 |
Re: They are looking at a system design with "up to" 180 mph. like most of the world because of costs and market conditions. Unlike with CAHSRA boondoggle where costs and actual travel needs had no place in the planning processes.
Author: BOB2
Date: 11-01-2024 - 08:02
FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak connects now in Toronto and Montreal. So
> there *is* access. Based on what I've seen about
> it before, a Windsor/Sarnia extension is possible
> if the first phases turn out to be popular.
>
> Canada's traditional (at least since the '70s)
> preference has been strongly for non-train
> passenger travel. Its traditionally (in recent
> decades anyway) "conservative" politics (even when
> a "liberal" party is in power) only grudgingly
> accepts the need for something in the main
> population corridor (and as close to nothing
> elsewhere as possible) other than cars and air
> travel (gee, sound familiar?). This proposal is
> interesting but only time (more than many of us
> geezers will be around) will tell how much gets
> done.
>
> As long as they keep it to something reasonable,
> not "must be the fastest and bestest" for
> political reasons, I'd expect the Canadians to do
> a better job with it than anybody in the US. That
> seems to be happening, with a 300 kph (~180 mph)
> speed target similar to Brightline and many other
> HSR systems outside of China.
The 228-mile Brightline HSR project from Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas is also building "up to" 180 mph. segments to achieve 2 hour running time "averaging" "just" 114 mph. which is about an hour and 20 minutes less than the best legal drive time, and about twice as fast as the average peak congested drive times these days.
Why? Well because going from 125 mph. to 225 mph. can increase construction costs by up to six times, and O&M costs by up to 4 times. So, Brightline is only building the cheapest 180 segments to build and operate on (long low gradient tangent sections where maintenance and O&M costs are much lower). Because Brightline is interested in building a "profitable" HSR system (both to build and to operate) with profitability being one of the best indicators of a "cost effectiveness" of any investment. Which is why Brightline is not spending an extra $5 billion (in private investment/easily twice that in CAHSRA gold plated taxpayer dollars), or so, to tunnel through the San Andreas fault at Cajon, and will simply "slow down" to low as 90 mph. or even down to 79 mph. to "power up a 4% grade next to I-15 and still offer a competitive total travel time at an affordable ticket price.
Canada is doing this sort of cost benefit analysis in their alternatives analysis process for this corridor, unlike has ever been properly done for the CAHSRA fiasco. In CA only the fastest most expensive train, that could most effectively satisfy the need for campaign contributions to the politicians promoting the CAHSRA, from those contractors who would be wasting the extra billions in bloated, gold plated, overdesign, was the only real planning criteria which appears to have been used. There was no proper analysis of nor any real regard for capital, maintenance or operating costs, nor any properly modeled potential ridership of any real alternatives, based on the actual cost to buy a ticket and ride it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amtrak connects now in Toronto and Montreal. So
> there *is* access. Based on what I've seen about
> it before, a Windsor/Sarnia extension is possible
> if the first phases turn out to be popular.
>
> Canada's traditional (at least since the '70s)
> preference has been strongly for non-train
> passenger travel. Its traditionally (in recent
> decades anyway) "conservative" politics (even when
> a "liberal" party is in power) only grudgingly
> accepts the need for something in the main
> population corridor (and as close to nothing
> elsewhere as possible) other than cars and air
> travel (gee, sound familiar?). This proposal is
> interesting but only time (more than many of us
> geezers will be around) will tell how much gets
> done.
>
> As long as they keep it to something reasonable,
> not "must be the fastest and bestest" for
> political reasons, I'd expect the Canadians to do
> a better job with it than anybody in the US. That
> seems to be happening, with a 300 kph (~180 mph)
> speed target similar to Brightline and many other
> HSR systems outside of China.
The 228-mile Brightline HSR project from Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas is also building "up to" 180 mph. segments to achieve 2 hour running time "averaging" "just" 114 mph. which is about an hour and 20 minutes less than the best legal drive time, and about twice as fast as the average peak congested drive times these days.
Why? Well because going from 125 mph. to 225 mph. can increase construction costs by up to six times, and O&M costs by up to 4 times. So, Brightline is only building the cheapest 180 segments to build and operate on (long low gradient tangent sections where maintenance and O&M costs are much lower). Because Brightline is interested in building a "profitable" HSR system (both to build and to operate) with profitability being one of the best indicators of a "cost effectiveness" of any investment. Which is why Brightline is not spending an extra $5 billion (in private investment/easily twice that in CAHSRA gold plated taxpayer dollars), or so, to tunnel through the San Andreas fault at Cajon, and will simply "slow down" to low as 90 mph. or even down to 79 mph. to "power up a 4% grade next to I-15 and still offer a competitive total travel time at an affordable ticket price.
Canada is doing this sort of cost benefit analysis in their alternatives analysis process for this corridor, unlike has ever been properly done for the CAHSRA fiasco. In CA only the fastest most expensive train, that could most effectively satisfy the need for campaign contributions to the politicians promoting the CAHSRA, from those contractors who would be wasting the extra billions in bloated, gold plated, overdesign, was the only real planning criteria which appears to have been used. There was no proper analysis of nor any real regard for capital, maintenance or operating costs, nor any properly modeled potential ridership of any real alternatives, based on the actual cost to buy a ticket and ride it.
| Subject | Written By | Date/Time (PST) |
|---|---|---|
 Federal government going ahead with high-speed rail Quebec City to Toronto
|
Commenter | 10-31-2024 - 14:45 |
|
They should extend it to Niagara Falls, Windsor and Sarnia
|
Ontario Resident in Ontario, CA | 10-31-2024 - 17:13 |
|
Re: They should extend it to Niagara Falls, Windsor and Sarnia
|
FUD | 11-01-2024 - 07:26 |
|
Re: They are looking at a system design with "up to" 180 mph. like most of the world because of costs and market conditions. Unlike with CAHSRA boondoggle where costs and actual travel needs had no place in the planning processes. |
BOB2 | 11-01-2024 - 08:02 |
|
Re: They are looking at a system design with "up to" 180 mph. like most of the world because of costs and market conditions. Unlike with CAHSRA boondoggle where costs and actual travel needs had no place in the planning processes.
|
2008.. | 11-01-2024 - 17:06 |
|
Canada's Getting High-Speed Rail, But... Another Opinion
|
Commenter | 11-02-2024 - 14:34 |