve now.

That's not ridership. That's an indicator of ridership.

Nope, you still don't understand the numbers he cited.

 

[WildCat]

You said "sucked out of the economy" and you contrasted it to adding it to the economy.

It's not actually added, it's taken from other parts of the economy, like from school and police and firefighter and infrastructure budgets.

But who cares if the kids don't get educated and roads and bridges crumble, rail buffs will have a new toy to ride from Madera to Bakersfield at a cost of just $70 billion!

 

[WildCat]

Are you referring to the summary of revenue and cost I posted? I don't care what you think of what they believe, I have no idea who they are. I spot checked their facts and used it because it was a convenient summary. If it's wrong, post something better.

So it was just a rehash of the thoroughly discredited California DoT numbers?

I can safely ignore it then.

 

[WildCat]

Except that the number of people being kept off the road is a infitesimal fraction of the total number of road users - you're paying a large amount of money for a benifit that may as well not exist.

And studies of British rail show that rail actually generates somewhat more pollution per passenger mile than cars simply because most trains run pretty darn empty and the difference in fuel used to run the train at 10% capacity compared to 100% is pretty small.

Over 760,000 people ride the CTA trains alone every single day, that's more than twice the number of cars that use the extremely congested 12-lane Dan Ryan Expressway every day. The roads are already carrying far beyond their design capacity, and there is no room to widen or expand them. The buses carry over 1 million passengers every day.

If these were eliminated Chicago would be virtually uninhabitable.

 

[WildCat]

Well, no, I would think comparisons to lines between similar population centers would be very valuable comparisons. I would also think that it isn't just air travel you need to compare but also cars since HSR is intermediate between the two. Air travel between LA and San Francisco alone is about 2.8 million passengers per year, though. Don't know about car travel or other destinations along the way.

This money will be spent on rail between Bakersfield and Madera. The LA-SF line, if everything goes perfectly, won't be done until some time in the 2030s. By that time I fully expect at least 95% of cars on the road to be electric, with batteries being swapped at service stations as quickly as filing a gas tank now.

California could be spending a small fraction of that money updating their electric grid preparing for this eventuality instead of building this white elephant.

 

[WildCat]

The problem is that 110 mph top speeds are better than driving, but only for short trips are they competitive with air travel. A 170 mph train from Chicago to St. Louis would be as fast as flying when airport delays are taken into account.

You're not even taking into consideration the time and expense it takes to travel to the train station. I'm sure parking won't be free there, probably at least $10/day like at the airport.

Joe Blow in his car might be halfway to St. Louis by the time his neighbor Joe Sixpack drives to the train station, parks, checks in, boards the train, and finally departs. And Joe Sixpack might then have to rent a car once he gets to St. Louis to visit his sister in the burbs.

 

[BenBurch]

I've driven Chicago-StL quite a large number of times, and I prefer the train. Since I used to go on business I could just have a rental car meet me at the station. And I took Metra downtown right to Union Station.

Mind you, I'd change that part.

The logical place for high speed rail lines to terminate is a major airport.

Major airports are already served by feeder bus lines, rail, light rail, expressways, and have major parking facilities and developed amenities.

I would classify high speed rail as an airline auxiliary like some bus lines are now, where baggage can simply be checked through from one mode to the other. And I would present the tickets to the world as a part of the airline ticketing system so that they will show up on travelocity and etc.

Major airports tend to be on the outskirts of metro areas, and that is a boon as well. Much of the time of a high speed rail trip can be the few dozen miles of running at 30 mph within a city's congested rail network. Even where tracks are not shared, it is rarely possible to achieve a high speed alignment into the heart of a major city. And it's expensive when you can.

My thought on evolution of the system is this; You build the separated alignment in stages.

At the end of each stage a shoo-fly is established between the existing routing and the built segment of the high speed network. The existing passenger equipment will be compatible with the loading gage and etc on the high speed rail network, and is actually capable of running much faster than the 110 mph slated for the high speed segments on existing track. The shoo-fly is also how construction of the line is achieved, with materials, machinery, and spoil all moved over it to the regular rail network.

Once the route between two major destinations has been established, the actual high speed rail equipment is introduced to the line.

 

[theprestige]

delete

 

[Mudcat]

I can't find a reference for this claim (the closest I can find is the smoking ban on airpliners), but my former Aviation Maintenance instructor (and here I must stress that he buys into conspiracy theories, so take it with a grain of salt) claims that Callifornia wants to ban aircraft travel in their state because AVGAS and jet fuels have lead in it and there are no alternatives.

I don't see how it would be practical but if they did it they'd need something to replace it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

duplicate

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

If you are comparing with Japan, some relevant facts:

Japan is roughly the same size as the state of California.

Population of Japan: 127,451,000
Population of CA: 37,691,912

Roughly 35 million people live in the greater Tokyo metropolitan area, while about 18 million live in the greater Osaka area, and almost 9 million live in the greater Nagoya area between the two. The Shinkansen goes from the heart of Tokyo to the heart of each of the other major cities as well as Kyoto, and is accessible by commuter train from anywhere in each of the respective cities.

The greater Los Angeles area is home to 17 million but it is quite spread out compared to the Japanese cities, and the greater San Fransisco area is home to just over 7 million, also considerably spread out. Fresno is half a million. Bakersfield is 350 k, and Merced is less than 80 k. The rate of car ownership in the US is about 50% higher than in Japan, where many people travel by train.

What this means is that ridership on CA's HSR system is likely to be considerably less than that in Japan

Yes, thank you. Those appear to be relevant, accurate, unmispresented, and unexaggerated numbers.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Nope, you still don't understand the numbers he cited.

For crying out loud. It doesn't even matter if I watched his video at all. What YOU are saying is flat our wrong.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

This money will be spent on rail between Bakersfield and Madera. The LA-SF line, if everything goes perfectly, won't be done until some time in the 2030s. By that time I fully expect at least 95% of cars on the road to be electric, with batteries being swapped at service stations as quickly as filing a gas tank now.

California could be spending a small fraction of that money updating their electric grid preparing for this eventuality instead of building this white elephant.

OK. How do electric cars address the same need as HSR? And if you expect this scenario of yours to happen by 2030 anyway, why bother to invest public money to speed it up>

 

[TjW]

I can't find a reference for this claim (the closest I can find is the smoking ban on airpliners), but my former Aviation Maintenance instructor (and here I must stress that he buys into conspiracy theories, so take it with a grain of salt) claims that Callifornia wants to ban aircraft travel in their state because AVGAS and jet fuels have lead in it and there are no alternatives.

I don't see how it would be practical but if they did it they'd need something to replace it.

Well, aviation gasoline has lead, though some light aircraft are flying with supplemental type certificates allowing them to use unleaded.
Turbine fuels, though, (used in jet and turboprop aircraft) are basically kerosene, or very much like diesel fuel.
Since turbine engines don't typically suffer from knocking, (detonation), there's not much reason I can see to add tetra ethyl lead to a turbine fuel.

It's hard to believe an Aviation Maintenance instructor wouldn't know that.
It's equally hard to believe that he wouldn't know that the federal government has jurisdiction over airspace. I suppose it might be possible for California to shut down every non-military airport in the state, but they wouldn't be able to prevent overflights.

I'm pretty sure a fair chunk of change comes to California one way or another as a result of international travel. It's hard to imagine the legislature making California that business-unfriendly. But Las Vegas would probably benefit if they did.

I know that a large chunk of change comes to California from agriculture. A Central Valley without cropdusters would either increase production costs or lower production. I don't believe either one would be good for the state. And I find it difficult to believe that the agribusiness operators don't know this, and wouldn't bend the ear of the politicians to whom they have contributed, should such a thing be proposed.

Are state legislators and local politicians familiar with the economic benefit of the various types of aviation? Probably not, but I don't see this as a conspiracy. "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."