California High Speed Rail Thread

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^^^

???

Are you talking about the High Desert Corridor link once CHSR is running through Palmdale?

Mea culpa, yes.

[Busy Bee]

The eventual plan appears to be that Brightline would concurrently operate out of Rancho Cucamonga as well as over a new High Desert link to Palmdale enabling through running to LAUS using the CHSR basin tunnels. Thus the thinking being that LAUS-LV Brightline trains would be used by those who find that route convenient and Rancho Cucamonga-LV train for those where an IE departure would be more convenient and capturing more ridership.

[ssiguy]

BusyBee...........

You stated earlier that once the first section in the Interior Corridor opens up and people see trains flying by them at lightening speed will get rid of all the naysayers, people will push for the completion of the line maybe a tad overoptimistic. Remember this CHSR is going to be saddled with a monstrous debt and so prices may be higher than one is hoping for. For one person the price maybe worth it as opposed to paying for gas but 2 or more, probably not. Also, due to opening in this section first, demand will not be near as high as it would be if it served SF or LA.

HSR is only successful if it has the connecting transit services to the stations on each end and these cities have pathetic transit ridership and frequencies. We also know that outside the big US cities, Americans are loath to take transit and especially the bus which they would have to as these cities have no rail. They could take Uber to get to the station and/or getting from the station to your final destination but that would wipe out a lot of the cost savings of taking the train in the first place. This is why Acela works in the NEC...........you have connecting transit so you don't need a car to get to where you are going.

Also, due to also not having near the ridership if it served SF and/or LA, the frequencies of the trains will not be very high taking the high speed out of high speed rail. You see this all over the US where cities build expensive rapid transit but with their low frequencies, their ridership levels are pathetic.

I appreciate your optimism and I hope you are correct but if the completion of the line depends upon the success of this section.........careful what you ask for.

[TowerDude]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

The eventual plan appears to be that Brightline would concurrently operate out of Rancho Cucamonga as well as over a new High Desert link to Palmdale enabling through running to LAUS using the CHSR basin tunnels. Thus the thinking being that LAUS-LV Brightline trains would be used by those who find that route convenient and Rancho Cucamonga-LV train for those where an IE departure would be more convenient and capturing more ridership.

I think that when the High Desert Link is built, CAHSR Trains should operate on it from Palmdale to Victor Valley/Victorville in a sort of "through running" mode overlapping with Brightline who would operate from Palmdale all the way to Las Vegas.

There could even be a CAHSR "circular" that goes from Palmdale to Victor Valley to Rancho to Union Station and back to Palmdale.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

HSR is only successful if it has the connecting transit services to the stations on each end and these cities have pathetic transit ridership and frequencies. We also know that outside the big US cities, Americans are loath to take transit and especially the bus which they would have to as these cities have no rail. They could take Uber to get to the station and/or getting from the station to your final destination but that would wipe out a lot of the cost savings of taking the train in the first place. This is why Acela works in the NEC...........you have connecting transit so you don't need a car to get to where you are going.

Also, due to also not having near the ridership if it served SF and/or LA, the frequencies of the trains will not be very high taking the high speed out of high speed rail. You see this all over the US where cities build expensive rapid transit but with their low frequencies, their ridership levels are pathetic.

I appreciate your optimism and I hope you are correct but if the completion of the line depends upon the success of this section.........careful what you ask for.

Yes, to all this. I've mentioned this in the past, and hope I'm wrong, but the entire CAHSR process is ass-backwards. You need service to SF and LA, not Bakersfield. The future of HSR in North America is dependent on getting some of the most transit-hostile geographies in existence to start taking transit at Euro- or Japan-levels. I have no idea how this will work. I imagine the vast majority of initial service will be people taking it like a Disney ride, not as actual functional urban-to-urban transit. These are metros with transit shares of 1-2%, and almost no choice riders.

If initial phase ridership sucks, will voters and bureaucrats have the patience to push forward? I hope so, bc this will work in the end. But I'm worried most voters are stupid and have no long-term vision, and we're gonna get nothing past the initial phase (which can still be spun as a dramatic improvement in service quality).

[ardecila]

The most realistic scenario for successful HSR in the US requires riders to treat it like air travel. HSR can succeed because airports currently succeed at short-haul flights. It will not prompt Americans to rethink their suburban auto-oriented lifestyle, but it could cut carbon emissions substantially along with the adoption of EVs.

That means, outside of a few select cities, most riders will not ride a subway to catch their HSR train. They will take a car - drive themselves and park in a garage, get dropped off, get an Uber. So the spatial needs for an American HSR station are different from Euro and Asian ones. Local transit connections will be available, but not a realistic or desirable option for most users.

Of course, there is a second tier of wealthy riders who live or work in/around *certain* core cities. So I think we will end up with modest city-center terminals, paired with huge park-and-ride shoulder stations in the suburbs. For those who believe in the continued growth and importance of core cities, we need to fight for core-city HSR stations to remain in the program, because I fear the emerging centrist consensus around HSR will deem outlying suburban mega park-and-rides to be "good enough".

[markb1]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Remember this CHSR is going to be saddled with a monstrous debt and so prices may be higher than one is hoping for. For one person the price maybe worth it as opposed to paying for gas but 2 or more, probably not.

What debt are you talking about? Ticket revenue is not required to pay back construction costs. And currently, the Authority has no debt at all. They are not on the hook for the Prop 1A bonds. So far, construction has been paid by that, cap and trade revenue, and federal grants.

[aprice1828]

Originally Posted by ardecila

That means, outside of a few select cities, most riders will not ride a subway to catch their HSR train. They will take a car - drive themselves and park in a garage, get dropped off, get an Uber...

...we need to fight for core-city HSR stations to remain in the program, because I fear the emerging centrist consensus around HSR will deem outlying suburban mega park-and-rides to be "good enough".

Completely agree with everything said. I think the success of NJ's Metropark along with New Carrollton outside DC and Route 128 outside Boston shows that yes, people will Park and Ride or Kiss and Ride to intercity rail just like they do for suburban rail and airports. "Success" here meaning the number of Acela and other trains that still stop at Metropark. I've also seen this first hand at the Kirkwood stop outside St. Louis. It almost seems to get more passengers for the Missouri River Runner than the Downtown STL stop does. But I completely agree, city center stops are still crucial for longevity and achieving a world class transportation network.

[Crawford]

Metropark is in the heart of the most transit-oriented geography in the U.S. And it's a commuter station much moreso than an intercity station. It doesn't seem to have much relevance to whether people will take trains from Fresno to Merced.

[ardecila]

I don't know why transit-oriented vs transit-hostile really matters for HSR. Again, millions of people currently fly between US cities even when driving is a realistic option.

Flying between cities means making a local connection of some kind, and somehow millions of people find a way to travel those last few miles even when local transit isn't an option. HSR will end up working the same way, with the added bonus that you can take the train into downtown if that's where you need to go.

Personally I wish HSR was a catalyst for US cities to re-orient around transit, but that's wishful thinking. Our culture has not gotten any less auto-centric in the last 30 years, and the cost of building transit has now wildly exceeded our willingness to pay for it as a society. Honestly the cost : demand ratio is worse than it's ever been; for decades many cities were able to build out light-rail systems with Federal help, but now it's just not fiscally possible - just look at Austin.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't know why transit-oriented vs transit-hostile really matters for HSR. Again, millions of people currently fly between US cities even when driving is a realistic option.

Where in the world do you have successful HSR in a transit-hostile environment?

And if it doesn't matter, why are we even bothering with SF and LA? You could build 90% of the system at half the cost. The airports are nowhere near downtown either. Forget the tunnels and in-town construction and just end it short of the passes.

[Busy Bee]

^Saudi Arabia

[Randomguy34]

It's hard to debate if HSR can or cannot work in transit-hostile environments because there is no where in the world where HSR has been built in a transit hostile environment. Despite not being true HSR, Brightline Florida is the closest example and even then most station are located in/near downtowns. Merced-Bakersfield and Brightline West will be the first case studies on if HSR can work in places far from downtowns, with little to no transit

Edit: Ha, Busy Bee posted before me

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^Saudi Arabia

Ok, but that's a pretty unique case. It's a religious pilgrimage train, basically. And Saudi builds stuff without any serious consideration of demand or practicality.

[Busy Bee]

Yes, but Saudi Arabia like many other middle eastern cities is notorious for having next to no urban public transit... Medina for example has essentially zero and relies on taxis almost exclusively. Not sure about Mecca. Who knows anything about Mecca really?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't know why transit-oriented vs transit-hostile really matters for HSR. Again, millions of people currently fly between US cities even when driving is a realistic option.

Many Californians will arrive at future CAHSR and Brightline stations just as they currently arrive at local airports--by private car and Uber/taxi. But some Californians will also arrive by public transit, as they currently do at the airports today.

Personally I wish HSR was a catalyst for US cities to re-orient around transit, but that's wishful thinking. Our culture has not gotten any less auto-centric in the last 30 years, and the cost of building transit has now wildly exceeded our willingness to pay for it as a society. Honestly the cost : demand ratio is worse than it's ever been; for decades many cities were able to build out light-rail systems with Federal help, but now it's just not fiscally possible - just look at Austin.

CAHSR (and perhaps Brightline, one can hope) stations will almost certainly become focal points for local public transportation systems. The San Francisco and Los Angeles stations already are. However, the question remains whether locals will take public transit to the train stations. Time will tell.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by craigs

CAHSR (and perhaps Brightline, one can hope) stations will almost certainly become focal points for local public transportation systems. The San Francisco and Los Angeles stations already are. However, the question remains whether locals will take public transit to the train stations. Time will tell.

San Jose's as well. In terms of rail connections, it might even be better than San Francisco's, as it'll have CAHSR, Caltrain, BART, VTA light rail, ACE, and Amtrak. The San Francisco station AFAIK will only have Caltrain, and possibly BART by way of a Second Transbay Tube. But no connection to Muni (unless you count the pedestrian tunnel connecting to the Embarcadero station) or ACE or Amtrak.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by homebucket

San Jose's as well. In terms of rail connections, it might even be better than San Francisco's, as it'll have CAHSR, Caltrain, BART, VTA light rail, ACE, and Amtrak. The San Francisco station AFAIK will only have Caltrain, and possibly BART by way of a Second Transbay Tube. But no connection to Muni (unless you count the pedestrian tunnel connecting to the Embarcadero station) or ACE or Amtrak.

Yeah, San Jose Diridon is already the nominal rail hub of the region, and will only be more so with the addition of CAHSR. However, San Jose's very low transit ridership limits the value of Diridon as a functional hub.

As for Salesforce Transit Center, it is already a busy transit hub. It is currently served by Muni (including the heavily utilized 38 local and limited lines), AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, WestCAT, Greyhound, and Amtrak ThruWay (buses to Emeryville Station). When Caltrain and CAHSR arrive, that terminal will get significantly busier. You are right to note that it won't be served by Muni Metro light rail, but I'll point out that the vast majority of SF transit riders travel by bus.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by craigs

Yeah, San Jose Diridon is already the nominal rail hub of the region, and will only be more so with the addition of CAHSR. However, San Jose's very low transit ridership limits the value of Diridon as a functional hub.

As for Salesforce Transit Center, it is already a busy transit hub. It is currently served by Muni (including the heavily utilized 38 local and limited lines), AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, WestCAT, Greyhound, and Amtrak ThruWay (buses to Emeryville Station). When Caltrain and CAHSR arrive, that terminal will get significantly busier. You are right to note that it won't be served by Muni Metro light rail, but I'll point out that the vast majority of SF transit riders travel by bus.

Agreed on all counts. It'll be interesting to see if SJ can become more of a transit oriented city by the time CAHSR rolls around. I'm guessing the BART extension will be completed ahead of it and then it'll probably be another decade for CAHSR to arrive, at which point SJ should have had plenty of time to prepare and re-orient itself around Diridon.

[TWAK]

Hopefully the CV cities can get some height, for SJ though...what are the limits around Diridon? That station is gonna have so many rail connections..