- This topic has 119 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 1 month ago by
svelte.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 27, 2017 at 5:35 PM #807312July 27, 2017 at 5:52 PM #807313
ucodegen
Participant[quote=spdrun](1) Electrify the railroads.
(2) Build new lines in the medians of interstates when possible. Grade separation already exists.
[/quote]
While potentially a good idea, one problem here is the center support for bridges. The medians also provide run-offs for errant cars. Other problems include standard bridges/overpasses are not rated for the higher loads imposed by trains.
[quote=spdrun]
(3) I think 80mph is legally possible for passenger trains with level crossings. In this situation, design the trains to accelerate as fast as possible to 80mph and the signaling system to keep them at max speed.
[/quote]
They are currently capable of much more than 80mph. Higher accel would require much more horsepower – cause traction problems. There are signalling mechanisms that are better than current, but most rail is fighting requirements for them to be installed/standardized. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_signalling
Continous cab signalling on coded track circuits might be the best option. If ‘internet’ gets added to trains, could augment with second signal path of Transponder/Wireless.
[quote=spdrun]
(4) Or design “lethal” level crossing systems. Go around the gates, you’ll find a spike strip like the “severe tire damage” device in parking lots waiting once you’ve gone through the crossing. If going around level crossing gates costs people a set of tires and a tow, fewer people would do it.[/quote]
Need to make sure it is after last rail. Problem is two idiots going around, first idiot gets tires blown and stops in middle of road, causing second idiot to be trapped on track. (I can’t count the number of times I have come across idiots on the highways/transfer ramps who stop right in the middle of the road/lane when there is a problem instead of nursing the vehicle to the side – using momentum if need be). Maybe traffic cams that photog cars that go around the rail – tickets start at $1000 per offense and go up on repeat offenders.July 28, 2017 at 11:34 AM #807338no_such_reality
ParticipantIt’s still basically the cost, quality, time triangle.
Energy efficiency is only one aspect of costs. Infrastructure is a much bigger aspect of the cost. Roads are expensive, rail is expensive, airports are expensive.
In major cities, existing light rail/subway is awesome, New York, Athens, Tokyo, get everywhere. Los Angeles, meh, it’s getting better. San Deigo, improving. Orange County, non-existent.
More importantly, the interconnects between the three counties in what is essentially one giant metroplex are basically non-existent too. LA light rail works good for getting downtown and sort of to the LAX office areas, otherwise, not much near any of the stops except near the expo line.
Train travel from say Santa Ana to San Diego or Santa Barbara, expensive. Current mileage reimbursements puts driving pretty much on par with the cheapest ticket. More than one person and driving is far cheaper.
I’ve repeatedly tried to plan short day/weekend trips to near region areas and it’s just not practical with train. Too expensive, too slow, too inflexible.
I wish the five county area would get their collective sh*t together and create a regular running connector that essentially express trains from the Santa Fe staion in San Deigo to Irvine/Santa Ana to LA Union and build out their infrastructure to support off of that model. Once in LA Union you can hit the light rail, dash buses and get around. Santa Fe has some options.
I still can’t put together a decent trip from Santa Ana to the San Deigo Zoo.
It’s sad to say, but LA seems to be doing the best job of it.
July 28, 2017 at 2:56 PM #807343FlyerInHi
Guest[quote=no_such_reality]
It’s sad to say, but LA seems to be doing the best job of it.[/quote]I agree and that is so pathetic.
On the whole, the American people has no concept of public transport, so the established behaviors dominate. They are stuck in a post war mentality where residences should be separated from businesses and cities built for the car, with plenty of parking spread in a garden style setting. Imagine walking under the weather with a carry-on suitcase to a bus station 2 miles away to catch a bus that is not on time, to transfer to light rail that is 30 min delayed.
One day we will wake up without any of the tech that’s being developed abroad. China’s first bullet train went into service in 2007. Now, they’re on the second gen and exporting their technology and management experience., a very valuable 21st century industry that will earn them billions.
Anyway… I give up. If Americans want to stay stagnant, nothing that can be done. As long as humanity as a whole progresses, all is good.
July 28, 2017 at 3:48 PM #807350Hobie
ParticipantFreight is the rail profit center not people. HSR is not a business model but a political one.
I haven’t seen any real studies accurately estimating ridership between LA >SF. ie. who would be traveling and how many trips, frequency. We already can get a pretty reasonable number based on airline trips/day.
Plus, what do you think airlines will do if the rail magically becomes competition? Lower prices, to keep passengers. I haven’t seen this discussed in the rail argument.
Next, HSR in SD would have some serious engineering challenges through hills in the current proposed inland route. Not gonna happen.
San Diego can’t even get its act together for a train direct to the airport or even the fairgrounds.
July 28, 2017 at 3:56 PM #807352Participantlol. I live 3 miles from a train station. I can walk a half mile take two buses and spend 45 minutes to get there which isn’t synced to any train. Or I can walk about 55 minutes due to intersection crossing. I can drive there, right around ten minutes which I’ve done plenty. I should bike but part of the route is a little hairy
Around the world the studies all show the same, ridership massively drops when the start point is more than 500 meters from a pickup spot
We don’t need HSR, we need interagency cooperation and coordination.
July 29, 2017 at 10:28 AM #807363Guest[quote=no_such_reality]
We don’t need HSR, we need interagency cooperation and coordination.[/quote]I would agree with you, all else being equal. But HSR will work very well in conjunction with changes in urban planning to accommodate future population growth. We just have to change urban planning patterns.
Why can’t we overlay a more European/Asian development model on top of what we have so Americans have more future housing and transportation choices?
July 29, 2017 at 2:28 PM #807366Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=no_such_reality]
We don’t need HSR, we need interagency cooperation and coordination.[/quote]I would agree with you, all else being equal. But HSR will work very well in conjunction with changes in urban planning to accommodate future population growth. We just have to change urban planning patterns.
Why can’t we overlay a more European/Asian development model on top of what we have so Americans have more future housing and transportation choices?[/quote]
We can, I think the most interesting properties to acquire as a landlord are the new developments along the light rail through LA’s south central core that is integrated commerical, retail and living sitting on or adjacent to rail stop.
The HSR in Cali is a feel good pork barrel, IMho, it should literally be Downtown San Diego to Anaheim, skip Anaheim if you need to and go LA, to Oakland. Existing right of way and planning should do all the regional stops. But it should be get on in LA or Anaheim and get off in San Diego like 20 minutes later and get on in Anaheim and get off at the Oakland Bart station 1.5 hours later without a bunch of BS stops along the way for stations that were justified with ridership numbers that rival Penn Station today.
July 30, 2017 at 7:35 AM #807369ParticipantThis is just what I mean – need marketing research data. Accurate projections of why people would be travelling between point A and B. Business, pleasure? How often. What cities.
Once you have that data and apply the ‘last mile’ issue we can talk.
Until then its all OPM (other peoples money )not real world business thinking.
July 30, 2017 at 2:36 PM #807372Guest[quote=Hobie]This is just what I mean – need marketing research data. Accurate projections of why people would be travelling between point A and B. Business, pleasure? How often. What cities.
Once you have that data and apply the ‘last mile’ issue we can talk.
Until then its all OPM (other peoples money )not real world business thinking.[/quote]
By this definition we would never have built the freeways or Hoover dam.
If you wait until the demand is already there, then you’re not investing and shaping the future.
Anyway, I’m sorta OK with your thinking. If rural areas have no economies of scale, then there’s no need to nvest where there are few potential users. We can forget about them. High speed Internet to the boonies? Why bother investing $ millions per user?
Anyway again, China is building the Silk Road of the 21st century. Let’s hope that 25years from now we don’t have to buy Chinese train technology. It would be interesting if Chinese expats came here to manage our rail systems.
July 31, 2017 at 2:28 PM #807378ParticipantAh, Brian must you troll on even this?
That’s such an intentional baiting strawman it’s sad.
Anyway, neither Hobie nor I said they don’t need to be built. The plan needs too be there. In fact, it’s the kind of planning China did with the 4×4 and now 8×8 HSR backbone that needs to be done.
September 21, 2017 at 12:19 PM #807948GuestChina’s high speed train. The largest network in the world built in about 8 years.
China is very high tech now, with cashless mobile payments, car sharing, etc…September 22, 2017 at 8:19 PM #807960Myriad
ParticipantThe problem of mass transit in CA is that our low density and distance increase the cost considerably. Neighborhoods prevent building high rises and other high density developments.
Then our transit tries to self-fund which is difficult if the intent is to keep prices low.
For example, UTC could do really well if a transit hub was clustered around a set of 20-50 story high rises with commercial, residential (affordable/mid/high end), retail, restaurants. But it requires a mentality set change in people choosing to live in apts vs houses. But if you can’t build anything and in enough quantity, the cost for space (housing/class A office space) becomes too expensive to do much.
Just came back from Hong Kong where a local told me that with a population of 7 million, the MTR transit company has 5+ million ride journeys/day. Basically, few people try to drive to work because it’s too costly (time & money).December 18, 2017 at 9:31 AM #808787GuestThe Amtrak derailment is shameful considering that it’s old “proven” technology.
Back in 2007 people were poo pooing China saying they could never safely build a HSR network. Well they proved everyone wrong with their own technology that they are exporting around the world.December 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM #808788GuestThe Economist has an interesting video on how free electricity could revolutionalize transport and the world. They had a series of articles on the energy revolution. Good luck to coal.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.