So, with all of this data on systems in Chian and France, what will be the annual passengers that is projected on the proposed CAHSRA segment from Burbank to Palmdale....?

You used the 148 million passenger on Paris Lyon...as an example comparable to CAHSRA based on what.... That would be over 405 thousand pasengers per day, which would be very impressive indeed. Are we designing the CAHSRA to be able to carry those passenger volumes in 45 years from when it the CAHSRA is fully completed (whenever that is...)?

Tell us what the actual estimates are? But, not at some amorophous time out in an infinite "visionary" distant future....

Let's use the 20-30, we used on many of the FTA projects, so they include regional growth, demographics, land use, and incorporating the synergies of other new transportation connections like LRT, subways, new freeways, etc.)? Or, okay, I'll even use your 50 year estimates for future year ridership to calculate cost benefit.... Folks have used that timeframe to look at ROI/cost benefit on some of the proposed toll roads.

Oh, that's right, has CAHSRA ever really modeled,or estimated a fare to cover full operating and maintenance costs, based on how many trains, and applied that to a demand model, to estimate those passenger volumes... When the CAHSRA is "completed" (whatever year you may want to "estimate" that to be...), what will be the estimated daily ridership, and passenger miles, and load factors?

What do the peer review assumptions and "numbers" from 2109 say about any of this?

Since we're all "clueless" "slow thinking" "southern" folks who make you "cringe", for criticizing the best planned, most competently executed, most visionay and economical high speed rail project ever built, you can show us those estimates, and prove how "clueless" and "slow thinking" we are, right?

If they don;t pay you for shoveling some of this, they should, you are a trooper... Although I'm not sure this would be an eligible local match use for the Federal funds.



LES Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "3 minutes of running time..."
>
> Curious to see if this matters or not so I did a
> little math. (Assuming slow thinking "Southern
> Californians" --LMAO-- are not spending billions
> on something with no expected longevity)
>
> Paris-Lyon:
> The approaching 50 year old (1981 start) does 148
> million passengers/year.
> If I did my math correct it will be doing 740
> million extra hours of transport with the 3 extra
> minutes of travel over the next century (assuming
> it doesn't add any more riders).
>
> Notes: Paris-Lyon is 288 miles.
> In 1984, the first full year of operation in which
> the Paris to Lyon high speed line was in service,
> the volume rose to 14 million. 2007 the annual
> volume reached 100 million. Currently 148 million
> per year.
>
> Wuhan-Chongqing line is 541 miles.
> 12 year old line does 10 million passengers
> (excluding additional riders entering endpoints
> from other stations) will save 50 million hours.
>
> What LAs numbers would be in 12 or 50 years from
> now is hard to say but I'm sure it will be higher
> than stated. Hell I haven't even considered
> Brightline's use of the tunnels.
>
> 3 billion? For another day.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> BOB2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I looked at a "toll tunnel" to bypass the 5/14,
> > from the end of the 118-to the 14 with the
> folks
> > from ACS Dragodos back in 2006-2007. A double
> > bore dual leveltroll tunnel was both feasible
> and
> > potentially very profitable.
> >
> > One option would have truck lanes on the bottom
> > level, and after "boring" a full clearance
> > "trench" for clearances and electrification on
> one
> > side of the bottom level would be dug
> toclearance
> > for the "HSR" line to use....
> >
> > The highway tolls paid for it with like an 8%
> ROI
> > range on a fifty year franchise agreement, and
> > basically the cost of the rail component is the
> > incremental cost of excavating the deeper rail
> > cut, and the connections on each end....
> >
> > It was assumed back then, by a firm that had
> built
> > HSR around the world, that the HSR would go up
> San
> > Fernando Road, turn east northeast into and
> share
> > the ROW of the 118 (like "slow thinking"
> > "southern" Brightline is doing in Florida)and
> > continue under the mountain to Lang. This is
> also
> > approximately the same route the CAHSRA is
> looking
> > at, but without the profitable toll road
> component
> > to offset the cost for boring a dual use
> > tunnel....
> >
> > At that time, we had no idea that the "runaway
> > money train" would choose to spend an additonal
> 3
> > billion to save approximately 3 minutes of
> running
> > time for around 30-36 round trips, hauling
> 10,000
> > passengers daily, by tunneling under the
> Tujunga
> > water table and through residential
> neighborhoods,
> > with this ludicrously expensive Burbank
> Palmdale
> > "contractor wet dream" of an alternative.
> >
> > For comparison of "cost benefit" of that
> enourmous
> > proposed Burbank "alternative" expenditure, the
> > approximately 1 billion dollar US Link (LAUS
> > run-through) saves approximately 10 minutes for
> > the nearly 300 daily train movements, and
> 50,000
> > daily riders going into, out of, and through
> Union
> > Station.
> >
> > I applogize to all of you on AP once again, for
> > what LES calls my "slow thinking" "southern"
> ways,
> > that looks for cost effective and affordable
> ways
> > to meet our travel needs and provide value to
> the
> > taxpayers who a paying for it...