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

[Tr2000] Californian High Speed Rail Study Approved

Expand Messages
  • Eric Dupre
    Top speed, 220 mph, I seem to recall. See http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ Eric ... __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors
    Message 1 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.