California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Discussion related to commuter rail and transit operators in California past and present including Los Angeles Metrolink and Metro Subway and Light Rail, San Diego Coaster, Sprinter and MTS Trolley, Altamont Commuter Express (Stockton), Caltrain and MUNI (San Francisco), Sacramento RTD Light Rail, and others...

Moderator: lensovet

Post Reply
David Benton
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by David Benton » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:16 pm

And where are the cars going to go in the urban core once they come off the "freeway"?
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.

David Benton
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by David Benton » Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:32 pm

eolesen wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 6:55 pm
Backshophoss wrote:
Thu Jul 11, 2019 6:11 pm
CaSHR is DEAD IN THE WATER,The feds have clawed back the $$$$$$$(per "sir Trump's" order)
I think you meant to say that money was forfeited because California didn't comply with the funding request's contractual progress targets.
I would think the idea of President Trump been a sir would be enough to see the Queen off. Not that the British dont have some nobility that don't deserve it , usually by birthright.
I would also say California was not expecting any significant federal money till jan 2021 at the earliest. Chicken or egg situation I suppose.
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.

daybeers
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:13 pm
Location: HFD

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by daybeers » Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:46 am

electricron wrote:
Mon Jul 15, 2019 8:14 pm
lensovet wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:18 pm
we live in the real world, not in the simple world of algebra. being dismissive of engineering studies backed up by real data, as opposed to imaginary math, is not exactly helping your case.

the Gotthard base tunnel is a great example. it took over 15 years to build in a country that has a punctual and far-reaching rail system, so here in the US, this would probably take closer to 30 years. and you're saying this was the segment they should have built first? lol. ).
Junior High Algebra is not imaginary.
There still needs to be a citation for your math. Simple following spacing is not how traffic works.

electricron
Posts: 4575
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by electricron » Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:38 am

daybeers wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:46 am
There still needs to be a citation for your math. Simple following spacing is not how traffic works.
Really? Golly, will California DOT suffice?
http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ndix_B.pdf

Please read Table B1, take special interest with Line E, Row MSF(pcphpl) for freeways.
Note pcphpl equates to passenger cars per hour per lane.
Whether the speed is 70 mph, 65 mph, or 60 mph; the line reads 2,200 to 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane as the lane's capacity. I suggest the same holds true for 55 mph, 50 mph, 45 mph, 40 mph, etc. although the table doesn't go that far - based upon the same principle I used earlier. Except California DOT isn't using one vehicle every two seconds, they are using one vehicle every 1.6 seconds.
Some more basic algebra; averaging 2200 and 2300, we should arrive at 2250.
2250 vehicles / hour x 1 hour/ 3600 seconds = 0.625 vehicles per second;
0.625/1 = 1/x ; 0.625x = 1; x = 1/0.625 = 1.6; or 1 vehicle per 1.6 seconds

In the Chart, the number of vehicles per hour remains the same indicating the lanes capacity, but the speed of the cars vary with congestion, and the density of cars per mile vary with the speeds.

Now go to page B-6 under Arterials, third paragraph. "Volumes on each roadway segment in each direction are divided by the capacity, estimated to be 1,100 vehicles per hour per lane. The capacity was estimated based on a saturation flow rate of 1,900 vehicles per lane and the assumption that El Camino Real would receive 60 percent of the green time."
They're using 1900 vehicles per hour per lane for El Camino Real. They reduced that to 1100 vehicles per hour per lane because the traffic lights are only green 60% of the time.

There you are, 1900 vehicles per hour per lane is standard California DOT saturation flow data point for multilane avenues and streets. It is not rocket science, all one needs is an understanding of basic junior high or middle school algebra and a little bit of common sense to come very close to what is real.

FYI, take another look at the Chart B1 again, the cars are almost maintaining posted speeds at 1800 vehicles per hour per lane. It's the additional 400 vehicles per hour that causes the 10 mph or so slower speeds on the freeway. So there is something to note of my vehicle every two seconds per lane safety statistic. Not only will you break and stop your vehicle in time before a crash, you also basically keep the freeway moving at the posted speeds.

lpetrich
Posts: 1277
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:09 pm

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by lpetrich » Tue Jul 16, 2019 8:02 pm

lensovet wrote:
Sun Jul 14, 2019 5:18 pm
trains have accidents? lol ok…let's compare the frequency of accidents on well-maintained sections of the NEC vs. newly built highways.
High-speed-train accidents are remarkably rare, though it must be noted that being grade-separated eliminates a big source of rail accidents.
the Gotthard base tunnel is a great example. it took over 15 years to build in a country that has a punctual and far-reaching rail system, so here in the US, this would probably take closer to 30 years. and you're saying this was the segment they should have built first? lol. It's also worth noting that the Lötschberg Base Tunnel had to be left unfinished so that the cost overruns on the Gotthard could be covered. Over a decade later, that tunnel is at capacity since they still haven't found the funding to finish it. Not exactly a shining example of project management either.
Lötschberg plans full rail baseline finish - it deserves its own post.

electricron
Posts: 4575
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by electricron » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:15 pm

the Gotthard base tunnel is a great example. it took over 15 years to build in a country that has a punctual and far-reaching rail system, so here in the US, this would probably take closer to 30 years. and you're saying this was the segment they should have built first? lol. It's also worth noting that the Lötschberg Base Tunnel had to be left unfinished so that the cost overruns on the Gotthard could be covered. Over a decade later, that tunnel is at capacity since they still haven't found the funding to finish it. Not exactly a shining example of project management either.
While Switzerland did not build both Lötschberg Base Tunnels, they did build one which allowed single track operations. Meanwhile, CHSR has delayed building both tunnels at two different mountain passes required to complete the HSR corridor between Northern and Southern California.
I would rather have a three for four Swiss completion rate for new tunnels than a zero for four California completion rate!
Last edited by electricron on Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Gilbert B Norman
Posts: 14012
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:52 am
Location: Clarendon Hills, IL (BNSF Chicago Sub; MP 18.71)

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by Gilbert B Norman » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:27 pm

electricron wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:15 pm
Meanwhile, CHSR has delayed building both tunnels at two different mountain passes required to complete the HSR corridor between Northern and Southern California.
Switzerland vice California?

David Benton
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by David Benton » Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:37 pm

Existing lines running at capacity , vs new build too.
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.

electricron
Posts: 4575
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by electricron » Fri Jul 19, 2019 10:29 pm

Gilbert B Norman wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:27 pm
electricron wrote:
Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:15 pm
Meanwhile, CHSR has delayed building both tunnels at two different mountain passes required to complete the HSR corridor between Northern and Southern California.
Switzerland vice California?
Both! I added more to my earlier reply to make it clearer.

User avatar
lensovet
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Contact:

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by lensovet » Sun Jul 21, 2019 8:35 pm

electricron wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 2:38 am
daybeers wrote:
Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:46 am
There still needs to be a citation for your math. Simple following spacing is not how traffic works.
Really? Golly, will California DOT suffice?
http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2 ... ndix_B.pdf

Please read Table B1, take special interest with Line E, Row MSF(pcphpl) for freeways.
Note pcphpl equates to passenger cars per hour per lane.
Whether the speed is 70 mph, 65 mph, or 60 mph; the line reads 2,200 to 2,300 passenger cars per hour per lane as the lane's capacity. I suggest the same holds true for 55 mph, 50 mph, 45 mph, 40 mph, etc. although the table doesn't go that far - based upon the same principle I used earlier. Except California DOT isn't using one vehicle every two seconds, they are using one vehicle every 1.6 seconds.
Some more basic algebra; averaging 2200 and 2300, we should arrive at 2250.
2250 vehicles / hour x 1 hour/ 3600 seconds = 0.625 vehicles per second;
0.625/1 = 1/x ; 0.625x = 1; x = 1/0.625 = 1.6; or 1 vehicle per 1.6 seconds

In the Chart, the number of vehicles per hour remains the same indicating the lanes capacity, but the speed of the cars vary with congestion, and the density of cars per mile vary with the speeds.

Now go to page B-6 under Arterials, third paragraph. "Volumes on each roadway segment in each direction are divided by the capacity, estimated to be 1,100 vehicles per hour per lane. The capacity was estimated based on a saturation flow rate of 1,900 vehicles per lane and the assumption that El Camino Real would receive 60 percent of the green time."
They're using 1900 vehicles per hour per lane for El Camino Real. They reduced that to 1100 vehicles per hour per lane because the traffic lights are only green 60% of the time.

There you are, 1900 vehicles per hour per lane is standard California DOT saturation flow data point for multilane avenues and streets. It is not rocket science, all one needs is an understanding of basic junior high or middle school algebra and a little bit of common sense to come very close to what is real.

FYI, take another look at the Chart B1 again, the cars are almost maintaining posted speeds at 1800 vehicles per hour per lane. It's the additional 400 vehicles per hour that causes the 10 mph or so slower speeds on the freeway. So there is something to note of my vehicle every two seconds per lane safety statistic. Not only will you break and stop your vehicle in time before a crash, you also basically keep the freeway moving at the posted speeds.
I find it hard to tell if you're trying to obfuscate here or what. You do know what saturation level is? Or that LOS E conditions are not exactly what people think about when they compare highway travel to train travel?

i'll save everyone a trip to wikipedia:
unstable flow, operating at capacity. Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly because there are virtually no usable gaps to maneuver in the traffic stream and speeds rarely reach the posted limit. Vehicle spacing is about 6 car lengths, but speeds are still at or above 50 mi/h(80 km/h). Any disruption to traffic flow, such as merging ramp traffic or lane changes, will create a shock wave affecting traffic upstream. Any incident will create serious delays. Drivers' level of comfort become poor.

Most design or planning efforts typically use service flow rates at LOS C or D, to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users.
and the suggestion to build bridged highways is quite cute too. people here get up in arms when a residential building is higher than three stories, and you want them to build bridged highways? i wonder, too, where the money for all those concrete pours is going to come from, because it won't be any cheaper than HSR.

i'm still waiting to hear back about the imaginary toll roads that everyone here is apparently just dying to drive on.

people living in this state are often legitimately accused of living in a bubble, but i get the sense that you folks are living in your own bubble completely oblivious to the realities of what goes on here. here's a crazy idea, maybe if rail travel was funded to the same level as similar modes, it wouldn't take 30 years to build everything here. and don't tell me it has anything to do with government — go and compare the construction timeline of e.g. the Tesla factory and buildings in Lathrop vs. how quickly they are building out their Shanghai facility.
Paul Borokhov

Last RRPicArch addition – NJ Railfan.

NJT RailCalifornia commuter (mod)

David Benton
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by David Benton » Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:58 pm

California not the only ones facing rising costs .
https://www.railroad.net/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=169858
Actually , might be quite a good comparison of costs between these 2 schemes.
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.

User avatar
lensovet
Posts: 1067
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Contact:

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by lensovet » Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:12 am

David Benton wrote:
Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:58 pm
California not the only ones facing rising costs .
https://www.railroad.net/viewtopic.php?f=149&t=169858
Actually , might be quite a good comparison of costs between these 2 schemes.
interesting comparison, HS2 expected to cost ~70B to build 330 miles of track
CASHR, latest estimate 63-98B to build 520 miles of track

which actually makes CAHSR cheaper per mile even at the high end of the estimate.
Paul Borokhov

Last RRPicArch addition – NJ Railfan.

NJT RailCalifornia commuter (mod)

David Benton
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by David Benton » Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:21 pm

Seems like a logical way forward , to spend money on the existing ends and extend from there.
But are they overestimating the savings from not Electrifying ??

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/01/ ... -bay-area/
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.

electricron
Posts: 4575
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by electricron » Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:35 pm

David Benton wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:21 pm
Seems like a logical way forward , to spend money on the existing ends and extend from there.
But are they overestimating the savings from not Electrifying ??

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/01/ ... -bay-area/
Yes, they are overestimating the costs. Caltrain can electrify 51 miles of operational double track for about 1.5 billion dollars, I'm pretty sure CHSR could match that cost per mile on un-operational tracks. Construction sections (1-4) is only 114 miles in length, so I estimate costs of electrification around 3 billion dollars, not the 4-6 billion dollars suggested by a legislator in the news article.

David Benton
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: New Zealand
Contact:

Re: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

Post by David Benton » Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:02 am

A different (but similar) article. More detail here.

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/nation-w ... 86967.html
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.

Post Reply

Return to “California Commuter & Transit”