Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
NIKV69 wrote:alfa164 wrote:You obviously aren't familiar with the successful HSR services between DC, New York, and Boston.
That is because the Acela isn't real HSR what is their average speed? 80? China much faster.
Aaron747 wrote:FlapOperator wrote:seb146 wrote:
Americans, and to some extent Canadians, have been so indoctrinated with this fantasy that cares and airplanes are the only travel options. We have been told for decades that trains are slow and unreliable all while watching EU, Japan, and China build high speed networks in addition to air and roads. We are told we don't want trains, this is a reason why there is little to no interest in HSR.
Because, surprisingly enough, the geography of North America is different than the EU, Japan and China. The regulatory, environmental impact and labor circumstances aren't the same.
What's the point of a once or twice a day HST between select city pairs in the absence of public transportation or small cities when you get there? What could 100 billion dollars bought in that regard?
Even where great train infrastructure exists, we've seen the rise of LCCs in the EU, Japan and China. Why? Because people there value their time as well.
In the meantime, the money spent so far on the California HST could have bought Spirit Airlines outright and operated it for free for decade. Right now, we are talking 100 billion USD. For a "HST" going 110mph/180kph over a major part of it that connects two major cities in California.
The geography is different, yes, but certain city pairs in the US mirror the extended MSA/megalopolis chains that exist in Germany, Italy, Japan etc. And particularly with regard to the US southeast and northeast, there are similarities to Japan regarding time savings to access a major rail terminus versus getting to airport/security/waiting etc. The latter time savings are precisely why Chinese and Japanese HSR users continue to pay ticket premiums for that service even where LCC may be available/cheaper.
In Japan’s case, LCCs has become popular because disposable income is too low for many younger professionals to use HSR regularly and airports with stagnant traffic growth have thrown incentives at domestic LCCs.
Redd wrote:I doubt that China cares about Environmental Impact Studies or the niceties of obtaining the land for the project.China has built about 38,000km of high speed rail, in about the same time since California first got approval to start construction back in 2008. California is the world's 3rd largest economy, what's the problem here?
johns624 wrote:Redd wrote:I doubt that China cares about Environmental Impact Studies or the niceties of obtaining the land for the project.China has built about 38,000km of high speed rail, in about the same time since California first got approval to start construction back in 2008. California is the world's 3rd largest economy, what's the problem here?
Redd wrote:China has built about 38,000km of high speed rail, in about the same time since California first got approval to start construction back in 2008. California is the world's 3rd largest economy, what's the problem here?
LCDFlight wrote:California HSR is (yet another) example that actual transportation professionals are being completely misused and deliberately misunderstood, in order to pursue a political fantasy. California HSR is a sick joke and a tragedy. IMO, it proves that government must be sharply reduced in size.
Meanwhile, actual skilled transport professionals remain involved in the road network and aviation network. No credit, no glory.
Passenger railroad is an 1800s technology that acts as a spiritual talisman for greedy politicians and fanatics. The numbers on California HSR were always horribly awful, and yet, still represented a fraudulent under-estimate of the true costs. The operational benefits ("high speed") were also fraudulent. There is no benefit. But people don't care. It's a cult.
pune wrote:It actually makes more sense to put infrastructure in LCCs and Airport development rather than HSR as infrastructure is needed only for Airports, Instead of Rail you have air which has no maintenance costs AFAIK. The plane sure has but then that can be equated to the train itself.
Not just in Japan, but even in China, the majority of mass moves through LCC.
That is the reason the Chinese have been building their own commercial plane, One is they get access to the better and latest technology, a lot of which can be dual-used for military applications.
The only thing that I have not been hearing from China is while they are all hell-bent on e-mobility for cars and whatnot, for air travel not so much, although there are around 100 odd companies/startups around the world who are attempting to both take up on electronic batteries, air travel, and VTOL. Once that is done, the economics will be more in favor of LCC. Even somewhat conventional airplanes are going to make the sector hotter if they are able to realize their plans.
https://simpleflying.com/could-a-supers ... -airliner/
c933103 wrote:Redd wrote:China has built about 38,000km of high speed rail, in about the same time since California first got approval to start construction back in 2008. California is the world's 3rd largest economy, what's the problem here?
China invested 100 Billion USD into constructing HSR each and every years. While California is thinking about whether it is worth to invest 100 Billion USD in total into linking its two most important cities.LCDFlight wrote:California HSR is (yet another) example that actual transportation professionals are being completely misused and deliberately misunderstood, in order to pursue a political fantasy. California HSR is a sick joke and a tragedy. IMO, it proves that government must be sharply reduced in size.
Meanwhile, actual skilled transport professionals remain involved in the road network and aviation network. No credit, no glory.
Passenger railroad is an 1800s technology that acts as a spiritual talisman for greedy politicians and fanatics. The numbers on California HSR were always horribly awful, and yet, still represented a fraudulent under-estimate of the true costs. The operational benefits ("high speed") were also fraudulent. There is no benefit. But people don't care. It's a cult.
Treating high speed rail as like the rail from before the onset of passenger road vehicles and commercial aviation is exactly what's wrong with American mindset of HSR construction. No matter supporters or oppositions. Yes that's indeed a reason behind California HSR's management failure and delays.
pune wrote:Aaron747 wrote:FlapOperator wrote:
Because, surprisingly enough, the geography of North America is different than the EU, Japan and China. The regulatory, environmental impact and labor circumstances aren't the same.
What's the point of a once or twice a day HST between select city pairs in the absence of public transportation or small cities when you get there? What could 100 billion dollars bought in that regard?
Even where great train infrastructure exists, we've seen the rise of LCCs in the EU, Japan and China. Why? Because people there value their time as well.
In the meantime, the money spent so far on the California HST could have bought Spirit Airlines outright and operated it for free for decade. Right now, we are talking 100 billion USD. For a "HST" going 110mph/180kph over a major part of it that connects two major cities in California.
The geography is different, yes, but certain city pairs in the US mirror the extended MSA/megalopolis chains that exist in Germany, Italy, Japan etc. And particularly with regard to the US southeast and northeast, there are similarities to Japan regarding time savings to access a major rail terminus versus getting to airport/security/waiting etc. The latter time savings are precisely why Chinese and Japanese HSR users continue to pay ticket premiums for that service even where LCC may be available/cheaper.
In Japan’s case, LCCs has become popular because disposable income is too low for many younger professionals to use HSR regularly and airports with stagnant traffic growth have thrown incentives at domestic LCCs.
It actually makes more sense to put infrastructure in LCCs and Airport development rather than HSR as infrastructure is needed only for Airports, Instead of Rail you have air which has no maintenance costs AFAIK. The plane sure has but then that can be equated to the train itself.
Not just in Japan, but even in China, the majority of mass moves through LCC. That is the reason the Chinese have been building their own commercial plane, One is they get access to the better and latest technology, a lot of which can be dual-used for military applications. The only thing that I have not been hearing from China is while they are all hell-bent on e-mobility for cars and whatnot, for air travel not so much, although there are around 100 odd companies/startups around the world who are attempting to both take up on electronic batteries, air travel, and VTOL. Once that is done, the economics will be more in favor of LCC. Even somewhat conventional airplanes are going to make the sector hotter if they are able to realize their plans.
https://simpleflying.com/could-a-supers ... -airliner/
LCDFlight wrote:c933103 wrote:Redd wrote:China has built about 38,000km of high speed rail, in about the same time since California first got approval to start construction back in 2008. California is the world's 3rd largest economy, what's the problem here?
China invested 100 Billion USD into constructing HSR each and every years. While California is thinking about whether it is worth to invest 100 Billion USD in total into linking its two most important cities.LCDFlight wrote:California HSR is (yet another) example that actual transportation professionals are being completely misused and deliberately misunderstood, in order to pursue a political fantasy. California HSR is a sick joke and a tragedy. IMO, it proves that government must be sharply reduced in size.
Meanwhile, actual skilled transport professionals remain involved in the road network and aviation network. No credit, no glory.
Passenger railroad is an 1800s technology that acts as a spiritual talisman for greedy politicians and fanatics. The numbers on California HSR were always horribly awful, and yet, still represented a fraudulent under-estimate of the true costs. The operational benefits ("high speed") were also fraudulent. There is no benefit. But people don't care. It's a cult.
Treating high speed rail as like the rail from before the onset of passenger road vehicles and commercial aviation is exactly what's wrong with American mindset of HSR construction. No matter supporters or oppositions. Yes that's indeed a reason behind California HSR's management failure and delays.
It's not American mindset... it is the American reality of so-called "HSR" projects. We are too far in our development, including legal development, to build new rail networks. We also do not have the population density of China.
In 1875, yes... the US could, and did, develop extensive rail networks.
I have ridden China HSR by the way. It was cool, enjoyed it. And here in the US, I enjoy our version, which has wings.
NIKV69 wrote:seb146 wrote:
Americans, and to some extent Canadians, have been so indoctrinated with this fantasy that cares and airplanes are the only travel options. We have been told for decades that trains are slow and unreliable all while watching EU, Japan, and China build high speed networks in addition to air and roads. We are told we don't want trains, this is a reason why there is little to no interest in HSR.
There is little interest because we don't benefit from it. We have low cost airlines that serve the routes better and cheaper or the same price.
seb146 wrote:NIKV69 wrote:seb146 wrote:
Americans, and to some extent Canadians, have been so indoctrinated with this fantasy that cares and airplanes are the only travel options. We have been told for decades that trains are slow and unreliable all while watching the EU, Japan, and China build high-speed networks in addition to air and roads. We are told we don't want trains, this is a reason why there is little to no interest in HSR.
There is little interest because we don't benefit from it. We have low-cost airlines that serve the routes better and cheaper or the same price.
For long-distance travel around the country, LCC makes sense. But for short hops, they do not. Someone else mentioned, "why build rail when there is nothing connecting the station in small towns" or something similar and that is actually a good point against airports. Many smaller airports do not have the infrastructure to connect the airport with the town it serves. MFR has one bus line that runs until 7 PM Monday to Friday and 6 PM on weekends. So, if you are on a late flight, pack light and stretch out those hammies! Same with EUG and RDM and PSC. Oh, sure, there are taxis and rideshare in most places but those are expensive.
Arguments for and against can be made for both air travel and HSR. The biggest difference with HSR is they can serve suburban stops.
pune wrote:
pune wrote:For short hops, the best is light rail. That is easy and cheap, At least much cheaper than HSR and small towns and whatnot can easily pay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
The problem in HSR as I had repeated before is that costs can never be repaid. As shared above, out of the 550 billion dollars they raised to make railways, 400 billion dollars is still with the Govt. And they are hoping to issue bonds, and sell railway property. The Japanese stagnation which is now in its fourth-fifth decade is in part due to HSR. France's state-owned Rail has been repeatedly bailed by the Govt. Spain had the private debtor take the debt and hence are somewhat in the clear but if rules in EU change, then they will be in lot of trouble.
pune wrote:For Japan look at -
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curate ... i-page.pdf
For France and Spain look at -
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 6517307214
Both tell their own stories.
Yeah I just...cannot.
| Country | Density (people/sq. km) |
|---------|-------------------------|
| Japan | 337 |
| Germany | 233 |
| Italy | 201 |
| China | 149 |
| France | 118 |
| Spain | 92 |
c933103 wrote:Redd wrote:China has built about 38,000km of high speed rail, in about the same time since California first got approval to start construction back in 2008. California is the world's 3rd largest economy, what's the problem here?
China invested 100 Billion USD into constructing HSR each and every years. While California is thinking about whether it is worth to invest 100 Billion USD in total into linking its two most important cities.
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:
1. Why are you quoting a document from the year 1992, which is a whole 30 years ago?
2. Even this document identified, "Gradually, competition from automobiles and aircraft intensified, and JNR lost its competitive edge in all regions except the metropolitan areas and between points connected by the Shinkansen (Bullet Train). Even in metropolitan areas, repeated fare hikes in JNR's final years resulted in fares that were higher than those charged by the private lines."
The result of building non-high speed lines will be "lost its competitive edge in all regions", just as this report describes.pune wrote:For short hops, the best is light rail. That is easy and cheap, At least much cheaper than HSR and small towns and whatnot can easily pay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
The problem in HSR as I had repeated before is that costs can never be repaid. As shared above, out of the 550 billion dollars they raised to make railways, 400 billion dollars is still with the Govt. And they are hoping to issue bonds, and sell railway property. The Japanese stagnation which is now in its fourth-fifth decade is in part due to HSR. France's state-owned Rail has been repeatedly bailed by the Govt. Spain had the private debtor take the debt and hence is somewhat in the clear but if rules in the EU change, then they will be in a lot of trouble.
Light rail is for travel inside a city. They are for wholly different distances and types of trips compared to high-speed rail, which offers travel options between different cities. Also what is with the fiction of rail debt causing stagnation.
Redd wrote:c933103 wrote:Redd wrote:China has built about 38,000km of high speed rail, in about the same time since California first got approval to start construction back in 2008. California is the world's 3rd largest economy, what's the problem here?
China invested 100 Billion USD into constructing HSR each and every years. While California is thinking about whether it is worth to invest 100 Billion USD in total into linking its two most important cities.
How much has California spent chewing the idea over in the past 14 years?
pune wrote:c933103 wrote:pune wrote:
1. Why are you quoting a document from the year 1992, which is a whole 30 years ago?
2. Even this document identified, "Gradually, competition from automobiles and aircraft intensified, and JNR lost its competitive edge in all regions except the metropolitan areas and between points connected by the Shinkansen (Bullet Train). Even in metropolitan areas, repeated fare hikes in JNR's final years resulted in fares that were higher than those charged by the private lines."
The result of building non-high speed lines will be "lost its competitive edge in all regions", just as this report describes.pune wrote:For short hops, the best is light rail. That is easy and cheap, At least much cheaper than HSR and small towns and whatnot can easily pay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
The problem in HSR as I had repeated before is that costs can never be repaid. As shared above, out of the 550 billion dollars they raised to make railways, 400 billion dollars is still with the Govt. And they are hoping to issue bonds, and sell railway property. The Japanese stagnation which is now in its fourth-fifth decade is in part due to HSR. France's state-owned Rail has been repeatedly bailed by the Govt. Spain had the private debtor take the debt and hence is somewhat in the clear but if rules in the EU change, then they will be in a lot of trouble.
Light rail is for travel inside a city. They are for wholly different distances and types of trips compared to high-speed rail, which offers travel options between different cities. Also what is with the fiction of rail debt causing stagnation.
Because the study was from them and is by a Japanese author. And the Japanese author has to say that they did the right thing otherwise would be called traitors. Ask any Japanese economist why they have been under stagflation for four decades and you will find them looking under their shoulders or elsewhere.
The Japanese are known to cook their own books. The reason is two-fold, there are only 8 companies that basically dominate the whole Industry of Japan -
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovati ... 180960356/
The other part is most of these industries are owned by the Yakuza one way or the other.
https://www.theatlantic.com/internation ... er/327691/
Redd wrote:c933103 wrote:China invested 100 Billion USD into constructing HSR each and every years. While California is thinking about whether it is worth to invest 100 Billion USD in total into linking its two most important cities.
How much has California spent chewing the idea over in the past 14 years?
seb146 wrote:Republicans start screaming "we don't have the money!" but, somehow, find money to expand freeways and give money to developers to build houses and condos and more streets.
seb146 wrote:Maybe because that's what the "people" want? It's not just Republicans either, it's all politicians. Remember the infrastructure bill?
Republicans start screaming "we don't have the money!" but, somehow, find money to expand freeways and give money to developers to build houses and condos and more streets.
seb146 wrote:Redd wrote:c933103 wrote:China invested 100 Billion USD into constructing HSR each and every years. While California is thinking about whether it is worth to invest 100 Billion USD in total into linking its two most important cities.
How much has California spent chewing the idea over in the past 14 years?
Republicans start screaming "we don't have the money!" but, somehow, find money to expand freeways and give money to developers to build houses and condos and more streets.
c933103 wrote:Redd wrote:c933103 wrote:China invested 100 Billion USD into constructing HSR each and every years. While California is thinking about whether it is worth to invest 100 Billion USD in total into linking its two most important cities.
How much has California spent chewing the idea over in the past 14 years?
An order of magnitude less than this
Current estimated cost for the Central Valley segment of the CAHSR which they are indeed working on, cost ~22 Billion based on latest estimate, yet it still haven't been fully funded ans is asking for money from state legislature and federal government. And even want to try single tracking to save ~1 billion off this first phase.
CowAnon wrote:c933103 wrote:Redd wrote:
How much has California spent chewing the idea over in the past 14 years?
An order of magnitude less than this
Current estimated cost for the Central Valley segment of the CAHSR which they are indeed working on, cost ~22 Billion based on latest estimate, yet it still haven't been fully funded ans is asking for money from state legislature and federal government. And even want to try single tracking to save ~1 billion off this first phase.
How coincidental that US$100 billion is brought up. Here's a news article from 2 days ago:California Gov. Newsom unveils historic $97.5 billion budget surplus
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California is entering the next budget year with a record-smashing surplus of nearly $100 billion, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Friday.
Newsom unveiled a revised budget plan of just over $300 billion for the next fiscal year, the highest in state history and fueled by surging tax revenues. The state has collected $55 billion more in taxes than officials expected in January, leaving it with an estimated $97.5 billion surplus.
No mention about using some of that money for rail, though.
CowAnon wrote:Here's a list of population densities for the major countries with developed HSR networks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density#Most_populous_countries_by_densityCode: Select all| Country | Density (people/sq. km) |
|---------|-------------------------|
| Japan | 337 |
| Germany | 233 |
| Italy | 201 |
| China | 149 |
| France | 118 |
| Spain | 92 |
By comparison, California sits at 98 people per square kilometer. That's more than Spain's population density, so it could support a comparable high-speed rail system on a usage basis. If CAHSR ever connects San Francisco to Los Angeles, I think the Central Valley is destined for huge growth, since the overpriced housing markets and lack of construction in SF and LA have contributed to price spikes across the western United States.
The part of the U.S. that's east of the Mississippi River has about 180 million people covering about 2.2 million square kilometers (if you add up the applicable land areas in the next link), which is around 82 people/sq. km. That's less than Spain's density by about 10%, but still probably close enough to make HSR worthwhile. Density for the entire country is only 37 people/sq. km, so a fully national network isn't feasible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_United_States
c933103 wrote:CowAnon wrote:Here's a list of population densities for the major countries with developed HSR networks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density#Most_populous_countries_by_densityCode: Select all| Country | Density (people/sq. km) |
|---------|-------------------------|
| Japan | 337 |
| Germany | 233 |
| Italy | 201 |
| China | 149 |
| France | 118 |
| Spain | 92 |
By comparison, California sits at 98 people per square kilometer. That's more than Spain's population density, so it could support a comparable high-speed rail system on a usage basis. If CAHSR ever connects San Francisco to Los Angeles, I think the Central Valley is destined for huge growth, since the overpriced housing markets and lack of construction in SF and LA have contributed to price spikes across the western United States.
The part of the U.S. that's east of the Mississippi River has about 180 million people covering about 2.2 million square kilometers (if you add up the applicable land areas in the next link), which is around 82 people/sq. km. That's less than Spain's density by about 10%, but still probably close enough to make HSR worthwhile. Density for the entire country is only 37 people/sq. km, so a fully national network isn't feasible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_United_States
It is wasteful + slowing down trips, to use high speed rail which have higher cost of operation than conventional rail, and the resultant higher fare, for the purpose of moving people further away from city center.
seb146 wrote:c933103 wrote:CowAnon wrote:Here's a list of population densities for the major countries with developed HSR networks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density#Most_populous_countries_by_densityCode: Select all| Country | Density (people/sq. km) |
|---------|-------------------------|
| Japan | 337 |
| Germany | 233 |
| Italy | 201 |
| China | 149 |
| France | 118 |
| Spain | 92 |
By comparison, California sits at 98 people per square kilometer. That's more than Spain's population density, so it could support a comparable high-speed rail system on a usage basis. If CAHSR ever connects San Francisco to Los Angeles, I think the Central Valley is destined for huge growth, since the overpriced housing markets and lack of construction in SF and LA have contributed to price spikes across the western United States.
The part of the U.S. that's east of the Mississippi River has about 180 million people covering about 2.2 million square kilometers (if you add up the applicable land areas in the next link), which is around 82 people/sq. km. That's less than Spain's density by about 10%, but still probably close enough to make HSR worthwhile. Density for the entire country is only 37 people/sq. km, so a fully national network isn't feasible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_United_States
It is wasteful + slowing down trips, to use high speed rail which have higher cost of operation than conventional rail, and the resultant higher fare, for the purpose of moving people further away from city center.
But doesn't any rail do that? Look at Sounder in Seattle and Metrolink in Los Angeles and ACE, CalTrain, and SMART in the SF Bay Area. They all connect communities far from the city centers.
william wrote:The point of the posting the news article, was to show that big building projects on the scale of the CAHSR project cannot be done in this day and age sadly. The only large scale project that has gone relatively on time so far is the LGA terminal rebuilds. Even AA had a dumpster fire building its terminal in MIA.
The will or know how to go big is gone.
Aaron747 wrote:william wrote:The point of the posting the news article, was to show that big building projects on the scale of the CAHSR project cannot be done in this day and age sadly. The only large-scale project that has gone relatively on time so far is the LGA terminal rebuilds. Even AA had a dumpster fire building its terminal in MIA.
The will or know how to go big is gone.
Too many cooks in the kitchen. In some respects, there is too much democratic process in local politics. Ever been to a planning commission meeting that has a public comment component? I have and sometimes they only get to agenda item 4 by 1 AM and call it a day with five items remaining.
william wrote:The point of the posting the news article, was to show that big building projects on the scale of the CAHSR project cannot be done in this day and age sadly. The only large scale project that has gone relatively on time so far is the LGA terminal rebuilds. Even AA had a dumpster fire building its terminal in MIA.
The will or know how to go big is gone.
pune wrote:Aaron747 wrote:william wrote:The point of the posting the news article, was to show that big building projects on the scale of the CAHSR project cannot be done in this day and age sadly. The only large-scale project that has gone relatively on time so far is the LGA terminal rebuilds. Even AA had a dumpster fire building its terminal in MIA.
The will or know how to go big is gone.
Too many cooks in the kitchen. In some respects, there is too much democratic process in local politics. Ever been to a planning commission meeting that has a public comment component? I have and sometimes they only get to agenda item 4 by 1 AM and call it a day with five items remaining.
But if you don't then you have no accountability. I will tell you from personal experience what I have seen and experienced when the meetings and discussions for the Pune Metro Rail budget. There have changed the budget 15 times and this is the number of times they have gone public. Sadly and ironically, each time the number of people who are going to use the Metro has been revised downwards, and land-sale, taxation, and whatnot has been used to make sure the budget balances. And this is just the white side of the business, whatever corruption may be happening is something else. Most of the public doesn't even know or care to find out who even the contractors are, most of them close to the Central ruling party. Pune does have a partial metro after a decade and will take another decade just to have the initial spokes all around the city, Connecting the spokes to each other like a wheel would be work that will go on for decades and it would be costly, whether how many people travel on it or not irrespective.
And while granted what I'm sharing is just city-wide, inter-city is the same thing. What you would ideally want are services which are at least twice-thrice a day or even more. I'll just share for e.g. the traffic between Mumbai and Pune and there were something like 200+ trains between the two cities and all of them used to be booked fully. And this is just trains, the travel time between the twin cities is around 3 hrs. There used to be 10 times bus services point to point between the two cities.
Aaron747 wrote:pune wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Too many cooks in the kitchen. In some respects, there is too much democratic process in local politics. Ever been to a planning commission meeting that has a public comment component? I have and sometimes they only get to agenda item 4 by 1 AM and call it a day with five items remaining.
But if you don't then you have no accountability. I will tell you from personal experience what I have seen and experienced when the meetings and discussions for the Pune Metro Rail budget. There have changed the budget 15 times and this is the number of times they have gone public. Sadly and ironically, each time the number of people who are going to use the Metro has been revised downwards, and land-sale, taxation, and whatnot has been used to make sure the budget balances. And this is just the white side of the business, whatever corruption may be happening is something else. Most of the public doesn't even know or care to find out who even the contractors are, most of them close to the Central ruling party. Pune does have a partial metro after a decade and will take another decade just to have the initial spokes all around the city, Connecting the spokes to each other like a wheel would be work that will go on for decades and it would be costly, whether how many people travel on it or not irrespective.
And while granted what I'm sharing is just city-wide, inter-city is the same thing. What you would ideally want are services which are at least twice-thrice a day or even more. I'll just share for e.g. the traffic between Mumbai and Pune and there were something like 200+ trains between the two cities and all of them used to be booked fully. And this is just trains, the travel time between the twin cities is around 3 hrs. There used to be 10 times bus services point to point between the two cities.
I didn't say pare the whole thing back - but the problem is public comments that have absolutely no bearing on the proposal or its actual parameters. Come to a meeting in a large US city and you'll hear public comments about everything from shadows to bird droppings to whatever else. And we don't have to worry about accountability in the sense you may be used to in India - there is extensive documentation of these proposals and deals and it is all available to the public on file in the city or county office.
Aaron747 wrote:seb146 wrote:c933103 wrote:It is wasteful + slowing down trips, to use high speed rail which have higher cost of operation than conventional rail, and the resultant higher fare, for the purpose of moving people further away from city center.
But doesn't any rail do that? Look at Sounder in Seattle and Metrolink in Los Angeles and ACE, CalTrain, and SMART in the SF Bay Area. They all connect communities far from the city centers.
Well no, because the infrastructure requirements for HSR are well beyond those for commuter rail.
seb146 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:seb146 wrote:
But doesn't any rail do that? Look at Sounder in Seattle and Metrolink in Los Angeles and ACE, CalTrain, and SMART in the SF Bay Area. They all connect communities far from the city centers.
Well no, because the infrastructure requirements for HSR are well beyond those for commuter rail.
Yes, but, at the same time, when the 205 freeway was built through east Portland in the 1970s, they had a culvert dug between Division and Stark/Washington because "some train will come through here some day maybe". And, lo-and-behold, when Green Line was built, there was an underpass under 205 for two MAX tracks with the overhead electric power between Stark and Division. And it saved millions of dollars.
It is impossible for any city to plan 30 years in the future. Seattle had a great idea with their "Express Lanes" but they are now Sound Transit light rail lines. Which is just as great. But, no one knows what the future holds. Every city is different. I just think some of these "well, it might happen...." projects are interesting.
ER757 wrote:seb146 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
Well no, because the infrastructure requirements for HSR are well beyond those for commuter rail.
Yes, but, at the same time, when the 205 freeway was built through east Portland in the 1970s, they had a culvert dug between Division and Stark/Washington because "some train will come through here some day maybe". And, lo-and-behold, when Green Line was built, there was an underpass under 205 for two MAX tracks with the overhead electric power between Stark and Division. And it saved millions of dollars.
It is impossible for any city to plan 30 years in the future. Seattle had a great idea with their "Express Lanes" but they are now Sound Transit light rail lines. Which is just as great. But, no one knows what the future holds. Every city is different. I just think some of these "well, it might happen...." projects are interesting.
The only place in the Seattle area where the express lanes were converted to rail lines is across the I-90 floating bridge for the Link light rail line to Bellevue and Redmond. Everywhere else they are being converted slowly but surely to toll lanes for single occupant or free for carpool. Of course I'll be long gone before the system is completed.
william wrote:The point of the posting the news article, was to show that big building projects on the scale of the CAHSR project cannot be done in this day and age sadly. The only large scale project that has gone relatively on time so far is the LGA terminal rebuilds. Even AA had a dumpster fire building its terminal in MIA.
The will or know how to go big is gone.
"Newsom’s high-speed rail dispute
Assembly Democrats refuse to hand over $4.2 billion appropriation for beleaguered system"
https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/newsom-s-high-speed-rail-dispute/article_82e64a4a-cf71-11ec-a3f6-6ffd63444644.html
pune wrote:And while granted what I'm sharing is just city-wide, inter-city is the same thing. What you would ideally want are services which are at least twice-thrice a day or even more. I'll just share for e.g. the traffic between Mumbai and Pune and there were something like 200+ trains between the two cities and all of them used to be booked fully. And this is just trains, the travel time between the twin cities is around 3 hrs. There used to be 10 times bus services point to point between the two cities.
seb146 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:seb146 wrote:
But doesn't any rail do that? Look at Sounder in Seattle and Metrolink in Los Angeles and ACE, CalTrain, and SMART in the SF Bay Area. They all connect communities far from the city centers.
Well no, because the infrastructure requirements for HSR are well beyond those for commuter rail.
Yes, but, at the same time, when the 205 freeway was built through east Portland in the 1970s, they had a culvert dug between Division and Stark/Washington because "some train will come through here some day maybe". And, lo-and-behold, when Green Line was built, there was an underpass under 205 for two MAX tracks with the overhead electric power between Stark and Division. And it saved millions of dollars.
It is impossible for any city to plan 30 years in the future. Seattle had a great idea with their "Express Lanes" but they are now Sound Transit light rail lines. Which is just as great. But, no one knows what the future holds. Every city is different. I just think some of these "well, it might happen...." projects are interesting.
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:And while granted what I'm sharing is just city-wide, inter-city is the same thing. What you would ideally want are services which are at least twice-thrice a day or even more. I'll just share for e.g. the traffic between Mumbai and Pune and there were something like 200+ trains between the two cities and all of them used to be booked fully. And this is just trains, the travel time between the twin cities is around 3 hrs. There used to be 10 times bus services point to point between the two cities.
Then why you don't think some of them can use a high-speed rail to alleviate the crowded rail tracks if there are 200+ trains carrying passengers between the two cities?
pune wrote:I already shared the maths, if you have dedicated one HSR, then only 1% will be able to travel on that route, what happens to others. They won't be able to travel.
You can look at all HSR projects, they usually have a separate track at a considerable distance between HSR and conventional tracks.
For that, you have to first acquire land as well as knowledge. Both are gonna be long-term and expensive. Even in the Japanese proposal, most of the rake equipment, tracks, signaling, etc. would be coming from Japan. To date, there is not even a single technology transfer agreement between India and Japan. So India gains nothing either by way of jobs or technology. It is very similar to the semiconductor fiasco being played out -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Z_uFwxPtk
And this is apart from all the taxes that everybody would have to bear, every Indian citizen, irrespective of whether they travel in HSR or not.
cpd wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the main discussion of Indian HSR, but to turn back to California (which is in the title of the topic), has anything actually started yet in terms of getting the land needed to start the project, detailed planning of the route and anything else needed in terms of cuttings, bridges, tunnels, whatever else?
Or is it still at the stage of artwork and computer generated videos? If that's the case then there is no hope at all.
cpd wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the main discussion of Indian HSR, but to turn back to California (which is in the title of the topic), has anything actually started yet in terms of getting the land needed to start the project, detailed planning of the route and anything else needed in terms of cuttings, bridges, tunnels, whatever else?
Or is it still at the stage of artwork and computer generated videos? If that's the case then there is no hope at all.
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:I already shared the maths, if you have dedicated one HSR, then only 1% will be able to travel on that route, what happens to others. They won't be able to travel.
Is India so poor that only 1% can afford travelling on HSR?
And regardless of answer, I am definitely sure more than 1% people in California can afford to travel via HSR.You can look at all HSR projects, they usually have a separate track at a considerable distance between HSR and conventional tracks.
Alternative way to add capacity is to quadruple existing track. Which will have tracks that are just as slow, but won't be cheaper, as urban development usually happens along tracks already existing, and clearing that out for building extra tracks could likely be more expensive than buying land in the middle of nowhere to build whole new high speed rail track.For that, you have to first acquire land as well as knowledge. Both are gonna be long-term and expensive. Even in the Japanese proposal, most of the rake equipment, tracks, signaling, etc. would be coming from Japan. To date, there is not even a single technology transfer agreement between India and Japan. So India gains nothing either by way of jobs or technology. It is very similar to the semiconductor fiasco being played out -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Z_uFwxPtk
And this is apart from all the taxes that everybody would have to bear, every Indian citizen, irrespective of whether they travel in HSR or not.
I don't understand this logic. This is as if saying India shouldn't buy Boeing or Airbus planes unless they teach India how to build its own planes.
c933103 wrote:cpd wrote:Sorry to go off-topic from the main discussion of Indian HSR, but to turn back to California (which is in the title of the topic), has anything actually started yet in terms of getting the land needed to start the project, detailed planning of the route and anything else needed in terms of cuttings, bridges, tunnels, whatever else?
Or is it still at the stage of artwork and computer generated videos? If that's the case then there is no hope at all.
The initial 119 miles experimental of the route in Central valley is already under construction. But train service will only start after completing 171 miles of the route. Rest of the route, aka the second phase, including those that connect into Los Angeles, as well as those that connect toward rail system to the Bay Area, have their detailed alignment published and is completing the environmental impact assessment procedure. These environmental planning procedures have been completed for the 171 miles quite some years ago according to my memory. But I have read that a problem with CAHSR is they sometimes have to change the route on the fly.
CAHSR official youtube channel have quarterly video updates posted about engineering works being done every quarter, including bridges being built on the ground for the high speed rail and such.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgIa4uAnVVw Here is a drone video filming the status of construction of the whole initial 119 miles right of way from last year.
SQ22 wrote:Please keep this thread on topic or it will be locked, thanks.
c933103 wrote:As of 2020 half of China earned less than 1000CNY a month, or 330 INR a day. And HSR tickets in China cost much more than 1K INR or 100CNY. Yet their trunk routes still have the strong ridership you are seeing, although it is not the case for poorer township. HSR isn't something you take daily unless you are some executive level business traveler having to visit different cities every days.
This also refute the absolutely ridiculous argument that Californian with their income they are earning, aren't going to have the money to buy train tickets.
Like, be it California or India or anywhere else where HSR routes have been proposed, most of them already have established air routes and sizable volume of air passengers. And while HSR aren't always cheaper than the cheapest LCC tickets, they usually won't cost any significantly more. No reason passengers who are now paying for airline tickets wouldn't be able to afford paying for HSR ticket for intercity travel.
Think of other existing modes can also answer many questions about HSR. Like some questioned whether HSRs are going to be viable in American cities without good public transit where passengers will need their cars to get to and from stations? The airports are already up and running and carrying millions of passengers every year despite the same lack of public transit as well as needing car connection. HSR wouldn't be any worse than that. And just like airport construction can often lead to discussion of building extra transit service for airport passengers, HSR development could and should also be tied with similar local transit link improvement to make travelers feel more convenient, and at the end also improving local transit system especially given that HSR stations are usually much closer to downtown of cities, even though such improvement isn't mandatory.
