California High Speed Rail Thread

[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.

[38 Geary]

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.

[38 Geary]

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..

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Crawford

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.

Well, so far every country rich enough to build HSR is also not pathologically opposed to public transportation. America is unique in this respect.

The reason California is "bothering" with LA and SF is because the law requires them to link those two destinations, and CA has a lot of political power vested in its inner cities. On the other hand, Brightline West and Texas Central are both stopping short of major downtowns, because it is very expensive and difficult to build those segments. As private companies they have decided the juice ain't worth the squeeze, especially when the downtown is weak and will not actually generate much ridership; an inner or mid suburban station is good enough.

I think they're right in a pure business sense; they can get the ridership they need even if they don't go all the way downtown. So for those of us who want to see HSR investment benefit inner cities, we need to grapple with this reality. Orlando actually is an interesting case here; Brightline was set to take a freeway alignment south of the airport, and the city/county agreed to share the costs with Brightline to do a better and more costly alignment that served the convention center, Universal, etc.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

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.

Bay and LA commuter rail being massively upgraded as part of the HSR approaches.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Bay and LA commuter rail being massively upgraded as part of the HSR approaches.

This is a key point I think a lot of people are missing. Commuter rail is currently being expanded from Stockton to Sacramento (line comes from San Jose and also connects with CalTrain and, eventually, BART). That line will open next year. In 2027, the same line will also have a branch from Stockton to Merced where it will connect to the HSR. In 2031, an extension from Sacramento to Chico is projected to open. There is already commuter rail via the Capitol Corridor from Sacramento to the East Bay and San Jose.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

This is a key point I think a lot of people are missing.

I don't understand what that has to do with HSR. HSR isn't going to have more ridership bc commuter rail is expanding. The claim is that HSR's relative success is predicated on grabbing market share from airlines. A commuter train to Chico isn't going to have any impact.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't understand what that has to do with HSR. HSR isn't going to have more ridership bc commuter rail is expanding. The claim is that HSR's relative success is predicated on grabbing market share from airlines. A commuter train to Chico isn't going to have any impact.

I do think it matters because it's not a "train to nowhere" (as some seem to think) if it's a part of a California-wide network of rail that is expanding coverage and frequency. This bridges the gap between completion of the Central Valley Segment and the rest of the system. The more connections it has to other types of rail, the higher the ridership. People won't have to drive from other parts of the valley to get to HSR...they can take ValleyRail or the San Joaquins and transfer.

[TWAK]

A large portion of the state is gonna be accessible via some type of rail, basically. The parts that already do will have more options and speed.