 |
Re: Ah, the magic of CA going to 140,000,000 annual passengers?....? And, pre Covid Amtrak's "record" year was IIRC somewhere around 37 million?
Author: Lets take a look.
Date: 07-30-2021 - 16:32
First all, I was just putting it out there for discussion, nothing more. So don't get
overly charged by it.
Taking a look at your ridership numbers:
You have:
"...hauling 10,000 passengers daily, ..."
vs HDC and CAHSR data.
20,000 passengers daily from LV according to the HDC study.
30,000 for CA HSR into Burbank. See extrapolations from notes below.
About 10,000 for low end.
Would be 30,000-50,000 for first decade of service.
Notes:
In 2018 the HDC estimated 14 million to Burbank by 2050. This was before RC entered into the equation. Now, maybe 1/2 to LA via Palmdale?
CAHSR uses confidence levels and only for entire phase 1 after 7th year (see below)
Assuming they reach the median and LA/Burbank is responsible for 1/3 of the lightings (I can't find sectional numbers anywhere). It would be at least 12 million riders.
Phase I: (millions/year)
Minimum 8.9
1% 15.2
10% 22.2
25% 28.3
Median 37.4
75% 48.5
90% 60.6
99% 80.9
Maximum 118.1
BOB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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...
overly charged by it.
Taking a look at your ridership numbers:
You have:
"...hauling 10,000 passengers daily, ..."
vs HDC and CAHSR data.
20,000 passengers daily from LV according to the HDC study.
30,000 for CA HSR into Burbank. See extrapolations from notes below.
About 10,000 for low end.
Would be 30,000-50,000 for first decade of service.
Notes:
In 2018 the HDC estimated 14 million to Burbank by 2050. This was before RC entered into the equation. Now, maybe 1/2 to LA via Palmdale?
CAHSR uses confidence levels and only for entire phase 1 after 7th year (see below)
Assuming they reach the median and LA/Burbank is responsible for 1/3 of the lightings (I can't find sectional numbers anywhere). It would be at least 12 million riders.
Phase I: (millions/year)
Minimum 8.9
1% 15.2
10% 22.2
25% 28.3
Median 37.4
75% 48.5
90% 60.6
99% 80.9
Maximum 118.1
BOB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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...
