The Brightline Thread

[Busy Bee]

Grades you say??


_

[ardecila]

^ And yet Brightline will be even steeper than that, the Koln-Frankfurt line tops out at 4% but Brightline exceeds 5%.

Not surprising that Brightline's renderings are showing Siemens Velaro trains which were engineered for that same steep line in Germany (and, well, Siemens also has an existing relationship with Brightline).

[jmecklenborg]

The Las Vegas high speed rail project appears to be being built to a higher standard than Florida Brightline but to a lower standard than California HSR.

In my estimation, the grades are a bigger deal than people might think. I have ridden the TGV in France and recall that the ride quality was fantastic at 200mph while seated, but when you stood up, the microscopic imperfections in the track, wheels, and suspension caused it to be a bit more unstable than you'd expect while walking to the snack car. The train was rocked with a wind rush every time it met a train on the opposite track, which was very frequent. There was one quite memorable climb toward a tunnel that was noticeable while seated since the train slowed and put off a different sound.

My guess (and I'm not an engineer so I might be wrong) is that the Brightline at 150mph will have the same character I recall from France at 200mph, meaning that the service could never be improved to 200mph without relaying much of the track.

The distance between Victorville and Las Vegas is roughly 180 miles, so a 50mph average improvement only gets passengers between those points about 10-15 minutes faster, and there will never be a destination beyond Las Vegas, so it probably isn't worth the upgrade from an economic perspective.

However, the real final value in this project is the standard to which the Los Angeles approaches are built. This is the same dilemma facing CAHSR. However, I believe that California will do everything in its power to undermine the quality of that connection. Why? A top-quality Las Vegas passenger train makes it that much easier for high wage LA residents to decamp for Nevada, establish a primary residence there, and do 1-2 train rides per week into LA to an apartment or hotel room.

A world-class rail operation will bring the trains into LA Union Station at 110mph either from Palmdale or from Riverside. If California simply refused to let the Brightline trains operate on its tracks, it will require a change of trains. But there will also be pressure to collect rent from trackage rights in order to help subsidize CAHSR, so there will be opposing forces at play.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

A world-class rail operation will bring the trains into LA Union Station at 110mph either from Palmdale or from Riverside. If California simply refused to let the Brightline trains operate on its tracks, it will require a change of trains. But there will also be pressure to collect rent from trackage rights in order to help subsidize CAHSR, so there will be opposing forces at play.

Brightline has already started the EIS process to lay tracks near a new built freeway towards Palmdale, and is in the process to start anther new EIS process to get to Rancho Cucamonga. Brightline will wait for CHSR or use transfers to Metrolink trains to get all the way to downtown Los Angeles. They will soon have EIS studies completed in both directions from Victorville to get into the LA basin. They will of course choose the most cost effective route, and also the route CHSR will build first.
I do not think CHSR will build the tunnel route through the Grapevine first, more likely it will be last. Therefore, I believe Brightline will be building to Rancho Cucamonga, but that does depend upon CHSR construction plan order.
Meanwhile, Brightline lays the groundwork to go in either direction, and just wait and see what CHSR does first.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

However, I believe that California will do everything in its power to undermine the quality of that connection. Why? A top-quality Las Vegas passenger train makes it that much easier for high wage LA residents to decamp for Nevada, establish a primary residence there, and do 1-2 train rides per week into LA to an apartment or hotel room.

Don't forget your tinfoil hat!

LA has a huge housing shortage and still rejects many new proposals. They should welcome a line to Vegas that might take some pressure off the housing market if people can do the super-commute thing. The net result is a slightly loosened housing market and more capacity to support jobs/income tax regardless of where those people live.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

I believe Brightline will be building to Rancho Cucamonga, but that does depend upon CHSR construction plan order.
Meanwhile, Brightline lays the groundwork to go in either direction, and just wait and see what CHSR does first.

Improvements to the existing line from LA Union out to Riverside are part of CAHSR Phase 2. This will create a fully or almost-fully grade separated blended service for commuter rail and CAHSR on two new tracks separate from the existing freight lines between LA Union and San Diego and will also establish a future entrance to both cities for HSR from Phoenix.

I don't believe that almost any preliminary engineering work has been performed yet for Phase 2 and there might even be a legal provision requiring operating trains on Phase 1 (a completed Phase 1 from SF to LA) before physical work can begin on Phase 2.

A terminal station for Brightline somewhere near the Ontario Airport is far preferable to Victorville but certainly not the revolution that a dedicated 110mph entrance from Ontario airport into LA Union will create.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Don't forget your tinfoil hat!

Rail projects in the United States are either a)lukewarm or objectively bad ideas that are overbuilt as vanity projects or b)transformative projects that are harassed endlessly by obstructionists.

Work-from-home technology plus a world-class and inexpensive high speed rail line between ultra-low tax Nevada and ultra-high tax Los Angeles will be a disaster for the tax base of them former. Tens of thousands of high net worth individuals will establish a new permanent residence in Nevada and keep a home or condominium in LA County, meaning the housing situation will not be eased.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu7VtSMvNJU&t=632s

[ardecila]

People tend to flee the coastal states in cycles. Every time there's a tax hike, or earthquake/wildfire etc people pick up and leave. But there's plenty of people flooding in also. There's no systemic reason why people will continue to flee California once the pandemic and its ripple effects have gone away. The climate, cultural offerings, lifestyle, etc in LA are not going away and will continue to lure lots of people.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

People tend to flee the coastal states in cycles. Every time there's a tax hike, or earthquake/wildfire etc people pick up and leave. But there's plenty of people flooding in also. There's no systemic reason why people will continue to flee California once the pandemic and its ripple effects have gone away. The climate, cultural offerings, lifestyle, etc in LA are not going away and will continue to lure lots of people.

Los Angeles is in serious danger of losing its status as the center of the entertainment industry. When and if that happens it will lose much of its mystique, not to mention hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The movie studios established themselves in Los Angles 100 years ago because movies were shot on low speed film and early film types couldn't deal with the east's inconsistent natural lighting. It was natural for TV to center itself at the established studios in the 1950s and the recording industry moved from NYC to LA that same decade.

The music business is now dead and the movie business as we knew it for 100 years is in trouble (we will likely see fewer and fewer big-budget movies within ten years). The population is increasingly spending their free time watching self-created youtube content or video game streamers. None of that requires the highly-paid union labor within LA's TMZ.

Television and movies have increasingly escaped the TMZ since the late 90s - on location reality shows and shooting in Vancouver and Georgia is way cheaper since the taxes and labor are far cheaper.

Las Vegas's ultra-low taxes are already enticing youtube stars to move there from LA. A 2-hour train ride versus today's 4-hour door-to-door flight or 5-hour drive makes the move that much easier.

[Busy Bee]

I just don't buy it

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I just don't buy it

What is the it you will not buy?

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

However, the real final value in this project is the standard to which the Los Angeles approaches are built. This is the same dilemma facing CAHSR. However, I believe that California will do everything in its power to undermine the quality of that connection. Why? A top-quality Las Vegas passenger train makes it that much easier for high wage LA residents to decamp for Nevada, establish a primary residence there, and do 1-2 train rides per week into LA to an apartment or hotel room.

I don't buy this at all.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I don't buy this at all.

I completely agree that commuters will not be commuting between LV and LA.. Fares for CHSR or Brightline LA-LV will not be as cheap as Metrolink fares, mainly because there will be a much reduce subsidy, if any. Fares will be 10 times larger when passengers must pay 100% of the fare compared to 10% of the fare.

[ardecila]

Yeah and I don't think the rail is necessarily any more convenient than flying, which means the kind of exodus you're talking about could already happen. If you're an Angeleno for whom money is no object and you live in the Westside or in the hills, LAX or Burbank Airport are arguably easier to get to than Union Station. Precheck eliminates most of the security hassles.

I suppose they could run Vegas trains via Palmdale at full buildout (and thus have Vegas trains stop in Burbank) but the High Desert connection is really aimed more at Northern Californians going to Vegas.

Fact is, these kinds of exotic lifestyles have been possible for years but only a tiny percentage of the population does it, due to the expense and inconvenience. It's not something planners should seriously be concerned about.

[Easy]

Originally Posted by electricron

I completely agree that commuters will not be commuting between LV and LA.. Fares for CHSR or Brightline LA-LV will not be as cheap as Metrolink fares, mainly because there will be a much reduce subsidy, if any. Fares will be 10 times larger when passengers must pay 100% of the fare compared to 10% of the fare.

Metrolink may be more costly than you think. A monthly Metrolink pass between Irvine and Union Station is $300. I think that's been lowered recently and used to be more. Maybe covid? Either way, you could probably commute 1 day per week on this train for about that. 2 days would be more, but you save enough on other costs to make it work. It's going to have to be competitive with airfare after all.

People do commute to LA from Phoenix and many more from LA commute to the Bay Area. High speed trains make such things more likely.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Easy

Metrolink may be more costly than you think. A monthly Metrolink pass between Irvine and Union Station is $300. I think that's been lowered recently and used to be more. Maybe covid? Either way, you could probably commute 1 day per week on this train for about that. 2 days would be more, but you save enough on other costs to make it work. It's going to have to be competitive with airfare after all.

People do commute to LA from Phoenix and many more from LA commute to the Bay Area. High speed trains make such things more likely.

I think our definition of commuting is different. I’m thinking going to and fro daily, two trips a day. You are thinking two trips a week. Which brings up the question, on a twice a week commute, which home is your primary home and which one is your secondary home or vacation retreat?
People rich enough could have their secondary home in Honolulu and meet your definition of a commute.

FYI, Webster definition
intransitive verb
1 : MAKE UP, COMPENSATE
commuted for her sins
2 : to pay in gross (see GROSS entry 3 sense 1)
3 : to travel back and forth regularly (as between a suburb and a city)
He commutes to work every day by car.
4 : to yield the same mathematical result regardless of order —used of two elements undergoing an operation or of two operations on elements


Obviously definition 3 applies. How regular is regularly; daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly?

[Easy]

Originally Posted by electricron

I think our definition of commuting is different. I’m thinking going to and fro daily, two trips a day. You are thinking two trips a week. Which brings up the question, on a twice a week commute, which home is your primary home and which one is your secondary home or vacation retreat?
People rich enough could have their secondary home in Honolulu and meet your definition of a commute.

FYI, Webster definition
intransitive verb
1 : MAKE UP, COMPENSATE
commuted for her sins
2 : to pay in gross (see GROSS entry 3 sense 1)
3 : to travel back and forth regularly (as between a suburb and a city)
He commutes to work every day by car.
4 : to yield the same mathematical result regardless of order —used of two elements undergoing an operation or of two operations on elements


Obviously definition 3 applies. How regular is regularly; daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly?

You agreed with a post that was responding to a post that specifically stated 1-2 commute days per week.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Easy

You agreed with a post that was responding to a post that specifically stated 1-2 commute days per week.

BB did not buy people would be commuting between LA and LV, and neither did I. I explained my reason why. Fares would be too expensive to do so regularly.

For example, let's take the fares between New Haven and New York City as an existing example:
Drive yourself $7-$11
Bus $18-$24
MTA $15-$35
Amtrak regional $26-$32
Amtrak Acela $77-$80

Sources https://www.rome2rio.com/s/New-Haven/Manhattan

Some math follows: 80/15=5.333
Round trip is twice those fares.
Acela fares:
$80 x 2 (round trip) = $160. $160 x 20 (workdays in 4 weeks) = $3200
$80 x 2 (rt) = $160. $160 x 4 (4 weeks) = $640
MTA fares:
$15 x 2 (rt) = $30. $30 x 20 (workdays in 4 weeks) = $600
$15 x 2 (rt) = $30. $30 x 4 (4 weeks) = $120

I would like to point out that MTA. Amtrak Regional, and Amtrak Acela trains are existing trains running on the same corridor. Never-the-less, the HSR train version has fares 5 times higher. Metrolink does not travel all the way to Las Vegas from Los Angeles. Neither does Amtrak. Both reach San Bernardino, less than half the distance. I do not think it is improper to suggest a train going more than twice as far would have at least twice the fares. Therefore, the 5 times fare increase should be a 10 times fare increase.

Metrolink fares between LA and SB is $13.25
A 10 times fare for HSR should be around $132.50.
A round trip would be twice that.
$130 is significantly more than Acela's $80, about $50 more, with a round trip being around $100 more.
Worse yet, Metrolink has monthly passes that discount that fare. Will Brightline use discounts for an intercity service? Will it be discounted as heavily?

FYI, LAX to LV airport has airline round trip fares as cheap as $56 and as expensive as $166 depending upon time of day and airline choice.

If we make the argument that many more rich people would commute between LV and LA with the HSR line being built, it falls apart when you consider airlines are already providing that service at very competitive fares.

[jmecklenborg]

^Right, there is only traffic when driving to a train station but never LAX, and you only have to wait in line to take your shoes off when riding a train but not an airplane. LA Union Station is a 2-hour drive in rush hour traffic from Downtown LA. The purple line is being built as we speak from UCLA to LAX, in the complete opposite direction of the train station.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^Right, there is only traffic when driving to a train station but never LAX, and you only have to wait in line to take your shoes off when riding a train but not an airplane. LA Union Station is a 2-hour drive in rush hour traffic from Downtown LA. The purple line is being built as we speak from UCLA to LAX, in the complete opposite direction of the train station.

LAX is not the only commercial airport you can catch a flight to Las Vegas in southern California. Alternative airports are Bob Hope, John Wayne, Ontario, and Long Beach. So there could be an airport closer to you than LAX that can get you to Las Vegas.