[Newfie]

Topic to discuss the pros and cons of HSR in particular but mass transit in general.

Over my career I’ve been involved with a few of these projects, generally from a systems engineering perspective. I’ve become very negative about their implementation for a variety of reasons.

The one currently in public view is the California HSR project, which the Govoner cancelled on Feb.12, 2019. Or maybe not, it’s just been “scaled back.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History ... Speed_Rail

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '.') Citing delays and cost overruns and lack of transparency from the project's leadership, Governor Gavin Newsom cancelled the project on February 12, 2019. However, Newsom said he wants to finish construction a segment already underway through California's Central Valley, arguing it would revitalize the economically depressed region. He also said he would replace the head of the state board that oversees the project and pledged more accountability for contractors that run over on costs.[1]

[Tanada]

IMO this is yet another case of focusing on the wrong problem. In the case of rail, lets start with the low hanging fruit and go for wide scale electrification first. Almost all rail traffic in North America is freight, so by electrifying the entire trackage we could eliminate enormous quantities of diesel fuel demand.

After we do that we can play with elitist high speed passenger rail around the margins where it actually makes sense.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'I')MO this is yet another case of focusing on the wrong problem. In the case of rail, lets start with the low hanging fruit and go for wide scale electrification first. Almost all rail traffic in North America is freight, so by electrifying the entire trackage we could eliminate enormous quantities of diesel fuel demand.

After we do that we can play with elitist high speed passenger rail around the margins where it actually makes sense.

[vtsnowedin]

Considering the fuel efficiency of diesel locomotives (470RTM/gallon) which is four times better then over the road trucks we could make a major reduction in CO2 emissions just by moving any heavy cargo that is moving more then fifty miles from trucks to trains without the bother and expense of electrifying the entire system.
RTM is revenue ton miles which takes into account the percentage of empty cars being moved back to their next load.
All it would take is a diesel tax hike that the railroads were exempt from for the industry to figure out how best to accomplish the reduction in road fuel use without bureaucratic government fumbling and interference.

[Newfie]

IIRC the current rail system has some significant bottle necks in the passes through the Rockies and also in various switching yards.

So as it stands the system is close to capacity. Not on all routes, but important ones.

The lowest hanging fruit is to simply reduce consumption. Remove the trucks while keeping the freight. Eiectify it if you will. Maybe that could be part of the overall switch HVDC electrification. Rail electrification infrastructure is over built to carry distribution lines.

Been done before. Many portions of the NEC have a commercial transmission line overbuild. You can see it described on page 7 of the attached.

http://www.pennsyrr.com/kc/motiveops/do ... 0_0360.pdf

(I worked on a project that got to rewrite this and similar documents for AMTRAK.)

http://michaelfroio.com/blog/2013/02/11 ... rification

38949B93-6F04-4AA5-AB22-0C5A5B111928.jpeg

p

[Plantagenet]

Yes, HSR is costly.

But so is our current system of highways and airports.

IMHO blocking HSR and electric freight rail because of the cost of electrifying the freight rail system and building out HSR for passenger travel while ignoring the cost of maintaining highways and building airports and subsidizing our current system is short-sighted.

We have a bigger problem then cost to deal with, and thats climate change. The world is heading, day by day, into huge risks associated with global warming. In less then a decade we are going to see the whole Arctic Ocean go ice-free in the summer. An ice-free Arctic Ocean, with 24 hours of sunlight per day in the summer and no sea ice to reflect the sunlight, is going to become warm very quickly. And that will have big effects on Greenland ice and Arctic permafrost and their huge CO2/CH4 stores.

We need to start reducing our CO2 emissions. Switching to electric freight rail and HSR for passenger rail and reducing or even eliminating air travel between US cities and diesel truck freight hauling is a big step we can take to help reduce CO2 emissions.

I'm appalled that the Ds in California scaled back their HSR plans, after all their rhetoric about fighting climate change. I'm not surprised---but I'm appalled. Trump's support for more and more oil drilling is dangerous enough----we don't need the Ds backing down on climate change too.

Cheers!

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'I')IRC the current rail system has some significant bottle necks in the passes through the Rockies and also in various switching yards.

.

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'Y')es, HSR is costly.

But so is our current system of highways and airports.

IMHO blocking HSR and electric freight rail because of the cost of electrifying the freight rail system and building out HSR for passenger travel while ignoring the cost of maintaining highways and building airports and subsidizing our current system is short-sighted.

We have a bigger problem then cost to deal with, and thats climate change. The world is heading, day by day, into huge risks associated with global warming. In less then a decade we are going to see the whole Arctic Ocean go ice-free in the summer. An ice-free Arctic Ocean, with 24 hours of sunlight per day in the summer and no sea ice to reflect the sunlight, is going to become warm very quickly. And that will have big effects on Greenland ice and Arctic permafrost and their huge CO2/CH4 stores.

We need to start reducing our CO2 emissions. Switching to electric freight rail and HSR for passenger rail and reducing or even eliminating air travel between US cities and diesel truck freight hauling is a big step we can take to help reduce CO2 emissions.

I'm appalled that the Ds in California scaled back their HSR plans, after all their rhetoric about fighting climate change. I'm not surprised---but I'm appalled. Trump's support for more and more oil drilling is dangerous enough----we don't need the Ds backing down on climate change too.

Cheers!

[Newfie]

HSR has is not at all very effective in reducing CO2. First there is al he infrastructure then there is the tremendous weight of the passenger vehicles. Plus the acceleration and deceleration.

Just think about this, an Accela trip Philly to NYC is about $150. The comparable express bus, which is only slightly slower, is about $15.

But let’s start the analysis correctly, the goal is to reduce green house gasses. One problem is transportation, human transportation. So how do we reduce the cost of human transportation?

The vast majority of our travel is by private car. Then public transit. Then plane. The area most ripe for improvement is the private commuter.

The first desire would be to eliminate as many trips as possible. Get folks to work closer to hkme, or live closer to work, or work at home.

Baring that we should try to reduce the cost of commuter trips. Shared trips, move folks to existing public transit, more public transit where it makes sense.

But we also need to make mass transit more cost effective and attractive. Right jow fare systems take from, roughly, 15% to 35% of fare box revenues. Eliminating those fares would move people to mass transit and allow more folks to work. If you are making $7/hr at a part time iob and shelling out $5 or more for transport that’s a big dissencentive to work. Eliminating fares would be a big incentive for more complete use of this public investment, more return, more folks working, more taxes to support the system.

That’s where the HSR money should go, where it does the most good.

My argument is not necessarily to build new mass transit but to optimize what we now have. While I seldom ride the Philly when I do, out of rush hour, it is mostly empty. I’ve been on cars where I was the only passenger. Same with busses, you often see big 40 passenger busses roaming around at 7pm with only 3-4 aboard. Makes no sense.

Now the other way of working that is to develop a more flexible fleet. Maybe to encourage small owner operators to run routes with 6-12 passenger vehicles. Maybe try to work a way to make the throughout dynamic to adjust for need.

Enough for now. It’s not an easy solution and HSR is not a part of it.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('KaiserJeep', ' ')TODAY the US electrical grid is fed by 63% fossil fuels, 20% Nuclear, and 17% renewables. (EIA figures for 2018)

As I have pointed ouit before, Nuclear is not carbon free, since mining/refining/enriching uranium fuel is heavily FF-dependant. Nor are renewables carbon-free, since they depend heavily upon materials made from petroleum using energy from all FF's.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', ' ') It’s not an easy solution and HSR is not a part of it.

[Newfie]

Plant,

I know most of the world disagrees with me. That doesn’t make me wrong, just different. Nor does it prove your point.

I understand your experience, and I’m sure it was all very pleasurble. But it’s based on the idea that all those people were making necessary trips. The alternative viewpoint is that without that nice train the many folks would not be making those trips, that most of those trips are unnecessary.

But you did not address my point that the same trip from Philadelphia to NYC costs $150 on Acela or $15 on the express bus. And that’s on an existing ROW that’s not ever really HSR. If it’s so efficient how come it’s so expensive?

BTW: In full disclosure, besides working the industry I’ve checked up over 50,000 miles riding Amtrak’s NEC as a user.

[Cog]

If you stop at every Podunk city along the way, then its really not high speed rail.

[evilgenius]

I think one of the big problems with high speed rail is the infrastructure from the rail station to where you want to go. Paris does have an amazing station that links up with a network that can get you around. Most places outside of Europe don't, though. People like the autonomy they get when they can take their cars with them. They could easily do without them, if they could trust the public transport options. When what is called a good bus system in the US makes you wait thirty minutes for the next bus headed your way, that isn't going to interest people in using the HSR line that takes them there. That is especially true when you consider people who need to use the link, as opposed to those on vacation who have some free time. Bad transport infrastructure harms those who have to get to work on time. They have to leave very early to use it.

When I heard they were going to build HSR in California I thought it would be a good idea. The problem is, they should be thinking about building it from LA to Vegas. People enjoying casinos, which are designed trap people in them, don't need their cars. All you need for a HSR to work from LA to Vegas is good parking in LA and a close enough stop in Vegas so that people can either walk to their hotel, or to some easy shuttle system. If Vegas wants to reinvigorate their older sections, they could provide a free shuttle. They wouldn't need to place an HSR stop there.

Another thing that could be done is to think about hauling cars on the trains. They do that at the Chunnel. That way, people wouldn't need to rely upon a bad public transport system, or pay exorbitant Uber or Lyft pricing, when their piecemeal efforts added up. If they did that within the greater LA region, they could tie various places together to and from which people burn a lot of fuel to travel now, saving the CO2 and maybe some travel time. If it cost about what it does to use the carpool lanes and was very easy to get on and off of, it might work.

The bottom line is you don't get the best transport options by allowing the infrastructure to come along organically. That sort of plan is why so many cities are mired in traffic problems now. People have to figure out what is best, and plan it out. They have to consider both the immediate and distant futures, beyond the time span of the organic model. People in the US would have to face down their fears that such projects are somehow communism coming through the back door. It is expensive, so people in the US would have to vote to approve such things as well. Good luck with that. And you can't forget to consider the technological changes, autonomous cars for instance, that are coming.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', ' ')all those people were making necessary trips..... without that nice train the many folks would not be making those trips, that most of those trips are unnecessary.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('baha', '
')We need Travelpods. Small van sized electric pods that can operate alone at low speeds and congregate into trains that travel at high speeds. On the highway they close up to reduce drag but they aren't really hooked together so you can drop out and exit anytime you want. Others can accelerate and join in. All controlled by a single AI communicating with each pod's AI. You only get to drive when your operating alone (if you want).....
This is an American solution. Fast, powerful, and individualized. ...

[KaiserJeep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('baha', 'Y')ou all recognize the issue but haven't addressed it. Americans are individuals. Public transit doesn't work for us because we want to go wherever and do whatever we want. You're not going to change this easy or fast. So don't try...

Global shipping has evolved on it's own. It has gotten very efficient by centering on shipping containers. One or two sizes of containers that can be carried in lots of different ways. Add computerized logistics and packing and a box can be shipped anywhere very efficiently. What happens if you follow that model for people?

We need Travelpods. Small van sized electric pods that can operate alone at low speeds and congregate into trains that travel at high speeds. On the highway they close up to reduce drag but they aren't really hooked together so you can drop out and exit anytime you want. Others can accelerate and join in. All controlled by a single AI communicating with each pod's AI. You only get to drive when your operating alone (if you want).

If that makes you nervous the windows can fog and you can sit on the couch and watch reality TV

For long distances the pod trains enter a tunnel where they engage a third rail for more power and accelerate to 200 mph. Are you scared yet?

This is an American solution. Fast, powerful, and individualized. And it could be pretty efficient. This is thinking inside a box or a pod...

[Zarquon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'S')o we are not talking chump change here. Is this a wise investment? Does it substantially help global warming? I know my answers, what are your thoughts?