Whatever you say captain obvious.

BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Les, I must admit I may have only a limited
> experience with "average speeds" and "maximum
> operational speeds" between a few thousand City
> pairs around the world and locally in the United
> States, and particularly (especially....)
> California, both for intra-regioal and
> inter-regional,rail passenger systems, when
> compared to some folks who are real "gurus" on
> this data.
>
> So while I appreciate the "average speed"
> comparison argument to show how that is not "real"
> "high speed" in the world of the true believer, it
> is not the only variable to consider when spending
> other peoples money, or even your own on a rail
> line, regardless of speed.... I must note that it
> is but one "iteritive" variable, among potentially
> hundreds, in a very complex iterative multivariate
> non liner differential cost benefit matix to model
> various optimal cost, speed, ridership outcomes.
>
>
> Or, maybe the FTA and FHWA invited the wrong guy
> to teach those CEU classes in how to look at
> transportation system "user needs" from a "cost
> benefit" perspective....?
>
> There are, of course, some simpler intercity rail
> ridership models, which are often "gravity models"
> (similar to city pair models used in aviation),
> that use "average speed" change in traveltime
> savings, like the Irish State model, but these
> also requre more inputs, and don't answer the cost
> optimization trade off questions. And none of
> them were used until 2019 by the peer review.
>
> And, of course, you do realize that many of these
> systems, all around the world operate on both high
> speed segments and low speed segments, and as a
> part of completely integrated rail passenger
> systems, connecting more destinations with
> "conventional" speed services, at a wide wariety
> of "average" and maximum train speeds, and huge
> range of average passenger trip speed, right?
> And, you do realize that the improvements they've
> invested in, were usuallly based upon a sound
> analysis of the marginal cost/benefits from the
> constraints and cost trade offs trying to optimize
> a highly complex set of variables to to optimize
> cost benefit and/or ROI on the system capital and
> operating costs for their taxpayers and/or
> investors unlike with the CAHSRA planning fiasco,
> right?
>
> In the end, the formula for cost minimization is
> also mathematically the same as for profit
> maximization. When you are dealing with hundreds
> of non linear differential cost variables on an
> enourmous matrix, so it's a little big to use
> Cramers rule to invert....
>
> And, I'm so sorry for misinforming all of you on
> AP about how easy all of this really is...
>
>
>
>
>
> That first segment in Florida averages 69 mph
> (Palm Beach to Ft Lauderdale) and never approaches
> 110. Eventually there will be a short 20-30 mile
> segment near the airport that will approach the
> range of 110-125mph.
>
> Fresno to Bakersfield was the hardest segment to
> justify for HSR funds, but, contrary to what's
> been said (best for testing), it was chosen first
> because only by doing it first would it ever get
> done. From here on out investments are easier to
> justify, ie, the difference of doing 192mph from
> Bakersfield to Palmdale vs 50-60 mph, or doing
> 139mph from Palmdale to Burbank vs 27mph by
> Metrolink will matter. Also, tying in with the
> 200mph Brightline line will give these segments
> more utility as will the increase in number of
> stations. Saying I can get to Merced, Tulare or
> Palmdale just doesn't cut it.
>
> The most painful section is almost complete.