HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2581  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 5:20 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
Sure, but my original comment was not in reference to HSR but to Busy Bee's assertion that cars only uniquely dominate in the US because the US Federal Government wanted it to and subsidized it.
But this is true. Outside of a few small petro-states, cars are uniquely dominant in the U.S. If you put aside NYC, basically no major U.S. metro has significant transit share in global terms. This is a huge reason that HSR is a longshot in the U.S. context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
And yes Western Europe is over 80% share for cars.


No, it isn't. It's 80% if comparing PT vs private autos. But that isn't modal share, because you aren't including walking and biking (both of which are generally very high in Western European cities).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2582  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 5:30 PM
accord1999 accord1999 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,028
I'm using modal share in terms of passenger-km. Walking and biking (in some countries) may have relatively high trip share but they aren't significant in terms of distance (other than perhaps the Netherlands). UK as an example:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2583  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 5:55 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999 View Post
I'm using modal share in terms of passenger-km. Walking and biking (in some countries) may have relatively high trip share but they aren't significant in terms of distance (other than perhaps the Netherlands). UK as an example:

Here's a link to modal share in Western European cities:

http://www.epomm.eu/tems/

Looking just at Germany (because that's what I'm most familiar with), car modal share in the bigger cities averages around 30-45%. And Germany is unusually prosperous and car-crazy, with less developed bike infrastructure than the Nordics.

In contrast, excepting NY, I don't believe any U.S. metro is below 80% car share (remember this isn't commuting share, it's all trips). So it's a huge difference.

Basically, the typical U.S. metro is 90% car-oriented, while the typical European metro is maybe 40% car-oriented.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2584  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 6:18 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
All this auto data seems to leave out one glaring variable. No doubt the vast majority of trips are made via auto. But that doesn't really tell the whole story. Where is the percentage of trips tied to distance? I don't know about you, but personally I don't make a habit of boarding a intercity coach or high speed bullet train to go to Target to buy laundry detergent. It's for that reason that these findings seems quite skewed.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2585  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 6:33 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
I don't see why distance matters. The point is whether or not someone is living a transit-oriented lifestyle.

If they're wedded to the auto, they aren't likely to start using HSR, which pretty much only works in concert with robust PT and walkability.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2586  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 6:56 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
I don't see why distance matters. The point is whether or not someone is living a transit-oriented lifestyle.

If they're wedded to the auto, they aren't likely to start using HSR, which pretty much only works in concert with robust PT and walkability.
See this is one of the criticisms that I just do not understand. Why is there such a strong belief that the variables of ground transportation and walkability, while obviously also strong goals, are the highest caliber requirements in order for HSR to gather sufficient and impressive ridership? If optimal HSR planning is designed to be an equal competitor and/or surpass air trips on the same corridor, that seems to suggest that it would only be a success if PT and walkability were realities on the ground for each endpoint. Where is the requirement for that with air? Why would in theory it be any different? I refuse to believe that somehow people wouldn't use a bullet train to take a trip they otherwise would fly or begrudgingly drive. I also refuse to believe the very premise that people's current patterns wouldn't change if given the option to take a fast train. I have no doubt HSR can and will be a success in the United States if developed. An entire industry has been created to prevent competition to the car and the plane. We know this by now, or at least we should.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2587  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 7:06 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
See this is one of the criticisms that I just do not understand. Why is there such a strong belief that the variables of ground transportation and walkability, while obviously also strong goals, are the highest caliber requirements in order for HSR to gather sufficient and impressive ridership? If optimal HSR planning is designed to be an equal competitor and/or surpass air trips on the same corridor, that seems to suggest that it would only be a success if PT and walkability were realities on the ground for each endpoint. Where is the requirement for that with air? Why would in theory it be any different? I refuse to believe that somehow people wouldn't use a bullet train to take a trip they otherwise would fly or begrudgingly drive. I also refuse to believe the very premise that people's current patterns wouldn't change if given the option to take a fast train. I have no doubt HSR can and will be a success in the United States if developed. An entire industry has been created to prevent competition to the car and the plane. We know this by now, or at least we should.
Because airplanes are much faster than HSR so if it requires the same level of inconvenience then it won't have any advantages over airplanes and will therefore have no market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2588  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 7:16 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
If optimal HSR planning is designed to be an equal competitor and/or surpass air trips on the same corridor, that seems to suggest that it would only be a success if PT and walkability were realities on the ground for each endpoint. Where is the requirement for that with air? Why would in theory it be any different?
HSR is downtown-focused and presupposes strong pedestrian and transit linkages within a centralized environment. In contrast, flying favors autocentricity.

For instance, the NYC-DC market share isn't dominated by Acela because Acela is "better" than the competing air shuttles, it's because the market meets the requirements for HSR (for pathetic American standards). If you ran the exact same Acela trains between, say, Dallas and Houston, the market share would be pitiful.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2589  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 7:32 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Because airplanes are much faster than HSR so if it requires the same level of inconvenience then it won't have any advantages over airplanes and will therefore have no market.

From Downtown LA to SFO, the CaHSR door-to-door speed will be much higher as compared to flying from LAX to SFO.

The CaHSR travel time is even faster for DTLA to San Jose - just 2 hours. And again, therein lies the "problem" with CaHSR -- the huge advantage enjoyed by San Jose and Silicon Valley as compared to DT San Francisco if the Pacheco Pass tunnel is built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2590  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 8:27 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
Because airplanes are much faster than HSR so if it requires the same level of inconvenience then it won't have any advantages over airplanes and will therefore have no market.
You are leaving out all the time consuming steps to air travel. Parking, terminal shuttles, check in if checking baggage, security, waiting waiting and more waiting. And then do much of the reverse once you land. That's a far cry from being dropped off and getting to board a hsr train that departs every 15 minutes or so. Your time savings over air with the lower average speed figured in is at the endpoints.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2591  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 8:29 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
If you ran the exact same Acela trains between, say, Dallas and Houston, the market share would be pitiful.
It should seem obvious, but you don't actually know this because no hs train exists between Dallas and Houston.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2592  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 8:31 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
You are leaving out all the time consuming steps to air travel. Parking, terminal shuttles, check in if checking baggage, security, waiting waiting and more waiting.
Again, if the region isn't transit-oriented and centralized, it's HSR that has "all the time consuming steps". You lose all the advantages if potential riders aren't already based around the stations.

There is no point to, say, a downtown San Jose hub, when it isn't the focus of the Bay Area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2593  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 8:32 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
It should seem obvious, but you don't actually know this because no hs train exists between Dallas and Houston.
Well, yeah, but we know existing Amtrak (and bus) ridership in non-transit oriented corridors, and it's horrible. There's no reason to think it would become massively popular just because you sped it up.

The NE Corridor didn't have some ridership boom as the train speeds increased. They already had the captive market.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2594  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 9:03 PM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
You are leaving out all the time consuming steps to air travel. Parking, terminal shuttles, check in if checking baggage, security, waiting waiting and more waiting. And then do much of the reverse once you land. That's a far cry from being dropped off and getting to board a hsr train that departs every 15 minutes or so. Your time savings over air with the lower average speed figured in is at the endpoints.
No I'm not, those things are literally the entire point of my post. But without transit those same sort of issues apply to high speed rail too because you have to drive into traffic-congested downtown, find a parking spot (which don't exist near either station in question) and then walk to the train station.

I'll try to spell it out more simply:
Airplane: High fixed time delay but fastest travel speed.
HSR: Moderate fixed time delay and moderate speed.
Car: No fixed time delay but slow speed.

In order for HSR to be effective it has to fit somewhere in the middle there between Airplanes and cars. If your city has no transit then that fixed time delay is increased because of all the time associated driving and parking at the station and then getting an uber at the other end. Plus these things all increase your costs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2595  
Old Posted Feb 19, 2019, 10:52 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Show me the blueprints
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,301
Everyone is severely underestimating how many people would prefer to stay on the ground especially if offered a valid option that allowed travel at a comparable amount of time and comparable cost to air travel between two points like SF-LA. There are many many closeted and uncloseted people who simply do not like to fly. So when a very fast alternative is developed within an endpoint-endpoint (and intermediate stops ) range like the California program, I believe you will see a very healthy ridership baseline that would make the line a success. Also with all this talk of how people choose to drive the journey or to destinations in between, no one ever, ever, says anything about what other motives may be at play besides economic. This is a large oversight in the data that's always being thrown around. Everyone seems to assert that the only reason for making the decision to drive vs fly or vs taking a train or bus is for simplistic economics. Set aside the fact that all the hidden cost of auto travel never seem to make it into the equation - that's been reminded time and time again. People, most people I would say, make decisions for more reasons than just economic. While many will in fact choose to drive because the costs after considering multiple passengers in the vehicle, are in fact the lowest. But that does not account for all those that wind up flying when they would actually likely choose the high speed train if it existed and was very compaetitive in cost and time. And this is true of everywhere, not just the California program.
__________________
Everything new is old again

There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2596  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 12:29 AM
BrownTown BrownTown is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,884
The Department of Transportation has canceled all funding for CAHSR and is looking into suing to get the money already spent back:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-rail-project
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2597  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 1:02 AM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrownTown View Post
The Department of Transportation has canceled all funding for CAHSR and is looking into suing to get the money already spent back:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...d-rail-project
Looking into suing is the least impressive kind of suing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2598  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 2:47 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Bigger than the Iraq War? Which by all estimates cost at least $1 trillion, and some peg much higher? And for which no tax was raised (instead, Bush actually cut taxes)?
While I won't agree or disagree with that statement; I should have been more clear. I was specifically referring to infrastructure initiatives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2599  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 2:47 AM
plutonicpanda plutonicpanda is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Actually just for the record that wasn't me that brought up the Big Dig.
I understand that. I originally brought it up, but my point remains valid.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2600  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2019, 2:49 AM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
He/his/him. >~<, QED!
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 5,991
Sweet, maybe he can give some of that money to Illinois to not upgrade the CHI-STL line.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:36 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.