Getting tired, but still analyzing your 3 billion number. What can I say, I don't like hyperbole especially since I'm the official "CAHSR PR rep". LMAO

Lets take a look. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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...