lensovet wrote: ↑Sat Jul 13, 2019 9:50 pm
Interesting numbers. I wonder you got them from? I'm looking at https://www4.uwm.edu/cuts/ce490/freeway.pdf, and I'm seeing that LOS A service with free-flowing speeds of 65 mph (the speed limit on most roads here) implies a maximum of 710 passenger vehicles/lane/hour. Of course the highways here are not restricted to passenger vehicles, so once you add some trucks and buses to the mix, that capacity drops even further. So to get your hypothetical 1800 vehicles/hour would require three lanes of highway each way. Keep in mind this assumes 12 ft wide lanes and 6 ft wide shoulders. Narrow those down (as happens on pretty much the entirety of US-101 and I-405) and the capacities drop even further.
I used simple algebra any high school student could solve. The safe recommended clearance every driver is taught in driving school is to follow the vehicle in front of you by 2 seconds. Using that 2 second rule, it does not matter how fast the vehicles are going, because every 2 seconds a vehicle passes by any particular point in any individual lane.
Here's the algebra coming right at you, no so called experts and wasted engineering studies required to explain it.
3600 seconds/hour x 1 vehicle/2 seconds/lane = 1800 vehicles /hour/lane
I'll admit that every time a vehicle changes lane affects the flow of traffic, as some cars will slow down to maintain that 2 second clearance - but at the same time other vehicles will speed up. Congestion can be caused by too many lane changers as much as having too many vehicles. That's why just about every highway safety advisor recommends picking a lane and sticking to it as much as possible, changing lanes only when entering and exiting the highway.
But really, we all know the major causes of delays along freeways are accidents and road repairs taking lanes out of service. Trains are also not immune to accidents and corridor repairs.
We can argue until we turn blue, but you will never change my mind that the Bakersfield to LA section should have been built first with the ~$3.5 Billion the FRA provided CHSR with Obama's stimulus program. It is the one section of the future CHSR system that presently isn't served by Amtrak California with a train. The Central Valley is going to see max speed increases for the foreseeable future a speed bump of ~50%, from ~80 mph to ~125 mph, at best. And when Central Valley passengers wishing to travel to Southern California, they will be riding in buses going 60-65 mph based upon the speed limit on the highways.
I call that poor managing of available resources mainly because CHSR should be encouraging travel by train - not travel by bus. Can you imagine any passenger airline in the world claiming a successful business outcome when substituting a bus for a plane? Why does CHSR do so? Do they think we are dummies?
Switzerland decided to speed up their passenger rail services to Milan and Italy in general. The first section they started construction on was the section that took the longest and was the most expensive to build, the Gotthard Base Tunnel. Work begun 4 Nov 1999, the line opened 1 June 2016, taking ~16.5 years to build. The double track line is 94 miles in length with the tunnels being over 35 miles in length - over 33% of the route. Projected costs was CHF 6.3 Billion, Final costs was CHF 9.5 Billion, ~50% increase. We can argue if that was well managed or not, but anyone suggesting CHSR is well managed with costs projections rising 200-300% needs to rethink what they consider being well managed project.
And it took Switzerland using modern drilling rigs 16.5 years to build their long tunnels, how long do you think it will take CHSR to do so once the drilling rigs start, and they have to do so both up north and south?
Some interesting reading and data from the horse's mouth:
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/fundi ... n_2011.pdf
Keeping it simple, in 2011 they proposed the following costs of capital:
ICS $5.2 Billion
IOS North $24.6 Billion
IOS South $26.6 Billion
Total $56.4 Billion
In 2019 they proposed the following costs of capital:
ICS $10.6 Billion (Construction underway) Costs rising an additional 100%; 200% the initial estimate once real contractors submitted their bids.
IOS North $29.5 Billion (Scope reduced with DEIS release - max speeds SF to Gilroy now 110 mph) Costs estimates rising an additional 20%, now 120% the initial estimate while still in planning stages.
IOS South $37.2 Billion (Still in planning, DEIS still underway) Costs estimates rising an additional 40%, now 140% the initial estimate, not one blade of grass turned over yet.
Total $77.3 Billion, which will continue to rise as further studies and routing choices are made.
Once construction costs are set by real bids to these projects, not by estimates from consultants, expect 200-300% actual costs to estimates as was seen with the ICS segment.
Note, the $77 Billion figure listed this year does not include the HSR sections to Sacramento, Inland Empire, and San Diego.