 |
Re: Serious new proposal for Altamont hsr route
Author: BOB2
Date: 05-07-2010 - 09:00
Yes, that's why TGV works and how most other HSR in the world is planned.
These systems are usually fully integrated, with intercity and regional services. This integration allows for lower urban construction costs from shared corridors. These systems do not generally serve "only" a single city pair 455 miles apart, with the SFO-LAX levels of competitive air service. Most of these systems also serve significant travel sub-markets within those corridors from .3 to 3 million. They benefit from integration by providing shorter travel times from multiple origins to multiple destinations. The typical HSR system connects large and multiple mid sized urban centers with 1-4 hour trip times and has very frequent and reliable, 24/7 arrivals and departures. These systems also have the advantage of serving centers with directly connecting regional rail and transit systems.
Most High Speed Rail Systems are based on actual planning that examine each of those factors and uses cost benefit and value engineering to design a system to meet that transportation need.
The technical requirements have been completely driven by politics and LA-SFO "vision". The market presmise for CHSRA has never been very convincing. What is the cost of a technical requirement for 3.5 hour trip versus a 2.5 hour trip? What is the ticket price and ridership differential? How does that affect the other City pairs? Do the added costs result in added ridership? Enough to cover the cost difference? No analysis or debate at the CHSRA of these questions has resulted in a project with runaway costs.
Four or Five incompetent and discredited business plans don't exactly instill confidence. The quality of the analysis for this project, like the recent questionable market surveys and dubious modeling, have been an embarrassment. The gold plated technical assumptions have been based on extremely costly performance assumptions, based on poorly researched business case assumptions, ultmately hostage to a political vision-"LA-SFO", without any regard to much cost/benefit analysis or value engineering. And, that is what we see throughout the criticisms, even by those who very strongly support HSR.
Most of the HSR systems around the world weren't such hostages to political expectations as the CHSRA, and were designed to meet real transportation needs based on sound economic and engineering analysis, by people who were building added capacity for strong existing rail passenger systems. We still have a lot to learn in Kallyfornia?
These systems are usually fully integrated, with intercity and regional services. This integration allows for lower urban construction costs from shared corridors. These systems do not generally serve "only" a single city pair 455 miles apart, with the SFO-LAX levels of competitive air service. Most of these systems also serve significant travel sub-markets within those corridors from .3 to 3 million. They benefit from integration by providing shorter travel times from multiple origins to multiple destinations. The typical HSR system connects large and multiple mid sized urban centers with 1-4 hour trip times and has very frequent and reliable, 24/7 arrivals and departures. These systems also have the advantage of serving centers with directly connecting regional rail and transit systems.
Most High Speed Rail Systems are based on actual planning that examine each of those factors and uses cost benefit and value engineering to design a system to meet that transportation need.
The technical requirements have been completely driven by politics and LA-SFO "vision". The market presmise for CHSRA has never been very convincing. What is the cost of a technical requirement for 3.5 hour trip versus a 2.5 hour trip? What is the ticket price and ridership differential? How does that affect the other City pairs? Do the added costs result in added ridership? Enough to cover the cost difference? No analysis or debate at the CHSRA of these questions has resulted in a project with runaway costs.
Four or Five incompetent and discredited business plans don't exactly instill confidence. The quality of the analysis for this project, like the recent questionable market surveys and dubious modeling, have been an embarrassment. The gold plated technical assumptions have been based on extremely costly performance assumptions, based on poorly researched business case assumptions, ultmately hostage to a political vision-"LA-SFO", without any regard to much cost/benefit analysis or value engineering. And, that is what we see throughout the criticisms, even by those who very strongly support HSR.
Most of the HSR systems around the world weren't such hostages to political expectations as the CHSRA, and were designed to meet real transportation needs based on sound economic and engineering analysis, by people who were building added capacity for strong existing rail passenger systems. We still have a lot to learn in Kallyfornia?
