HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3221  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2021, 9:55 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
DISTANCE has something to do with it. The US, Canada and Australia are countries where distances are measured in thousands of miles and people are just accustomed to flying. Even where high speed rail trips might take only a few hours, most people think of intercity travel in terms of flying time, not rail travel time. And the fact that rail gets you city center to city center, which seems like one of its greatest advantages (or does if you'v ever driven to LAX or SFO at rush hour), for people most of whom live in far-flung suburbs that doesn't seem much of an advantage either.

I think the best argument in California to convince the mostly unconvinced residents of the vast Central Valley is that HSR would make getting to and from a major airport so much easier for them.
Distance is a major factor why, I will agree.
But I do not agree selling Valley residents with easier access to major airports. The main reason being that CHSR trains will not stop at stations at or near major airports. In the San Francisco Bay area, the three HSR train stations will be located in downtown San Francisco, San Jose, and Millbrae.
In the LA area, the five HSR stations will be located at Burbank, Downtown LA, Norwalk, Fullerton, and Anaheim. Burbank being located near Bob Hope Airport, but it is not a major airport with just 14 gates.
To put that into perspective, here are the gate numbers at various large California airports:
LAX 146 gates
SFO 115 gates
SAN 51 gates
SJC 41 gates
OAK 32 gates
SMF 32 gates
ONT 26 gates
SNA 22 gates
BUR 14 gates
BFL 8 gates
FAT 6 gates
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3222  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2021, 1:07 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 13,199
Millbrae is directly adjacent to SFO. You know that right?
__________________
The guy above me designs synthetic hairballs for ceramic cats

Sic semper tyrannis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3223  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2021, 2:34 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Millbrae is directly adjacent to SFO. You know that right?
Relatedly they really should extend the AirTrain to Millbrae and mothball the SFO BART station. HSR, BART, and Caltrain passengers would have optimal access to the airport though an automated free high frequency link.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3224  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2021, 3:46 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,262
Also, BART will be extended into DT San Jose by the time HSR is running. This means that travelers could reach Oakland's airport via BART. Nowhere close to as convenient as SFO, but still possible.

It also will be possible to travel from LAX to LA Union Station via rail public transportation by 2025 or so. It'll involve a transfer and it'll take about an hour but it's something that someone living in Palmdale or Bakersfield might do.

Extending HSR via an 11-12 mile tunnel from LA Union to LAX would be horrendously expensive. It would be a lot cheaper to build a limited stop (Inglewood stadium, future Vermont red line extension, and maybe 2-3 more) transit line in a bored tunnel between those points.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3225  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2021, 4:03 PM
dubu's Avatar
dubu dubu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: bend oregon
Posts: 1,490
this thread is almost 12 years old, connecting two cities is harder then you would think. though the sea level is rising and the valley is sinking. also a earthquake could happen, i see why it isnt going anywhere.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3226  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2021, 5:15 PM
SIGSEGV's Avatar
SIGSEGV SIGSEGV is offline
look at us still talking
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Loop, Chicago
Posts: 6,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by k1052 View Post
Relatedly they really should extend the AirTrain to Millbrae and mothball the SFO BART station. HSR, BART, and Caltrain passengers would have optimal access to the airport though an automated free high frequency link.
Yes that probably makes the most sense, but then BART couldn't charge $$$ to SFO trips.
__________________
And here the air that I breathe isn't dead.

All you need is a modest house in a modest neighborhood, in a modest town where honest people dwell.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3227  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2021, 5:41 PM
k1052 k1052 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIGSEGV View Post
Yes that probably makes the most sense, but then BART couldn't charge $$$ to SFO trips.
Yeah I wonder what their decision making would look like since not using the wye anymore has significant operational and frequency upsides but they'd lose some of the higher fare. From a mobility standpoint it really should be done though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3228  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2021, 7:23 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 24,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Distance is a major factor why, I will agree.
But I do not agree selling Valley residents with easier access to major airports. The main reason being that CHSR trains will not stop at stations at or near major airports. In the San Francisco Bay area, the three HSR train stations will be located in downtown San Francisco, San Jose, and Millbrae.
In the LA area, the five HSR stations will be located at Burbank, Downtown LA, Norwalk, Fullerton, and Anaheim. Burbank being located near Bob Hope Airport, but it is not a major airport with just 14 gates.
To put that into perspective, here are the gate numbers at various large California airports:
LAX 146 gates
SFO 115 gates
SAN 51 gates
SJC 41 gates
OAK 32 gates
SMF 32 gates
ONT 26 gates
SNA 22 gates
BUR 14 gates
BFL 8 gates
FAT 6 gates
Wrong. The HSR up the Peninsula into San Francisco passes right by SFO. Not sure if Milbrae is a planned stop but it easily could be (you say it is). That’s one BART stop from the station inside SFO—not much different from an airport “people mover” ride and closer/shorter than the connection between BART and Oakland Airport ((although somebody comong from Bakersfield or Fresno could even get to OAK that way).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3229  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2021, 4:49 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
Not sure if Milbrae is a planned stop but it easily could be (you say it is).
All HSR trains, including the expresses, will stop at Mibrae. This universal intermediate stop (the others being San Jose and Burbank) was needed so that the mixed HSR/Caltrains traffic can be cued into San Francisco in a civilized fashion rather than backing up in the future tunnel to Transbay Terminal. It made the most sense to position this cuing activity at Mibrae since it serves SFO.

Last edited by jmecklenborg; Sep 19, 2021 at 7:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3230  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2021, 6:25 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Distance is a major factor why, I will agree.
But I do not agree selling Valley residents with easier access to major airports. The main reason being that CHSR trains will not stop at stations at or near major airports. In the San Francisco Bay area, the three HSR train stations will be located in downtown San Francisco, San Jose, and Millbrae.
In the LA area, the five HSR stations will be located at Burbank, Downtown LA, Norwalk, Fullerton, and Anaheim. Burbank being located near Bob Hope Airport, but it is not a major airport with just 14 gates.
To put that into perspective, here are the gate numbers at various large California airports:
LAX 146 gates
SFO 115 gates
SAN 51 gates
SJC 41 gates
OAK 32 gates
SMF 32 gates
ONT 26 gates
SNA 22 gates
BUR 14 gates
BFL 8 gates
FAT 6 gates
Gates don’t tell the entire picture. As of July 2021 SMF was the fourth busiest airport in California and has been in a close race with SJC and Oak the past few years. Like many airports, SMF is talking expansion even as it emerges from Covid flight disruptions. SMF obviously draws passengers from much of the area North of Sacramento, West into the outer East Bay (Walnut Creek), Fairfield and Napa; as far South as Merced and as far East as Stateline.

FAT in Fresno has 6 gates now, but with Southwest Airlines initiating service expect it to be a game changer for air travel in the Southern Central Valley.

Domestic travelers in the Central Valley really won’t need to rely on Bay Area airports for domestic travel as was the case in years past.

However, SFO is the main International airport in Northern California. But the question will be, do travelers want to drive or take the train to SFO to catch a flight to Paris or do they want to fly from their local airports and connect in Chicago, or further East? By the time Cal HSR reaches SFO Fresno’s FAT will likely expand capacity exponentially.

That said, HSR is growing on me in the sense that when it came to the vote, I was dead set against it because it was a poorly conceived plan, clearly underestimated construction costs, overestimated funding sources and being overseen by people who would be hard pressed to assemble a Lionel train set, to say nothing of a “high speed rail” system. My predictions rarely come to pass. When I make predictions I’m usually wrong. But even my predictions all came to pass with the HSR system.

I still question whether the entire system will be grossly obsolete by the time it’s complete. Maybe we should have considered maglev or hyper loop. (I’m not qualified in any case to speculate on the alternatives and I have no problem admitting that). But with climate change posing an existential threat to our one planet, we are going to have to invest heavily in transportation infrastructure and better urban planning in order to help reduce the impact of climate change. Maybe that includes new fuel sources or aviation advances for the airline industry as well? But we would be wise to not put all of our eggs in one basket and try to complete HSR to include the Sacramento and San Diego extensions (sadly not in my lifetime).
__________________
Sacramento

Last edited by urban_encounter; Sep 19, 2021 at 6:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3231  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2021, 7:35 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Clearlake, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area
Posts: 17,166
Sacramento should at least be cheaper since the conditions are the same as most of the central valley route.
__________________
#ruralurbanist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3232  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2021, 7:46 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
I still question whether the entire system will be grossly obsolete by the time it’s complete.
This system is big-time and is going to restructure life throughout the state. Was the Northeast Corridor rendered obsolete by Trump's shuttle?


Quote:
Maybe we should have considered maglev or hyper loop.
Maglev barely exists. What is being built in Japan right now is orders of magnitude more ambitious than CAHSR.

The hyper loop is a scam.


Quote:
But we would be wise to not put all of our eggs in one basket and try to complete HSR to include the Sacramento and San Diego extensions (sadly not in my lifetime).
This is an incomplete sentence, so your specific intent is unclear, but I will attempt to address it. Many people advocate for upgrades to ACE and the Capitol Corridor on par with what is going on with Caltrains on the peninsula right now. Many people envision a unified, electric system that connects all three systems through a second Transbay Tube. This unified system would compliment and be integrated with CAHSR on the Peninsula and possibly in the East Bay, including the planned branch from the wye up to Sacramento.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3233  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2021, 7:48 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Sacramento should at least be cheaper since the conditions are the same as most of the central valley route.
And it'll likely be designed for a slightly lower top speed, which will save a lot of money. I don't know if Prop 1A requires LA>SF to be completely up and running or not before the Sacramento branch (Phase 2) can begin construction. I hope not, since it seems like an Easy Win.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3234  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2021, 10:22 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 13,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
And it'll likely be designed for a slightly lower top speed, which will save a lot of money. I don't know if Prop 1A requires LA>SF to be completely up and running or not before the Sacramento branch (Phase 2) can begin construction. I hope not, since it seems like an Easy Win.
Jmeck, I usually find myself agreeing with everything you say, but I have to disagree with you on this. I see no hint and no reason to suggest they will suddenly pursue a lower speed spec for the Sac and SD legs, especially after the public and media undoubtedly become mesmerized by the speed and "futureness" of the IOS. I have 100% confidence the system will be completed as planned with the phase 2 not being treated as a less-than afterthought in any way.
__________________
The guy above me designs synthetic hairballs for ceramic cats

Sic semper tyrannis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3235  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2021, 11:49 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,616
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Millbrae is directly adjacent to SFO. You know that right?
No, the Millbrae Station is not located directly at the SFO terminals. You have to transfer using BART to get to the airport. The transfer has not always been using BART trains, just in the recent past the transfer involved buses.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbrae_station
On February 11, 2019, SFO–Millbrae line service resumed on weekdays and Sundays. The station continues to be served by the Richmond line on weekdays, with the Antioch line (formerly the Pittsburg/Bay Point line) serving both SFIA and Millbrae on weeknights and Saturdays. On February 10, 2020, the SFO–Millbrae line began running during all operating hours, with the Antioch line operating only to SFIA. SFO–Millbrae service ended on August 2, 2021; it was replaced by an extension of the Richmond line to SFIA weekdays and Saturdays, and an extension of the Antioch line to Millbrae evenings and Sundays.

The services have been changing so much lately, it is difficult to suggest how BART plans to run the BART trains year by year.

Never-the-less, Caltrain trains do not and have never directly service the airport.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3236  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2021, 12:49 AM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 13,199
Man, are you familiar with the expression splitting hairs ?

The station where high speed trains will stop is literally right next door to the second most important airport in California. Now you're moving the goalpost to whether or not they will stop feet from a terminal gate.

I should remind you this was your original comment:

Quote:
The main reason being that CHSR trains will not stop at stations at or near major airports.
__________________
The guy above me designs synthetic hairballs for ceramic cats

Sic semper tyrannis
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3237  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2021, 2:48 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
This is an incomplete sentence, so your specific intent is unclear, but I will attempt to address it.


Yes, you got me there, I clearly didn’t finish my thought. You did a good job addressing it though.

By not ‘putting all of our eggs in one basket’, I meant HSR can be one element of a much larger transportation network to link the State. For instance the electrification of existing rail corridors as you mentioned as well as improvements to bay ferries. Solano Transit has run shuttle busses between Downtown Sacramento and the ferry terminal in Vallejo for years.

Even beyond those things, I would like to see the State invest heavily in local transit. But I’ll leave that for another thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Sacramento should at least be cheaper since the conditions are the same as most of the central valley route.
Personally I would be happy with improved travel times on the Capital Corridor. I’m not sure whether that will include eventual electrification and some sort of tilt technology that might be able to increase speeds from Benicia to Emeryville. To be honest, I’m not certain that the tilt technology has ever ironed out the issues of motion sickness..? But that can be a very relaxing and scenic trip between Sacramento and the Bay, especially during the Spring and Autumn.
__________________
Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3238  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2021, 5:07 AM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee View Post
Jmeck, I usually find myself agreeing with everything you say, but I have to disagree with you on this. I see no hint and no reason to suggest they will suddenly pursue a lower speed spec for the Sac and SD legs, especially after the public and media undoubtedly become mesmerized by the speed and "futureness" of the IOS. I have 100% confidence the system will be completed as planned with the phase 2 not being treated as a less-than afterthought in any way.
That's true - I could see Modesto/Stockton/Sacramento people getting upset if they're told that they're getting HSR in name only. That said, TGV trains in France regularly run at relatively low speeds on local branches.

Per the official conceptual map [https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/newsroom/maps/Merced_to_Sacramento.pdf], CAHSR plans downtown stations in Modesto and Sacramento, but the line will deviate from the UP mainline for much of the route between those points, with Stockton's station on the eastern periphery of that city.

I think a big dilemma in nocal is the competing push to electrify ACE between several of the same cities where CAHSR is planned, but it won't be possible to opearte CAHSR full-blast at 220mph unless the ACE trains themselves have HSR specs, or the new rail corridor is built with 3 or 4 tracks throughout to allow the HSR trains to pass the commuter trains.

Also, my guess is that after a full build-out, they'll want to run any LA-bound train that originates in Sacramento as an express south of Merced. This creates a tough situation because getting through the wye without tapping the brakes will require a perfect sync with southbound trains leaving San Jose.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3239  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2021, 4:44 PM
nito nito is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
The combined length of the two major CAHSR tunnels will total roughly 30 miles, so a similar length.

The approach tunnel to Transbay Terminal will be about 2 miles long but will a project of similar complexity to any in London.

Newsom kept his job so my thought is that he and the legislature could easily fund this project without bringing out the HSR boo-birds. Same with construction of HSR between San Jose and Gilroy - it could be used by electrified Caltrains right away.
I was under the impression, and I’m happy to be corrected on this, that the major tunnelling projects for CAHSR don’t form part of the IOS, and that these will form part of future phases. Looking at the IOS section, there is minimal tunnelling and that perhaps 90-95% of the route from Merced to Bakersfield runs at surface with a few elevated sections and a scattering of short tunnels. The comparison of HS2 Phase I with its extensive tunnelling and intensive city interventions was with the IOS.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jbermingham123 View Post
It is curious that the English-speaking world 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 at high speed rail.

Among the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and NZ, the UK's rail 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 the least. However, when one considers that England has the same population density as the Japanese Island of Honshu, and –were it an independent state– would be the second densest country in Europe (nearly tied with the Netherlands, twice as dense as Germany and Italy, 3 times as dense as France, and 5 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 times as dense as Spain), and fifth-densest in the world, then its lack of high speed rail is glaring.

If i had to guess an explanation, i think English common law must have something to do with it
I don’t think it has anything to do with the legal code, various countries simply developed in different ways. England/the UK doesn’t have an extensive HSR network, but speed is one variable in providing a competent intercity service; frequency and accessibility are other variables, especially in compact countries with dispersed population centres. British intercity networks relative to international networks operate at far higher frequencies which erodes the speed advantage going someway to explaining why the British intercity rail network moves more people than the HSR and non-HSR networks of either France or Germany.

HS2 exists as a project because the existing main lines are literally full. Building a new line to 21st century high-speed standards obviously made sense. I think that the allure of high-speed trains however does obscure the actual goals of improving intercity travel, or travel in general. Spain is a classic example of this in the intercity context.
__________________
London Transport Thread updated: 2025-10-30 | London Stadium & Arena Thread updated: 2025-03-27
London General Update Thread updated: 2019-04-03 | High Speed 2 updated: 2025-10-06
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3240  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2021, 5:02 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Clearlake, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area
Posts: 17,166
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
Personally I would be happy with improved travel times on the Capital Corridor. I’m not sure whether that will include eventual electrification and some sort of tilt technology that might be able to increase speeds from Benicia to Emeryville. To be honest, I’m not certain that the tilt technology has ever ironed out the issues of motion sickness..? But that can be a very relaxing and scenic trip between Sacramento and the Bay, especially during the Spring and Autumn.
There are plans now for electrification and separating freight from the line and I-80 would be the perfect HSR route. I think regional authorities might settle with electrification instead of HSR, though, since the current route to SF is the same as driving. As for slower speeds with the route to Sac...maybe when it goes through Elk Grove? Seems to me like residents would do lawsuits
__________________
#ruralurbanist
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:21 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.