regen
Junior Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by regen on Feb 21, 2011 17:33:42 GMT -8
Hey Wad,
Thanks for all the great commentary here and on Streetsblog, Human Transit, and elsewhere.
I'm wondering how much overlap the 35% DC and 20% Atlanta hubs have; most likely, the two together have about 45% or less.
In terms of other hubs, definitely Chicago, Dallas, Portland, Los Angeles mainly to capture NV and AZ. Denver would be the remaining high-value hub, probably the smallest market of its own, but has great value in connecting west and east. There's probably above 95% with seven hubs.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 22, 2011 5:18:26 GMT -8
Hey Wad, Thanks for all the great commentary here and on Streetsblog, Human Transit, and elsewhere. I'm wondering how much overlap the 35% DC and 20% Atlanta hubs have; most likely, the two together have about 45% or less. First, thanks for reading! Second, you are right. There is significant overlap between the DC and Atlanta spheres. The Atlanta hub, 500 miles as the crow flies, goes as far north as Richmond, Va. DC's 500-mile sphere goes into Georgia, but not into Atlanta. Adding the hubs and their 500-mile radii together, you would get about 45 to 50 percent unduplicated in >1 million areas. You effectively have a 1,000-mile zone from Boston (it can still go into Maine or New Hampshire, but those states don't have major population centers) to Tampa. This plan doesn't help South Florida, though. Atlanta to Miami is 600-700 miles. A high-speed train would have to run from Jacksonville to Miami along the Atlantic coast, or a shorter line from Miami to Orlando. In terms of other hubs, definitely Chicago, Dallas, Portland, Los Angeles mainly to capture NV and AZ. Denver would be the remaining high-value hub, probably the smallest market of its own, but has great value in connecting west and east. There's probably above 95% with seven hubs. Chicago, Dallas and Los Angeles are the high-value cities. The toss-ups are which city would get the Northwest hub: Seattle or Portland. Seattle is the largest, but it offers only three possibilities: north to Vancouver, south to Oregon or southeast to Boise (Spokane can't be done economically because the populated areas of Yakima and Tri-Cities require a crescent-shaped line). Interestingly, Portland to Spokane is a much more direct line. Also, Portland opens up the possibility for upgraded Coast Starlight service to Sacramento. This would allow a full high-speed network along the West Coast. The Mountain Time Zone poses the biggest problem. There are no major metros north of Salt Lake City and Denver. Plus, Salt Lake City and Denver are 500 miles apart, with essentially a 2-stop service. SLC, though, offers service in four directions: northwest to Boise, east to Denver, southwest to Las Vegas (and even Phoenix, believe it or not!) and west to Reno. California would then have to build a Sacramento-Reno connection. Denver isn't a good hub. It can only go west (SLC) and south (Albuquerque). To the east, Kansas City is too far and there aren't any major metros between Denver and KC. Instead, I'd see Albuquerque as more suitable for network connections. Albuquerque can go in three directions: west (Phoenix), north (Denver) and east (San Antonio or Austin via El Paso, with a waiver). Through the southwest, you could plausibly get from one end of the country to another based on the hubs. It would probably take 24 hours, but better than the 3+ days of present-day Amtrak. Besides, the system is set up for 500-mile connections, while still allowing for a national framework.
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Feb 22, 2011 17:55:04 GMT -8
Wad, I'm not sure you need to base this on "hubs". Although some passengers will need to change trains to reach a destination, many successful HSR systems can be just a single line. California's initial line should be very successful, for example, and the NE Corridor has high ridership despite only slow connections to other areas. For example, Colorado could support a single north-south intercity passenger rail line, along the Front Range, from Colorado Springs, thru Denvers, Boulder, Fort Collins, and perhaps Cheyenne. Similarly, Salt Lake could be served along with Provo and Ogden by a short inter-city route, which might also be extended to Las Vegas. Also, I don't think 500 miles should be as-the-crow-flies; if possible you should limit the search to city pairs that are currently 500 miles apart by the shortest road or train route; blasting tunnels is expensive. On the other hand, as long as there is a good destination every 300 to 500 miles, a long route can be successful (e.g., Los Angeles to Salt Lake via Las Vegas; or Los Angeles to El Paso via Phoenix and Tucson)... but big gaps between big cities are a problem (say, El Paso to San Antonio - this would take over 3 hours even with 220 mph top speed and 180 mph average speed). I do like the idea of trains all the way from Los Angeles to Seattle via Sacramento, Redding, Eugene and Portland. This would be a long route, but could work for sleeper trains (leave LA at 6 PM, arrive in Portland or Seattle the next morning) for business travel, even if the section from Eugene to Redding is only regular speeds <90 mph. Hans-Joachim Zierke has done a very detailed analysis of this route, including the route thru Southern Oregon (Medford and Ashland), which could also work for day-trains if the money is available to upgrade tracks: zierke.com/shasta_route/But I think Obama's plan could connect 80% of the population (by Metro area) even if we just limit ourselves to the currently listed HSR corridors, which include the Northwest cities, Californai, Texas, the cities around Chicago, around Atlanta, Florida, and the North-east. Official high speed rail corridors: www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/203.shtml
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 23, 2011 3:58:24 GMT -8
Wad, I'm not sure you need to base this on "hubs". Although some passengers will need to change trains to reach a destination, many successful HSR systems can be just a single line. California's initial line should be very successful, for example, and the NE Corridor has high ridership despite only slow connections to other areas. With the capital outlay required for high-speed rail, it is going to need massive ridership to bring down its construction and operating costs. The way to do it is to leverage the network effect. It applies to transportation as much as it does to communication. This is why we need to have a national plan in place, but not the cross-country lines we have now. HSR practice worldwide is to cater to trips of about 50 to 500 miles. The stop spaces need to be wide in order for trains to hit their stride and accelerate properly, so it can't be thought of as a commute service unless ticket prices allow for long commutes to be feasible. The 500 mile limit is generally an upper effective bound on train travel. Beyond those distances, line performance begins to degrade and HSR begins to lose its travel advantage to flight. For trips of 500 miles or longer, the plane will still win. Disagree on the Denver logic. There is nothing larger than Denver north of it. That's the stop you would want as a "tent pole" terminus. Making Cheyenne as a northern terminus would tilt the service overwhelming southbound-inbound, much like a suburban commuter line. For the same 500 miles, Albuquerque would serve as the other "tent pole." It's rate of growth puts it on pace to be a >1 million metro. Also, as I have said, Albuquerque allows for three possible service connections. BTW, Salt Lake City is taking care of the Provo and Ogden service as commuter rail. Realistically, you're not going to get 500 miles of arrow-straight route. In these cases, you might want an exception to get to an important destination if a strict 500-mile limit means ending in a beet field. D.C. to Atlanta is the best example. A D.C. train could have a reasonably straight shot to Upstate South Carolina, or terminating at Charlotte if the train serves the Piedmont Triad. An Atlanta train can get as far as Richmond, Va. The trunk would be in the middle of the routes, with the DC and Atlanta hubs receiving less-frequent branch service. With a waiver, DC to Atlanta can be a single service in about 600 miles. It would require excluding the Piedmont Triad and building a separate Charlotte-Greensboro-Raleigh intrastate service. This is where another waiver comes in. L.A. to Salt Lake City is a no-go. Las Vegas and SLC are the only two metros and the only areas of any substantial population reside. A plane can do that. (L.A. to Vegas at least has the Inland Empire). I also suggest Albuquerque to San Antonio (or Dallas) as another waiver service, with El Paso being a stop on the line.
|
|
|
Post by jdrcrasher on Feb 23, 2011 20:56:28 GMT -8
We definitely need HSR, but I question the need for an interstate system. Hubs are great, but after a certain distance, I would think the plane takes over.
|
|
|
Post by wad on Feb 24, 2011 4:06:30 GMT -8
We definitely need HSR, but I question the need for an interstate system. Hubs are great, but after a certain distance, I would think the plane takes over. It's well established that 500 miles is the upper threshold of corridor service.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 4, 2011 7:36:51 GMT -8
The Florida supreme court just ruled that their Governor can refuse the federal HSR money. Looks like we are one day closer to the start of deciding what to do with some extra $$$. If the CHSRA has a clue, and I have no doubt they do, they would have already spent some time deciding what they could do with any extra $$$. This way, when the Feds reprogram the Florida money, we should know with days at most how they plan on extending the initial segment construction. No time for dilly-dallying, time for California to take the money and run so to speak.
RT
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 4, 2011 7:41:45 GMT -8
Orlando Sentinel reporting: www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-high-speed-rail-ruling-20110304,0,5687876.story Here is the best part: The Governor's Office issued a statement that said Scott was "gratified that the court provided a clear and unanimous decision, [and] he is now focused on moving forward with infrastructure projects that create long-term jobs and turn Florida's economy around.''LOL, turn down federal $ to build a nearly world class HSR system doen the middle of a freeway designed just to allow for HSR operation, then tell the public that you are going to move forward with "infrastructure projects that create long-term jobs". You can't make this kind of stuff up! It's as if the guy is on a religious crusade against modern rail transport. RT
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 4, 2011 9:26:32 GMT -8
Orlando Sentinel reporting: www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/os-high-speed-rail-ruling-20110304,0,5687876.story Here is the best part: The Governor's Office issued a statement that said Scott was "gratified that the court provided a clear and unanimous decision, [and] he is now focused on moving forward with infrastructure projects that create long-term jobs and turn Florida's economy around.''LOL, turn down federal $ to build a nearly world class HSR system doen the middle of a freeway designed just to allow for HSR operation, then tell the public that you are going to move forward with "infrastructure projects that create long-term jobs". You can't make this kind of stuff up! It's as if the guy is on a religious crusade against modern rail transport. RT This is why I hope gas prices continue to skyrocket. Eventually, we may run into the issue of a class warfare. It could happen, that cars become a luxury and the middle class turns to buses and trains. Can the middle class sustain paying an average $7 - $11K a year for car ownership costs?
|
|
|
Post by jeisenbe on Mar 4, 2011 12:52:50 GMT -8
This is why I hope gas prices continue to skyrocket. Eventually, we may run into the issue of a class warfare. It could happen, that cars become a luxury and the middle class turns to buses and trains. Can the middle class sustain paying an average $7 - $11K a year for car ownership costs? You are looking forward to "class warfare?" Huh. Europe proves that the Upper middle class CAN sustain paying an average $10 - $11K a year for car ownership costs. High licensing fees and $8 a gallon gas already exists in most of Europe, yet a large percentage of families have one car. However, 2 car families and totally car-dependent exurbs are less common there. We will see people drive less, and perhaps get rid of an extra car (or delay buying that 3rd car for the kid), but the biggest effect will unfortunately be on the economy. When people are out of work due to so much of the economy being sucked into the petroleum industry (mainly abroad), they will drive less.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 4, 2011 13:32:51 GMT -8
I don't think LA said that he was looking forward to class warfare. He just pointed that out as one possibility down the road should things continue as they are currently moving.
I have to agree with him though about wishing for skyrocketing gas prices. I say this to friends and family occasionally during discussions and they all give me a puzzled look. Often times, the status quo and normal routine thinking only gets challenged during times of uncertainty. The energy shock of the 1970's almost got us on the right track, but falling oil prices took care of that pretty quick.
There will come a time when another "oil shock" hits, but at some point the suppliers won't be able to "open the spigots" and drive the price down to $30 a barrel. The recent Wikileaks disclosures suggest that the Saudis may have intentionally been grossly overstating their oil reserves so as to maintain the upper hand in OPEC. That combined with China now (as of February 2010) buying more new cars than the US suggests that the "tipping point" may be here sooner rather than later, if not right now.
Those of us who cheer every time gas prices rise aren't celebrating the fact that Joe Cardriver is going to be poorer after gassing up, so much as hoping that the rise serves as a wake up call to those that believe cheap gas is a part of the "non-negotiable way of life" in the US. At which point the HSR discussion gets a lot easier to sell.
RT
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 4, 2011 14:03:28 GMT -8
Exactly rubbertoe. I'm looking forward to when the layperson's attitude changes with how much we spend on roads compared to public transit. Right now, people get upset with spending $2.4 billion on a rail line in Florida, which is nowhere near the billions spent each year on road improvements. What's going to happen when the middle class transitions to a heavier reliance on buses and trains, but billions are still being spent on roads?
LA has turned the other way, luckily. Here, we talk about extensions to our rail lines now. All of our politiicans are advocating public transit (with Antonio being our biggest cheerleader and continously mentioning mass transit in LA, can't remember the last mayor who would say mass transit and LA in the same sentence). Look at Orange County, they're ready and willing to spend $1.7 billion to add a single auxilary lane to the I-405. Here, if we spend on roads, its carpool, which is beneficial to buses as well.
But if we continue the way on building these huge roads and eventually gas comes up to $6/gallon, people are going to wonder why we haven't invested much in public transit. And the US will suffer even more when people's incomes get sucked up by their automobile.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on Mar 4, 2011 14:17:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on Mar 4, 2011 15:49:38 GMT -8
Still, it is important that we make sure that our message is clear.
If people can misinterpret "cheering" for higher prices on a pro-transit message board, it's not going to fly anywhere else as well.
Part of the problem that I see with higher gas prices is that that price increase is not coming in the form of higher taxes, but in the form of higher profits.
While higher prices may encourage more transit ridership, if gas prices were lower, higher gas taxes might be more acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by LAofAnaheim on Mar 4, 2011 16:11:24 GMT -8
^ Or we continue with more auto-oriented demand and policies with cheap gas. Just in the last few days, I've noticed more of my "Facebook friends" and personal friends inquire and try out public transportation due to higher gas prices. Remember the summer of 2008 when a price of gallon/gas was $5 +?? That was awesome. There was a sudden increase to ride trains and buses. I remember the Good Morning America reports about how people couldn't find seats on New Jersey Transit. Attitudes were shifting to more public transit. Heck, I think that was a strong reason why Measure R passed. People saw the need for better mass transit funding, and Measure R is more favored toward mass transit than OC's Measure M.
|
|
|
Post by masonite on Mar 4, 2011 16:46:23 GMT -8
Even though I walk to work, own a bunch of oil stocks, largely believe in peak oil, and love mass transit, I don't necessarily want a big spike in oil prices. A slow steady rise would be more agreeable as our economy will really be on the rocks with a big quick spike.
I do agree that there are some nice benefits. Less air pollution, increased mass transit use as well as increased understanding on the public of the importance of mass transit, less traffic when I do need to use my vehicle.
I don't sweat these high gas prices at all and have largely predicted them, but I don't really want to see $200 a barrell oil in the next 2 years. I think by 2020, we'll be in much better shape here locally. Hopefully, we'll have a Connector, Crenshaw, Foothill, full Expo, and nearly fully complete Purple Line by then as well as CAHSR.
Also, CA is still a decent oil producer. Lets hope we have at least some modest oil extraction tax so we can take advantage of that like Texas and Alaska do. As much as it makes me cringe, I do believe prices will become so high that we will have to see off-shore oil drilling on our coast. Lets hope some of that oil value is remitted back to the state and not just sucked up to Washington.
|
|
|
Post by rubbertoe on May 4, 2011 13:48:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by jamesinclair on May 4, 2011 20:33:13 GMT -8
Im so excited!
|
|
dane
Junior Member
Posts: 59
|
Post by dane on May 9, 2011 13:41:10 GMT -8
$300 million. Good for another 20 miles of route. Official announcement is here.
|
|
|
Post by James Fujita on May 10, 2011 15:21:00 GMT -8
Every extra mile helps!
So right now, the first leg would be Bakersfield-Hanford-Fresno, with tracks to the Chowchilla wye (providing eventual access to potentially both Gilroy-San Jose-San Francisco and north to Merced-Stockton-Sacramento).
Now, if we can just get the studies, designwork, environmental paperwork and meetings out of the way and get a few shovels in the ground....
|
|
|
Post by spokker on May 10, 2011 19:00:31 GMT -8
A gradual rise in the cost of gasoline is a good thing because it promotes R&D on alternative energy and justifies investment in transit. You need to have a slow and predictable rise.
A sudden and large increase in the cost of gasoline is a bad thing because it can lead to desperate measures such as price controls, allowing more drilling and offshore oil rigs, lowering an already low gas tax and sends the economy into a tailspin.
Cheering or lamenting the price of gas is irrelevant anyway since you have no control over the price. The price of oil is the world price and it doesn't matter if Trump tells the Saudis to give him all their oil or else.
But people do cheer for gradual increases because they believe things will change as gas prices predictably rise. I doubt they are cheering for sudden and large increases as that hurts a lot of people.
Hope this helps.
|
|