California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Another new video from the Fresno area:
https://youtu.be/eru1JF6zUUM

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Yeah, they should have built a train station underneath Transbay when they rebuilt it. And if only LA's transit network centered around LA Union Station instead of Disneyland.

I know you're being sarcastic, but this is actually true. If SF had a real station in the CBD, and if LA were really oriented around downtown, and if HSR could be directed SF-LA (not SJ-LA via nowheresville) this project would have vastly better prospects.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I know you're being sarcastic, but this is actually true. If SF had a real station in the CBD, and if LA were really oriented around downtown, and if HSR could be directed SF-LA (not SJ-LA via nowheresville) this project would have vastly better prospects.

???

The plan absolutely was to have HSR terminate at the Salesforce transit center (very much in the CBD) and LAs transportation system very much does center in downtown....

[Sun Belt]

Guys, don't fight Brooklyn. Let them guys determine and run the transportation system for you dumb Californians!!!

J/k, Crawford and I agree on this topic most often.

Let's spend $100 Billion [that is an incredible amount of money] on things like local rail, busses and freeways. L.A. is not and will never be N.Y. [thank Gawd!], so let's not pretend here.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

L.A. is not and will never be N.Y. [thank Gawd!], so let's not pretend here.

Yeah, LA's going to have true high speed rail, which the Northeast will never have.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

The plan absolutely was to have HSR terminate at the Salesforce transit center (very much in the CBD) and LAs transportation system very much does center in downtown....

Just to be clear there are only 6 tracks there. That's not enough to adequately serve both HSR and commuter rail. The transit center is a huge bottleneck and limits the entire system.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Just to be clear there are only 6 tracks there. That's not enough to adequately serve both HSR and commuter rail. The transit center is a huge bottleneck and limits the entire system.

As a terminal station, certainly. As a thru-station, hardly.

If a standard gauge 2-track transbay tube is built, they will be able to operate 12-15 trains per hour per direction (a mix of commuter rail and HSR) through the station. All peninsula commuter rail will continue to the east bay and vice verse. HSR will detrain, be cleaned and restocked in 5 minutes (the Japanese do this in this amount of time), receive a fresh crew, and then head back to LA on the opposite side of the bay. The crew will take a 30-60 minute break in SF, then operate a later train back to LA.

There has been a lot of chatter re: a new 4-track transbay tube with 2 tracks for commuter rail & HSR and a second set for BART, but I suspect that we will see a 3-track or 4-track standard gauge tube built instead.

I suspect that the BART line to Pleasanton & Livermore will be converted into standard gauge commuter rail compatible with Caltrains and HSR. That will open up capacity in the old Transbay Tube for more service on the other three BART lines. It will also enable current blue line riders to skip 5 BART stops, so save 10~ minutes en route to DT San Francisco.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

???

The plan absolutely was to have HSR terminate at the Salesforce transit center (very much in the CBD) and LAs transportation system very much does center in downtown....

None of this is true.

Real HSR would terminate in SJ, not SF, and LA is not oriented around its core. It's probably the most multinodal major metro on earth.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

None of this is true.

Real HSR would terminate in SJ, not SF, and LA is not oriented around its core. It's probably the most multinodal major metro on earth.

Building 30 miles of the peninsula route as 200mph track as opposed to the planned 110 mph track would save 7-9 minutes.

7-9 minutes are the make/break in the mind of HSR haters, until it's something else. The goalposts always shift.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Crawford

None of this is true.

Real HSR would terminate in SJ, not SF, and LA is not oriented around its core. It's probably the most multinodal major metro on earth.

Bruh, I said TRANSIT was centered around downtown, which was the original point. People can take that transit to downtown to catch a train.

Also, the majority of HSR systems in Europe have blended operations within dense urban environments, and dedicated tracks outside the cities. This is very standard for HSR. Saying the HSR system would terminate in SJ is silly.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Also, the majority of HSR systems in Europe have blended operations within dense urban environments, and dedicated tracks outside the cities. This is very standard for HSR. Saying the HSR system would terminate in SJ is silly.

The Pacheco Pass alignment puts San Jose in the driver's seat, with far better service than San Francisco. 30 minutes faster to LA and more trains. As I have written here for some time, that's why there has been so much push-back against California HSR, because it inevitably picks winners and losers.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Bruh, I said TRANSIT was centered around downtown, which was the original point.

But the people don't take transit. It doesn't matter where transit is centered if people aren't taking it. LA is multinodal and car-centered, therefore a poor candidate for high capacity HSR.

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Also, the majority of HSR systems in Europe have blended operations within dense urban environments, and dedicated tracks outside the cities. This is very standard for HSR. Saying the HSR system would terminate in SJ is silly.

No, they don't. I know of no European hub where the HSR tracks, and accompanying capacity, stop 50 miles from the destination. It would be like taking Frankfurt-Paris and stopping to transfer in a French cornfield.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But the people don't take transit. It doesn't matter where transit is centered if people aren't taking it. LA is multinodal and car-centered, therefore a poor candidate for high capacity HSR.

Nobody goes to LAX and then flies to SF because they have to drive to LAX. It's a Ghost airport.

Originally Posted by Crawford

No, they don't. I know of no European hub where the HSR tracks, and accompanying capacity, stop 50 miles from the destination. It would be like taking Frankfurt-Paris and stopping to transfer in a French cornfield.

HSR trains are limited to 99mph in the Channel Tunnel.

So right in the middle of perhaps the planet's premier international high speed rail line, trains must slow to about half of their top speed for 30 miles. That's why nobody rides it. Ghost trains.

That speed of 99mph in the Chunnel is 11mph slower than the CAHSR approach to SF and 26mph slower than its approach to LA.

Also, San Francisco is just a fraction of the Bay Area's 5+ million residents, which is why nobody lives there. Ghost city.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But the people don't take transit. It doesn't matter where transit is centered if people aren't taking it. LA is multinodal and car-centered, therefore a poor candidate for high capacity HSR.

No, they don't. I know of no European hub where the HSR tracks, and accompanying capacity, stop 50 miles from the destination. It would be like taking Frankfurt-Paris and stopping to transfer in a French cornfield.

I don't know about Europe, but many of China's largest HSR stations (e.g. Beijing South, Shanghai Hongqiao, Guangzhou South) aren't exactly located right downtown - but they certainly aren't 50 miles outside the city either. Most of China's cities also have Metro connections to their HSR stations, in many cases more than one line directly connected. The only Chinese city that I can think of that has its station right downtown is Hong Kong - the Kowloon HSR station is pretty much in the heart of Kowloon, but that made the HSR link from Hong Kong to Shenzhen extremely expensive because it had to be underground for much of its length.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

I don't know about Europe, but many of China's largest HSR stations (e.g. Beijing South, Shanghai Hongqiao, Guangzhou South) aren't exactly located right downtown - but they certainly aren't 50 miles outside the city either. Most of China's cities also have Metro connections to their HSR stations, in many cases more than one line directly connected. The only Chinese city that I can think of that has its station right downtown is Hong Kong - the Kowloon HSR station is pretty much in the heart of Kowloon, but that made the HSR link from Hong Kong to Shenzhen extremely expensive because it had to be underground for much of its length.

Well LA Union is obviously going to have two rapid transit lines, four light rail lines, and numerous diesel lines connecting directly to it.

SF Transbay is just 900 feet from the BART/Muni Montgomery station. Deridon in San Jose will be served directly by the new BART extension. Additionally, everyone on the peninsula can take electrified Caltrain to Deridon and switch to HSR to LA.

[SFBruin]

Maybe we should wait until these things are built, then, see what trends are like, and then evaluate the need for High Speed Rail.

[digitallagasse]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Maybe we should wait until these things are built, then, see what trends are like, and then evaluate the need for High Speed Rail.

This comes down to a chicken and egg problem. Yes better local transit would help HSR usage. That said right of way acquisition is one of the major costs for HSR. The more things get developed over time the most costly that right of way will become.

Maybe the compromise can be acquiring that right of way in the denser areas and using it for local transit. Have the right of way grade separated. Also have it designed to directly support future HSR or have the space for expansion to support that future HSR. At least that will help both the local transit needs and the path in for HSR.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by digitallagasse

Maybe the compromise can be acquiring that right of way in the denser areas and using it for local transit. Have the right of way grade separated. Also have it designed to directly support future HSR or have the space for expansion to support that future HSR. At least that will help both the local transit needs and the path in for HSR.

Um, that is exactly what is happening. HSR is paying for half of this one near San Francisco:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDmoIhyDuiQ

Here's one between LA and Anaheim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugsdkvHd610

[SFBruin]

^ I guess if High Speed Rail results in local improvements in San Francisco and LA, then it could be a good thing. I don't get why a mainline is necessary for these improvements.

I may be an old soul for this project. :/

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

^ I don't get why a mainline is necessary for these improvements.

They're horrendously expensive the rail volume is way less than the Alameda Corridor. HSR at full build-out will add 12 trains per hour, per direction, thereby justifying the grade separations.