California HSR Cost
Merritt D. Mullen
system to be built in Taiwan gives the cost as US$14 billion for a 215-mile
line. That works out to US$65 million/mile.
The California HSR line is much less costly on a per mile basis. At $25
billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
The Taiwan system is planned to be operational by 2005, by the way. There
is controversy over whether it will be a Japanese "Bullet Train"
(Shinkansan) system or a European ICE/TGV system.
Merritt
Richard Mlynarik
Newsgroups: la.transportation,ba.transportation,misc.transport.rail.americas
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:08:55 -0800
Just as a point of comparison, a recent news article about the new
HSR system to be built in Taiwan gives the cost as US$14 billion
for a 215-mile line. That works out to US$65 million/mile.
rest in tunnels. It is involves far, _far_ more complex civil
engineering than the system proposed for California.
If there were continuous mountain ranges and dense population centres
in the California Central Valley you might be have something
comparable.
The California HSR line is much less costly on a per mile basis. At $25
billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
That's still about twice the cost of comparable lines elsewhere in the
world.
The Taiwan system is planned to be operational by 2005, by the way.
There is controversy over whether it will be a Japanese "Bullet
Train" (Shinkansan) system or a European ICE/TGV system.
It's a huge mess.
The financing of the line has been falling apart for several years,
with the South Korean government repeatedly failing to meet
milestones.
Eurotrain (Seimens/Alstom) says it will be suing.
(http://195.115.59.156/AffichageNEWS.ASP?CodeNews=338&Langue=en)
There's an uninformative project site at http://www.hsr.gov.tw/
There have been lots of articles in the rail and financial press on
"the largest transport project in the world" over the last few years.
BTW the last time I saw a budget for this project it was
17 billion in 1997 US Dollars, broken down as
7.4 civil engineering
2.8 land acquisition
0.7 trackwork
3.3 rolling stock & E/M
0.6 stations
1.0 contingency & administration
0.4 design & supervision
0.4 yards & maintenance
0.4 environmental protection.
Robert Coté
> Just as a point of comparison, a recent news article about the new HSR
> system to be built in Taiwan gives the cost as US$14 billion for a 215-mile
> line. That works out to US$65 million/mile.
>
> The California HSR line is much less costly on a per mile basis. At $25
> billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
The $25 billion does not include the entire 676 miles.
Their line is faster and their currency depressed.
> The Taiwan system is planned to be operational by 2005, by the way. There
> is controversy over whether it will be a Japanese "Bullet Train"
> (Shinkansan) system or a European ICE/TGV system.
They haven't settled on the technology but they have settled on price?
Chris Jacks
> in the California Central Valley you might be have something
> comparable.
>
But...in California both the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas are surrounded by
mountain ranges, and have very, very dense population. I think a new railroad in
these cities would struggle with the same problems they had in Taiwan. For
example, if you are not going to use existing right-of-way to get into Los Angeles
from the north and get to downtown L.A., what would you do? Tunnel through the
mountains north of the city and build viaducts through the city? What are the
other options? Where is the open land in L.A. (or the Bay area) to build new
right-of-way?
C.J.
Richard Mlynarik
Date: 14 Jan 2000 19:45:37 EST
> If there were continuous mountain ranges and dense population centres
> in the California Central Valley you might be have something
> comparable.
>
But...in California both the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas
are surrounded by mountain ranges, and have very, very dense
population. I think a new railroad in these cities would struggle
The comparison was _system-wide_ per-mile costs.
Read before replying.
Jennifer Saeturn
through? I woudl think most of the mileage in CA would be rural track over
mostly level ground through the Central Valley.
"Merritt D. Mullen" wrote:
> Just as a point of comparison, a recent news article about the new HSR
> system to be built in Taiwan gives the cost as US$14 billion for a 215-mile
> line. That works out to US$65 million/mile.
>
> The California HSR line is much less costly on a per mile basis. At $25
> billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
>
> The Taiwan system is planned to be operational by 2005, by the way. There
> is controversy over whether it will be a Japanese "Bullet Train"
> (Shinkansan) system or a European ICE/TGV system.
>
> Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/14/2000 2:06 PM:
> In article <B4A4B446.703F%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> Just as a point of comparison, a recent news article about the new HSR
>> system to be built in Taiwan gives the cost as US$14 billion for a 215-mile
>> line. That works out to US$65 million/mile.
>>
>> The California HSR line is much less costly on a per mile basis. At $25
>> billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
> The $25 billion does not include the entire 676 miles.
The original estimate by the HSRC (the predecessor agency to the HSRA) was
$20.7 billion for the full 676 miles (for the rail, not the maglev, system).
The HSRA inflated those numbers by about 20% to come up with the $25 billion
as follows (the first column is from the HSRC report, the second column is
mine, as I couldn't readily find the HSRA breakdown):
Estimated costs ($Billion) (2nd column is inflated x 1.2)
LA-SF 11.7 14.0
LA-SD 6.0 7.2
Stk-Sac 1.7 2.0
Vehicles 1.0 1.2
Supp.Fac. 0.3 0.4
TOTAL 20.7 24.8
I know there was talk about the line south of LA (to San Diego) being less
than the full 220 mph, but there still would be a "high-speed" (125 mph)
line to San Diego. And of course on the north the line still comes from
both Sacramento and San Francisco. If you have data showing what the $25
billion includes, and what part of the 676 miles has been deleted, I would
love to have it (or maybe I need to go back and look at the HSRA web page
again).
> Their line is faster and their currency depressed.
Faster than 220 mph? Anyway, US$14 billion is US$14 billion regardless of
whether their currency is depressed. Of course, I would guess their labor
rates are less than ours, but then their system should be LESS, not MORE
expensive than ours.
>> The Taiwan system is planned to be operational by 2005, by the way. There
>> is controversy over whether it will be a Japanese "Bullet Train"
>> (Shinkansan) system or a European ICE/TGV system.
>
> They haven't settled on the technology but they have settled on price?
Well, California also has a price (estimated cost, actually), and Taiwan is
much further along in their design solution than we are. The controversy is
because Taiwan tentatively selected the system to be built by the ICE/TGV
consortium and gave them "priority" status (whatever that means). They
recently changed their mind and now the "priority" system is the system
proposed by the Japanese consortium. I believe the ICE/TGV interests in
Taiwan are suing.
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
wrote on 1/14/2000 2:08 PM:
> From: "Merritt D. Mullen" <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>
> Newsgroups: la.transportation,ba.transportation,misc.transport.rail.americas
> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2000 11:08:55 -0800
>
> Just as a point of comparison, a recent news article about the new
> HSR system to be built in Taiwan gives the cost as US$14 billion
> for a 215-mile line. That works out to US$65 million/mile.
>
> The proposed Taipei-Kaohsiung line is 75% on viaducts and most of the
> rest in tunnels. It is involves far, _far_ more complex civil
> engineering than the system proposed for California.
>
> If there were continuous mountain ranges and dense population centres
> in the California Central Valley you might be have something
> comparable.
Thanks for the insight. I no longer have the breakdown handy, but I did see
a comparison of the cost of building line through the Central Valley as
compared to the Bakersfield-LA segment. If I remember correctly, the
Central Valley line was about $12 million/mile, and it was the much more
expensive segment through the mountains that accounted for the overall high
cost.
>
> The California HSR line is much less costly on a per mile basis. At $25
> billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
>
> That's still about twice the cost of comparable lines elsewhere in the
> world.
The question is are the those other lines really comparable in terms of
construction difficulty? And have the costs of those other lines been
inflated to now-year dollars and adjusted for US labor rates?
> The Taiwan system is planned to be operational by 2005, by the way.
> There is controversy over whether it will be a Japanese "Bullet
> Train" (Shinkansan) system or a European ICE/TGV system.
>
> It's a huge mess.
>
> The financing of the line has been falling apart for several years,
> with the South Korean government repeatedly failing to meet
> milestones.
Where does South Korea fit in? I thought the Japanese consortium was all
Japanese companies. I know that in addition to the Taiwan system, South
Korea also has a plan to build a HSR line. Mainland China (PRC) also. The
US seems to be lagging in development of this technology.
> Eurotrain (Seimens/Alstom) says it will be suing.
> (http://195.115.59.156/AffichageNEWS.ASP?CodeNews=338&Langue=en)
>
> There's an uninformative project site at http://www.hsr.gov.tw/
> There have been lots of articles in the rail and financial press on
> "the largest transport project in the world" over the last few years.
>
> BTW the last time I saw a budget for this project it was
> 17 billion in 1997 US Dollars, broken down as
> 7.4 civil engineering
> 2.8 land acquisition
> 0.7 trackwork
> 3.3 rolling stock & E/M
> 0.6 stations
> 1.0 contingency & administration
> 0.4 design & supervision
> 0.4 yards & maintenance
> 0.4 environmental protection.
Interesting data. Thanks again.
Merritt
Richard Mlynarik
> > new HSR system to be built in Taiwan gives the cost as US$14
> > billion for a 215-mile line. That works out to US$65 million/mile.
> >
> > At $25 billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
>
Typical Coté BS. In fact the quoted price is for the whole
703 route-mile system.
> Their line is faster and their currency depressed.
Your unsubstantiable harping on "faster" notwithstanding,
the Asian depression does not make up for the extremely challenging
geography. (By the way, "faster" means "more expensive", generally
"much more expensive". But since the design speeds are comparable,
you're being completely irrelevant anyway.)
The proposed Californian system is more expensive per route-mile
than any other line I'm aware of anywhere else in the world.
At least $4 billion is due to idiot FRA regulation precluding
track sharing.
> > The Taiwan system is planned to be operational by 2005, by
> > the way. There is controversy over whether it will be a
> > Japanese "Bullet Train" (Shinkansan) system or a European
> > ICE/TGV system.
>
> They haven't settled on the technology but they have settled on price?
Trains and signalling (about all that differ, and even those not
much) are a minor and minor and accurately estimable part of such rail
projects.
It is the different financing options being proposed by the consortia
which make the difference.
Sorry to to burst your bubble of sophistry.
Robert Coté
> in article techscan-140...@calnet12-230.gtecablemodem.com, Robert
> Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/14/2000 2:06 PM:
>
> > In article <B4A4B446.703F%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> > <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> >> Just as a point of comparison, a recent news article about the new HSR
> >> system to be built in Taiwan gives the cost as US$14 billion for a 215-mile
> >> line. That works out to US$65 million/mile.
> >>
> >> The California HSR line is much less costly on a per mile basis. At $25
> >> billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
>
> > The $25 billion does not include the entire 676 miles.
>
> The original estimate by the HSRC (the predecessor agency to the HSRA) was
> $20.7 billion for the full 676 miles (for the rail, not the maglev, system).
> The HSRA inflated those numbers by about 20% to come up with the $25 b...
Oh, we were talking past each other. Yes, CA-HSR says they need $24.8b
for THEIR part of the project but that is not the only public cost
component. From their Financal Plan:
--------------------
6.4.2. Local/Regional Agency Participation Strategy
· Local agency participation and cooperation is critical to success of system (financial
participations, ROW donations, station-oriented development)
· Strategies for successful partnership with agencies (articulate land development principles,
participate in policy forums, treat each segment separately, etc.)
6.4.3. Shared Use Strategy for ROW Acquisition
· Shared use of existing rail corridors is a key component of ROW acquisition for the
proposed system
· List of specific owners and corridors involved
--------------------
"financial participations," ROW donations," "Shared use" code words
for local public money and railroad private money.
> I know there was talk about the line south of LA (to San Diego) being less
> than the full 220 mph, but there still would be a "high-speed" (125 mph)
> line to San Diego. And of course on the north the line still comes from
> both Sacramento and San Francisco. If you have data showing what the $25
> billion includes, and what part of the 676 miles has been deleted, I would
> love to have it (or maybe I need to go back and look at the HSRA web page
> again).
Look carefully. The Speed is now 200+mph. All reference to 220mph
has been carefully expunged. Your other comments are correct. The
SD portion is lower speed. As I said above the $24.8b does not cover
the entire cost of the ROW purchase, instead it assumes "financial
participations," ROW donations," and "Shared use." That last one
is particularlly interesting since the report also says:
-----------------
"· The proposed system would run on new or dedicated right-of-way, with complete
separation from automobile and pedestrian cross traffic. In urban areas, the system would use
existing rail rights-of-way that would be rebuilt to standards dictated by VHS technology.
While the proposed system might share right-of-way with other rail services, such as
commuter services, in some urban corridors, intercity HSR trains would be kept completely
separate from incompatible equipment such as that currently used by freight railroads."
----------------
A contradiction IMO.
> >> The Taiwan system is planned to be operational by 2005, by the way. There
> >> is controversy over whether it will be a Japanese "Bullet Train"
> >> (Shinkansan) system or a European ICE/TGV system.
> >
> > They haven't settled on the technology but they have settled on price?
>
> Well, California also has a price (estimated cost, actually),
Yes.
> and Taiwan is
> much further along in their design solution than we are. The controversy is
> because Taiwan tentatively selected the system to be built by the ICE/TGV
> consortium and gave them "priority" status (whatever that means). They
> recently changed their mind and now the "priority" system is the system
> proposed by the Japanese consortium. I believe the ICE/TGV interests in
> Taiwan are suing.
Legal challenges? It's a good thing that won't ever happen here.
Robert Coté
> I no longer have the breakdown handy, but I did see
> a comparison of the cost of building line through the Central Valley as
> compared to the Bakersfield-LA segment. If I remember correctly, the
> Central Valley line was about $12 million/mile, and it was the much more
> expensive segment through the mountains that accounted for the overall high
> cost.
In Virginia electrification of existing rail for 160mph service is
costing $10 million/mile. I doubt that 200+mph electrification
is even possible for $12 million/mile. IMO.
P. Wezeman
Taiman:
----------------snip-------------
> 17 billion in 1997 US Dollars, broken down as
> 7.4 civil engineering
> 2.8 land acquisition
> 0.7 trackwork
> 3.3 rolling stock & E/M
> 0.6 stations
> 1.0 contingency & administration
> 0.4 design & supervision
> 0.4 yards & maintenance
> 0.4 environmental protection.
Does the trackwork figure include the overhead wire, power
distribution, and associated costs or is this in some other item?
What is "E/M" in "rolling stock & E/M"?
Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist
"Carpe Cyprinidae"
David Bromage
> The California HSR line is much less costly on a per mile basis. At $25
> billion for 676 miles, it will cost $37 million/mile.
>
> world.
$19 million/mile would be the equivalent cost in France. The differances
in California and Taiwan are:
- more mountainous terrain
- increased construction in urban areas
- necessity to withstand earthquakes
In terms of terrain, Germany might be a more suitable comparison. The
first ICE line cost in the vicinity of $35 million/mile.
Cheers
David
Robert Coté
> "Robert Coté" wrote:
> >
> > The $25 billion does not include the entire 676 miles.
>
> Typical Coté BS. In fact the quoted price is for the whole
> 703 route-mile system.
Yes, CA-HSR says they need $24.8b
for THEIR part of the project but that is not the only public cost
component. From their Financal Plan:
--------------------
6.4.2. Local/Regional Agency Participation Strategy
· Local agency participation and cooperation is critical to success of system (financial
participations, ROW donations, station-oriented development)
· Strategies for successful partnership with agencies (articulate land development principles,
participate in policy forums, treat each segment separately, etc.)
6.4.3. Shared Use Strategy for ROW Acquisition
· Shared use of existing rail corridors is a key component of ROW acquisition for the
proposed system
· List of specific owners and corridors involved
--------------------
"financial participations," ROW donations," "Shared use" code words
for local public money and railroad private money.
> > Their line is faster and their currency depressed.
>
> Your unsubstantiable harping on "faster" notwithstanding,
Look carefully. The Speed is now 200+mph. All reference to 220mph
has been carefully expunged. The SD portion is also lower speed.
> the Asian depression does not make up for the extremely challenging
> geography. (By the way, "faster" means "more expensive", generally
> "much more expensive". But since the design speeds are comparable,
> you're being completely irrelevant anyway.)
I'll remember "faster" means "more expensive." I expect we'll
return to it based on your past posts.
> The proposed Californian system is more expensive per route-mile
> than any other line I'm aware of anywhere else in the world.
> At least $4 billion is due to idiot FRA regulation precluding
> track sharing.
As I said above the $24.8b does not cover
the entire cost of the ROW purchase, instead it assumes... "Shared use."
That last one
is particularlly interesting since the report also says:
-----------------
"· The proposed system would run on new or dedicated right-of-way, with complete
separation from automobile and pedestrian cross traffic. In urban areas, the system would use
existing rail rights-of-way that would be rebuilt to standards dictated by VHS technology.
While the proposed system might share right-of-way with other rail services, such as
commuter services, in some urban corridors, intercity HSR trains would be kept completely
separate from incompatible equipment such as that currently used by freight railroads."
----------------
A contradiction IMO. The financing assumes shared use the
row costs assume exclusive use. Hmmm.
> > They haven't settled on the technology but they have settled on price?
>
> Trains and signalling (about all that differ, and even those not
> much) are a minor and minor and accurately estimable part of such rail
> projects.
I thought there were signifigant design variations in catenary and
aerodymanics. We already know how much tunneling costs can differ
based on minor aerodynamic changes and max topp speed.
> Sorry to to burst your bubble of sophistry.
You are not dealing with facts.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/14/2000 9:45 PM:
> In Virginia electrification of existing rail for 160mph service is
> costing $10 million/mile. I doubt that 200+mph electrification
> is even possible for $12 million/mile. IMO.
I believe you are talking about the ex-RF&P line between DC and Richmond.
Although it will follow an existing ROW, there will be additional tracks
requiring a wider ROW. I don't know the details, but that that ROW goes
through some heavily populated areas, particularly at the north end (I used
to live in that area, when I worked in DC) and that probably accounts for a
higher cost than would be expected in the mostly rural areas between Merced
and Bakersfield. Also, I'm not sure that building a ROW for 200+ mph
service in the open, flat country (no tunnels, mild grades, few curves) of
California's Central Valley is that much more expensive than building for
160 mph service. Anyway, that $12 million per mile is just my recollection,
which may be faulty.
Merritt
Philip Nasadowski
tech...@gte.net (Robert Coté) wrote:
> In Virginia electrification of existing rail for 160mph service is
> costing $10 million/mile. I doubt that 200+mph electrification
> is even possible for $12 million/mile. IMO.
That's not the cost of electrification, that's electrification and track
upgrades. Electrification is probbly only 2 or so million of that. I
believe the number quoted around here a while ago for the NH->Bos run was
2.5 million a mile, and that line has a lot of drawbridges, nasty curves,
etc.
A lot of the money in upgrading is for the *track* upgrades, as the
current track in virginia is not likely to be good for anything close to
160. Totally sepperate from electrification, which you can have upgrades
or not.
John Bianco
Jennifer Saeturn wrote in message <387FD815...@yahoo.com>...
>Is the difference due to Taiwan's density or the type of land it's going
>through? I woudl think most of the mileage in CA would be rural track over
>mostly level ground through the Central Valley.
>
>"
HSR will ned to get though the Tejon Pass in Southren California and the
Pacheco Pass in Northren California, neither will be easy, and both of these
projects alone will cost more than any of the light rail projects that are
currently planned combined.
Chris Jacks
get into Los Angeles from the north? Sharing an exisitng line through Cajon
Pass? A new line through the mountains? And how would it get to downtown L.A.?
C.J.
Robert Coté
Good questions. Wait til you see the answers. Hopefully
you'll get treated better than most for your impertinence.
Steven J. Dorst
wrote:
Current HSRA recommendation is to use new right of way on an I-5
alignment roughly paralleling the Grapvine, joining the existing UP(ex
SP)/Metrolink right-of-way at/near Santa Clarita, and using existing
ROW to LAUPT.
I've read their (HSRA's) draft letter to the legislature and things
are not yet set in stone. They acknowledge that an alignment through
Tehachapi, Palmdale and Lancaster would be cheaper, but caution that
it would add enough to the travel time that it would reduce ridership
by more than the cost differential would justify. They recommend
continuing to study both routes through the EIS/EIR phase and delay
the final decision.
Steven J Dorst <sjd...@yahoo.nospam.com> aka N6VMK
Calling from somewhere North of Alcatraz
Remove nospam and one of the dots to reply!!
Robert Coté
> In article <38812FC5...@concentric.net>, Chris Jacks <ctj...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> > Putting all the haggling about dollars aside, how does this
> > proposed HSR plan to get into Los Angeles from the north?
> > Sharing an exisitng line through Cajon
> > Pass? A new line through the mountains? And how would it
> > get to downtown L.A.?
> Current HSRA recommendation is to use new right of way on an I-5
> alignment roughly paralleling the Grapvine,
The problem is that the track is limited to 3.5 percent grade and
the Grapevine is much steeper. Travel times prohibit slow speed
stacks to keep the grade and make high speed tunnels very expensive.
> joining the existing UP(ex
> SP)/Metrolink right-of-way at/near Santa Clarita, and using existing
> ROW to LAUPT.
Yes but they also say:
-----------------
"· The proposed system would run on new or dedicated
right-of-way, with complete separation from automobile
and pedestrian cross traffic. In urban areas, the system
would use existing rail rights-of-way that would be
rebuilt to standards dictated by VHS technology.
While the proposed system might share right-of-way with
other rail services, such as commuter services, in some
urban corridors, intercity HSR trains would be kept
completely separate from incompatible equipment such as
that currently used by freight railroads."
----------------
Existing ROWs and VHS alignments are mutually exclusive.
The frequency is 17 minutes and remember the catenary. That
means no grade crossings with other lines and freight lines have
to go OVER any HSR trackage, not just new HSR double tracking
but new freight tracking
> I've read their (HSRA's) draft letter to the legislature and things
> are not yet set in stone.
Yes. It's also very strange. They need to start making some
tough decisions. They need to go to Palmdale in order to tap
all the airport money but they know they can't keep the magic
4:55 LA-SF schedule if they do.
> They acknowledge that an alignment through
> Tehachapi, Palmdale and Lancaster would be cheaper, but caution that
> it would add enough to the travel time that it would reduce ridership
> by more than the cost differential would justify. They recommend
> continuing to study both routes through the EIS/EIR phase and delay
> the final decision.
Good analysis and accurate reporting. Do you think it is fair
to say that the answer to Chris' question is that the HSRA doesn't
know how to get the train into LA? It's got a couple of ideas and
it wants $25 million this year to see if it's possible.
Jennifer Saeturn
passes, there are also developed urban corridors that will be expensive. But
the point is that these reletively expensive items don't count much toward the
overall mileage, making the "$Million/mile" figure a simple average of fairly
cheap and quite expensive segments. The ratio doesn't seem very useful in
comparing dissimilar projects, either, especially to determine how fiscally
responsible the various projects are.
John Bianco
Jennifer Saeturn wrote in message <38822F6F...@yahoo.com>...
>There are a lot of expensive areas in HSR's path. In addition to mountain
>passes, there are also developed urban corridors that will be expensive.
But
>the point is that these reletively expensive items don't count much toward
the
>overall mileage, making the "$Million/mile" figure a simple average of
fairly
>cheap and quite expensive segments. The ratio doesn't seem very useful in
>comparing dissimilar projects, either, especially to determine how fiscally
>responsible the various projects are.
>
Actually it is a valid comparision, because HSR by most estimates will
carry 25,000 passengers a day toltal, while extensions to light rail and
BART carry 2 to 4 times that number, for 1/10 to 1/50th of the cost. Simpily
put, improvments in local rail and freeway improvments benifit far more
people that HSR ever could. In any event, HSR is DOA, it is far too
expensive, and trust me, once HSR hits the ballot, local transit agencies
will be up in arms about it.
Jennifer Saeturn
passes, there are also developed urban corridors that will be expensive. But
the point is that these reletively expensive items don't count much toward the
overall mileage, making the "$Million/mile" figure a simple average of fairly
cheap and quite expensive segments. The ratio doesn't seem very useful in
comparing dissimilar projects, either, especially to determine how fiscally
responsible the various projects are.
John Bianco wrote:
Merritt D. Mullen
ctj...@concentric.net wrote on 1/15/2000 6:41 PM:
> Putting all the haggling about dollars aside, how does this proposed HSR plan
> to get into Los Angeles from the north? Sharing an exisitng line through
> Cajon Pass? A new line through the mountains? And how would it get to
> downtown L.A.?
The answer is that it hasn't been decided yet. Building a HSR line from
Bakersfield to Los Angeles is a real problem (from a engineering and cost
standpoint) because of the intervening mountains.
One choice is to follow (roughly) the current rail line from Bakersfield,
which crosses the Sierra Nevada mountains at Tehachapi to Mojave and south
from there through Rosamond, Lancaster, and Palmdale (the Antelope Valley),
then over the mountains to Santa Clarita and into the San Fernando Valley
and into Los Angeles Union Station. The advantages of this route are (1) it
can probably use some of the existing right of way (widened and upgraded for
HSR use), (2) it serves the Antelope Valley area, a rapidly growing
residential area and possible home of a new international airport serving
southern California, and (3) political support of the residents of the
Antelope Valley is important. The disadvantage of this route is that it is
not a very direct route between Bakersfield and Los Angeles.
The other choice is to build a completely new line between Bakersfield and
Santa Clarita (between Santa Clarita and Los Angeles Union Station the line
would probably follow the existing Metrolink along the east side of the San
Fernando Valley in any case). The main advantage of this option is
directness resulting is a faster time between Bakersfield and LA. The
disadvantages are (1) rougher terrain to cross, and (2) missing the
populated Antelope Valley.
A third option is kind of a combination of the above. That is, it would be
a new route south from Bakersfield to the area of Gorman, then east to the
Antelope Valley, from whence it would roughly follow existing rail lines
into LA.
Cajon Pass is not really an option for the proposed California HSR line as
it is too far east of the Bakersfield-Los Angeles axis. Cajon Pass mainly
serves rail lines from the LA area to Nevada and Arizona. Cajon Pass would
make sense for a HSR line from Bakersfield to San Diego (bypassing LA), or
from Las Vegas to LA or San Diego.
There are other open questions regarding routing, particularly the routing
from LA Union Station to LAX, and from LA to San Diego.
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
RFt...@mindspring.com wrote on 1/16/2000 1:15 PM:
> Actually it is a valid comparision, because HSR by most estimates will
> carry 25,000 passengers a day toltal, while extensions to light rail and
> BART carry 2 to 4 times that number, for 1/10 to 1/50th of the cost. Simpily
> put, improvments in local rail and freeway improvments benifit far more
> people that HSR ever could. In any event, HSR is DOA, it is far too
> expensive, and trust me, once HSR hits the ballot, local transit agencies
> will be up in arms about it.
I don't understand the comparison between urban transit systems and HSR.
You could make similar arguments comparing the cost of the Panama Canal to
building a subway in New York City. Unless the money is coming out of the
same pot, why should BART or the LA Red Line be opposed to HSR?
Now if you want to argue that HSR is too expensive and will spend money
better spent on schools, health care, police, local transit, and all other
public expenditures you might have a case. But pitting local urban transit
against intercity transportation is forcing a fight that doesn't have to
happen.
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/16/2000 6:59 PM:
> The existing ROW alignments are not straight enough to accomodate
> the HSR projected speeds between LA and the Central Valley. New
> alignments straight enough for 100+mph service on double tracked
> fully electrified catenary service will be required.
Yes and no. The tough segments are from east of Bakersfield to Mojave
(about 60 miles) and from Palmdale to Sylmar (about 40 miles). Much new
alignment will be needed there. But from Mojave to Palmdale (40 miles) and
from Sylmar to Burbank (about 10 miles), the line is straight and would only
need to be widened to accommodate the HSR ROW. Sure, there would be some
expensive property acquisitions in the San Fernando Valley when the ROW is
widened, but that is nothing new in Southern California (CalTrans has plenty
of experience acquiring ROW for new freeways, or for widening old freeways).
Between Burbank and LA Union Station, you are really talking about the
terminal area that must accommodate a mixture of freight, commuter,
intercity, and HSR. A lot of work is needed to increase capacity there,
even if the HSR line is not built. If you think that is tough, how about
the HSR line from LA Union Station to LAX?
There is
> clearly not enough surface area Burbank-LA so you are proposing
> an elevated electrified track with a train going by every 17 min.
> This is kinda expensive and shall we say politically difficult?
Whatever the solution, it will be expensive and politically difficult, and
probably require acquisition of adjacent property to widen the "surface
area." But that doesn't mean it won't happen.
>
>> Second (and yes, I know I may be opening another can of worms): The
>> need to separate from existing services is solely due to the FRA's
>> insistence on crash survivability to the almost total exclusion of
>> crash avoidance.
>
> This is not true. The reason for seperation are because the existing
> lines are not fast enough and there is not enough capacity to handle
> a much faster than normal trainset. I think the word they use is
> "path." A normal freight taking up 1 paths' worth of capacity. This
> HSR would be worth many paths probably to the exclusion of all else.
You two are talking about two different reasons for separation. Assuming
the HST meets the FRA regulations for crashworthiness in a mixed equipment
environment, then the problem mentioned by Robert (speed incompatibility)
becomes the reason for separation along the main line. However, if the FRA
requirements are met then the HST can share terminal trackage in a mixed
environment while running at typical Metrolink/Amtrak speeds.
>
>> The consequence of this is that HSR equipment that
>> shares track with existing equipment must be of much heavier
>> construction than would be needed with complete separation. Heavier
>> construction also leads to lower speeds, which is why Acela will only
>> be doing 150mph.
>
> This is not entirely true. Given the corridor and station spacing,
> 150mph is all that is practical regardless of FRA regs.
Right, the weight of the Acela Express trainset is not what limits it to 150
mph. It was designed to do at least 150 mph while meeting FRA regulations
and operating in the NEC environment. If the NEC environment allowed it, it
could have been designed to meet FRA regulations and go 200 mph, but that
wasn't the requirement. And, by the way, that 150 mph is a limitation
between New Haven and Boston. Between NYC and DC, look for the Acela
Express to do 160-165 mph when and if the catenary is upgraded.
>> If the FRA can be convinced to allow the use of crash
>> avoidance technologies (either time separation or improved signalling
>> with train stop ability, or both), then the HSR can share both right
>> of way AND track with existing services, resulting in a much lower
>> building and right-of way acquisition costs to go through built-up
>> areas.
>
> The existing track is not straight enough, there is not enough capacity,
> the catenary prevents use of over height freight.
The height of the catenary certainly limits the height of the train, but
nothing prevents placing the catenary at a height that allows normal double
deck container trains to operate. Places where the HST will share tracks
with freight trains will be very few and mostly in terminal areas where
speed will be limited.
>> Finally (third), if current and HSR share the same ROW, but not the
>> same track, I suspect that in most cases the HSR will go above the
>> existing stuff, not vice-versa. Since HSR is (will be) designed for a
>> 3.5% grade, flyover structures will be much shorter if it's HSR doing
>> the flying. And since the 3.5% grade design is for a sustained grade,
>> I suspect that HSR will have no problems with a 5% (momentum) short
>> grade for a flyover.
>
> Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high enough
> to clear the current traffic. This in an environment that assumes
> the owners of the ROW will donate the space. Ouch.
I doubt anyone is assuming any private owners are going to "donate" any
space. Eminent domain will certainly be used as needed. I see "flyovers"
being built all over southern California (to connect the HOV lanes on one
freeway to the HOV lanes on another freeway). I haven't heard much
controversy regarding the building of those structures.
>
>>>> <<<snip>>>
>>> Good analysis and accurate reporting. Do you think it is fair
>>> to say that the answer to Chris' question is that the HSRA doesn't
>>> know how to get the train into LA? It's got a couple of ideas and
>>> it wants $25 million this year to see if it's possible.
>
>> Actually, I think the HSRA is just procrastinating on a tough decision
>> with political implications. They know HOW to do it (at least 2 ways),
>> but don't want to stick their necks out for the politicians and
>> pundits to chop it off.
>
> Exactly. This is also why they sidestep the exact Valley alignment,
> thet want the money first no questions answered.
Wouldn't you? From the HSRA's viewpoint, it's probably a better strategy
than the original November 2000 "all or nothing" approach. You can't let
every little constituency along the ROW pick you to death or cause paralysis
of action (like Bakersfield arguing over whether the ROW should go through
the center of the city or along the west side).
Merritt
John Bianco
Merritt D. Mullen wrote in message ...
>in article 85tcd8$ueu$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net, John Bianco at
>RFt...@mindspring.com wrote on 1/16/2000 1:15 PM:
>
>> Actually it is a valid comparision, because HSR by most estimates will
>> carry 25,000 passengers a day toltal, while extensions to light rail and
>> BART carry 2 to 4 times that number, for 1/10 to 1/50th of the cost.
Simpily
>> put, improvments in local rail and freeway improvments benifit far more
>> people that HSR ever could. In any event, HSR is DOA, it is far too
>> expensive, and trust me, once HSR hits the ballot, local transit agencies
>> will be up in arms about it.
>
>I don't understand the comparison between urban transit systems and HSR.
>You could make similar arguments comparing the cost of the Panama Canal to
>building a subway in New York City. Unless the money is coming out of the
>same pot, why should BART or the LA Red Line be opposed to HSR?
>
The money does come out of the same pot. State dollars in part finance
Freeways and rail transit, and many transit agencies would much rather have
state money go to their projects, that will no doubt serve far more people,
than HSR. Even Gov Davis called HSR a Buck Rogers idea.
>Now if you want to argue that HSR is too expensive and will spend money
>better spent on schools, health care, police, local transit, and all other
>public expenditures you might have a case. But pitting local urban transit
>against intercity transportation is forcing a fight that doesn't have to
>happen.
>
And this is what exactly will happen. It is going to be hard enough to get
the tax dollars to juist maintain what is currently in place, and transit
agencies, for better or worse, need all the money they can get to at least
keep pace with sprawl.
>Merritt
>
Jennifer Saeturn
that's what I was referring to.
You brought up local project costs versus HSR as a tangent. Even so, I think
comparing local LR or BART with a statewide HSR system is apples and oranges.
One might argue that a local overpass project makes more financial sense than
funding a national interstate system, but who cares? They're seperate issues
and seperate money pools. A statewide tax isn't ever going to fund outrageous
BART extenstions into the rurals. A more apt comparison would involve the same
market (not the same industry): HSR versus airport expansions for short haul
flights.
Jennifer Saeturn
loop test track that goes nowhere. Maglev is not going any further because it
doesn't work.
I believe NASA farted out the Moon trips because the American people were
bored to death of space and got more interested in more practical uses of
money--money that was inflating rapidly at the time. US companies focused more
on advancing useful and proven technology during the last two decades. Only
the military has kept spending more on billion dollar 'StarWars' boondoggles.
Fortunately, the USSR's economy collapsed (from government spending on space
and other worthless things while useful and proven technology--like food
distribution--went wanting). Without the USSR, Americans could finally ask the
Pentagon to try to waste less money. Well, it doesn't hurt to ask.
I agree that Maglev spending does bear a resemblance to the space race: a high
speed, nebulous goal shrouded in rah-rah nationalism. I'm afraid the Japanese,
Germans and the rest of the world can already laugh at the pathetic Americans,
who are too busy with their road rage shootings on gridlocked freeways to
demand transportation alternatives that employ proven technology. They are
already ahead.
Brian Mueller wrote:
> Merritt D. Mullen wrote:
>
> >I know there was talk about the line south of LA (to San Diego) being less
> >than the full 220 mph,
>
> It is so amusing how you people can consider 220 MPH to be fast. "High
> speed rail" at 220 MPH. Sheesh.
>
> Say what you want about cost, but 20 years from now, when Germany and
> Japan have fully implemented maglev trains, the idea that the United
> States originated, and they laugh at the "pathetic Americans" who
> never capitalized on their own innovation, you will be wishing you
> listened to people like me.
>
> People who think 220 MPH is sufficient are the same kind of people who
> thought Apollo 17 was sufficient. And look where we are 30 years
> later, compared to where we would have been had we kept going. People
> say, "what ever happened to Moon and Mars bases?", what happened is
> people who think 220 MPH is sufficient.
>
> --Brian Mueller
Bill Zaumen
Mueller) wrote:
> Merritt D. Mullen wrote:
>
> >I know there was talk about the line south of LA (to San Diego) being less
> >than the full 220 mph,
>
> It is so amusing how you people can consider 220 MPH to be fast. "High
> speed rail" at 220 MPH. Sheesh.
>
> Say what you want about cost, but 20 years from now, when Germany and
> Japan have fully implemented maglev trains, the idea that the United
> States originated, and they laugh at the "pathetic Americans" who
> never capitalized on their own innovation, you will be wishing you
> listened to people like me.
You could have made the same argument about the Concords versus 747s:
how could you call a mere 500 to 600 mph fast when you could go more
than twice as fast at twice the altitude. WIth 30 years of experience,
it is pretty clear which won out---passengers decided that relatively
cheap and moderately fast suits them better than paying several times
more for supersonic flight.
Bill
--
As an anti-spam measure, my email address is only provided in a GIF
file. Please see <http://home.pacbell.net/zaumen/email.gif>.
John Bianco
Jennifer Saeturn wrote in message <3882B274...@yahoo.com>...
>The thread was a comparison of Taiwan and California's HSR costs per mile,
and
>that's what I was referring to.
>
>You brought up local project costs versus HSR as a tangent. Even so, I
think
>comparing local LR or BART with a statewide HSR system is apples and
oranges.
>One might argue that a local overpass project makes more financial sense
than
>funding a national interstate system, but who cares? They're seperate
issues
>and seperate money pools. A statewide tax isn't ever going to fund
outrageous
>BART extenstions into the rurals. A more apt comparison would involve the
same
>market (not the same industry): HSR versus airport expansions for short
haul
>flights.
>
A local overpass is funeded by mostly local taxes, unless it crosses over
a freeway or state highway, then it is funded by state dollars. A local
overpass is just a small improvment, similar to a grade seperation. As for a
statewaide tax, no it will not fund a BART extension to a rural area, but it
could fund smaller BART extensions, or far more reasonably, extensions for
light rail, not to mention improvments to existing rail lines so more
commute trains can be mixed in with a railroads frieghts. And with what
needs to be involved with HSR, you might as well build BART out to Stockton
for what it will cost. As mentioned elsewhere in the threat, HSR is going to
require complete grade speration, like BART has, and by the nature of HSR,
the track needs to be on a staright tangent as much as possible.
As for airport expansions, they can be used for either short haul flights
or long haul, and also frieght carriers can also benifit from runway
improvments, but my guess is that neither the SFO or LAX expansions will
happen. What I think will happen is that other airports such as Oakland and
San Jose airports will get more flights to them, and airports such as
Ontario and Burbank will get more local flights going to them.
Like it or not, HSR is a dead issue. There is no way that the tax payers of
California will be convinced to fund it, airlines like Southwest and United
Express will be against it and local transit agencies will be against it.
Again, too many worthy projects that will serve far more people, such as
improvments to freeways and local rail transit need the money far more than
a HSR system, that may have 25,000 people a day using it. You say money
comes from different pools, not it doesnt, money comes from the same pools,
and the money should be spend to serve as many people as possible. I know
you try to apply economics to justify HSR, and if air and rail travel were
completely funded by private dollars, it may make sense, but this is our tax
dollars we are talking about, and they need to be used for transportation
projects that will have the most usage.
John Bianco
>The docs clearly state that ROW sharing with private owners is
>essential to the program. Perhaps there is a new word for sharing
>your property by having a government agency build a grade seperated
>electrified dual track on it?
To be fair, ROW sharing can be done. Take a look at the BART line in
between South Oakland and Fremont, its uses the UP(ex WP) line, with BART
either being on a elevated structure or to the side of the ROW. The BART
line in between El Cerrito and Richmond also shared the ROW with the now
abandoned ATSF Emeryville Branch for a while also.
Steven J. Dorst
wrote:
>In article <ipr38sgujk1rssfdb...@4ax.com>, sjd...@yahoo.nospam.com wrote:
> <<<snip>>>>
>> Current HSRA recommendation is to use new right of way on an I-5
>> alignment roughly paralleling the Grapvine,
>
>The problem is that the track is limited to 3.5 percent grade and
>the Grapevine is much steeper. Travel times prohibit slow speed
>stacks to keep the grade and make high speed tunnels very expensive.
>
I'm unsure what you mean by "slow speed stacks to keep the grade".
What I said is the alignment will "roughly" parallel the Grapevine. As
the maps in the letters had no detail, that was as close as I could
come. The report does mention many miles (27?) of tunneling.
> <<<snip>>>
>Yes but they also say:
>
> -----------------
> "· The proposed system would run on new or dedicated
> right-of-way, with complete separation from automobile
> and pedestrian cross traffic. In urban areas, the system
> would use existing rail rights-of-way that would be
> rebuilt to standards dictated by VHS technology.
> While the proposed system might share right-of-way with
> other rail services, such as commuter services, in some
> urban corridors, intercity HSR trains would be kept
> completely separate from incompatible equipment such as
> that currently used by freight railroads."
> ----------------
>
>Existing ROWs and VHS alignments are mutually exclusive.
>The frequency is 17 minutes and remember the catenary. That
>means no grade crossings with other lines and freight lines have
>to go OVER any HSR trackage, not just new HSR double tracking
>but new freight tracking
>
Three responses to the above: First, at the $25 Billion cost, the HSRA
is assuming totally dedicated right of way that MIGHT coexist (with
either vertical or horizontal separation) with existing services. In
other words, while the right of way will be shared, the actual tracks
won't be.
Second (and yes, I know I may be opening another can of worms): The
need to separate from existing services is solely due to the FRA's
insistence on crash survivability to the almost total exclusion of
crash avoidance. The consequence of this is that HSR equipment that
shares track with existing equipment must be of much heavier
construction than would be needed with complete separation. Heavier
construction also leads to lower speeds, which is why Acela will only
be doing 150mph. If the FRA can be convinced to allow the use of crash
avoidance technologies (either time separation or improved signalling
with train stop ability, or both), then the HSR can share both right
of way AND track with existing services, resulting in a much lower
building and right-of way acquisition costs to go through built-up
areas.
Finally (third), if current and HSR share the same ROW, but not the
same track, I suspect that in most cases the HSR will go above the
existing stuff, not vice-versa. Since HSR is (will be) designed for a
3.5% grade, flyover structures will be much shorter if it's HSR doing
the flying. And since the 3.5% grade design is for a sustained grade,
I suspect that HSR will have no problems with a 5% (momentum) short
grade for a flyover.
>> <<<snip>>>
>Good analysis and accurate reporting. Do you think it is fair
>to say that the answer to Chris' question is that the HSRA doesn't
>know how to get the train into LA? It's got a couple of ideas and
>it wants $25 million this year to see if it's possible.
Actually, I think the HSRA is just procrastinating on a tough decision
with political implications. They know HOW to do it (at least 2 ways),
but don't want to stick their necks out for the politicians and
pundits to chop it off. The trade off is basically a more expensive,
but faster and hence more ridership attracting route that bypasses a
significant population center (Grapevine route bypassing the Antelope
Valley) versus a cheaper, but longer route that will attract fewer
riders, but may attract more voters.
Robert Coté
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:41:53 GMT, tech...@gte.net (Robert Coté)
> wrote:
>
> > "· The proposed system would run on new or dedicated
> > right-of-way, with complete separation from automobile
> > and pedestrian cross traffic. In urban areas, the system
> > would use existing rail rights-of-way that would be
> > rebuilt to standards dictated by VHS technology.
> > While the proposed system might share right-of-way with
> > other rail services, such as commuter services, in some
> > urban corridors, intercity HSR trains would be kept
> > completely separate from incompatible equipment such as
> > that currently used by freight railroads."
> > ----------------
> >
> >Existing ROWs and VHS alignments are mutually exclusive.
> >The frequency is 17 minutes and remember the catenary. That
> >means no grade crossings with other lines and freight lines have
> >to go OVER any HSR trackage, not just new HSR double tracking
> >but new freight tracking
> >
> Three responses to the above: First, at the $25 Billion cost, the HSRA
> is assuming totally dedicated right of way that MIGHT coexist (with
> either vertical or horizontal separation) with existing services. In
> other words, while the right of way will be shared, the actual tracks
> won't be.
The existing ROW alignments are not straight enough to accomodate
the HSR projected speeds between LA and the Central Valley. New
alignments straight enough for 100+mph service on double tracked
fully electrified catenary service will be required. There is
clearly not enough surface area Burbank-LA so you are proposing
an elevated electrified track with a train going by every 17 min.
This is kinda expensive and shall we say politically difficult?
> Second (and yes, I know I may be opening another can of worms): The
> need to separate from existing services is solely due to the FRA's
> insistence on crash survivability to the almost total exclusion of
> crash avoidance.
This is not true. The reason for seperation are because the existing
lines are not fast enough and there is not enough capacity to handle
a much faster than normal trainset. I think the word they use is
"path." A normal freight taking up 1 paths' worth of capacity. This
HSR would be worth many paths probably to the exclusion of all else.
> The consequence of this is that HSR equipment that
> shares track with existing equipment must be of much heavier
> construction than would be needed with complete separation. Heavier
> construction also leads to lower speeds, which is why Acela will only
> be doing 150mph.
This is not entirely true. Given the corridor and station spacing,
150mph is all that is practical regardless of FRA regs.
> If the FRA can be convinced to allow the use of crash
> avoidance technologies (either time separation or improved signalling
> with train stop ability, or both), then the HSR can share both right
> of way AND track with existing services, resulting in a much lower
> building and right-of way acquisition costs to go through built-up
> areas.
The existing track is not straight enough, there is not enough capacity,
the catenary prevents use of over height freight.
> Finally (third), if current and HSR share the same ROW, but not the
> same track, I suspect that in most cases the HSR will go above the
> existing stuff, not vice-versa. Since HSR is (will be) designed for a
> 3.5% grade, flyover structures will be much shorter if it's HSR doing
> the flying. And since the 3.5% grade design is for a sustained grade,
> I suspect that HSR will have no problems with a 5% (momentum) short
> grade for a flyover.
Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high enough
to clear the current traffic. This in an environment that assumes
the owners of the ROW will donate the space. Ouch.
> >> <<<snip>>>
> >Good analysis and accurate reporting. Do you think it is fair
> >to say that the answer to Chris' question is that the HSRA doesn't
> >know how to get the train into LA? It's got a couple of ideas and
> >it wants $25 million this year to see if it's possible.
> Actually, I think the HSRA is just procrastinating on a tough decision
> with political implications. They know HOW to do it (at least 2 ways),
> but don't want to stick their necks out for the politicians and
> pundits to chop it off.
Exactly. This is also why they sidestep the exact Valley alignment,
Robert Coté
> Between Burbank and LA Union Station, you are really talking about the
> terminal area that must accommodate a mixture of freight, commuter,
> intercity, and HSR. A lot of work is needed to increase capacity there,
> even if the HSR line is not built. If you think that is tough, how about
> the HSR line from LA Union Station to LAX?
Of course the real issue is ego. HSR does not need and should not
go to Union Station. It's just an old way of thinking to have to
go downtown.
The new topozone site can help describe what I am concerned with.
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=34.1823&lon=-118.3078&s=25&size=s
> There is
> > clearly not enough surface area Burbank-LA so you are proposing
> > an elevated electrified track with a train going by every 17 min.
> > This is kinda expensive and shall we say politically difficult?
>
> Whatever the solution, it will be expensive and politically difficult, and
> probably require acquisition of adjacent property to widen the "surface
> area." But that doesn't mean it won't happen.
If CA-HSR gets the money first. Yes it will happen.
> >> Second (and yes, I know I may be opening another can of worms): The
> >> need to separate from existing services is solely due to the FRA's
> >> insistence on crash survivability to the almost total exclusion of
> >> crash avoidance.
> >
> > This is not true. The reason for seperation are because the existing
> > lines are not fast enough and there is not enough capacity to handle
> > a much faster than normal trainset. I think the word they use is
> > "path." A normal freight taking up 1 paths' worth of capacity. This
> > HSR would be worth many paths probably to the exclusion of all else.
>
> You two are talking about two different reasons for separation. Assuming
> the HST meets the FRA regulations for crashworthiness in a mixed equipment
> environment, then the problem mentioned by Robert (speed incompatibility)
> becomes the reason for separation along the main line. However, if the FRA
> requirements are met then the HST can share terminal trackage in a mixed
> environment while running at typical Metrolink/Amtrak speeds.
The frequency kills it then. Tell a freight train it has 25 min
before it must get to the next siding? I don't think so.
> >> The consequence of this is that HSR equipment that
> >> shares track with existing equipment must be of much heavier
> >> construction than would be needed with complete separation. Heavier
> >> construction also leads to lower speeds, which is why Acela will only
> >> be doing 150mph.
> >
> > This is not entirely true. Given the corridor and station spacing,
> > 150mph is all that is practical regardless of FRA regs.
>
> Right, the weight of the Acela Express trainset is not what limits it to 150
> mph. It was designed to do at least 150 mph while meeting FRA regulations
> and operating in the NEC environment. If the NEC environment allowed it, it
> could have been designed to meet FRA regulations and go 200 mph, but that
> wasn't the requirement. And, by the way, that 150 mph is a limitation
> between New Haven and Boston. Between NYC and DC, look for the Acela
> Express to do 160-165 mph when and if the catenary is upgraded.
D'accord.
> >> If the FRA can be convinced to allow the use of crash
> >> avoidance technologies (either time separation or improved signalling
> >> with train stop ability, or both), then the HSR can share both right
> >> of way AND track with existing services, resulting in a much lower
> >> building and right-of way acquisition costs to go through built-up
> >> areas.
> >
> > The existing track is not straight enough, there is not enough capacity,
> > the catenary prevents use of over height freight.
>
> The height of the catenary certainly limits the height of the train, but
> nothing prevents placing the catenary at a height that allows normal double
> deck container trains to operate. Places where the HST will share tracks
> with freight trains will be very few and mostly in terminal areas where
> speed will be limited.
Aerodynamics and cost prevent extended catenary configs.
> >> Finally (third), if current and HSR share the same ROW, but not the
> >> same track, I suspect that in most cases the HSR will go above the
> >> existing stuff, not vice-versa. Since HSR is (will be) designed for a
> >> 3.5% grade, flyover structures will be much shorter if it's HSR doing
> >> the flying. And since the 3.5% grade design is for a sustained grade,
> >> I suspect that HSR will have no problems with a 5% (momentum) short
> >> grade for a flyover.
> >
> > Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high enough
> > to clear the current traffic. This in an environment that assumes
> > the owners of the ROW will donate the space. Ouch.
>
> I doubt anyone is assuming any private owners are going to "donate" any
> space.
The docs clearly state that ROW sharing with private owners is
essential to the program. Perhaps there is a new word for sharing
your property by having a government agency build a grade seperated
electrified dual track on it?
> Eminent domain will certainly be used as needed. I see "flyovers"
> being built all over southern California (to connect the HOV lanes on one
> freeway to the HOV lanes on another freeway). I haven't heard much
> controversy regarding the building of those structures.
Oh, I admit this is NIMBism writ large. Just because its stupid
doesn't make it go away.
> >>>> <<<snip>>>
> >>> Good analysis and accurate reporting. Do you think it is fair
> >>> to say that the answer to Chris' question is that the HSRA doesn't
> >>> know how to get the train into LA? It's got a couple of ideas and
> >>> it wants $25 million this year to see if it's possible.
> >
> >> Actually, I think the HSRA is just procrastinating on a tough decision
> >> with political implications. They know HOW to do it (at least 2 ways),
> >> but don't want to stick their necks out for the politicians and
> >> pundits to chop it off.
> >
> > Exactly. This is also why they sidestep the exact Valley alignment,
> > thet want the money first no questions answered.
>
> Wouldn't you?
No, I'm too honest to do this.
> From the HSRA's viewpoint, it's probably a better strategy
> than the original November 2000 "all or nothing" approach.
From the perspective of the ends justifying the means, perhaps.
I'm more used to the government being less machivellian.
> You can't let
> every little constituency along the ROW pick you to death or cause paralysis
> of action (like Bakersfield arguing over whether the ROW should go through
> the center of the city or along the west side).
If local input is not going to influence the project we've completed
our transformation of the CA-HSRA into the MTA haven't we?
HaRRy
HSR and has actually read the HSRA's documents.
My guess is that the Legislature will go with the Palmdale/Lancaster option to
politically mollify the constituents there (a very fast growing area). That's
one thing about this topic that really gives me pause. The final decisions
about the details including the precise route are going to be made by
politicians who as a class know zero point zip about rail transportation
(actually, transportation of any kind).
Most of the problems of the rail system in L.A. can be traced back to the
decisions being made by politicians rather than transportation professionals.
It's better to have a system like that operated by Amtrak -- it grew up
piecemeal with little or no overall plan, using existing rights of way. Some
political input and decision making of course, but not to the level that the
HSR will be subjected.
Anyway, I'm 58 years old -- I rather doubt I'll ever ride on any portion of the
Very High Speed trains between San Diego and the Bay Area.
Regards, HaRRy
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:21:21 GMT, Steven J. Dorst <sjd...@yahoo.nospam.com>
wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 03:29:33 GMT, tech...@gte.net (Robert Coté)
»wrote:
»
»>In article <38812FC5...@concentric.net>, Chris Jacks <ctj...@concentric.net> wrote:
»>
»>> Putting all the haggling about dollars aside, how does this
»>> proposed HSR plan to get into Los Angeles from the north?
»>> Sharing an exisitng line through Cajon
»>> Pass? A new line through the mountains? And how would it
»>> get to downtown L.A.?
»>
»>Good questions. Wait til you see the answers. Hopefully
»>you'll get treated better than most for your impertinence.
»Current HSRA recommendation is to use new right of way on an I-5
»alignment roughly paralleling the Grapvine, joining the existing UP(ex
»SP)/Metrolink right-of-way at/near Santa Clarita, and using existing
»ROW to LAUPT.
»I've read their (HSRA's) draft letter to the legislature and things
»are not yet set in stone. They acknowledge that an alignment through
»Tehachapi, Palmdale and Lancaster would be cheaper, but caution that
»it would add enough to the travel time that it would reduce ridership
»by more than the cost differential would justify. They recommend
»continuing to study both routes through the EIS/EIR phase and delay
»the final decision.
»Steven J Dorst <sjd...@yahoo.nospam.com> aka N6VMK
»Calling from somewhere North of Alcatraz
»Remove nospam and one of the dots to reply!!
Regards, HaRRy, San Diego
--
http://communities.prodigy.net/trains/
Expect a train on any track, at any time, in any direction!
(To e-mail reply change no.spam to home dot com)
HaRRy
wrote in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»Actually, I think the HSRA is just procrastinating on a tough decision
»with political implications. They know HOW to do it (at least 2 ways),
»but don't want to stick their necks out for the politicians and
»pundits to chop it off. The trade off is basically a more expensive,
»but faster and hence more ridership attracting route that bypasses a
»significant population center (Grapevine route bypassing the Antelope
»Valley) versus a cheaper, but longer route that will attract fewer
»riders, but may attract more voters.
Actually, from a speech by former state senator Jim Mills (a member of the
HSRA), I would have to say that it's not really "procrastination". The HSRA
simply had to provide information about any reasonably feasible route to the
legislature. Otherwise they would not be in compliance with their charter and
would have only caused additional delay as questions surfaced and political
maneuvering ensued.
In fact the HSRA report does indicate their preferences and recommendations,
but it also documents the alternatives. A prudent way to operate, as I see it.
Steven J. Dorst
wrote:
>In article <10t48skg58vpln7om...@4ax.com>, sjd...@yahoo.nospam.com wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000 17:41:53 GMT, tech...@gte.net (Robert Coté)
>> wrote:
<<< snip>>>
>> Three responses to the above: First, at the $25 Billion cost, the HSRA
>> is assuming totally dedicated right of way that MIGHT coexist (with
>> either vertical or horizontal separation) with existing services. In
>> other words, while the right of way will be shared, the actual tracks
>> won't be.
>
>The existing ROW alignments are not straight enough to accomodate
>the HSR projected speeds between LA and the Central Valley. New
>alignments straight enough for 100+mph service on double tracked
>fully electrified catenary service will be required. There is
>clearly not enough surface area Burbank-LA so you are proposing
>an elevated electrified track with a train going by every 17 min.
>This is kinda expensive and shall we say politically difficult?
Coupla things, First, I was summarizing what the HSRA said in their
draft letter to the state legislature, so it is not MY proposal.
Second, In an effort to avoid a post that was already longer than
most, I neglected to report that the HSRA contemplates ROW sharing
only in areas where they see great difficulty in acquiring dedicated
ROW. These areas are San Francisco-->somewhere between San Jose and
Gilroy, Downtown Sacramento, Santa Clarita-->LAUPT, LAUPT-->vicinity
of Riverside. These also happen to be the areas where slower speeds
are expected. With the slower speeds, crash avoidance technologies can
and do work. As for Burbank-->LAUPT, this will be an (extended)
terminal area with speeds not likely to exceed speeds allowed with
current alignments and technologies. For the desired overall speed,
the longer, straighter sections demand a lighter weight trainset, thus
the terminal areas can be either completely separated track (very
expensive), or a change in FRA mindset to one allowing crash
avoidance, which is quite successful in European terminal areas.
<<<snip>>>
>> If the FRA can be convinced to allow the use of crash
>> avoidance technologies (either time separation or improved signalling
>> with train stop ability, or both), then the HSR can share both right
>> of way AND track with existing services, resulting in a much lower
>> building and right-of way acquisition costs to go through built-up
>> areas.
>
>The existing track is not straight enough, there is not enough capacity,
>the catenary prevents use of over height freight.
Again, in the built-up areas speeds will NOT be the 200+ MPH design
speed, probably only 60-90 MPH or less as curvature dictates. Also,
while extended height catenary has problems with aerodynamics at
speed, the areas that must be shared with double-stacks and other tall
trains are (relatively) few and already contemplated to be slower
speed. I suspect it's relatively easy to design a catenary that can
extend as high as needed, but still be aerodynamically OK in the
higher speed, lower catenary wire dedicated areas (the bulk of the
system)
>> Finally (third), if current and HSR share the same ROW, but not the
>> same track, I suspect that in most cases the HSR will go above the
>> existing stuff, not vice-versa. Since HSR is (will be) designed for a
>> 3.5% grade, flyover structures will be much shorter if it's HSR doing
>> the flying. And since the 3.5% grade design is for a sustained grade,
>> I suspect that HSR will have no problems with a 5% (momentum) short
>> grade for a flyover.
>
>Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high enough
>to clear the current traffic. This in an environment that assumes
>the owners of the ROW will donate the space. Ouch.
Donation of space? Where'd you come up with that one? A substantial
portion of the budget is for ROW acquisition. Where existing owners of
ROW object, there is eminent domain, which still must be paid for.
Robert Coté
> ...the HSRA contemplates ROW sharing
> only in areas where they see great difficulty in acquiring dedicated
> ROW. These areas are San Francisco-->somewhere between San Jose and
> Gilroy, Downtown Sacramento, Santa Clarita-->LAUPT, LAUPT-->vicinity
> of Riverside. These also happen to be the areas where slower speeds
> are expected. With the slower speeds, crash avoidance technologies can
> and do work. As for Burbank-->LAUPT, this will be an (extended)
> terminal area with speeds not likely to exceed speeds allowed with
> current alignments and technologies. For the desired overall speed,
> the longer, straighter sections demand a lighter weight trainset, thus
> the terminal areas can be either completely separated track (very
> expensive), or a change in FRA mindset to one allowing crash
> avoidance, which is quite successful in European terminal areas.
I agree with what you say here. There will be sharing, the speeds
will be lower and the FRA crashworthiness exemption should be
pursued. The thing about "sharing" in these corriodors is twofold.
First there is not enough capacity to put 50 trainsets per day
through these sections. Second it isn't possible to complete the
LA-SF trip in 4:55.
None of these are fatal flaws but the obstacles are building up.
Additionally everything we've talked about is not in the budget
nor the time frame for service initation.
> >The existing track is not straight enough, there is not enough capacity,
> >the catenary prevents use of over height freight.
>
> Again, in the built-up areas speeds will NOT be the 200+ MPH design
> speed, probably only 60-90 MPH or less as curvature dictates.
I never meant to imply 200+, I thought 100-120 but never mentioned
a specific figure. Sorry to confuse. But even 60-90mph is an
agressive number for lots of the current valley alignment. 60-90
also implies that 4:55 is not a design goal.
> Also,
> while extended height catenary has problems with aerodynamics at
> speed, the areas that must be shared with double-stacks and other tall
> trains are (relatively) few and already contemplated to be slower
> speed. I suspect it's relatively easy to design a catenary that can
> extend as high as needed, but still be aerodynamically OK in the
> higher speed, lower catenary wire dedicated areas (the bulk of the
> system)
I think you'll find catenary design a bit more difficult (read
expensive) than you give it credit for. Agreed this is not a
fatal flaw but just one detail that seems to be handwaved by
the CA-HSRA.
> >> I suspect that HSR will have no problems with a 5% (momentum) short
> >> grade for a flyover.
> >
> >Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high enough
> >to clear the current traffic. This in an environment that assumes
> >the owners of the ROW will donate the space. Ouch.
>
> Donation of space? Where'd you come up with that one?
From their Financal Plan:
--------------------
6.4.2. Local/Regional Agency Participation Strategy
· Local agency participation and cooperation is critical
to success of system (financial participations, ROW
donations, station-oriented development)
· Strategies for successful partnership with agencies
(articulate land development principles, participate
in policy forums, treat each segment separately, etc.)
6.4.3. Shared Use Strategy for ROW Acquisition
· Shared use of existing rail corridors is a key component
of ROW acquisition for the proposed system
· List of specific owners and corridors involved
--------------------
> A substantial
> portion of the budget is for ROW acquisition. Where existing owners of
> ROW object, there is eminent domain, which still must be paid for.
CA-HSRA has ED authority? Can you say political football? Imagine
Bakersfields' reaction when they discover that with ED they can put
the station anywhere HSRA wants. Scarry if you are involed, sport
to watch from a distance. Again not a fatal flaw but another detail
to be worked on. These details are adding up aren't they?
Robert Coté
> The thread was a comparison of Taiwan and California's HSR costs per mile, and
> that's what I was referring to.
>
> You brought up local project costs versus HSR as a tangent. Even so, I think
> comparing local LR or BART with a statewide HSR system is apples and oranges.
> One might argue that a local overpass project makes more financial sense than
> funding a national interstate system, but who cares? They're seperate issues
> and seperate money pools. A statewide tax isn't ever going to fund outrageous
> BART extenstions into the rurals. A more apt comparison would involve the same
> market (not the same industry): HSR versus airport expansions for short haul
> flights.
24.8 Billion buys you 4 world class Internationals, 12 Regionals
and 40 local airports. Of course with Federal funding 24.8 would
be leveraged 5-20 times under current rules in addition. Remember
that airports are profitible besides.
What you really want to do is build 2 Internationals, 4 Regionals
and 20 locals/GAs and use the rest of the money to build/subsidize
light rail service to these new airports so that the average
person can do their interregional trip in less time at less public
cost.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/16/2000 10:02 PM:
> In article <B4A7DE0F.738F%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>
> Of course the real issue is ego. HSR does not need and should not
> go to Union Station. It's just an old way of thinking to have to
> go downtown.
Well, it has to go somewhere, and, while there are centers of employment and
economic activity all over the LA basin, downtown is the biggest. Union
Station is also a major transportation hub, serving Metrolink, Amtrak, and
urban rail and bus transit. I am told that the LAX area is the second
largest employment center in LA and, of course, is also a transportation
center. The CA HSR plan is to serve both places, which will be difficult to
do. The real silliness is the current federal funding of an urban maglev
system to link downtown with LAX and Ontario airport. But that is just
another silly federal government industrial welfare project, similar to the
federal Intelligent Highway project. Neither will ever result in anything
useful. Both make for nice articles and illustrations in Popular Science,
however. Too bad those dollars can't be spent on proven rail systems.
I happen to think it is important for transportation systems to provide easy
intermodal transfers, so there is a lot to be said for serving both LAX and
downtown. But if a major airport is actually built in Palmdale, perhaps a
direct HSR line to LAX is not needed, and could be replaced with an
efficient urban transit line from Union Station to LAX.
>
> The new topozone site can help describe what I am concerned with.
>
> http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=34.1823&lon=-118.3078&s=25&size=s
For some reason, the page comes up, but the map image does not.
>
> The docs clearly state that ROW sharing with private owners is
> essential to the program. Perhaps there is a new word for sharing
> your property by having a government agency build a grade seperated
> electrified dual track on it?
My understanding is that "ROW sharing" means sharing the corridor along
which current private (UP, BNSF) and public (Metrolink, Caltrain) railroads
operate, but not sharing the actual real estate or tracks. Indeed, the plan
calls for completely grade separated, electrified, and dedicated dual tracks
for the HSR line. I think in most cases of ROW sharing the HSR line would
run along side, or in between, the tracks of the existing RR. This will, in
most cases, require acquisition of adjacent property to allow widening of
the ROW. How the ownership of the property will be split between the
separate entities, I'll have to leave to the lawyers to sort out.
I think it is important, however, to design the trains so that, in urban
terminal areas, they can be used over the same tracks currently used by
regular-speed services, including occasional freight trains. The line would
have to be electrified, of course, and have the capacity to handle the
expected traffic. Big conditions, I know. But preferable to building a HSR
system that cannot operate on existing trackage. I would even go so far as
to suggest that with suitable fossil fuel engines, the new train sets should
be able to operate in non-electrified territory.
>> Eminent domain will certainly be used as needed. I see "flyovers"
>> being built all over southern California (to connect the HOV lanes on one
>> freeway to the HOV lanes on another freeway). I haven't heard much
>> controversy regarding the building of those structures.
>
> Oh, I admit this is NIMBism writ large. Just because its stupid
> doesn't make it go away.
Right. Stupidity, short sightedness, and politics spoil a lot of good
ideas. But occasionally those same obstructions keep us from doing
something really stupid. I guess that is democracy at work.
> No, I'm too honest to do this.
Sure, but we mustn't ascribe morality to corporations or political agencies.
>
>> From the HSRA's viewpoint, it's probably a better strategy
>> than the original November 2000 "all or nothing" approach.
>
> From the perspective of the ends justifying the means, perhaps.
> I'm more used to the government being less machivellian.
The ends shouldn't justify the means, but some means work better than
others. In this case, having a final up-or-down vote on HSR this coming
November is probably not a good means to deciding the best future for
transportation in California. It would probably lose, and have to be
overturned later, just delaying California intra-state, inter-city
transportation improvements. Kind of like the prohibition of spending sales
tax dollars on subsurface transit in Los Angeles.
> If local input is not going to influence the project we've completed
> our transformation of the CA-HSRA into the MTA haven't we?
I'm not saying local influence shouldn't be a factor, just that you have to
keep your eye on the big picture, and not let the details trip you up.
Using the example I gave above, the important thing is that Bakersfield be
linked to the rest of the state by an efficient, high-speed, transportation
system. The location of the station in Bakersfield is relatively minor
detail. But it's easy to let an accumulation of such details cause enough
controversy to kill the overall project.
Merritt
Robert Coté
> in article techscan-160...@calnet12-230.gtecablemodem.com, Robert
> Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/16/2000 10:02 PM:
>
> > In article <B4A7DE0F.738F%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> > <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> ...The real silliness is the current federal funding of an urban maglev
> system to link downtown with LAX and Ontario airport. But that is just
> another silly federal government industrial welfare project, similar to the
> federal Intelligent Highway project. Neither will ever result in anything
> useful. Both make for nice articles and illustrations in Popular Science,
> however. Too bad those dollars can't be spent on proven rail systems.
What makes you think CA-HSR will be a proven rail system. I've seen
explicit references to it also being a demonstration of Californias'
technological premminence. I seriously doubt that either an off the
shelf German or Japanese system will show that.
> I happen to think it is important for transportation systems to provide easy
> intermodal transfers, so there is a lot to be said for serving both LAX and
> downtown. But if a major airport is actually built in Palmdale, perhaps a
> direct HSR line to LAX is not needed, and could be replaced with an
> efficient urban transit line from Union Station to LAX.
> >
> > The new topozone site can help describe what I am concerned with.
> >
> > http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=34.1823&lon=-118.3078&s=25&size=s
>
> For some reason, the page comes up, but the map image does not.
png compatible browser required late communicator (mac/pc) or explorer (pc).
> > The docs clearly state that ROW sharing with private owners is
> > essential to the program. Perhaps there is a new word for sharing
> > your property by having a government agency build a grade seperated
> > electrified dual track on it?
>
> My understanding is that "ROW sharing" means sharing the corridor along
> which current private (UP, BNSF) and public (Metrolink, Caltrain) railroads
> operate, but not sharing the actual real estate or tracks. Indeed, the plan
> calls for completely grade separated, electrified, and dedicated dual tracks
> for the HSR line. I think in most cases of ROW sharing the HSR line would
> run along side, or in between, the tracks of the existing RR. This will, in
> most cases, require acquisition of adjacent property to allow widening of
> the ROW. How the ownership of the property will be split between the
> separate entities, I'll have to leave to the lawyers to sort out.
Sounds to me like your interpretation (at least as good as mine) of the
phrase "ROW sharing" is normally called completely new ROW purchases
without actually accounting for the cost.
> I think it is important, however, to design the trains so that, in urban
> terminal areas, they can be used over the same tracks currently used by
> regular-speed services, including occasional freight trains.
That means slow. An appropriate tradeoff but one that needs to
be acknowledged upfront.
> The line would
> have to be electrified, of course, and have the capacity to handle the
> expected traffic. Big conditions, I know. But preferable to building a HSR
> system that cannot operate on existing trackage. I would even go so far as
> to suggest that with suitable fossil fuel engines, the new train sets should
> be able to operate in non-electrified territory.
Mission growth is what got the Nov ballot proposal postponed. There
is a subtlety here. Making the choo-choo able to run on existing rails is
fine but remember then it is only Amtrak not HSR.
> >> Eminent domain will certainly be used as needed. I see "flyovers"
> >> being built all over southern California (to connect the HOV lanes on one
> >> freeway to the HOV lanes on another freeway). I haven't heard much
> >> controversy regarding the building of those structures.
> >
> > Oh, I admit this is NIMBism writ large. Just because its stupid
> > doesn't make it go away.
>
> Right. Stupidity, short sightedness, and politics spoil a lot of good
> ideas. But occasionally those same obstructions keep us from doing
> something really stupid. I guess that is democracy at work.
I am beginning to think CA-HSR won't come about in a democracy regardless
of merit.
> we mustn't ascribe morality to corporations or political agencies.
> >
> >> From the HSRA's viewpoint, it's probably a better strategy
> >> than the original November 2000 "all or nothing" approach.
> >
> > From the perspective of the ends justifying the means, perhaps.
> > I'm more used to the government being less machivellian.
>
> The ends shouldn't justify the means, but some means work better than
> others. In this case, having a final up-or-down vote on HSR this coming
> November is probably not a good means to deciding the best future for
> transportation in California. It would probably lose, and have to be
> overturned later, just delaying California intra-state, inter-city
> transportation improvements. Kind of like the prohibition of spending sales
> tax dollars on subsurface transit in Los Angeles.
These kinds of public referenda are not rolls of the die. There
are very good reasons for Zevs law.
> > If local input is not going to influence the project we've completed
> > our transformation of the CA-HSRA into the MTA haven't we?
>
> I'm not saying local influence shouldn't be a factor, just that you have to
> keep your eye on the big picture, and not let the details trip you up.
> Using the example I gave above, the important thing is that Bakersfield be
> linked to the rest of the state by an efficient, high-speed, transportation
> system.
It's called the I-5. ;)
> The location of the station in Bakersfield is relatively minor
> detail. But it's easy to let an accumulation of such details cause enough
> controversy to kill the overall project.
It's not that there are details so much as the Authorities' studiously
avioding them that concerns me.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 8:41 AM:
> Second it isn't possible to complete the
> LA-SF trip in 4:55.
I must have missed something. Where does the 4:55 time come from? The Ca
HSRA web page shows 2:30 for LA-SF (1:54 if maglev). While I agree the 2:30
may be a bit optimistic, I'm not familiar with the 4:55 number. I have seen
proposals for "incremental upgrades" to existing trackage (as an alternative
to true HSR) that would achieve about a 5 hour LA-SF time.
Using the old SP distances of 476 miles OAK-LA (San Joaquin Valley Line) and
470 miles SF-LA (Coast Line), the 2:30 and 5:00 times would require average
speeds of about 190 mph and 95 mph, respectively.
I suspect a 125 mph max-speed train with a clear track, running as an
express, could make LA-SF in about 5 hours, and that would be a big
improvement over the current 8:40 (OAK-LA, train/bus, San Joaquin route) or
11:22 (Coast Starlight).
As an aside, a study done for the Coast Rail Coordinating Council shows that
a Talgo train, running on the Coast Line and making 22 stops between LA and
SF, could run from LA direct to SF (not OAK) in 10:53, given existing tracks
and traffic.
Merritt
Robert Coté
> Using the old SP distances of 476 miles OAK-LA (San Joaquin Valley Line) and
> 470 miles SF-LA (Coast Line), the 2:30 and 5:00 times would require average
> speeds of about 190 mph and 95 mph, respectively.
I'm glad to see another detail comming to light. A 200+mph train
cannot average 190mph when both ends are constrained and there
are tunnels, grades, etc.
> I suspect a 125 mph max-speed train with a clear track, running as an
> express, could make LA-SF in about 5 hours, and that would be a big
> improvement over the current 8:40 (OAK-LA, train/bus, San Joaquin route) or
> 11:22 (Coast Starlight).
It would be a great improvement HSR or not. Be sure to tell Bakersfield
that the choo-choo will be comming through at 125 but not stopping or
that the local will be sitting an extra 40 mins to make way. Don't
forget to tell the LA City Council that we don't have time to actually
go to Palmdale, we've got a schedule to keep.
I'm not critizing you Merrit, you've been looking at the issues
without bias and we've just chosen to take opposite sides for
convienience of discussion.
These tracks we a so blythely reorganizing are currently privately
owned and profitable transportation corridors.
> As an aside, a study done for the Coast Rail Coordinating Council shows that
> a Talgo train, running on the Coast Line and making 22 stops between LA and
> SF, could run from LA direct to SF (not OAK) in 10:53, given existing tracks
> and traffic.
Sounds reasonable.
Merritt D. Mullen
RFt...@mindspring.com wrote on 1/16/2000 9:43 PM:
> The money does come out of the same pot. State dollars in part finance
> Freeways and rail transit, and many transit agencies would much rather have
> state money go to their projects, that will no doubt serve far more people,
> than HSR.
It comes out of the same pot, if by "pot" you mean the taxpayer or the
state/federal treasury. But money authorized to build freeways or transit
systems is not available to built HSR and vice versa. That is why the
biggest issue regarding California HSR is how to up with a NEW source of
money (new sales or gasoline taxes, bonds, etc) to fund it. Money being
used to buy buses in LA, extend BART, etc, is not going to be given to the
HSR project.
> Even Gov Davis called HSR a Buck Rogers idea.
Even Democrats sometimes need to be educated. It remains to be decided
whether HSR is the best solution for California, but it is standard
technology in Europe and Japan (and soon in Taiwan and South Korea) and
certainly not a "Buck Rodgers" idea. Now if Davis was thinking of maglev,
he might have a point.
Merritt
HaRRy
in misc.transport.rail.americas:
»Like it or not, HSR is a dead issue.
Thanks John for clearing this up for all of us. Now I guess we can all go back
to criticizing Amtrak about {fill in the blank:______________ (add a separate
sheet if necessary}.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 10:43 AM:
> What makes you think CA-HSR will be a proven rail system. I've seen
> explicit references to it also being a demonstration of Californias'
> technological premminence. I seriously doubt that either an off the
> shelf German or Japanese system will show that.
I can only hope. Politicians are too quick to go for something "sexy" vs.
something proven, but still a vast improvement over what we have now. I am
encouraged by what seems to be a preference by the HSRA for the proven
technology of steel wheel on steel rail, instead of the unproven (or should
I say, already proven not to be practical) technology of maglev. I doubt
that it will be an off-the-shelf European (you left out France) or Japanese
system also, but it can still be based on proven technology.
> png compatible browser required late communicator (mac/pc) or explorer (pc).
I'm using the latest (IE 4.5 on a Mac power PC) and I've used the topo map
server before with no problems.
> Sounds to me like your interpretation (at least as good as mine) of the
> phrase "ROW sharing" is normally called completely new ROW purchases
> without actually accounting for the cost.
I would say it involves ROW purchase adjacent to existing rail ROWs, and
accounts for the cost.
>> I think it is important, however, to design the trains so that, in urban
>> terminal areas, they can be used over the same tracks currently used by
>> regular-speed services, including occasional freight trains.
>
> That means slow. An appropriate tradeoff but one that needs to
> be acknowledged upfront.
That is correct. I don't think anyone is hiding the fact that when sharing
ROW in urban terminal area (or all the way from LA to San Diego, in one
option), operation will be slower than the full HSR 200+ mph. It might be a
max of 124 mph to San Diego, and only 15-40 mph in terminal areas.
> Mission growth is what got the Nov ballot proposal postponed. There
> is a subtlety here. Making the choo-choo able to run on existing rails is
> fine but remember then it is only Amtrak not HSR.
Nobody calls the TGV trains in France "Amtrak" (used as an insult, I assume,
since the California trains are not really "Amtrak"). The TGV routes
include standard slower-speed trackage in the terminal areas (such as near
Paris) and extensions to cities that are not yet served by high speed
tracks.
And I am not talking about mission growth. I am talking about avoidance of
a mission handicap. I can't think of a worse handicap than to design a
high-speed train that REQUIRES its own dedicated rail lines to operate.
Even the new Acela Express trains being introduced on the NEC were designed
with the capability to run in other non-electrified corridors in the US.
That is one reason why the new turbo-electric locomotive is being developed.
> I am beginning to think CA-HSR won't come about in a democracy regardless
> of merit.
A reasonable thought, in my opinion.
>
> These kinds of public referenda are not rolls of the die. There
> are very good reasons for Zevs law.
Good reasons sometimes make bad law. In general, politicians should stick
to making policy and not engineering design decisions.
>>> If local input is not going to influence the project we've completed
>>> our transformation of the CA-HSRA into the MTA haven't we?
>>
>> I'm not saying local influence shouldn't be a factor, just that you have to
>> keep your eye on the big picture, and not let the details trip you up.
>> Using the example I gave above, the important thing is that Bakersfield be
>> linked to the rest of the state by an efficient, high-speed, transportation
>> system.
>
> It's called the I-5. ;)
I-5 is one part of the California transportation system (but I-5 doesn't
have a link to Bakersfield, not even a good connecting road). One problem
with I-5 is that it does not serve to link the communities of the Central
Valley. Hwy 99, regional air, and the San Joaquin trains do that, but 99 is
overburdened, air travel in the Valley is expensive and uncomfortable, and
the San Joaquins are fairly slow and infrequent (but improving).
>> The location of the station in Bakersfield is relatively minor
>> detail. But it's easy to let an accumulation of such details cause enough
>> controversy to kill the overall project.
>
> It's not that there are details so much as the Authorities' studiously
> avioding them that concerns me.
I suspect (hope?) more is going on behind the scenes than is being made
public, but of course I can't support that statement.
Merritt
Tony Polson
"Merritt D. Mullen" <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>I think it is important, however, to design the trains so that, in urban
>terminal areas, they can be used over the same tracks currently used by
>regular-speed services, including occasional freight trains. The line would
>have to be electrified, of course, and have the capacity to handle the
>expected traffic. Big conditions, I know. But preferable to building a HSR
>system that cannot operate on existing trackage.
Both the French TGV and German ICE plus the Anglo-French Eurostar and
your own Acela fulfil this requirement with ease. European cities are
no more accommodating of new high speed rights of way than American
cities, and the only alternative is to use existing approaches to city
centre stations. In Japan, new high speed Shinkansen lines into city
centres had to be built, but that is largely because the existing JR
network was 3ft 6in gauge and thus unsuitable for the bullet trains.
>I would even go so far as
>to suggest that with suitable fossil fuel engines, the new train sets should
>be able to operate in non-electrified territory.
The distances in California are not so great that you need consider
alternatives to full electrification. But if you wish these trains to
roam further afield a high speed Diesel solution is available. The UK
has run Diesel trains at 125mph since the mid 1970s with the InterCity
125 Diesel units now approaching 25 years in service - and they're good
for a few years yet.
The InterCity 125 power cars are 2250hp B-B units with an axle load of
only 17 tonnes (approx 19 US 'short' tons).
--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK
dre
speed maglev is just around the corner. I've been hearing this for the last 10 years.
John Bianco
>I-5 is one part of the California transportation system (but I-5 doesn't
>have a link to Bakersfield, not even a good connecting road). One problem
>with I-5 is that it does not serve to link the communities of the Central
>Valley. Hwy 99, regional air, and the San Joaquin trains do that, but 99
is
>overburdened, air travel in the Valley is expensive and uncomfortable, and
>the San Joaquins are fairly slow and infrequent (but improving).
99 is not really overburdend. I took 99 this last Thanksgiving to So Cal
and if I went under 75MPH, I was tailgated, and this was during a very busy
travel day. Although it is not nearly as well built as I-5, with much of it
not even being up to freeway standards, it is still treated by people who
drive it as a long drag strip.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 9:05 AM:
> 24.8 Billion buys you 4 world class Internationals, 12 Regionals
> and 40 local airports.
Or 2 one-runway expansions of LAX <g>
Of course with Federal funding 24.8 would
> be leveraged 5-20 times under current rules in addition. Remember
> that airports are profitible besides.
Profitable, once built (sometimes). The Ca HSR system is also supposed to
be profitable, once built (don't make me defend that, I'm just repeating the
propaganda).
Merritt
John Bianco
>It would be a great improvement HSR or not. Be sure to tell Bakersfield
>that the choo-choo will be comming through at 125 but not stopping or
>that the local will be sitting an extra 40 mins to make way. Don't
>forget to tell the LA City Council that we don't have time to actually
>go to Palmdale, we've got a schedule to keep.
>
>I'm not critizing you Merrit, you've been looking at the issues
>without bias and we've just chosen to take opposite sides for
>convienience of discussion.
>
>These tracks we a so blythely reorganizing are currently privately
>owned and profitable transportation corridors.
>
And since they are privately owned, the host railroads will not likely let
any passenger trains operate above the current top speed of 79MPH. Also BNSF
has made out fairly well by hosting several Amtrak and passenger trains, and
is going to get quite a bit more double tracking in the next few years. As
for UP, they are bound by thge moronic SP agreements, which were signed by a
railroad that was intrested in selling all trackage that was not part of the
Sunset route and Fresno Line.
>> As an aside, a study done for the Coast Rail Coordinating Council shows
that
>> a Talgo train, running on the Coast Line and making 22 stops between LA
and
>> SF, could run from LA direct to SF (not OAK) in 10:53, given existing
tracks
>> and traffic.
>
>Sounds reasonable.
Still a very long time. Also, as I havbe said for mroe than 3 years now,
the UP is a radically different animal than the SP. The UP demands trackage
improvments to its lines in exchange for letting passenger trains on it.
That is why I seriously doubt the California Zepfher or a Coast Daylight
will start anytime soon, unless the state or Amtrak suddeny cough up
$50-$100 million in trackage improvmnets.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 12:03 PM:
> In article <B4A8A2F6.73BD%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> Using the old SP distances of 476 miles OAK-LA (San Joaquin Valley Line) and
>> 470 miles SF-LA (Coast Line), the 2:30 and 5:00 times would require average
>> speeds of about 190 mph and 95 mph, respectively.
>
> I'm glad to see another detail comming to light. A 200+mph train
> cannot average 190mph when both ends are constrained and there
> are tunnels, grades, etc.
I would have to go back and look at the original HSRC report, but I think
the assumption was a shorter route than the old SP 476 miles (which has a
lot of in-directness in both the bay area and south of Bakersfield). But
you are correct, and that is why a more realistic en route time for HSR is 3
hours (about a 150 mph average).
>> I suspect a 125 mph max-speed train with a clear track, running as an
>> express, could make LA-SF in about 5 hours, and that would be a big
>> improvement over the current 8:40 (OAK-LA, train/bus, San Joaquin route) or
>> 11:22 (Coast Starlight).
>
> It would be a great improvement HSR or not. Be sure to tell Bakersfield
> that the choo-choo will be comming through at 125 but not stopping or
> that the local will be sitting an extra 40 mins to make way. Don't
> forget to tell the LA City Council that we don't have time to actually
> go to Palmdale, we've got a schedule to keep.
Well, there will expresses and trains that stop at every major city, but I
expect even the expresses will stop at Bakersfield and Fresno. But all that
remains to be worked out as traffic patterns develop. People can fly
between LA and SF; it is the people of the central valley who will benefit
most from a high-speed train service.
> I'm not critizing you Merrit, you've been looking at the issues
> without bias and we've just chosen to take opposite sides for
> convienience of discussion.
I don't even know if we are on opposite sides or just looking at things from
a different perspective. I admit I am very biased when it comes to support
of intercity rail travel.
> These tracks we a so blythely reorganizing are currently privately
> owned and profitable transportation corridors.
Privately owned, profitable, and mostly heavily used. Anything that is done
regarding additional passenger rail must recognize those facts and do
nothing to disturb them. In fact, any upgrades for passenger service should
be done in such a way as to improve freight service.
>> As an aside, a study done for the Coast Rail Coordinating Council shows that
>> a Talgo train, running on the Coast Line and making 22 stops between LA and
>> SF, could run from LA direct to SF (not OAK) in 10:53, given existing tracks
>> and traffic.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
Note those 22 stops. The current Coast Starlight only makes 8 stops between
LA and Oakland. If that Talgo ran as an express you could remove at least
an hour from that 10:53 schedule. But the thought is that a new coast line
train would better serve the people as an all-stops accommodation, since an
express takes too long anyway.
Merritt
Bill Zaumen
Mueller) wrote:
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> >You could have made the same argument about the Concords versus 747s:
> >how could you call a mere 500 to 600 mph fast when you could go more
> >than twice as fast at twice the altitude.
>
> There is a difference; concorde produced a sonic boom that people
> didn't like. Maglev can go 500 MPH, producing no sonic boom; TGV
> can't.
>
Try again. That doesn't explain why everyone isn't using a Concord
to go between JFK and Heathrow (an existing route). The sonic boom
limited its use over the U.S. and other areas, but not over the ocean.
Robert Coté
> in article techscan-170...@calnet12-230.gtecablemodem.com, Robert
> Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 9:05 AM:
>
> > 24.8 Billion buys you 4 world class Internationals, 12 Regionals
> > and 40 local airports.
>
> Or 2 one-runway expansions of LAX <g>
The entire Denver Airport cost 4.0 billion. Any other figures
you hear about LAX expansion are ummmm padded. You did know that
the average SkyCap earns over $70,000 right?
> Of course with Federal funding 24.8 would
> > be leveraged 5-20 times under current rules in addition. Remember
> > that airports are profitible besides.
>
> Profitable, once built (sometimes).
Always. Really.
> The Ca HSR system is also supposed to
> be profitable, once built (don't make me defend that, I'm just repeating the
> propaganda).
The latest figures claim 48-74% farebox recovery.
David Bromage
> What makes you think CA-HSR will be a proven rail system. I've seen
> explicit references to it also being a demonstration of Californias'
> technological premminence. I seriously doubt that either an off the
> shelf German or Japanese system will show that.
That means it will be an off the shelf HSR system (most likely French)
build in California under licence (probably by a subsidiary of Bombadier). :)
Cheers
David
P. Wezeman
> In article <38839b7b...@news.earthlink.net>, no...@none.com (Brian
> Mueller) wrote:
>
> > Bill Zaumen wrote:
> >
> > >You could have made the same argument about the Concords versus 747s:
> > >how could you call a mere 500 to 600 mph fast when you could go more
> > >than twice as fast at twice the altitude.
> >
> > There is a difference; concorde produced a sonic boom that people
> > didn't like. Maglev can go 500 MPH, producing no sonic boom; TGV
> > can't.
> >
>
> Try again. That doesn't explain why everyone isn't using a Concord
> to go between JFK and Heathrow (an existing route). The sonic boom
> limited its use over the U.S. and other areas, but not over the ocean.
Mag-lev at 500 mph at sea level would exceed the energy cost
of a subsonic airliner. The only speeds over 300 mph for proposed trains
that I have seen are for trains that run in vacuum or partially evacuated
tunnels.
Peter Wezeman, anti-social Darwinist
"Carpe Cyprinidae"
Adrian Brandt
> "Merritt D. Mullen" <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>> The Ca HSR system is also supposed to be profitable, once built
>
I hadn't heard/read that anywhere yet. What's the source?
Please be as precise as you can; I'd like to confirm this myself.
--
Adrian Brandt
(408) 565-7291 / abr...@nortelnetworks.com
Robert Coté
> Robert Cot=E9 wrote:
> > "Merritt D. Mullen" <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> >> The Ca HSR system is also supposed to be profitable, once built
> >
> > The latest figures claim 48-74% farebox recovery.
>
> I hadn't heard/read that anywhere yet. What's the source?
HSRInvestments.pdf
http://www.cahighspeedrail.com/rail_authority/progressreport/docs/HSRInvestments.pdf
> Please be as precise as you can; I'd like to confirm this myself.
Because you think I am wrong. Com'on Adrian this tactics are
getting old. These are dated Nov 22nd, 1999. I don't
lie, this is about not liking the answers not about
questioning the references. Of course you are absolutely
correct that the HSRA claims profitablity but their line
is being called VHS and not HSR. We need to make a distinction
as we move forward.
HSR is the new incarnation of existing feeder lines to something
they are trying to call HSR.
From the precise reference:
For some, the fare on the VHS service may be too high.
In addition, some passengers
may have purchased tickets to connecting Amtrak trains.
Others may be travelling with
passengers who will be getting on or off at intermediate
stations on the conventional
trains. Lastly, the VHS service may actually increase
ridership on the high-speed lines.
For example, travelers may take the high-speed service
to get from Orange County to Los
Angeles Union Station to catch the very-high-speed service.
Similarly, travelers in the
East Bay may ride the high-speed service to San Jose. In
any case, it is likely that about
half to two-thirds of the rail service patrons will be
diverted to the VHS trains.
[Note: this is important]
Operating Costs Estimates
The operating subsidy for each potential service was
calculated using the incremental
passenger revenues and operating expenses between the
2015 baseline forecast and the
2015 forecast with faster speeds and more trains. For
the Sacramento-Bay Area-Salinas
service, the incremental passenger revenues in year 2015
is forecasted to be about $7.2
million. The incremental operating cost is forecasted to
be about $12.4 million, leading to
an annual operating subsidy of $5.2 million. The fare
recovery ratio is forecasted to be 58 percent.
For the Interim San Joaquin service, the incremental passenger
revenues in year 2015 is
estimated to be $9.7 million. The incremental operating
cost is forecasted to be about
$18.3 million, leading to an annual operating subsidy of
$8.6 million. The fare recovery
ratio is estimated to be 53 percent. For the San Luis
Obispo-Los Angeles service, the
incremental passenger revenue in year 2015 is forecasted
to be about $10.4 million. The
incremental operating cost is estimated to be $14.0 million,
leading to an annual
operating subsidy of about $3.6 million. The fare recovery
ratio is forecasted to be 75
percent. The incremental passenger revenue in year 2015
for the Los Angeles-San Diego
service is forecasted to be about $32.5 million. The incremental
operating cost is
estimated to be $44.2 million, leading to an annual operating
subsidy of $11.7 million.
The fare recovery ratio would be about 74 percent.
------------------
Now that we know that CA-HSR is properly called VHS we can
move on.
VHS claims profitability from day one. Let's look at
that. I await analysis.
Merritt D. Mullen
1/17/2000 2:39 PM:
> Yea I know how you feel. I'm 38 and they keep telling the public here in
> Pittsburgh that high speed maglev is just around the corner. I've been
> hearing this for the last 10 years.
Shoot. I'm 65 and when I attended the 1939 World's Fair in NY, I remember
them saying that highways would be soon be automated and cars would drive
themselves. The federal government is still wasting money on that dream.
Merritt
Adrian Brandt
>>> "Merritt D. Mullen" <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>>>> The Ca HSR system is also supposed to be profitable, once built
>>> The latest figures claim 48-74% farebox recovery.
>> I hadn't heard/read that anywhere yet. What's the source?
>
> > Please be as precise as you can; I'd like to confirm this myself.
>
> Because you think I am wrong.
Yes, I thought you were wrong because, like perhaps many other readers,
and as you may or may not have intended, your posting seemed to contradict
the long predicted operating profit associated with the Calfornia High
Speed Rail proposal the HSR Commission, and now the Authority, have been
kicking around and continue to study (to death?).
Thanks for clarifying the semantic distinction you and the HSRA have in
mind when referring to high speed (HS) and very high speed (VHS). I
have no quibble with the distinction, it's just that your response to
Mr. Mullen was misleading for anyone who isn't aware of the fine, but
important semantic distinction being made between HS and VHS. After-
all it isn't the VHSRA, it's the HSRA--so any confusion is forgiveably
understandable.
> Of course you are absolutely correct that the HSRA claims profitablity
> but their line is being called VHS and not HSR. We need to make a
> distinction as we move forward.
Indeed. And I think, now, we have.
> Now that we know that CA-HSR is properly called VHS we can move on.
Why, thank you!
> VHS claims profitability from day one. Let's look at that. I await
> analysis.
It's interesting to note that the predicted profit is so large (in the
hundreds of millions per year) that it would easily (10x over) cover
all of the predicted marginal operating shortfalls on sub-VHS services
you listed in response to my question about your potentially misleading
comment about "48-74% farebox recovery." Nice.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 5:21 PM:
> In article <B4A8F7B3.747E%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> in article techscan-170...@calnet12-230.gtecablemodem.com, Robert
>> Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 9:05 AM:
>>
>>> 24.8 Billion buys you 4 world class Internationals, 12 Regionals
>>> and 40 local airports.
>>
>> Or 2 one-runway expansions of LAX <g>
>
> The entire Denver Airport cost 4.0 billion. Any other figures
> you hear about LAX expansion are ummmm padded.
Why would the mayor of LA pad his own estimate? If he did, it resulted in
the project getting downsized. The new (5th) runway has now been deleted
from the plan and the number of businesses to be relocated has been reduced
from 383 to 247. The project is still estimated at about $10 billion (LA
Times 6/15/99 and 9/21/99) and has been called "the most expensive public
works project in the nation" (LA Times). Referring to the mayor, someone is
quoted as saying "makes you wonder what he's been smoking." If I remember
correctly, LAX generates revenues of about $61 billion a year, so even a $10
billion project might pay eventually for itself.
> You did know that
> the average SkyCap earns over $70,000 right?
I didn't know that, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. Actually, if
that is the "average" I am a bit surprised. I certainly would expect some
to earn that much, based on tips and long hours worked. Since much of that
income is from tips, I would imagine it would be hard to document.
>>> Remember
>>> that airports are profitible besides.
>>
>> Profitable, once built (sometimes).
>
> Always. Really.
Well, you included general aviation airports, are you sure those always earn
a profit? I'm not sure that our county-owned airport in Inyokern really
makes a profit (I think the one commercial service is federally subsidized
as "Essential Air Service"). I know the airport's construction was paid for
by the feds, as it was built by the U.S. Navy in the 1940s. I have to
wonder if the Bakersfield airport makes a profit, given the poor commercial
service out of there.
>> The Ca HSR system is also supposed to
>> be profitable, once built (don't make me defend that, I'm just repeating the
>> propaganda).
>
> The latest figures claim 48-74% farebox recovery.
The low end of that range is a hell of a lot worse than Amtrak does today
(its hard to get accurate figures, and they depend on a lot of assumptions,
but Amtrak's annual federal operating subsidy is roughly 20% of ticket
revenues). Is that what the HSRA is now claiming? If the principal
advocates think that, we might as well shut down the whole thing right now.
Why would anyone start such a project if it wasn't expected to cover its
operating costs, once built?
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
RFt...@mindspring.com wrote on 1/17/2000 7:07 PM:
> And since they are privately owned, the host railroads will not likely let any
> passenger trains operate above the current top speed of 79MPH. Also BNSF has
> made out fairly well by hosting several Amtrak and passenger trains, and is
> going to get quite a bit more double tracking in the next few years.
>
You are contradicting yourself. First, you say the RRs have no incentives
for cooperating with Amtrak, then you say the RRs are making out well by
hosting Amtrak trains. Of course, the RRs will try and get the best deal
they can for any Amtrak increases in speed or frequency. They would not be
acting in the best interests of their stockholders if they didn't. And of
course Amtrak tries to get the most concessions at the least cost. That is
the nature of business dealings. Out of it comes something that is good for
both Amtrak and the RRs.
And regarding top speed of 79 mph, the ex-SF portion of BNSF already
operates Amtrak trains at 90 mph.
> As for UP, they are bound by thge moronic SP agreements, which were signed by
> a railroad that was intrested in selling all trackage that was not part of the
> Sunset route and Fresno Line.
>
That is certainly true regarding the ex-SP Coast Line. It was also moronic
of the state of California not to buy the Coast Line when they had the
chance.
>>> As an aside, a study done for the Coast Rail Coordinating Council shows that
>>> a Talgo train, running on the Coast Line and making 22 stops between LA and
>>> SF, could run from LA direct to SF (not OAK) in 10:53, given existing tracks
>>> and traffic.
>>>
>> Sounds reasonable.
>>
> Still a very long time. Also, as I havbe said for mroe than 3 years now, the
> UP is a radically different animal than the SP. The UP demands trackage
> improvments to its lines in exchange for letting passenger trains on it. That
> is why I seriously doubt the California Zepfher or a Coast Daylight will start
> anytime soon, unless the state or Amtrak suddeny cough up $50-$100 million in
> trackage improvmnets.
Some are expecting the California Zephyr extension to start as early as the
April Amtrak timetable change. It is expected to same Amtrak $1 million a
year by consolidating Superliner maintenance in the LA area.
You keep saying service won't start because UP demands trackage improvements
in exchange for letting passenger trains run on it. It is true about UP's
demands, but it is also true that the state and feds keep coming up with
money to make those improvements and the passenger trains keep being added.
Merritt
John Bianco
Merritt D. Mullen wrote in message ...
>in article 860lbs$jt5$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net, John Bianco at
>RFt...@mindspring.com wrote on 1/17/2000 7:07 PM:
>
>> And since they are privately owned, the host railroads will not likely
let any
>> passenger trains operate above the current top speed of 79MPH. Also BNSF
has
>> made out fairly well by hosting several Amtrak and passenger trains, and
is
>> going to get quite a bit more double tracking in the next few years.
>>
>You are contradicting yourself. First, you say the RRs have no incentives
>for cooperating with Amtrak, then you say the RRs are making out well by
>hosting Amtrak trains.
Ok let me make myself clear, as Amtrak inter city/;ong distance currently
stands, the railroads do not have any incentive to host Amtrak trains, at
least for the routes currently in place. The Coast Starlight, Sunset, etc...
do not provide for infrastructure imporvments, and pay few below market
value compared to what shippers pay for a similar level of service. The
state/local supported passenger trains do indeed give the host railroads a
reason to co operate, since they get a fair number of track improvments.
Of course, the RRs will try and get the best deal
>they can for any Amtrak increases in speed or frequency. They would not be
>acting in the best interests of their stockholders if they didn't. And of
>course Amtrak tries to get the most concessions at the least cost. That is
>the nature of business dealings. Out of it comes something that is good
for
>both Amtrak and the RRs.
>
>And regarding top speed of 79 mph, the ex-SF portion of BNSF already
>operates Amtrak trains at 90 mph.
>
Only on the line East of Barstow, and that only sees the SW Chief, and
that is because of the ATS system in place on this line. The other BNSF
owned lines, the Valley LIne between Stockton and Bakersfeild and the BNSF
Fullerton line that host the vast majority of passenger trains that use BNSF
has the top speed at 79MPH.
>> As for UP, they are bound by thge moronic SP agreements, which were
signed by
>> a railroad that was intrested in selling all trackage that was not part
of the
>> Sunset route and Fresno Line.
>>
>That is certainly true regarding the ex-SP Coast Line. It was also moronic
>of the state of California not to buy the Coast Line when they had the
>chance.
>
That can be said also, sort of now a stalemate situation that forces UP
and the SCRRA to work together. Like I said before, the SCRRA was lucky that
it delt with the SP in the shape that it was in
>>>> As an aside, a study done for the Coast Rail Coordinating Council shows
that
>>>> a Talgo train, running on the Coast Line and making 22 stops between LA
and
>>>> SF, could run from LA direct to SF (not OAK) in 10:53, given existing
tracks
>>>> and traffic.
>>>>
>>> Sounds reasonable.
>>>
>> Still a very long time. Also, as I havbe said for mroe than 3 years now,
the
>> UP is a radically different animal than the SP. The UP demands trackage
>> improvments to its lines in exchange for letting passenger trains on it.
That
>> is why I seriously doubt the California Zepfher or a Coast Daylight will
start
>> anytime soon, unless the state or Amtrak suddeny cough up $50-$100
million in
>> trackage improvmnets.
>
>Some are expecting the California Zephyr extension to start as early as the
>April Amtrak timetable change. It is expected to same Amtrak $1 million a
>year by consolidating Superliner maintenance in the LA area.
>
Some people were expecting the Talgo to Las Vegas to start in late 98
also, it of course will start in late 2000, and the start up of this service
is far more costly than first estimated because of the trackage improvments
that UP wantedand got. When this service was first proposed Amtrak thought
it did not have to pay for trackage improvments. Anyways, UP does not care
if Amtrak saves $1 million a year if it makes it even harder for the UP to
get its frieghts though on the South end of the Coast Line. Amtrak can not
simpily just say they are going to start to run on a section of track unless
a agreemnet is signed with the host railroad.
>You keep saying service won't start because UP demands trackage
improvements
>in exchange for letting passenger trains run on it. It is true about UP's
>demands, but it is also true that the state and feds keep coming up with
>money to make those improvements and the passenger trains keep being added.
>
If the state and feds come up with money for Coast line trackage
improvments, than I am sure the UPRR would welcome more passenger trains.
This has allready happened on the South end of the Coast line and the UP(ex
SP) and soon on the ex SP Elvas line between Stockton and Sacramento. But my
point, as it has for 3 years, is that Amtrak or the sate can not simpily
barge in and say that service will start or else, nor can any agency expect
the UP to give similar deals that the SP did.
>Merritt
>
Silas Warner
>
> I agree that Maglev spending does bear a resemblance to the space race: a high
> speed, nebulous goal shrouded in rah-rah nationalism. I'm afraid the Japanese,
> Germans and the rest of the world can already laugh at the pathetic Americans,
> who are too busy with their road rage shootings on gridlocked freeways to
> demand transportation alternatives that employ proven technology. They are
> already ahead.
Not actually. Actually the Americans are ahead, but very reasonably
display absolutely no inclination to exploit their technological
advantage. Nor will the Germans or Japanese give up their expensively
developed systems to try out a cheaper, simpler American system
The irony is that this was developed at an American government lab,
Lawrence Livermore, and is therefore publicly available to anyone who
wants to use it. It uses no coils or superconductors, just plain
permanent magnets. It has been demonstrated as slow as 22 mph and
as fast as 60, and the ground resistance goes down as the speed goes
up.
But as many other posters have pointed out, there isn't really any
need for a high-speed maglev train here except for national pride --
and as far as railroads go, we don't have any. Probably the first
maglev systems will be in high-speed motor bearings that never wear
out.
Silas Warner
>
Richard Mlynarik
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 02:59:16 GMT
sjd...@yahoo.nospam.com wrote:
[...]
> Three responses to the above: First, at the $25 Billion cost, the HSRA
> is assuming totally dedicated right of way that MIGHT coexist (with
> either vertical or horizontal separation) with existing services. In
> other words, while the right of way will be shared, the actual tracks
> won't be.
The existing ROW alignments are not straight enough to accomodate
the HSR projected speeds between LA and the Central Valley. New
alignments straight enough for 100+mph service on double tracked
fully electrified catenary service will be required. There is
clearly not enough surface area Burbank-LA so you are proposing
an elevated electrified track with a train going by every 17 min.
False.
> Second (and yes, I know I may be opening another can of worms):
> The need to separate from existing services is solely due to the
> FRA's insistence on crash survivability to the almost total
> exclusion of crash avoidance.
This is not true. The reason for seperation are because the
existing lines are not fast enough and there is not enough capacity
to handle a much faster than normal trainset. I think the word
they use is "path." A normal freight taking up 1 paths' worth of
capacity. This HSR would be worth many paths probably to the
exclusion of all else.
Good to see you're picking up on jargon. Many find it a useful
surrogate for understanding.
You're both right: separation from what would otherwise be
_operationally_ compatible services in terminals and urban approaches
is due entirely to insane FRA regulation.
Separation from slow services elsewhere is the entire reason for
constructing new high speed alignments.
> The consequence of this is that HSR equipment that shares track
> with existing equipment must be of much heavier construction than
> would be needed with complete separation. Heavier construction
> also leads to lower speeds, which is why Acela will only be doing
> 150mph.
This is not entirely true. Given the corridor and station spacing,
150mph is all that is practical regardless of FRA regs.
It's why they can perhaps (maybe -- the ongoing operational costs are
yet to be known precisely) get away with the heavy, expensive and
inefficient trains. Elsewhere (eg LA-SF) such trains would be
complete non-starters.
> If the FRA can be convinced to allow the use of crash avoidance
> technologies (either time separation or improved signalling with
> train stop ability, or both), then the HSR can share both right
> of way AND track with existing services, resulting in a much
> lower building and right-of way acquisition costs to go through
> built-up areas.
The existing track is not straight enough,
Irrelevant for terminal approaches
there is not enough capacity,
Almost certainly not true
the catenary prevents use of over height freight.
Typical Coté 100% bullshit.
> Finally (third), if current and HSR share the same ROW, but not
> the same track, I suspect that in most cases the HSR will go
> above the existing stuff, not vice-versa. Since HSR is (will be)
> designed for a 3.5% grade, flyover structures will be much
> shorter if it's HSR doing the flying. And since the 3.5% grade
> design is for a sustained grade, I suspect that HSR will have no
> problems with a 5% (momentum) short grade for a flyover.
Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high enough
to clear the current traffic. This in an environment that assumes
the owners of the ROW will donate the space. Ouch.
Oh, such scary engineering! Such insuperable obstacles! It's all
never been done _anywhere_ else in the world and there's no way such
bold undertakings could ever be pioneered here!
Richard Mlynarik
Newsgroups: la.transportation,ba.transportation,misc.transport.rail.americas
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 06:02:38 GMT
"Merritt D. Mullen" <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> Between Burbank and LA Union Station, you are really talking about the
> terminal area that must accommodate a mixture of freight, commuter,
> intercity, and HSR. A lot of work is needed to increase capacity there,
> even if the HSR line is not built. If you think that is tough, how about
> the HSR line from LA Union Station to LAX?
Of course the real issue is ego. HSR does not need and should not
go to Union Station. It's just an old way of thinking to have to
go downtown.
The new topozone site can help describe what I am concerned with.
Tried, but: "Error ASP 015".
Such fine software!
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=34.1823&lon=-118.3078&s=25&size=s
From the lat&long it looks like you're getting all excited about a
location in Burbank, California.
And clearly you think that threading a pair of railway tracks through
there is impossible.
That's certainly not the case.
If you really cared and weren't just on a quasi-libertarian pinhead
rampage against high speed ground transportation, you could look at
http://www.hslzuid.nl/hsl/r-publicaties-tb-downloaden.html (you'll
need a PDF viewer, but you don't need to understand Dutch) to see how
far more complicated issues in far more constrained rights of way are
handled.
[...]
> > This is not entirely true. Given the corridor and station spacing,
> > 150mph is all that is practical regardless of FRA regs.
>
> Right, the weight of the Acela Express trainset is not what
> limits it to 150 mph. It was designed to do at least 150 mph
> while meeting FRA regulations and operating in the NEC
> environment. If the NEC environment allowed it, it could have
> been designed to meet FRA regulations and go 200 mph, but that
> wasn't the requirement. And, by the way, that 150 mph is a
> limitation between New Haven and Boston. Between NYC and DC,
> look for the Acela Express to do 160-165 mph when and if the
> catenary is upgraded.
D'accord.
It's so good to see you and Merritt agreeing.
Unfortunately no engineers from any company which actually
manufactures high speed rail equipment agrees with you.
Nor, for that matter, does Amtrak's NEC project manager (according to
his communications with the California HSRA.)
> >> If the FRA can be convinced to allow the use of crash
> >> avoidance technologies (either time separation or improved signalling
> >> with train stop ability, or both), then the HSR can share both right
> >> of way AND track with existing services, resulting in a much lower
> >> building and right-of way acquisition costs to go through built-up
> >> areas.
> >
> > The existing track is not straight enough, there is not enough capacity,
> > the catenary prevents use of over height freight.
>
> The height of the catenary certainly limits the height of the
> train, but nothing prevents placing the catenary at a height that
> allows normal double deck container trains to operate. Places
> where the HST will share tracks with freight trains will be very
> few and mostly in terminal areas where speed will be limited.
Aerodynamics and cost prevent extended catenary configs.
Wow! Where do you get this compelling jargon? "Extended catenary
configs" indeed! Have you ever actually seen a pantograph in your
life? Do you have the slightest clue about high speed catenary
design? Apparently not.
> > Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high
> > enough to clear the current traffic. This in an environment
> > that assumes the owners of the ROW will donate the space.
> > Ouch.
>
> I doubt anyone is assuming any private owners are going to
> "donate" any space.
The docs clearly state that ROW sharing with private owners is
essential to the program. Perhaps there is a new word for sharing
your property by having a government agency build a grade seperated
electrified dual track on it?
What a pinhead. 12% of the whole system capital cost is estimated to
be for right of way acquisition, which includes existing rights of way
owned by other parties and easements.
The business plan explicitly states that only 15 percent of the system
ROW is assumed to be in public ownership and available at no cost.
But don't let facts get in your way.
Richard Mlynarik
Newsgroups: misc.transport.rail.americas
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 03:28:48 GMT
[...]
> Good to see you're picking up on jargon. Many find it a useful
> surrogate for understanding.
Many others of a more generous nature find the use of the correct t
erminology evidence of understanding.
Robert, others will recall that you're the one who has claimed
repeatedly -- citing your experience as a "rocket scientist" -- that
high speed trains can't operate through tunnels, and if they could the
tunnels would need to be "25 meters across and 20 meters high".
All this despite the fact that thousands of high speed trains run
underground every day through bores with a cross-section of much less
than one tenth what you claim.
And now you want be taken seriously bandying around "extended catenary
configs" (not to mention "trainsets" and "``path''" -- in scary, or
perhaps ironic, quotation marks)?
Please!
Robert Coté
> in article techscan-170...@calnet12-230.gtecablemodem.com, Robert
> Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 5:21 PM:
>
> > In article <B4A8F7B3.747E%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> > <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> >
> >> in article techscan-170...@calnet12-230.gtecablemodem.com, Robert
> >> Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/17/2000 9:05 AM:
> >>
> >>> 24.8 Billion buys you 4 world class Internationals, 12 Regionals
> >>> and 40 local airports.
> >>
> >> Or 2 one-runway expansions of LAX <g>
> >
> > The entire Denver Airport cost 4.0 billion. Any other figures
> > you hear about LAX expansion are ummmm padded.
>
> Why would the mayor of LA pad his own estimate?
Ummm, political leverage? Nah.
> If he did, it resulted in
> the project getting downsized. The new (5th) runway has now been deleted
> from the plan and the number of businesses to be relocated has been reduced
> from 383 to 247.
Want another runway? Easy, propose two and comprimise.
> The project is still estimated at about $10 billion (LA
> Times 6/15/99 and 9/21/99) and has been called "the most expensive public
> works project in the nation" (LA Times). Referring to the mayor, someone is
> quoted as saying "makes you wonder what he's been smoking." If I remember
> correctly, LAX generates revenues of about $61 billion a year, so even a $10
> billion project might pay eventually for itself.
$61 billion? That's 5 billion per month, that's $170million/day. Not.
> > You did know that
> > the average SkyCap earns over $70,000 right?
>
> I didn't know that, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. Actually, if
> that is the "average" I am a bit surprised. I certainly would expect some
> to earn that much, based on tips and long hours worked. Since much of that
> income is from tips, I would imagine it would be hard to document.
What's harder than dicumenting is becoming a SkyCap if you
have the wrong color skin.
> >>> Remember
> >>> that airports are profitible besides.
> >>
> >> Profitable, once built (sometimes).
> >
> > Always. Really.
>
> Well, you included general aviation airports, are you sure those always earn
> a profit?
That's one of those fuzzy questions. Yes, with all the Federal
support all airports are profitable. Want to call this Federal
support a subsidy? It's not that easy. The money all comes from
airport operations so...
> >> The Ca HSR system is also supposed to
> >> be profitable, once built (don't make me defend that, I'm just repeating the
> >> propaganda).
> >
> > The latest figures claim 48-74% farebox recovery.
>
> The low end of that range is a hell of a lot worse than Amtrak does today
> (its hard to get accurate figures, and they depend on a lot of assumptions,
> but Amtrak's annual federal operating subsidy is roughly 20% of ticket
> revenues).
Remember that Amtrak counts local subsidies as farebox. Ouch.
That changes the math doesn't it?
> Is that what the HSRA is now claiming? If the principal advocates
> think that, we might as well shut down the whole thing right now.
No it's too soon to stop thinking HSR, umm excuse me, VHS. When I led
a govt session back in 91-92(?) our conclusion was that it was only
money not viability that was stopping VHS. Everything except the
price tag was acceptable to everyone on the panel, including me.
> Why would anyone start such a project if it wasn't expected to cover its
> operating costs, once built?
Why would ANYONE continue to fund EVERY single transit system in the
US given the same condition?
Robert Coté
> From: tech...@gte.net (Robert Coté)
> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 02:59:16 GMT
>
> The existing ROW alignments are not straight enough to accomodate
> the HSR projected speeds between LA and the Central Valley. New
> alignments straight enough for 100+mph service on double tracked
> fully electrified catenary service will be required. There is
> clearly not enough surface area Burbank-LA so you are proposing
> an elevated electrified track with a train going by every 17 min.
>
> False.
Cut to the quick. Such an irrefutable rebuttal. How about
something more substaniial?
> The reason for seperation are because the
> existing lines are not fast enough and there is not enough capacity
> to handle a much faster than normal trainset. I think the word
> they use is "path." A normal freight taking up 1 paths' worth of
> capacity. This HSR would be worth many paths probably to the
> exclusion of all else.
>
> Good to see you're picking up on jargon. Many find it a useful
> surrogate for understanding.
Many others of a more generous nature find the use of the correct t
erminology evidence of understanding.
> [Acela] ...Given the corridor and station spacing,
> 150mph is all that is practical regardless of FRA regs.
>
> It's why they can perhaps (maybe -- the ongoing operational costs are
> yet to be known precisely) get away with the heavy, expensive and
> inefficient trains. Elsewhere (eg LA-SF) such trains would be
> complete non-starters.
>
> > If the FRA can be convinced to allow the use of crash avoidance
> > technologies (either time separation or improved signalling with
> > train stop ability, or both), then the HSR can share both right
> > of way AND track with existing services, resulting in a much
> > lower building and right-of way acquisition costs to go through
> > built-up areas.
>
> The existing track is not straight enough,
>
> Irrelevant for terminal approaches
Are you sure? Remember there is a schedule to keep. If the
terminal areas are too slow no amount of 200+mph operation
can make up for it.
> there is not enough capacity,
>
> Almost certainly not true
Then it should be easy to refute.
> the catenary prevents use of over height freight.
>
> Typical Coté 100% bullshit.
Of course you could have presented examples of HST and
double stack diesel concurrent operations but that would
have been to polite and germane for your purposes.
Calling the incompatibility of VST catenary overhead electrifiaction
and double stack freight "100% bullshit" doesn't make it any
less true.
> > Finally (third), if current and HSR share the same ROW, but not
> > the same track, I suspect that in most cases the HSR will go
> > above the existing stuff, not vice-versa. Since HSR is (will be)
> > designed for a 3.5% grade, flyover structures will be much
> > shorter if it's HSR doing the flying. And since the 3.5% grade
> > design is for a sustained grade, I suspect that HSR will have no
> > problems with a 5% (momentum) short grade for a flyover.
>
> Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high enough
> to clear the current traffic. This in an environment that assumes
> the owners of the ROW will donate the space. Ouch.
>
> Oh, such scary engineering! Such insuperable obstacles! It's all
> never been done _anywhere_ else in the world and there's no way such
> bold undertakings could ever be pioneered here!
If you had been paying attention to Merrits' and my running
discussion rather than pursuing a vendatta of character assasination
you would have seen my numerous comments that make clear that none
of these issues are fatal flaws. The point was to show that the
weight of evidence indicates that VST is not ready for full funding
through a public vote. It would fail.
With such pleasant advocates as you, it deserves to fail.
Adrian Hudson
Adrian.
David Bromage <dbro...@fang.omni.com.au> wrote in message
news:i1Rg4.29$vy.4...@news0.optus.net.au...
Adrian Hudson
approaches at the ends the HSR are not so confining when compared with
Europe. Any UK designer could only dream of the available land, not to
mention paths available on the approaches (to LA Union in particular). The
problem at the Southern end of the route is political will. The much more
severe technical problem is the mountain ranges at both ends of the route.
There again, political problems are nit unknown to UK railway development
:).
Adrian, San Mateo County (ex West Sussex County).
Tony Polson <news....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:38868f9e...@news.btinternet.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:01:45 -0800, in misc.transport.rail.americas
> "Merritt D. Mullen" <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>
Robert Coté
> From: tech...@gte.net (Robert Coté)
> The new topozone site can help describe what I am concerned with.
> From the lat&long it looks like you're getting all excited about a
> location in Burbank, California.
>
> And clearly you think that threading a pair of railway tracks through
> there is impossible.
Clear thinking aside. I am concerned with threading a pair of
100+mph grade seperated electrified lines through some very
expensive and politically powerful areas. Where you get impossible
out of this is less clear.
> If you really cared and weren't just on a quasi-libertarian pinhead
> rampage against high speed ground transportation, ...
Oh, the hurt. I do care, I ain't quasi nuttin' and hydrocephaly is
something you are clearly more aquainted with than I. Me, I'm
talking about the important details of VST alignment you seem
strangely interested in me personally.
> > > This is not entirely true. Given the corridor and station spacing,
> > > 150mph is all that is practical regardless of FRA regs.
> >
> > Right, the weight of the Acela Express trainset is not what
> > limits it to 150 mph. It was designed to do at least 150 mph
> > while meeting FRA regulations and operating in the NEC
> > environment. If the NEC environment allowed it, it could have
> > been designed to meet FRA regulations and go 200 mph, but that
> > wasn't the requirement. And, by the way, that 150 mph is a
> > limitation between New Haven and Boston. Between NYC and DC,
> > look for the Acela Express to do 160-165 mph when and if the
> > catenary is upgraded.
>
> D'accord.
>
> It's so good to see you and Merritt agreeing.
>
> Unfortunately no engineers from any company which actually
> manufactures high speed rail equipment agrees with you.
> Nor, for that matter, does Amtrak's NEC project manager (according to
> his communications with the California HSRA.)
Well then it should be easy to educate us pinheads. How fast will
Acella go if not 150mph? Will it go 165mph BEFORE catenary
upgrade? Help us poor unwashed see your truths.
> Aerodynamics and cost prevent extended catenary configs.
>
> Wow! Where do you get this compelling jargon? "Extended catenary
> configs" indeed! Have you ever actually seen a pantograph in your
> life? Do you have the slightest clue about high speed catenary
> design? Apparently not.
If you knew the answers to the questions, why ask? Oh, this isn't
about facts this is about preaching. Perhaps you can stoop so
low as to grant us ignorant peons a morsel from the table of all
knowledge by pointing out some 200+mph catenary designs capable of
extending far enough to clear double stacked freight trains?
> > > Then you have to design flyovers with electric wiring and high
> > > enough to clear the current traffic. This in an environment
> > > that assumes the owners of the ROW will donate the space.
> > > Ouch.
> >
> > I doubt anyone is assuming any private owners are going to
> > "donate" any space.
>
> The docs clearly state that ROW sharing with private owners is
> essential to the program. Perhaps there is a new word for sharing
> your property by having a government agency build a grade seperated
> electrified dual track on it?
>
> What a pinhead.
Is this some kind of fixation? What's this got to do with my
relating the financial structure of CA-HSRAs proposal?
> 12% of the whole system capital cost is estimated to
> be for right of way acquisition, which includes existing rights of way
> owned by other parties and easements.
AND assumes local donations and no cost private ROW exclusive easements.
> The business plan explicitly states that only 15 percent of the system
> ROW is assumed to be in public ownership and available at no cost.
Oh, so CA-HSRA are pinheads also since they agree with me.
> But don't let facts get in your way.
Not when it is so much easier to call people pinheads apparently.
You've done more to show why people like you should not be given
24.8 billion than any negative comments I could ever make. I'd say
"good work" if my goal were to turn people off to VST. Sad.
P. Wezeman
There was a man who was told that high-speed trains were right
around the corner. He laughed, walked around the corner, and was
run over by a high-speed train.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/18/2000 1:05 PM:
> Because you think I am wrong. Com'on Adrian this tactics are getting old.
> These are dated Nov 22nd, 1999. I don't lie, this is about not liking the
> answers not about questioning the references. Of course you are absolutely
> correct that the HSRA claims profitablity but their line is being called VHS
> and not HSR. We need to make a distinction as we move forward.
I think you are wrong also (and, no, that doesn't mean I think you are
lying; i'm wrong all the time, and I don't lie either), and I would like to
know where that data comes from. You gave us the quote (below), but I don't
think you told us where you found it.
>
> HSR is the new incarnation of existing feeder lines to something they are
> trying to call HSR.
Some reports distinguish between 125 mph service (HSR) and 200+ mph service
(VHS or maglev). But the charter of the CA HSRA is to provide 200+ mph
service, and that is what most of us mean when we say HSR.
We have to be careful to not confuse the generic term "high-speed rail"
(HSR) with specific terms used by the HSRA. They are investigating two
technologies for the "HSR" line between SF/Sacramento and LA. The one
similar to HSR lines in Europe and Japan is called VHS for "very high speed"
(200+ mph) the other technology is MAGLEV. Both are still options, but the
maglev option doesn't seem to be getting much attention, probably because of
the failure of the Japanese and German system to prove themselves
economically viable.
>
> From the precise reference:
I recognize you are quoting from a source, but what is the source?
>
> For some, the fare on the VHS service may be too high. In addition, some
> passengers may have purchased tickets to connecting Amtrak trains. Others may
> be travelling with passengers who will be getting on or off at intermediate
> stations on the conventional trains. Lastly, the VHS service may actually
> increase ridership on the high-speed lines. For example, travelers may take
> the high-speed service to get from Orange County to Los Angeles Union Station
> to catch the very-high-speed service. Similarly, travelers in the East Bay may
> ride the high-speed service to San Jose. In any case, it is likely that about
> half to two-thirds of the rail service patrons will be diverted to the VHS
> trains.
>
> [Note: this is important]
>
> Operating Costs Estimates The operating subsidy for each potential service was
> calculated using the incremental passenger revenues and operating expenses
> between the 2015 baseline forecast and the 2015 forecast with faster speeds
> and more trains. For the Sacramento-Bay Area-Salinas service, the incremental
> passenger revenues in year 2015 is forecasted to be about $7.2 million. The
> incremental operating cost is forecasted to be about $12.4 million, leading to
> an annual operating subsidy of $5.2 million. The fare recovery ratio is
> forecasted to be 58 percent. For the Interim San Joaquin service, the
> incremental passenger revenues in year 2015 is estimated to be $9.7 million.
> The incremental operating cost is forecasted to be about $18.3 million,
> leading to an annual operating subsidy of $8.6 million. The fare recovery
> ratio is estimated to be 53 percent. For the San Luis Obispo-Los Angeles
> service, the incremental passenger revenue in year 2015 is forecasted to be
> about $10.4 million. The incremental operating cost is estimated to be $14.0
> million, leading to an annual operating subsidy of about $3.6 million. The
> fare recovery ratio is forecasted to be 75 percent. The incremental passenger
> revenue in year 2015 for the Los Angeles-San Diego service is forecasted to be
> about $32.5 million. The incremental operating cost is estimated to be $44.2
> million, leading to an annual operating subsidy of $11.7 million. The fare
> recovery ratio would be about 74 percent. ------------------
It appears the above is NOT the VHS (or maglev) service that (in my
understanding) is forecast to be operationally profitable, once built.
>
> Now that we know that CA-HSR is properly called VHS we can move on.
VHS or maglev, to be completely correct.
>
> VHS claims profitability from day one. Let's look at that. I await analysis.
Since maglev is probably not a viable option, the VHS option is probably the
answer for California HSR. If someone wants to gild the lily by calling the
San Diegans and San Joaquins HSR, and the 200+ trains VHS, that's fine, but
I think I will go on calling the current service "regular speed" (79-90
mph), and the so-called VHS service HSR. When we have a real need to
distinguish 125-150 mph service from 200+ mph service, then we can worry
about such niceties. Right now, upgrading of the Amtrak California services
(Capitols, San Joaquins, San Diegans) to 125 mph service is NOT the charter
of the HSRA.
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/18/2000 5:03 PM:
>> Why would the mayor of LA pad his own estimate?
>
> Ummm, political leverage? Nah.
Sorry, I don't understand.
>
>> If he did, it resulted in
>> the project getting downsized. The new (5th) runway has now been deleted
>> from the plan and the number of businesses to be relocated has been reduced
>> from 383 to 247.
>
> Want another runway? Easy, propose two and comprimise.
But he proposed one and got none. The one (5th) runway option was the $12
billion option, the no-new-runway option is the $10 billion option.
Obviously, there is a lot more to the proposal than the addition of a 5th
runway. The purpose is to increase capacity for future traffic. There is
no doubt a need to accommodate growth in air traffic if the LA economy is to
continue to grow, but that capacity growth can be achieved much cheaper by
building a new airport (Palmdale, El Toro, elsewhere). As you have pointed
out, building a new airport is a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to expand
LAX.
>> The project is still estimated at about $10 billion (LA
>> Times 6/15/99 and 9/21/99) and has been called "the most expensive public
>> works project in the nation" (LA Times). Referring to the mayor, someone is
>> quoted as saying "makes you wonder what he's been smoking." If I remember
>> correctly, LAX generates revenues of about $61 billion a year, so even a $10
>> billion project might pay eventually for itself.
>
> $61 billion? That's 5 billion per month, that's $170million/day. Not.
I'm just passing on what was reported in the LA Times. Why do you find $170
million a day in gross revenues so hard to believe? There are a lot of
businesses associated with LAX.
>
>>> You did know that
>>> the average SkyCap earns over $70,000 right?
>>
>> I didn't know that, but it wouldn't necessarily surprise me. Actually, if
>> that is the "average" I am a bit surprised. I certainly would expect some
>> to earn that much, based on tips and long hours worked. Since much of that
>> income is from tips, I would imagine it would be hard to document.
>
> What's harder than dicumenting is becoming a SkyCap if you
> have the wrong color skin.
Does that mean I qualify or not? What is the color of my skin?
>
> Remember that Amtrak counts local subsidies as farebox. Ouch.
> That changes the math doesn't it?
Now you sound like George Conklin. Amtrak counts ALL subsidies as revenue
(income), because that is what they are. They don't count ANY subsidies as
ticket revenue, because they don't come from ticket sales. Where did you
get such an idea? (oh yeah, George Conklin). Ticket revenues are funds
received from ticket reciepts, paid by me or you when we buy a ticket. You
may be interested to know that Amtrak does not even count income from the
diner or from bedroom accommodations as ticket revenue. All those are
accounted for separately. You see, it is necessary to do that in order to
determine the profit or loss of individual services. Why would Amtrak want
to fool themselves?
>
>> Is that what the HSRA is now claiming? If the principal advocates
>> think that, we might as well shut down the whole thing right now.
>
> No it's too soon to stop thinking HSR, umm excuse me, VHS. When I led
> a govt session back in 91-92(?) our conclusion was that it was only
> money not viability that was stopping VHS. Everything except the
> price tag was acceptable to everyone on the panel, including me.
I can think of a lot of things that would be nice to have if money were not
a factor. I know others don't think this, but to me $25 billion is penny
ante in a state such as California. If we spent that, no one would even
notice it. What they would notice is the new and profitable transportation
system that was created.
>> Why would anyone start such a project if it wasn't expected to cover its
>> operating costs, once built?
>
> Why would ANYONE continue to fund EVERY single transit system in the
> US given the same condition?
Because the economic good of providing a subsidized transit system is
perceived to outweigh the cost of the subsidy. I don't think you can say
the same about intercity HSR, since privately operated airlines already
provide an equivalent service.
Merritt
Robert Coté
> From: tech...@gte.net (Robert Coté)
> Newsgroups: misc.transport.rail.americas
> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 03:28:48 GMT
>
> [...]
>
> > Good to see you're picking up on jargon. Many find it a useful
> > surrogate for understanding.
>
> Many others of a more generous nature find the use of the correct t
> erminology evidence of understanding.
>
> Robert, others will recall that you're the one who has claimed
> repeatedly -- citing your experience as a "rocket scientist" -- that
> high speed trains can't operate through tunnels, and if they could the
> tunnels would need to be "25 meters across and 20 meters high".
>
> All this despite the fact that thousands of high speed trains run
> underground every day through bores with a cross-section of much less
> than one tenth what you claim.
20x25 approx 350m^2. You of course mean things like the Chunnel with
its' reduced speed limits. Unless you have an example of 300kph
tunnel ops. You are real good at distorting other peoples' comments
and real short on refutation. Of course HSR operates in tunnels, at
reduced speeds.
> And now you want be taken seriously bandying around "extended catenary
> configs" (not to mention "trainsets" and "``path''" -- in scary, or
> perhaps ironic, quotation marks)?
Actually for reasons I don't understand, you wish desperately that no
one listen to my cautions about the apparent contradictions of price,
speed and alignment as the VST line is currently defined.
> Please!
Please yourself. 25 meters wide and 20 meters tall at 300kph two trains
approaching with no blow vents or evacuation or special areodynamic
changes and a normal
factor of safety is reasonable. Feel free to add special aerodynamics,
or venting or make scheduling compromises or reduce speeds or assume
short tunnels or whatever to make the tunnel smaller. I've designed, built
and flight tested 300kph vehicles. And you?
Perhaps something more than insults and negativity on your part. Post
your VSAERO model params. You of course own a copy of VSAERO. We all
do including some friends that went to the consortia. I didn't see
your presentation BTW. Care to post it?
You do a fine job of hurting me personally. Probably a way of getting
your jollies but it does nothing to advance your theories. Got any
300kph tunnels you want to talk about?
David Bromage
The world laughed when Japan announced back in 1958 it was going to build
high speed trains which ran on steel rails. Back then, the rest of the
world had decided that nuclear powered trains and magnetic levitation was
the way of the future.
We're still waiting for viable magnetic levitation, and Japan has the
fastest scheduled passenger train in the world (average speed 262km/h from
Hiroshima to Kokura).
Cheers
David
Robert Coté
> in article techscan-180...@calnet12-230.gtecablemodem.com, Robert
> Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/18/2000 5:03 PM:
>
> >> Why would the mayor of LA pad his own estimate?
> >
> > Ummm, political leverage? Nah.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand.
> >
> >> If he did, it resulted in
> >> the project getting downsized. The new (5th) runway has now been deleted
> >> from the plan and the number of businesses to be relocated has been reduced
> >> from 383 to 247.
> >
> > Want another runway? Easy, propose two and comprimise.
>
> But he proposed one and got none. The one (5th) runway option was the $12
> billion option, the no-new-runway option is the $10 billion option.
> Obviously, there is a lot more to the proposal than the addition of a 5th
> runway. The purpose is to increase capacity for future traffic. There is
> no doubt a need to accommodate growth in air traffic if the LA economy is to
> continue to grow, but that capacity growth can be achieved much cheaper by
> building a new airport (Palmdale, El Toro, elsewhere). As you have pointed
> out, building a new airport is a hell of a lot cheaper than trying to expand
> LAX.
I'm sorry for the confusion. I meant it as a general comment on Riordan's
negotiating style not as a specific result. You are correct about new
capacity being cheaper just about anywhere else. I suspect we will see
both LAX improvements and Palmdale.
> >> The project is still estimated at about $10 billion (LA
> >> Times 6/15/99 and 9/21/99) and has been called "the most expensive public
> >> works project in the nation" (LA Times). Referring to the mayor, someone is
> >> quoted as saying "makes you wonder what he's been smoking." If I remember
> >> correctly, LAX generates revenues of about $61 billion a year, so even a $10
> >> billion project might pay eventually for itself.
> >
> > $61 billion? That's 5 billion per month, that's $170million/day. Not.
>
> I'm just passing on what was reported in the LA Times. Why do you find $170
> million a day in gross revenues so hard to believe? There are a lot of
> businesses associated with LAX.
I can beleive that that much passes through every day but that's kinda
like counting the value of all a banks daily transactions and calling
that revenue.
> >> Is that what the HSRA is now claiming? If the principal advocates
> >> think that, we might as well shut down the whole thing right now.
> >
> > No it's too soon to stop thinking HSR, umm excuse me, VHS. When I led
> > a govt session back in 91-92(?) our conclusion was that it was only
> > money not viability that was stopping VHS. Everything except the
> > price tag was acceptable to everyone on the panel, including me.
>
> I can think of a lot of things that would be nice to have if money were not
> a factor. I know others don't think this, but to me $25 billion is penny
> ante in a state such as California. If we spent that, no one would even
> notice it. What they would notice is the new and profitable transportation
> system that was created.
I understand but I don't think VHS will generate any worthwile
spinoffs or worthwhile changes in development patterns. Usually
major projects are answers to needs. People already get from
LA to SF. There isn't a cry for another option.
> >> Why would anyone start such a project if it wasn't expected to cover its
> >> operating costs, once built?
> >
> > Why would ANYONE continue to fund EVERY single transit system in the
> > US given the same condition?
>
> Because the economic good of providing a subsidized transit system is
> perceived to outweigh the cost of the subsidy. I don't think you can say
> the same about intercity HSR, since privately operated airlines already
> provide an equivalent service.
Good points. I'd like to find out why public transit doesn't want
private competition locally but wants to become competition on the
regional level.
Robert Coté
> ...I would like to
> know where that data comes from. You gave us the quote (below), but I don't
> think you told us where you found it.
http://www.cahighspeedrail.com/rail_authority/progressreport/docs/HSRInvestments.pdf
> > VHS claims profitability from day one. Let's look at that. I await analysis.
>
> Since maglev is probably not a viable option, the VHS option is probably the
> answer for California HSR. If someone wants to gild the lily by calling the
> San Diegans and San Joaquins HSR, and the 200+ trains VHS, that's fine, but
> I think I will go on calling the current service "regular speed" (79-90
> mph), and the so-called VHS service HSR. When we have a real need to
> distinguish 125-150 mph service from 200+ mph service, then we can worry
> about such niceties. Right now, upgrading of the Amtrak California services
> (Capitols, San Joaquins, San Diegans) to 125 mph service is NOT the charter
> of the HSRA.
http://www.ce.umn.edu/~levinson/HSR.html
http://www.transitinfo.org/HSR/ex_sum.htm
Charles Hobbs
"Robert Coté" wrote:
>
> http://www.ce.umn.edu/~levinson/HSR.html
Bunch of interesting articles from this Levinson guy at
http://www.ce.umn.edu/~levinson/Abstracts4.html
The gist: Expanding air service is probably cheaper (both in terms of
private and social costs) than HSR, for trips between the Bay Area and
Los Angeles. . .HSR would be better positioned for shorter trips where
the automobile is the dominant mode.
Bryan E. Flint
regarding HST currently in service and planned at http://www.uic.asso.fr/.
I see a lot of similarities between the California HST and the Spanish
Madrid - Andalusia AVE lines as regards demographics and terrain.
John Bianco
>
>I can think of a lot of things that would be nice to have if money were not
>a factor. I know others don't think this, but to me $25 billion is penny
>ante in a state such as California. If we spent that, no one would even
>notice it. What they would notice is the new and profitable transportation
>system that was created.
>
WHAT!?! I am sorry, but $25 billion is not a "penny ante" at all.
Californias infrastructure is facing several very serious problems, and
needs to be upgraded as sprawl spreads out, and there is a severe shortfall
projected inthe next 20 years for the money just to maintain what is in
place. If $25 billion was spent, people would sure notice it. Merrit, I know
you are a big railfan, and a massive fan of passenger rail, but you have to
see reality. The reality is as I have mentioned first of all is that HSR
will NEVER happen in California, and no one will be willing to swallow the
price tag, no how, no way. Second of all, all new future revenues that may
be raised will have to go just to maintain the infrastructure allready in
place, and if we are lucky, possibly upgrade a couple of rail lines for
commute service here, add a light rail line there and so on.
Again, you have to serve as many people as possible with the money at
hand. YOu can not in your right mind have a sales tax that falls on the
backs of the working class subsidise a system that would many benifit the
business class/yuppies, while the existing infrastucture rots and
congrestion gets worse.
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/20/2000 8:11 AM:
> In article <B4ABF8B0.7574%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> ...I would like to
>> know where that data comes from. You gave us the quote (below), but I don't
>> think you told us where you found it.
>
> http://www.cahighspeedrail.com/rail_authority/progressreport/docs/HSRInvestmen
> ts.pdf
Thanks!
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
tra...@primenet.com wrote on 1/20/2000 9:27 AM:
> The gist: Expanding air service is probably cheaper (both in terms of
> private and social costs) than HSR, for trips between the Bay Area and
> Los Angeles. . .HSR would be better positioned for shorter trips where
> the automobile is the dominant mode.
Well, I suspect the auto is the dominant mode between the LA and SF areas,
also. But that aside, you would have a good point if the HSR proposal was
just to provide LA-SF service. Bet a very big part of the benefit of HSR to
the California economy comes from providing high-speed transportation to the
cities of the Central Valley (the main ones being Fresno and Bakersfield)
who currently don't have cost-effective air service.
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
rft...@mindspring.com wrote on 1/20/2000 6:05 PM:
> WHAT!?! I am sorry, but $25 billion is not a "penny ante" at all.
> Californias infrastructure is facing several very serious problems, and
> needs to be upgraded as sprawl spreads out, and there is a severe shortfall
> projected inthe next 20 years for the money just to maintain what is in
> place. If $25 billion was spent, people would sure notice it.
I don't have the population of California handy, but I suspect $25 billion
is about $500 for each person in California (spread over 20 years, that's
about $2 a month). If you went to Las Vegas and lost $500, you would notice
it for about a month, and then forget all about it. It wouldn't affect your
overall net worth or wellbeing in any significant way. That is what I
meant. Sure, if you took the $25 billion from education or some other
essential service it would be noticed. But that isn't what is being
proposed. The $25 billion will be new funds paid for by the California
taxpayers by one method or another (not necessarily a sales tax, which as
you point out is regressive). AND THE EXTRA EXPENDITURE (actually,
investment) WON'T HURT CALIFORNIANS AT ALL! In the long run, it will
benefit most Californians by improving the economy.
Merritt
Charles Hobbs
"Merritt D. Mullen" wrote:
>
> in article 38874587...@primenet.com, Charles Hobbs at
> tra...@primenet.com wrote on 1/20/2000 9:27 AM:
>
> > The gist: Expanding air service is probably cheaper (both in terms of
> > private and social costs) than HSR, for trips between the Bay Area and
> > Los Angeles. . .HSR would be better positioned for shorter trips where
> > the automobile is the dominant mode.
>
> Well, I suspect the auto is the dominant mode between the LA and SF areas,
> also.
Most people would actually sit 8-hours in a car, rather than 1 hour (+plus
airport stuff, etc.) in a plane? I don't have any numbers, but . . .
> But that aside, you would have a good point if the HSR proposal was
> just to provide LA-SF service. Bet a very big part of the benefit of HSR to
> the California economy comes from providing high-speed transportation to the
> cities of the Central Valley (the main ones being Fresno and Bakersfield)
> who currently don't have cost-effective air service.
>
I've always said it's more of a benefit for the Central Valley-Bay Area
or the
Central Valley-SoCal users, than the SoCal-Bay Area passengers, anyway
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/20/2000 7:20 AM:
> I understand but I don't think VHS will generate any worthwile
> spinoffs or worthwhile changes in development patterns. Usually
> major projects are answers to needs. People already get from
> LA to SF. There isn't a cry for another option.
The cry will more likely come from Bakersfield and Fresno. They are the
ones that need a better option. The lead editorial in yesterday's
Bakersfield Californian was in support of the HSR project, citing the need
for cities such as Fresno and Bakersfield to have a high-speed link to the
north and south.
Of course, concerning the LA and SF areas, there is a growing need for
passenger intrastate passenger transportation. The question is, is it more
cost effective to meet that need with air or surface transportation?
That gets us back to proposals like the $12 billion LAX upgrade.
Merritt
Henry Fung
>
> Most people would actually sit 8-hours in a car, rather than 1 hour (+plus
> airport stuff, etc.) in a plane? I don't have any numbers, but . . .
>
I remember going to a seminar at Berkeley that pinned the number at 45%
plane, 50% car, between LA and SF. The airline prices are low, but still,
many people choose to drive, because of the rental car issue. Plus, it's
only 6 hours if you have a lead foot, and I don't see too many coppers
on I-5.
> > But that aside, you would have a good point if the HSR proposal was
> > just to provide LA-SF service. Bet a very big part of the benefit of HSR to
> > the California economy comes from providing high-speed transportation to the
> > cities of the Central Valley (the main ones being Fresno and Bakersfield)
> > who currently don't have cost-effective air service.
> >
>
> I've always said it's more of a benefit for the Central Valley-Bay Area
> or the
> Central Valley-SoCal users, than the SoCal-Bay Area passengers, anyway
It might be interesting to see whether it is cheaper for the state
to subsidize air travel and upgrade places like Fresno to 737/MD-11
size. It would use infrastructure more efficiently, and there is
precedent for this, namely Golden Bear Airlines several decades ago before
or right after deregulation.
---oo00o----oo00o---//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\-----------------
Hank Fung hf...@csupomona.edu
"Commentary for the way we live" (tm)
http://www.cyberspace.org/~fungster Cal Poly Pomona, USA
Jennifer Saeturn
> [...]the reality is as I have mentioned first of all is that HSR will NEVER
> happen in California, and no one will be willing to swallow the price tag, no
> how, no way.
The construction labor lobby should push for it, as California probably won't
build $30 Billion of freeway if it doesn't pass.
> Again, you have to serve as many people as possible with the money at
> hand. YOu can not in your right mind have a sales tax that falls on the
> backs of the working class subsidise a system that would many benifit the
> business class/yuppies, while the existing infrastucture rots and
> congrestion gets worse.
The working class routinely pays for outrageous billion dollar defense projects
and desert irrigation subsidies and other expensive pork without much protest.
They could come up with a catchy slogan: "HSR---the other white meat."
How exactly would business class benefit from HSR in a way that would not
benefit the working class? The lower classes would benefit. It's not known how
much HSR could benefit the state in ways not yet considered. Providing a cheap,
rapid way to get people across the state in a way that didn't add to auto
pollution or overburden our limited capacity freeways and airports could boost
the economy in ways we don't yet forsee.
When you start looking at the value of HSR's benefits construction, labor,
transportation, effeciency, clean air, more open gates and runways at airports,
you realize that when you have a billion here and a billion there, it starts to
add up.
Robert Coté
<mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
> in article techscan-200...@calnet12-230.gtecablemodem.com, Robert
> Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/20/2000 7:20 AM:
>
> > I understand but I don't think VHS will generate any worthwile
> > spinoffs or worthwhile changes in development patterns. Usually
> > major projects are answers to needs. People already get from
> > LA to SF. There isn't a cry for another option.
>
> The cry will more likely come from Bakersfield and Fresno. They are the
> ones that need a better option. The lead editorial in yesterday's
> Bakersfield Californian was in support of the HSR project, citing the need
> for cities such as Fresno and Bakersfield to have a high-speed link to the
> north and south.
Yeah but Bakersfield and Fresno want to go to LA and SF not each other.
> Of course, concerning the LA and SF areas, there is a growing need for
> passenger intrastate passenger transportation. The question is, is it more
> cost effective to meet that need with air or surface transportation?
Both areas are woefully inadequate in all forms of transportation;
land, sea, air, personal, public, recreational; people, goods and
services.
> That gets us back to proposals like the $12 billion LAX upgrade.
And emergency measures to upgrade the 101/405 interchange and
$250 million/mile subways and multiple monorail proposals and...
We are spending a lot of money to upgrade the Alemeda corridor
rail/intermodal and the rest of the rails have as much private
business as they can handle. I find the prospect of messing
up that network with HSR for the purpose of moving people a very
small number of people at a financial loss to be questionable
from a public policy perspective.
Robert Coté
<Pine.PMDF.3.95.10001202...@clstac.is.csupomona.edu>,
Henry Fung <hf...@csupomona.edu> wrote:
> It might be interesting to see whether it is cheaper for the state
> to subsidize air travel and upgrade places like Fresno to 737/MD-11
> size. It would use infrastructure more efficiently, and there is
> precedent for this, namely Golden Bear Airlines several decades ago before
> or right after deregulation.
$25 billion at 5% interest can pay for 1500 $100 off fare discounts.
EVERY HOUR, FOREVER! Without touching the principle.
Or maybe we should be renting fifteen A310s at $9,000 per hour.
I want some of this. Heck, we couldn't get this radical idea
up and running in anything less than a month, two months tops.
Nah, let's give the money to O'Brien Kreitzberg to see if they
can design a Tehachapi tunnel. I bet they could give a definitive
yes or no answer for less than $100 mill and within two years.
Merritt D. Mullen
Almost every line on that page contains non sequiturs, misstatements or
assumptions that may not be valid.
Just for starters, the first line says:
"The proposed California High Speed Rail line would be more expensive than
every other active HSR proposal in the country put together (CNN.COM 1999)."
Well, duh! Of course it is. Of course if you add up all the other active
HSR proposals in the country, you get exactly zero, since, outside of the
NEC (which is not a "proposal") there are no "active proposals" for 200+ mph
HSR in the country. Anyway, if there were, the California proposal should
be the most expensive, as it is the largest.
He then goes on to make the assumption that the $25 billion will be paid for
by a sales tax, something that has not been decided, or formally proposed,
as of yet. He goes on the imply that the HSR proposal will threaten the
school system or the police forces, which is not true and is just a scare
tactic. He also makes the fantastic statement that every $1 spent by the
passenger will incur $4 in subsidy, when in actual fact, it is expected that
every dollar paid by the passenger will generate profits which can be used
to pay back the construction debt.
He says cost estimates have doubled in the past 2 years. What I have seen
is that they were raised 20% to account for inflation since the original
estimates were made.
He says forecasts of demands for transit are typically 25-50% too high.
First of all HSR ain't "transit" and secondly, ridership on new transit
lines recently built in the US has been exceeding forecasts. LA's Blue Line
is a good example.
He calls California HSR an expensive experiment, like the Denver Airport
baggage system. This flies in the face of the proven technology operating
around the world.
He assumes there will be a terrorist attack on the California HSR, requiring
security that will cause inordinate delays in boarding. Does he think
someone will try to hijack a HST to Cuba? How many terrorist attacks have
been made on Amtrak?
He say: "Airports will soon have extra capacity as they increase operations
in bad weather with instrumented flight controls." It is to laugh. This
has been state of the art for many years now. Airplanes can make completely
automated landings and rollouts in zero-zero weather right now.
He makes completely non-relevant statements about BART, a completely
different type of system serving a completely different purpose.
He finishes up with a big exposé by saying that companies that expect to get
business out of the construction of HSR are supporting it. And that the
HSRA members actually took trips to Europe and Japan to see the HSR systems
there. Gee, who woulda thunk it?
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
Coté at tech...@gte.net wrote on 1/20/2000 11:12 PM:
> In article <B4AD0D5F.7665%mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us>, "Merritt D. Mullen"
> <mmu...@ridgecrest.ca.us> wrote:
>
>> The cry will more likely come from Bakersfield and Fresno. They are the
>> ones that need a better option. The lead editorial in yesterday's
>> Bakersfield Californian was in support of the HSR project, citing the need
>> for cities such as Fresno and Bakersfield to have a high-speed link to the
>> north and south.
>
> Yeah but Bakersfield and Fresno want to go to LA and SF not each other.
That's correct. In general, riders from either city want to go in both
directions, to LA (or San Diego) and SF (or Sacramento) areas. I didn't
mean to imply otherwise.
> We are spending a lot of money to upgrade the Alemeda corridor
> rail/intermodal and the rest of the rails have as much private
> business as they can handle. I find the prospect of messing
> up that network with HSR for the purpose of moving people a very
> small number of people at a financial loss to be questionable
> from a public policy perspective.
Disruption of the freight RR system is one thing that absolutely can not be
permitted to happen. The capacity and efficiency of the freight rail system
needs to be improved, and it certainly should not be impaired by
construction of the HSR system. But I see no reason why the HSR system
should damage the freight system. At any point where the HSR system would
impact the freight system, it should be designed to do so in a way that
improves the freight system, not impairs it. This has been the way the
Amtrak California (ie, CalTrans) has been working with UP and BNSF. We
(CalTrans) want additional passenger trains on your (BNSF, UP) track, and we
will improve your track in a way that we both benefit.
One of the biggest bottlenecks in California is getting freight trains over
Tehachapi. When and if the California HSR gets built it is going to need a
new alignment over the mountains. That new alignment should include
accommodations for freight trains as well (probably separate tracks along
the same ROW).
Merritt
Merritt D. Mullen
Pine.PMDF.3.95.10001202...@clstac.is.csupomona.edu,
Henry Fung at hf...@csupomona.edu wrote on 1/20/2000 11:02 PM:
> I remember going to a seminar at Berkeley that pinned the number at 45%
> plane, 50% car, between LA and SF. The airline prices are low, but still,
> many people choose to drive, because of the rental car issue. Plus, it's
> only 6 hours if you have a lead foot, and I don't see too many coppers
> on I-5.
Thanks for those numbers. I had a gut feeling that more people went by auto
than flew and that supports it (by a slim margin). Did you ever notice that
6 hours on I-5 feels longer than 8 hours on highway 99? By the way, those
coppers are in airplanes overhead.
> It might be interesting to see whether it is cheaper for the state
> to subsidize air travel and upgrade places like Fresno to 737/MD-11
> size. It would use infrastructure more efficiently, and there is
> precedent for this, namely Golden Bear Airlines several decades ago before
> or right after deregulation.
The problem is it is difficult to convince people the state should be
subsidizing ongoing operations for intercity transportation. On the other
hand, people expect the state/feds to provide the transportation
infrastucture (roads, airports, airways, waterways, etc). Also, the
calculations must of course include not only the costs at Fresno,
Bakersfield, etc, but the cost of providing extra airport/operations
capacity at LA, SF, etc.
Merritt
John Bianco
Jennifer Saeturn wrote in message <3888084B...@yahoo.com>...
>John Bianco wrote:
>
>> [...]the reality is as I have mentioned first of all is that HSR will
NEVER
>> happen in California, and no one will be willing to swallow the price
tag, no
>> how, no way.
>
>The construction labor lobby should push for it, as California probably
won't
>build $30 Billion of freeway if it doesn't pass.
>
The Construction-labor lobby does not want to put its neck on the line for
this, especially since any HSR project will piss off local transit agencies.
While Merrit does not agree, or does not understand, the local transit
agencies feel that most of the extra funding should go to them. Anyways,
even if HSR had a multi million dollar backing, it would have a almost
impossible chance of passing.
>> Again, you have to serve as many people as possible with the money at
>> hand. YOu can not in your right mind have a sales tax that falls on the
>> backs of the working class subsidise a system that would many benifit the
>> business class/yuppies, while the existing infrastucture rots and
>> congrestion gets worse.
>
>The working class routinely pays for outrageous billion dollar defense
projects
>and desert irrigation subsidies and other expensive pork without much
protest.
>They could come up with a catchy slogan: "HSR---the other white meat."
>
They also dont have a chance to vote on these things like they do with HSR.
Caltrans is desperately trying to figure out how to just maintain what they
have, and even for infrastucture allready in place, and possibly a few
improvments, the public at this time does not support any tax increase in
any way, shape or form.
>How exactly would business class benefit from HSR in a way that would not
>benefit the working class? The lower classes would benefit. It's not known
how
>much HSR could benefit the state in ways not yet considered. Providing a
cheap,
>rapid way to get people across the state in a way that didn't add to auto
>pollution or overburden our limited capacity freeways and airports could
boost
>the economy in ways we don't yet forsee.
>
First of all, depending on how much money HSR is willing to lose, the
ticket prices between LA and SF are going to be almost as much as airline
tickets, so very little incentive to take it., and hardly CHEAP.
Second of all, the working class usually does not travel that much, expect
for vacations, and for those purposes they drive. As I stated several months
ago, travel costs mount up if you have to rent a car, if you have a family
traveling with you and so on. The business class would be the ones who would
benifit the most from HSR, especially the business class in the Central
Valley, but that is a very narrow segment of the population.
Third, in between the Grapevine and Altamont Pass, the freeways are hardly
congested, unless somthing has dramatically changed in the last 6 weeks. The
case is if you go less than 80 MPH on I-5 and less than 75 MPH on SR 99, you
will get tailgated.
>When you start looking at the value of HSR's benefits construction, labor,
>transportation, effeciency, clean air, more open gates and runways at
airports,
>you realize that when you have a billion here and a billion there, it
starts to
>add up.
>
Ok, would you rather have $25 billion spend on a HSR system that will
carry 25,000-50,000 passengers a day, or a network of new or improved
commute and lioght rail lines that will carry far more people, and reduce
congestion in a real manner. Think of what 1 billion could do for commute
rail extensions in the Bay Area, $2 billion for light rail. Even the
unrealistic $3 billion BART extension to San Jose is far more justified that
HSR.
$25 billion spread out for mas transit projects thoughout the state will do
far more to reduce congestion and smog than HSR ever can or ever will.
Anyways, its a dead issue, no way will the public of California, when put to
a vote, will vote for HSR.
Henry Fung
> $25 billion at 5% interest can pay for 1500 $100 off fare discounts.
>
> EVERY HOUR, FOREVER! Without touching the principle.
>
> Or maybe we should be renting fifteen A310s at $9,000 per hour.
> I want some of this. Heck, we couldn't get this radical idea
> up and running in anything less than a month, two months tops.
>
> Nah, let's give the money to O'Brien Kreitzberg to see if they
> can design a Tehachapi tunnel. I bet they could give a definitive
> yes or no answer for less than $100 mill and within two years.
There are some new startup airlines that may help serve some of the
uncovered markets.
Pacific Skyway (http://www.pacificskyway.com/) serves the Central Coast
area, although there is service from San Jose to Sacramento.
California Coastal Airways (http://www.aviationworldservices.com/cca.htm)
is a bit more ambitious. There also seems to be rail-like service along
the Los Angeles-Ontario-Riverside-Palm Springs corridor. Also, Robert
could hop on a plane from Oxnard to Fresno, Bakersfield, or Hawthorne if
he wanted to (this airline will be based from Hawthorne, where LAX wants
to push the Skywests of this world (and mind you, is right next to the
Green Line)). It will be interesting whether this will be successful, and
if HSR fails, whether this service can get a critical mass so that Valley
lawmakers could lobby for funds to go to subsidize such a service.
Patrick Scheible
>
> Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
> >Try again. That doesn't explain why everyone isn't using a Concord
> >to go between JFK and Heathrow (an existing route).
>
> Common sense answer: finite number of aircraft. Of course, men who
> have common sense don't reccomend running high speed vehicles through
> urban areas.
Of course, if people actually wanted to travel at mach 2 enough to pay
for it, there would be more Concords. British Airways and Air France
only bought them because they're national airlines and their
governments told them to.
That's what happens when transportation decisions are made based on
national pride instead of good sense. You're likely to get national
embarassments instead. Note that the United States sensibly observed
that there was no market for an SST.
-- Patrick Scheible
David Hatunen
Brian Mueller <no...@none.com> wrote:
>Bill Zaumen wrote:
>
>>Try again. That doesn't explain why everyone isn't using a Concord
>>to go between JFK and Heathrow (an existing route).
>
>Common sense answer: finite number of aircraft. Of course, men who
>have common sense don't reccomend running high speed vehicles through
>urban areas.
Common sense answer is that there are a finite number of Concordes
because not enough people would pay to fly on one, so they stopped
making them. I beleive they use money and thje only reason they
stay in service is the prestige and the fact the the UK and France
designed and built them so they keep using them.
Incidentally, the Imperial Air Museum at Duxford north of London
has the original test Concorde on static display. It has a load of
instrumentation in the forward half of the passenger cabin and some
typical seating in the back half. Not having been on one before I
was rather surprised at how small they are. The rising arc of the
fuselage closes in at head height.
--
********** DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@sonic.net) ***********
* Daly City California *
******* My typos are intentional copyright traps ******