Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
LCDFlight wrote:I think you are incorrectly calculating the cost of California HSR and train tickets. The cost would be 1-2 trillion. The 150-200 billion so far is just a tiny beginning. Tickets would be around $5,000. You'd need to force people to ride it at that price, and build prisons for the people who refuse to ride it.
HSR would never be able to compete with California's high speed air corridor services. This was already clear by the 1960s... Having done plenty of airline route analysis in past life... HSR metrics are in another galaxy less efficient.
Support for HSR tends to be centered on "80-90% subsidized train tickets," which would be paid for by imagined wealth transfers from people who have money. If passengers had to pay the true cost, no one would ride it. Go ahead and locate predicted fully-allocated cost per ticket for California HSR. I will get some popcorn. Let me know when you find it.
pune wrote:In fact, what I have shared above and what you have shared earlier are similar, only our takeaways are a bit different -
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1472735&start=50#p23307853
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:In fact, what I have shared above and what you have shared earlier are similar, only our takeaways are a bit different -
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1472735&start=50#p23307853
No one ever says the main purpose of HSR is to serve the commuter.
Some in California mentioned Palmdale station can be used by commuters, and it can also help Central Valley residents connect to the two large cities, but given an example of other systems around the world like Shinkansen, I would expect their scale to be not something large and mostly would be trips that done no more than one or two times a week, and their total amount of trips would also be considerably less than the number of people actually traveling city to city. Like Joetsu Shinkansen attempted the introduction of double-decker Shinkansen to serve commuters, but they are now retired as such commuting demand nowhere near the level that would justify the introduction of such specific equipment.
pune wrote:The whole idea of HSR or rather any transport is so that people can be at a cheaper place (a suburb or something) and then go to a major city where they work and come back the same day or come back on the weekend. There have been creations of entire towns both in Japan as well as in China to facilitate this. Even within cities, it is those gated communities/townships which are occupied first which are nearer to a factory or something large like that so that people are easily employed and transport is not an issue. But at times, if you cannot find good labor nearby of you need a large number of labor then you need good transport. Any transport system works on the assumption that a majority of passengers would be everyday users otherwise you
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014 ... n-50-years
The article itself tells the story.
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:The whole idea of HSR or rather any transport is so that people can be at a cheaper place (a suburb or something) and then go to a major city where they work and come back the same day or come back on the weekend. There have been creations of entire towns both in Japan as well as in China to facilitate this. Even within cities, it is those gated communities/townships which are occupied first which are nearer to a factory or something large like that so that people are easily employed and transport is not an issue. But at times, if you cannot find good labor nearby of you need a large number of labor then you need good transport. Any transport system works on the assumption that a majority of passengers would be everyday users otherwise you
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014 ... n-50-years
The article itself tells the story.
People moving into cities to work doesn't mean they use HSR as commuters.
Like in every country in the world nowadays, including China, India, Japan, the United States, European countries, and Africa, people are all moving out of villages to find work in large cities. Because use of machinery in rural area production means fewer jobs are needed or can be provided there, while new jobs emerging in the past few centuries are all extensively relying on the collaboration and connection of people as well as the easiness of exchange between them.
Would you say the United States's Air Transport System is also transportation whose goal is so that "people can be at a cheaper place and then go to a major city to work and come back the same day or on the weekend"? There are towns like Annaka-Haruna created around the newly constructed Shinkansen station for such commuting but just look at any satellite map of the area around that station and see its scale of development. Those residents aren't anywhere near the majority of any HSR networks in the world.
As for "if you cannot find good labor nearby of you need a huge number of labor then you need good transport", the proper solution is to build more residentials closer to the city. Which is going to be much cheaper and can attract much more people can building a new HSR line.
c933103 wrote:Would you say the United States's Air Transport System is also a transportation which goal is so that "poeople can be at a cheaper place and then go to a major city to work and come back the same day or on the weekend"? There are towns like Annaka-Haruna created around newly constructed Shinkansen station for such commuting but just look at any satellite map of the area around that station and see its scale of development. Those residents aren't anywhere near majority of any HSR networks in the world.
As for "if you cannot find good labor nearby of you need a large number of labor then you need good transport", the proper solution is to build more residentials closer to the city. Which is going to much cheaper and can attract much more people can building a new HSR line.
seb146 wrote:c933103 wrote:Would you say the United States's Air Transport System is also a transportation which goal is so that "poeople can be at a cheaper place and then go to a major city to work and come back the same day or on the weekend"? There are towns like Annaka-Haruna created around newly constructed Shinkansen station for such commuting but just look at any satellite map of the area around that station and see its scale of development. Those residents aren't anywhere near majority of any HSR networks in the world.
As for "if you cannot find good labor nearby of you need a large number of labor then you need good transport", the proper solution is to build more residentials closer to the city. Which is going to much cheaper and can attract much more people can building a new HSR line.
The United States has a couple of things working against us:
1. actually getting to the airport
2. different groups working against any kind of mass transit
3. we are taught from a very young age that detached, single family homes is the goal
I don't expect people in Los Angeles to use HSR to get to their job in San Francisco and vice versa. LADOT is trying to build light rail NEAR LAX, not actually TO LAX and BUR has Metrolink NEAR the terminal, nothing AT the terminal. SFO has BART, so that is something. SJC has the VTA NEAR but not actually TO the terminal. OAK built the BART extension which involves changing trains. Not to mention LGB, ONT, and SNA have no rail service. We can build the greatest airports and have convenient flights but if there is no way or a nightmare scenario in getting to the airport, who's going to demand it?
pune wrote:
Seems you didn't even read the article as it tells what happened in Tokyo. What you are not taking into account is that what you share almost never happens. Allow me to share a real-life example of what actually happens.
In my own city, there is a suburb of the city called Pimpri-Chinchwad. In the 1970s land was cheap and a lot of people came and resided there, mainly laborers or people working petty trades. They developed that part of the town from the ground up. Come 1980 and industry started taking all the land by hook or crook. As of date, 98% of the land there is now with the industry, the rest 2% is cut off. Ironically, the ones who work in those factories and whatnot are from outside Pune, and most of them are from even outside the state.
seb146 wrote:c933103 wrote:Would you say the United States's Air Transport System is also a transportation which goal is so that "poeople can be at a cheaper place and then go to a major city to work and come back the same day or on the weekend"? There are towns like Annaka-Haruna created around newly constructed Shinkansen station for such commuting but just look at any satellite map of the area around that station and see its scale of development. Those residents aren't anywhere near majority of any HSR networks in the world.
As for "if you cannot find good labor nearby of you need a large number of labor then you need good transport", the proper solution is to build more residentials closer to the city. Which is going to much cheaper and can attract much more people can building a new HSR line.
The United States has a couple of things working against us:
1. actually getting to the airport
2. different groups working against any kind of mass transit
3. we are taught from a very young age that detached, single family homes is the goal
I don't expect people in Los Angeles to use HSR to get to their job in San Francisco and vice versa. LADOT is trying to build light rail NEAR LAX, not actually TO LAX and BUR has Metrolink NEAR the terminal, nothing AT the terminal. SFO has BART, so that is something. SJC has the VTA NEAR but not actually TO the terminal. OAK built the BART extension which involves changing trains. Not to mention LGB, ONT, and SNA have no rail service. We can build the greatest airports and have convenient flights but if there is no way or a nightmare scenario in getting to the airport, who's going to demand it?
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:
Seems you didn't even read the article as it tells what happened in Tokyo. What you are not taking into account is that what you share almost never happens. Allow me to share a real-life example of what actually happens.
In my own city, there is a suburb of the city called Pimpri-Chinchwad. In the 1970s land was cheap and a lot of people came and resided there, mainly laborers or people working petty trades. They developed that part of the town from the ground up. Come 1980 and industry started taking all the land by hook or crook. As of date, 98% of the land there is now with the industry, the rest 2% is cut off. Ironically, the ones who work in those factories and whatnot are from outside Pune, and most of them are from even outside the state.
People moved to Tokyo to work. Yes moved, not commute to. That is how the greater area around Tokyo now get ~38 million population. That is what the article is saying as well. The phenomenon you observed in India isn't caused by High Speed Rail development because India currently have no High Speed Rail.
pune wrote:Then it doesn't make any difference at least to those who are down the line.
Of course, if you have money to burn, you have money to burn whether it is HSR or some other high-cost project.
pune wrote:seb146 wrote:c933103 wrote:Would you say the United States's Air Transport System is also a transportation which goal is so that "poeople can be at a cheaper place and then go to a major city to work and come back the same day or on the weekend"? There are towns like Annaka-Haruna created around newly constructed Shinkansen station for such commuting but just look at any satellite map of the area around that station and see its scale of development. Those residents aren't anywhere near majority of any HSR networks in the world.
As for "if you cannot find good labor nearby of you need a large number of labor then you need good transport", the proper solution is to build more residentials closer to the city. Which is going to much cheaper and can attract much more people can building a new HSR line.
The United States has a couple of things working against us:
1. actually getting to the airport
2. different groups working against any kind of mass transit
3. we are taught from a very young age that detached, single family homes is the goal
I don't expect people in Los Angeles to use HSR to get to their job in San Francisco and vice versa. LADOT is trying to build light rail NEAR LAX, not actually TO LAX and BUR has Metrolink NEAR the terminal, nothing AT the terminal. SFO has BART, so that is something. SJC has the VTA NEAR but not actually TO the terminal. OAK built the BART extension which involves changing trains. Not to mention LGB, ONT, and SNA have no rail service. We can build the greatest airports and have convenient flights but if there is no way or a nightmare scenario in getting to the airport, who's going to demand it?
Then that is what the Americans need to fix. If Qatar can do it, Singapore can do it, Qatar did it recentish while Singapore did it years ago or perhaps decades.m dunno. Even in India, that is what we aspire to have, a direct metro to the airport. Would make things lot more convenient.
seb146 wrote:pune wrote:seb146 wrote:
The United States has a couple of things working against us:
1. actually getting to the airport
2. different groups working against any kind of mass transit
3. we are taught from a very young age that detached, single family homes is the goal
I don't expect people in Los Angeles to use HSR to get to their job in San Francisco and vice versa. LADOT is trying to build light rail NEAR LAX, not actually TO LAX and BUR has Metrolink NEAR the terminal, nothing AT the terminal. SFO has BART, so that is something. SJC has the VTA NEAR but not actually TO the terminal. OAK built the BART extension which involves changing trains. Not to mention LGB, ONT, and SNA have no rail service. We can build the greatest airports and have convenient flights but if there is no way or a nightmare scenario in getting to the airport, who's going to demand it?
Then that is what the Americans need to fix. If Qatar can do it, Singapore can do it, Qatar did it recentish while Singapore did it years ago or perhaps decades.m dunno. Even in India, that is what we aspire to have, a direct metro to the airport. Would make things a lot more convenient.
So rail lines to every airport with scheduled service?
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:Then it doesn't make any difference at least to those who are down the line.
Smaller cities along the line can attract more visitors and businesses there can have better opportunity of connecting toward companies and markets in larger cities. Similar to the effect expanded air service and expressway would bring, but in a much more voluminous manner.Of course, if you have money to burn, you have money to burn whether it is HSR or some other high-cost project.
I won't say spending something that is profitable and beneficiary to society as something that is "money to burn". Most countries adopted benefit/cost analysis, and a line must result in a higher benefit than the cost for the project for it to proceed.
pune wrote:c933103 wrote:pune wrote:Then it doesn't make any difference at least to those who are down the line.
Smaller cities along the line can attract more visitors and businesses there can have better opportunity of connecting toward companies and markets in larger cities. Similar to the effect expanded air service and expressway would bring, but in a much more voluminous manner.Of course, if you have money to burn, you have money to burn whether it is HSR or some other high-cost project.
I won't say spending something that is profitable and beneficiary to society as something that is "money to burn". Most countries adopted benefit/cost analysis, and a line must result in a higher benefit than the cost for the project for it to proceed.
The problem is you are assuming and as I shared assumptions more often than not are based on untruths otherwise many projects wouldn't even leave the drawing board. So, in order to show that the idea is good, you pad the project, and if in the end, it does result in a white elephant or a loss you can always blame 'external factors' , There are youtube channels that thrive on showing businesses that failed and the buildings those are in ruins. If what you say were to be true, then most projects wouldn't run into an escalation of costs and this happens more than not. And this is a worldwide 'feature' -
https://www.enr.com/articles/52612-stud ... -worthless
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:c933103 wrote:Smaller cities along the line can attract more visitors and businesses there can have better opportunity of connecting toward companies and markets in larger cities. Similar to the effect expanded air service and expressway would bring, but in a much more voluminous manner.
I won't say spending something that is profitable and beneficiary to society as something that is "money to burn". Most countries adopted benefit/cost analysis, and a line must result in a higher benefit than the cost for the project for it to proceed.
The problem is you are assuming and as I shared assumptions more often than not are based on untruths otherwise many projects wouldn't even leave the drawing board. So, in order to show that the idea is good, you pad the project, and if in the end, it does result in a white elephant or a loss you can always blame 'external factors' , There are youtube channels that thrive on showing businesses that failed and the buildings those are in ruins. If what you say were to be true, then most projects wouldn't run into an escalation of costs and this happens more than not. And this is a worldwide 'feature' -
https://www.enr.com/articles/52612-stud ... -worthless
"Escalation in cost" is usually a result of inflation, among other things. And inflation are usually taken into account when calculating project cost, by converting every monetary amount into current market value, as of the time of doing analysis. Hence the monetary amount would increase according to inflation, but when you convert it back to the monetary value when the analysis was done, the amount usually wasn't that far off, and then since the resulting benefit analysis was also done in current market value at the time of analysis, so it would also be increased according to after completed according to inflation.
As for the problem of "showing the idea is good by padding the project", it is indeed a problem for some projects. But there are ways to mitigate. For example, make sure the analysis is done by an independent organization set up outside the political world.
pune wrote:c933103 wrote:pune wrote:
The problem is you are assuming and as I shared assumptions more often than not are based on untruths otherwise many projects wouldn't even leave the drawing board. So, in order to show that the idea is good, you pad the project, and if in the end, it does result in a white elephant or a loss you can always blame 'external factors' , There are youtube channels that thrive on showing businesses that failed and the buildings those are in ruins. If what you say were to be true, then most projects wouldn't run into an escalation of costs and this happens more than not. And this is a worldwide 'feature' -
https://www.enr.com/articles/52612-stud ... -worthless
"Escalation in cost" is usually a result of inflation, among other things. And inflation are usually taken into account when calculating project cost, by converting every monetary amount into current market value, as of the time of doing analysis. Hence the monetary amount would increase according to inflation, but when you convert it back to the monetary value when the analysis was done, the amount usually wasn't that far off, and then since the resulting benefit analysis was also done in current market value at the time of analysis, so it would also be increased according to after completed according to inflation.
As for the problem of "showing the idea is good by padding the project", it is indeed a problem for some projects. But there are ways to mitigate. For example, make sure the analysis is done by an independent organization set up outside the political world.
That is easier said than done and about the 'biases' you have been mum. And this is when there is no corruption. If and when corruption does happen, it takes a hell lot of time to get caught. Corruption though, is everywhere, whether it is the U.S. or any other country. An e.g.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/28/re ... ed-states/
Also see viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1470987&start=500#p23313387
Different industry but what I shared above holds.
pune wrote:seb146 wrote:pune wrote:
Then that is what the Americans need to fix. If Qatar can do it, Singapore can do it, Qatar did it recentish while Singapore did it years ago or perhaps decades.m dunno. Even in India, that is what we aspire to have, a direct metro to the airport. Would make things a lot more convenient.
So rail lines to every airport with scheduled service?
In an ideal world, not rail but metro lines definitely to Airports with scheduled service, and I see it as a win-win for everybody concerned. The Metro gets guaranteed customers, passengers don't have to figure out logistics and just be. In most places where the metro runs, the service is 10 mins. so even if my flight is late or whatever, I can always catch the next Metro which will be there in the next 10 mins.
I know of quite a few cities in my own country that is actually progressing to do that. An example -
https://themetrorailguy.com/2021/09/14/ ... tion-work/
The same idea being repeated in all metro cities and probably next all cities having 1 million population or more.
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:seb146 wrote:
So rail lines to every airport with scheduled service?
In an ideal world, not rail but metro lines definitely to Airports with scheduled service, and I see it as a win-win for everybody concerned. The Metro gets guaranteed customers, passengers don't have to figure out logistics and just be. In most places where the metro runs, the service is 10 mins. so even if my flight is late or whatever, I can always catch the next Metro which will be there in the next 10 mins.
I know of quite a few cities in my own country that is actually progressing to do that. An example -
https://themetrorailguy.com/2021/09/14/ ... tion-work/
The same idea is repeated in all metro cities and probably next to all cities having a 1 million population or more.
All airports with scheduled services? Even if they are just handling single-digit flights like New York Stewart? Yes it might add a few hundred passengers each day but this is nowhere near enough volume of passengers to justify a metro expansion project
And where on earth are you at that "In most places where the metro runs, the service is 10 mins."?
pune wrote:I know of three places where we have metro services from point A to point B every 10 mins. Mumbai, Bangalore, and Delhi. All these three metros have services which are 10 mins. apart. So let's say I miss the 10'0 clock service (metro) from point A to point B, I can catch the 10:10 one, and so on. That is the reason metro is so successful where they run. That's the whole point.
Now to your first question, if you have reliable last-mile service, it becomes possible for the Airport to have more services as you make things easier and hassle-free. While I haven't used the service, Singapore Airport (think Dubai also) has this luggage service where you can get your luggage transported and screened 24 hrs. earlier. The idea I guess is to make it easy and convenient for passengers. If you just have to worry about your carry-on luggage, so much easier things would be. The same is with this. If you have direct access to the Airport, then you wouldn't fret about losing your flight or whatever. Convience matters, whether it's local or international.
c933103 wrote:pune wrote:I know of three places where we have metro services from point A to point B every 10 mins. Mumbai, Bangalore, and Delhi. All these three metros have services which are 10 mins. apart. So let's say I miss the 10'0 clock service (metro) from point A to point B, I can catch the 10:10 one, and so on. That is the reason metro is so successful where they run. That's the whole point.
Point is, 10 minutes headway, or 6 trains per hour, is too infrequent in terms of metro service. Even California, where bad public transit is common knowledge, still has multiple "Bus Rapid Transit" which are bus routes with dedicated road lanes, that have better frequency than what you are citing for the metro system. See relevant wiki pages for detail of the information on each of those systems.Now to your first question, if you have reliable last-mile service, it becomes possible for the Airport to have more services as you make things easier and hassle-free. While I haven't used the service, Singapore Airport (think Dubai also) has this luggage service where you can get your luggage transported and screened 24 hrs. earlier. The idea I guess is to make it easy and convenient for passengers. If you just have to worry about your carry-on luggage, so much easier things would be. The same is with this. If you have direct access to the Airport, then you wouldn't fret about losing your flight or whatever. Convenience matters, whether it's local or international.
Distance, time, and infrastructure still count. Like Beijing Daxing airport is connected, or to be connected, through multiple rails and has been planned as such from the very beginning, yet passengers still favor the old Beijing Capital Airport by a large margin. For New York, there are still JFK, EWR, and LGA which are much closer to most people than Stewart.
pune wrote:I know of three places where we have metro services from point A to point B every 10 mins. Mumbai, Bangalore, and Delhi. All these three metros have services which are 10 mins. apart. So let's say I miss the 10'0 clock service (metro) from point A to point B, I can catch the 10:10 one, and so on. That is the reason metro is so successful where they run. That's the whole point.
Now to your first question, if you have reliable last-mile service, it becomes possible for the Airport to have more services as you make things easier and hassle-free. While I haven't used the service, Singapore Airport (think Dubai also) has this luggage service where you can get your luggage transported and screened 24 hrs. earlier. The idea I guess is to make it easy and convenient for passengers. If you just have to worry about your carry-on luggage, so much easier things would be. The same is with this. If you have direct access to the Airport, then you wouldn't fret about losing your flight or whatever. Convience matters, whether it's local or international.
seb146 wrote:pune wrote:I know of three places where we have metro services from point A to point B every 10 mins. Mumbai, Bangalore, and Delhi. All these three metros have services which are 10 mins. apart. So let's say I miss the 10'0 clock service (metro) from point A to point B, I can catch the 10:10 one, and so on. That is the reason metro is so successful where they run. That's the whole point.
Now to your first question, if you have reliable last-mile service, it becomes possible for the Airport to have more services as you make things easier and hassle-free. While I haven't used the service, Singapore Airport (think Dubai also) has this luggage service where you can get your luggage transported and screened 24 hrs. earlier. The idea I guess is to make it easy and convenient for passengers. If you just have to worry about your carry-on luggage, so much easier things would be. The same is with this. If you have direct access to the Airport, then you wouldn't fret about losing your flight or whatever. Convience matters, whether it's local or international.
So, if it is that way with airports, according to you, how is that not possible with this HSR? Getting people from their town to a nearby city while expanding services in the originating town.
I don't expect California HSR will run every 10 minutes. That would be ridiculous. Probably more like Acela or Cascades or Metrolink. Multiple times per day, but not every 10 minutes.
seb146 wrote:pune wrote:I know of three places where we have metro services from point A to point B every 10 mins. Mumbai, Bangalore, and Delhi. All these three metros have services which are 10 mins. apart. So let's say I miss the 10'0 clock service (metro) from point A to point B, I can catch the 10:10 one, and so on. That is the reason metro is so successful where they run. That's the whole point.
Now to your first question, if you have reliable last-mile service, it becomes possible for the Airport to have more services as you make things easier and hassle-free. While I haven't used the service, Singapore Airport (think Dubai also) has this luggage service where you can get your luggage transported and screened 24 hrs. earlier. The idea I guess is to make it easy and convenient for passengers. If you just have to worry about your carry-on luggage, so much easier things would be. The same is with this. If you have direct access to the Airport, then you wouldn't fret about losing your flight or whatever. Convience matters, whether it's local or international.
So, if it is that way with airports, according to you, how is that not possible with this HSR? Getting people from their town to a nearby city while expanding services in the originating town.
I don't expect California HSR will run every 10 minutes. That would be ridiculous. Probably more like Acela or Cascades or Metrolink. Multiple times per day, but not every 10 minutes.
c933103 wrote:seb146 wrote:pune wrote:I know of three places where we have metro services from point A to point B every 10 mins. Mumbai, Bangalore, and Delhi. All these three metros have services which are 10 mins. apart. So let's say I miss the 10'0 clock service (metro) from point A to point B, I can catch the 10:10 one, and so on. That is the reason metro is so successful where they run. That's the whole point.
Now to your first question, if you have reliable last-mile service, it becomes possible for the Airport to have more services as you make things easier and hassle-free. While I haven't used the service, Singapore Airport (think Dubai also) has this luggage service where you can get your luggage transported and screened 24 hrs. earlier. The idea I guess is to make it easy and convenient for passengers. If you just have to worry about your carry-on luggage, so much easier things would be. The same is with this. If you have direct access to the Airport, then you wouldn't fret about losing your flight or whatever. Convience matters, whether it's local or international.
So, if it is that way with airports, according to you, how is that not possible with this HSR? Getting people from their town to a nearby city while expanding services in the originating town.
I don't expect California HSR will run every 10 minutes. That would be ridiculous. Probably more like Acela or Cascades or Metrolink. Multiple times per day, but not every 10 minutes.
https://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/44 ... n-the-u-s/
LAX to SFO air traffic was 3.5 million passengers by pandemic. So that mean ~10k passenger per day. With air traffic involving other airports in the region like those with Burbank or San Jose not being counted yet. Given the expected trip time of ~3 hours on HSR, HSR will lay comfortably within this zone of competitiveness against air travel and thus can take away most of these share. And this is without counting any passengers who might change from other modes like cars to HSR, and also haven't counted new trips generated by induced demand yet. So I would expect the system to operate multiple trains per hour, once fully constructed. (But of course it need to open fully first, the initial operation phase just aren't going to cut into this amount of traffic, and thus will probably maintain super low frequency for like a decade depending on when the California government is going to fund and build phase 2 of the route to actually connect it to both cities)
pune wrote:c933103 wrote:seb146 wrote:
So, if it is that way with airports, according to you, how is that not possible with this HSR? Getting people from their town to a nearby city while expanding services in the originating town.
I don't expect California HSR will run every 10 minutes. That would be ridiculous. Probably more like Acela or Cascades or Metrolink. Multiple times per day, but not every 10 minutes.
https://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/44 ... n-the-u-s/
LAX to SFO air traffic was 3.5 million passengers by pandemic. So that mean ~10k passenger per day. With air traffic involving other airports in the region like those with Burbank or San Jose not being counted yet. Given the expected trip time of ~3 hours on HSR, HSR will lay comfortably within this zone of competitiveness against air travel and thus can take away most of these share. And this is without counting any passengers who might change from other modes like cars to HSR, and also haven't counted new trips generated by induced demand yet. So I would expect the system to operate multiple trains per hour, once fully constructed. (But of course it need to open fully first, the initial operation phase just aren't going to cut into this amount of traffic, and thus will probably maintain super low frequency for like a decade depending on when the California government is going to fund and build phase 2 of the route to actually connect it to both cities)
From what little I know of American airlines at least pre-covid. just like elsewhere you had the rise of LCC where flying between any two cities used to cost less than $100, If HSR tickets are similarly competitive, then perhaps otherwise not.