Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FW: [Tr2000] Californian High Speed Rail Study Approved

Expand Messages
  • Andrew Dawson
    Here is some good news from California. Take care, Andrew
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 5, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Here is some good news from California. Take care, Andrew

      >From: "mike_a_jager" <mjager@...>
      >Reply-To: Tr2000@yahoogroups.com
      >To: Tr2000@yahoogroups.com
      >Subject: [Tr2000] Californian High Speed Rail Study Approved
      >Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 14:08:20 -0000
      >
      >Californian High Speed Rail Study Approved
      >
      >An environmental impact study for an 1100km high-speed rail network serving
      >the main
      >centres of population in California has been approved by California High
      >Speed Rail
      >Authority. The authority's chairperson, Fran Florez, said that "California
      >is a giant step
      >closer to building" the network.
      >
      >"High-speed trains are no longer a concept in California," Florenz said.
      >"We are poised to
      >build a system that helps move people safely and reliably between our major
      >metropolitan
      >areas in a manner that is sensitive to California's environment."
      >
      >The network would run from the Bay Area and Sacramento in the north via
      >Fresno and
      >Bakersfield to Los Angeles and San Diego in the south. A route between the
      >Bay Area and
      >the Sacramento-Stockton area has yet to be defined. It would cost $US 33
      >billion to
      >construct. Existing lines would be used in urban areas, such as Los
      >Angeles, and between
      >San Jose and San Francisco.
      >
      >New lines would be designed for 350km/h operation and would follow existing
      >rail or road
      >rights-of-way where possible. Many of the state's major airports would be
      >served by the
      >network. The network is expected to carry up to 68 million passengers a
      >year by 2020. A
      >journey time of 2h 35min is envisaged between San Francisco and Los
      >Angeles, which
      >would be highly competitive with air.
      >
      >California estimates that its population will increase by 11 million by
      >2020, and that there
      >will be a staggering 98 million extra intercity journeys a year. To cater
      >for this purely by
      >investing in road and air improvements would cost $US 82 billion. This
      >would involve
      >adding 4780 lane-km to the highway network, 90 new airport gates, and five
      >new
      >runways. Even with this investment, journey times by road and air would
      >still increase.
      >There would be no additional capacity for the future, whereas the rail
      >network would be
      >able to accommodate growth beyond 2020.
      >
      >http://www.railjournal.com/latenews.html
      >
    • Todd Edelman
      ... An environmental impact study for an 1100km ... urban areas, such as Los Angeles, and between San Jose and San Francisco. WHAT is top-speed on these lines?
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Andrew Dawson <m82a1_dawson@...> wrote:

        An environmental impact study for an 1100km
        > high-speed rail network serving
        > >the main
        > >centres of population in California has been
        > approved by California High
        > >Speed Rail
        > >Authority.[...] Existing lines would be used in
        urban areas, such as Los Angeles, and between
        San Jose and San Francisco.

        WHAT is top-speed on these lines? Or would they be
        modified? EU standard minimum for intercity lines is
        160 km/h, though of course France, Germany, Italy and
        Spain etc have speeds up to 350km/h. To get out of LA
        you gotta go over a hill...


        > >
        > >New lines would be designed for 350km/h operation
        > and would follow existing
        > >rail or road
        > >rights-of-way where possible.
        BUT at that speed the line has to be straight! And
        relatively level (I think ICE 3 can deal with 8%
        grade...)

        Many of the state's
        > major airports would be
        > >served by the
        > >network.
        WHICH ones?

        The network is expected to carry up to 68
        > million passengers a
        > >year by 2020.
        PREdictions Schmedictions. It all depends on so many
        things, like future fuel prices, marketing... and...

        A
        > >journey time of 2h 35min is envisaged between San
        > Francisco and Los
        > >Angeles, which
        > >would be highly competitive with air.

        I cant see how a train partly on existing lines could
        make this in 2h 35.

        The air journey itself between Oakland AIRPORT and Los
        Angeles AIRPORT is about 1 hr 20, gate to gate. As
        with Eurostar (London-Brussels-Lille-Paris), the HST
        in California might require a security check (Though
        as far as I know Eurostar is only HST which requires
        this... I assume because it goes through the
        Eurotunnel). So figure 30min advance for air, 15min
        for train. Train would be like 5 minutes from seat to
        public transport, taxi, etc. Plane, with checked in
        luggage, could be 20min.

        So, now we have Plane 115min vs. Train 175min. Not
        bad, but the REAL issue is door-to-door time! This is
        where existing infrastructures and density play an
        important part.

        If the line to SF goes through San Jose it seems like
        it could be up to 100km or more at moderate speeds.
        Perhaps if there was a "T" in the Central Valley it
        could head west (a hill here) to Oakland...

        I just dont see how they can do this on existing
        lines. Keep in mind that planes leave every 30
        minutes from many airports in both (all) directions,
        and if the train has similar intervals any kind of
        track-sharing will be that much more difficult.

        Also, Bay Area is very spread out, and unless there
        are stops in the west and east sides (with different
        trains) there is no comparison possible with the east
        coast Acela, which stops much more in the middle of
        things.

        I dont know about Sacratomato, but it seems like this
        could do well on San Jose and Oakland routes, but not
        sure about SF (unless Bay Bridge renovation specifies
        future heavy rail capability!).

        In LA, the eastern San Fernando Valley and Downtown
        could do well, but the West Side would need lots of
        BRT systems at minimum to compete with quick jaunts
        still possible at time down the San Diego Freeway to
        LAX.

        Then there is Orange County...

        Perhaps the network should include the feeders, it
        might be possible to make bigger time differences
        there for less money than all new highspeed corridors
        or god forbid a Transrapid.

        Rather than thinking about the top train speed, there
        should be analysis of door-to-door times, including
        all parts of Greater Los Angeles covered or not
        covered by BRT or Metro, possibilities with BART and
        the Baby Bullet in the Bay Area, etc. The customer
        speed is the goal, NOT the train speed.

        Build this, okay, but dont forget about bike paths,
        local trams + trains and virtual meetings.

        Todd Edelman, Culver City High School class of 1984



        ___________________________________________________________
        How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
        snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
      • Andrew Dawson
        ... I guess they could always go through the hill. As for the Bay Bridge there use to be trains on it. Take care, Andrew
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 6, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Todd Edelman wrote:
          >An environmental impact study for an 1100km
          > > high-speed rail network serving
          > > >the main
          > > >centres of population in California has been
          > > approved by California High
          > > >Speed Rail
          > > >Authority.[...] Existing lines would be used in
          >urban areas, such as Los Angeles, and between
          >San Jose and San Francisco.
          >
          >WHAT is top-speed on these lines? Or would they be
          >modified? EU standard minimum for intercity lines is
          >160 km/h, though of course France, Germany, Italy and
          >Spain etc have speeds up to 350km/h. To get out of LA
          >you got to go over a hill...

          I guess they could always go through the hill. As for the Bay Bridge there
          use to be trains on it.

          Take care, Andrew
        • Eric Dupre
          Top speed, 220 mph, I seem to recall. See http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ Eric ... __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors
          Message 4 of 4 , Nov 7, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Top speed, 220 mph, I seem to recall.

            See
            http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

            Eric

            --- Todd Edelman <traintowardsthefuture@...>
            wrote:

            >
            > --- Andrew Dawson <m82a1_dawson@...> wrote:
            >
            > An environmental impact study for an 1100km
            > > high-speed rail network serving
            > > >the main
            > > >centres of population in California has been
            > > approved by California High
            > > >Speed Rail
            > > >Authority.[...] Existing lines would be used in
            > urban areas, such as Los Angeles, and between
            > San Jose and San Francisco.
            >
            > WHAT is top-speed on these lines? Or would they be
            > modified? EU standard minimum for intercity lines is
            > 160 km/h, though of course France, Germany, Italy
            > and
            > Spain etc have speeds up to 350km/h. To get out of
            > LA
            > you gotta go over a hill...
            >
            >
            > > >
            > > >New lines would be designed for 350km/h operation
            > > and would follow existing
            > > >rail or road
            > > >rights-of-way where possible.
            > BUT at that speed the line has to be straight! And
            > relatively level (I think ICE 3 can deal with 8%
            > grade...)
            >
            > Many of the state's
            > > major airports would be
            > > >served by the
            > > >network.
            > WHICH ones?
            >
            > The network is expected to carry up to 68
            > > million passengers a
            > > >year by 2020.
            > PREdictions Schmedictions. It all depends on so many
            > things, like future fuel prices, marketing... and...
            >
            > A
            > > >journey time of 2h 35min is envisaged between San
            > > Francisco and Los
            > > >Angeles, which
            > > >would be highly competitive with air.
            >
            > I cant see how a train partly on existing lines
            > could
            > make this in 2h 35.
            >
            > The air journey itself between Oakland AIRPORT and
            > Los
            > Angeles AIRPORT is about 1 hr 20, gate to gate. As
            > with Eurostar (London-Brussels-Lille-Paris), the
            > HST
            > in California might require a security check (Though
            > as far as I know Eurostar is only HST which requires
            > this... I assume because it goes through the
            > Eurotunnel). So figure 30min advance for air, 15min
            > for train. Train would be like 5 minutes from seat
            > to
            > public transport, taxi, etc. Plane, with checked in
            > luggage, could be 20min.
            >
            > So, now we have Plane 115min vs. Train 175min. Not
            > bad, but the REAL issue is door-to-door time! This
            > is
            > where existing infrastructures and density play an
            > important part.
            >
            > If the line to SF goes through San Jose it seems
            > like
            > it could be up to 100km or more at moderate speeds.
            > Perhaps if there was a "T" in the Central Valley it
            > could head west (a hill here) to Oakland...
            >
            > I just dont see how they can do this on existing
            > lines. Keep in mind that planes leave every 30
            > minutes from many airports in both (all) directions,
            > and if the train has similar intervals any kind of
            > track-sharing will be that much more difficult.
            >
            > Also, Bay Area is very spread out, and unless there
            > are stops in the west and east sides (with different
            > trains) there is no comparison possible with the
            > east
            > coast Acela, which stops much more in the middle of
            > things.
            >
            > I dont know about Sacratomato, but it seems like
            > this
            > could do well on San Jose and Oakland routes, but
            > not
            > sure about SF (unless Bay Bridge renovation
            > specifies
            > future heavy rail capability!).
            >
            > In LA, the eastern San Fernando Valley and Downtown
            > could do well, but the West Side would need lots of
            > BRT systems at minimum to compete with quick jaunts
            > still possible at time down the San Diego Freeway to
            > LAX.
            >
            > Then there is Orange County...
            >
            > Perhaps the network should include the feeders, it
            > might be possible to make bigger time differences
            > there for less money than all new highspeed
            > corridors
            > or god forbid a Transrapid.
            >
            > Rather than thinking about the top train speed,
            > there
            > should be analysis of door-to-door times, including
            > all parts of Greater Los Angeles covered or not
            > covered by BRT or Metro, possibilities with BART and
            > the Baby Bullet in the Bay Area, etc. The customer
            > speed is the goal, NOT the train speed.
            >
            > Build this, okay, but dont forget about bike paths,
            > local trams + trains and virtual meetings.
            >
            > Todd Edelman, Culver City High School class of 1984
            >
            >
            >
            >
            ___________________________________________________________
            >
            > How much free photo storage do you get? Store your
            > holiday
            > snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos
            > http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
            >
            >
            > Post messages to: carfree_cities@...
            > Unsubscribe (blank message):
            > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@...
            > Group address:
            > http://www.egroups.com/group/carfree_cities/
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            > carfree_cities-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >





            __________________________________
            Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
            http://mail.yahoo.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.