 |
Re: Brigthline to Las Vegas by 2022-I would, > however, suggest that investing in expanding auto routes is no longer worthwhile.
Author: on the other hand
Date: 09-19-2018 - 17:22
Road diets, if done right, improve BOTH car and bicycle traffic. That's because, in urban situations (not the burbs), lanes are sometimes crammed into one-way streets in such a way that turns block traffic in the side lanes. A prime example is the P/Q Streets couplet in Sacramento. Was reduced from 3 lanes to 2 slightly wider lanes, with bicycle lanes on the sides (and kept the on-street parking). The extra space on the sides was used to add right- and left-turn lanes at major intersections so turns don't block traffic any more. So in effect the road diet increased capacity by providing 2 actual through lanes. And it shows: traffic moves much more smoothly in the 2-lane section than in the part downtown that was left as 3.
Granted, not all road diets are done right, or for the right reasons.
As for Brightline and the Vegas line: whether it's a good thing is still an open question. According to the article (where they got the info is also an open question, because it's not in the paperwork available at the XpressWest web site), Brightline wants to run the train down the middle of I-15, over the Baker Grade (Mountain Pass) on the surface, and use diesel trainsets at up to 120 mph for a 2+ hour trip between Victorville and Vegas. The design available, environmentally cleared and preliminary engineered, and permitted, is a 150 mph high speed electrified line that also follows I-15, usually to one side but sometimes in the median, tunnels under Mountain Pass, and is fully grade-separated. If Brightline wants to redesign it and cheap it down seriously, one could expect that some of it (in Barstow?) would not be grade-separated. Problem is, for their build schedule, they would have to reopen the FRA & NEPA process and do new studies for the design revisions - giving Barstow and others another bite at the demands apple.
Even if they want to run diesel, it would be better imo to build it as currently designed and permitted without the electrification; add some ventilation fans to the summit tunnel and call it a phase 1 project to be electrified later if traffic demands it. It's easy to run 125 mph on a line designed for 150; it's hard and expensive to convert a 125 mph line to 150 mph later.
Granted, not all road diets are done right, or for the right reasons.
As for Brightline and the Vegas line: whether it's a good thing is still an open question. According to the article (where they got the info is also an open question, because it's not in the paperwork available at the XpressWest web site), Brightline wants to run the train down the middle of I-15, over the Baker Grade (Mountain Pass) on the surface, and use diesel trainsets at up to 120 mph for a 2+ hour trip between Victorville and Vegas. The design available, environmentally cleared and preliminary engineered, and permitted, is a 150 mph high speed electrified line that also follows I-15, usually to one side but sometimes in the median, tunnels under Mountain Pass, and is fully grade-separated. If Brightline wants to redesign it and cheap it down seriously, one could expect that some of it (in Barstow?) would not be grade-separated. Problem is, for their build schedule, they would have to reopen the FRA & NEPA process and do new studies for the design revisions - giving Barstow and others another bite at the demands apple.
Even if they want to run diesel, it would be better imo to build it as currently designed and permitted without the electrification; add some ventilation fans to the summit tunnel and call it a phase 1 project to be electrified later if traffic demands it. It's easy to run 125 mph on a line designed for 150; it's hard and expensive to convert a 125 mph line to 150 mph later.
