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

Re: [carfree_cities] FW: [Tr2000] Californian High Speed Rail Study Approved

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 4 , Nov 6, 2005
      --- 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 2 of 4 , Nov 6, 2005
        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 3 of 4 , Nov 7, 2005
          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.