California High Speed Rail Thread

[Jonesy55]

Lack of public transport connectivity beyond the hub stations for California HSR will be a drawback I think that limits its usefulness. But I think on the plus side that will then be a big incentive to build better urban transport links in the future using those stations as focal points, they can use the fact that it will give easy quick access to LA or SF as a selling point to build those local systems.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

Lack of public transport connectivity beyond the hub stations for California HSR will be a drawback I think that limits its usefulness. But I think on the plus side that will then be a big incentive to build better urban transport links in the future using those stations as focal points, they can use the fact that it will give easy quick access to LA or SF as a selling point to build those local systems.

I think by the time the HSR is completed, both LA and NY will have a decent enough transportation system to take the passenger where they need to go. The other cities have low enough traffic that ride-sharing and hailing services from the stations can do the job.

[Eightball]

It has been said repeatedly but if people fly LAX - SFO (or OAK or SJC) they don't have an immediate car. Why is a train different? And those skies are crowded btw which is why we need the train. The cost structure is ridic tho fr

[nito]

HSR can't deliver miracles by itself, it needs to be part of a wider strategy to integrate regions, rather than just the areas surrounding stations. As it is, the SFO-LAX route apparently carried just 2.2mn people. Less than 11mn journeys were made on Metrolink.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

My point of comparing Paris' Metro to LA's Metro Rail scale-wise was simply size. I've used Paris' Metro to go everywhere, and everyone, including myself, always says that Paris' Metro takes you everywhere you want to go in Paris---but apparently, when you compare LA and Paris on the same scale, "everywhere" in Paris is a small area.

The Paris Metro operates across a small area, but Paris also has two additional high-capacity rail networks; the RER and Transilien which operate across a wider area. You’ve then got the TER network which sits below the Intercités and TGV networks.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm talking the Continent, where train travel is dirt cheap. The UK has comparatively expensive train travel so the rider demographic might vary. Leisure travelers paying 30 EUR for an intercity train will not exactly be a posh demographic.

Most people making long-distance rail journeys in the UK tend to book in advance, where fares are very cheap which gives a broad demographic base.

Keep in mind that the UK has had a deregulated coach market since the 1980’s (something France and Germany have only just got around to sorting out) and a far more aggressive low-cost carrier market, which forced the intercity rail operators to become leaner and smarter. Despite the absence of a HSR network, more people travel by intercity train in the UK ahead of Germany (ICE) or France (TGV and Intercités). Virgin Trains East Coast (the intercity operator out of London King’s Cross) carries more people than the entire Spanish AVE network.

[Jonesy55]

Booking in advance does make a huge difference, many European operators have variable fares but in the UK the differences can be especially big.

Just looking at tickets from London to Leeds (190 miles / 305km, journey takes just over two hours)

Turn up now to travel this afternoon and the cheapest single ticket is £109 ($152.50)

Buy now for travel tomorrow afternoon and it's £66 ($92.50).

Buy now for travel next Monday afternoon it's £44 ($61.50)

Buy now for travel on the afternoon of April 18 and it's £29 ($40.50).

Buy now for travel on the afternoon of May 9 and it's £22 ($31)

Buy now for travel on the afternoon of June 21 and it's £16 ($22.50)

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would be surprised if this were true. 2nd class HSR in Europe is dirt cheap, and I've had the "pleasure" of sitting next to folks who seemed to be borderline destitute (migrants with dufflebags of smelly foodstuffs, people with obvious cleanliness issues, etc.). It's like the Greyhound crowd in the U.S. I only ride 1st class now just to avoid annoying fellow passengers.

HSR in Europe is dirt cheap? Could have fooled me. I paid nearly 50 euros last year to travel 1 hour by TGV from Paris to Lille. I could have travelled almost all the way from Shanghai to Beijing for the same price in China.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

HSR in Europe is dirt cheap? Could have fooled me. I paid nearly 50 euros last year to travel 1 hour by TGV from Paris to Lille. I could have travelled almost all the way from Shanghai to Beijing for the same price in China.

50 Euros = $61.50 USD

LAX to SFO, on a Wednesday April 25th on American Airlines [or affiliate]- $35.

[Jonesy55]

To be fair that same day you can get a train from Paris to Lille at €22 ($27)



If you are booking further ahead into May the are plenty of days with tickets available at €15 ($18.50)

It looks like €50 is the walk on fare for that route, ie the maximum fare that you'll only pay if you don't book ahead.

[BrownTown]

It's irrelevant what it costs in France because what it costs is based on the capital costs and total number of riders. These will be very different in California.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

To be fair that same day you can get a train from Paris to Lille at €22 ($27)



If you are booking further ahead into May the are plenty of days with tickets available at €15 ($18.50)

It looks like €50 is the walk on fare for that route, ie the maximum fare that you'll only pay if you don't book ahead.

Yeah that's a great price, but that's not what it will cost in CA. It is going to be much more expensive whenever HSR opens for passenger service. The current Amtrak prices are more expensive than those European prices for far worse service.

Anaheim to Santa Barbara is currently $37 for the Saver seats, the lowest possible ticket. For a Flex seat it's $63 one way.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not sure what your quote has to do with anything.

Do you want me to outline the myriad ways that place matters when it comes to transit ridership? This isn't difficult stuff, folks.

1. LA has a greater population than Paris but like 1/30 the regional rail ridership. How about that for a start?
2. France has extremely expensive gas and extremely expensive toll roads everywhere; California has cheap gas and free roads.
3. France has the highest tax burden in the Eurozone, which pays for deeply subsidized transit; the U.S. has very low income taxes.
4. California has basically twice the household income as France. A huge proportion of French take transit because they have no other choice.
5. California is extremely sprawled and decentralized, France is hypercentralized in comparison, making rail service logical.

This will fail. It might get built, but it will never have strong ridership.

Highly unlikely this train ever gets built. Which honestly, at this point I really wish it would as I would be interested to see how it would perform and a lot has gone into it already. But again, I predict this thing will never see the light of day and freeways will always rule California, as they should. Freeways and cars are superior in every way except efficiency but most people don't want to be packed in like sardines, which is the only way to make transit work without designing it for the rich with high fares.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

I think by the time the HSR is completed, both LA and NY will have a decent enough transportation system to take the passenger where they need to go. The other cities have low enough traffic that ride-sharing and hailing services from the stations can do the job.

What? In 2056? Is that still the target date? Watch some asshole(well, at least in the eyes of California HSR supporters) invent a teleporter by then and make all of this obsolete. Why even plan that far out??

[SLO]

They need to just hand this thing over to Elon Musk and say 'figure it out'.

[Jonesy55]

I think he's too busy figuring out how to produce the Tesla Model 3 in sufficient numbers to meet the orders he's taken at the moment to take on any other big commitments.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Highly unlikely this train ever gets built. Which honestly, at this point I really wish it would as I would be interested to see how it would perform and a lot has gone into it already. But again, I predict this thing will never see the light of day and freeways will always rule California, as they should. Freeways and cars are superior in every way except efficiency but most people don't want to be packed in like sardines, which is the only way to make transit work without designing it for the rich with high fares.

The most unbearable experience is being packed in like sardines on an airplane, after being forced into queue after queue. Rail has a real opportunity to compete if it can ever get built.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not sure what your quote has to do with anything.

Do you want me to outline the myriad ways that place matters when it comes to transit ridership? This isn't difficult stuff, folks.

1. LA has a greater population than Paris but like 1/30 the regional rail ridership. How about that for a start?

A timed competition between LAX to SF and LA Union Station and the SF Transbay Terminal only exists for those who live west of Union Station. So for upwards of half of the LA region, if not more, physically driving to Union Station is significantly faster than physically driving to LAX. Plus, the entire rail transit network converges on Union Station, with LAX only being reachable, eventually, with a transfer or two.

So even if an airplane travels 650mph and the train only travels 200mph, the actual door-to-door travel between much of LA and San Jose or San Francisco will be similar or even better.

5. California is extremely sprawled and decentralized, France is hypercentralized in comparison, making rail service logical.

Come on. Paris acts as a hub with links to various cities that are much smaller. LA and the Bay Area are each as big or much bigger than Metro Paris. There are far more people linked by regional rail to LA Union Station and the future SF Transbay Terminal than are in Paris plus the various Sacramento-sized cities the TGV serves.

Plus, the benefits to the Central Valley will be immense. Fresno and Merced will become commuter towns for San Jose. And the secondary city that will benefit the most of all will be San Jose.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Highly unlikely this train ever gets built. Which honestly, at this point I really wish it would as I would be interested to see how it would perform and a lot has gone into it already. But again, I predict this thing will never see the light of day and freeways will always rule California, as they should. Freeways and cars are superior in every way except efficiency but most people don't want to be packed in like sardines, which is the only way to make transit work without designing it for the rich with high fares.

If it doesn't get built (which is silly because construction has started in Fresno and the Peninsula) it will help local systems and freight anyway because they can use the completed stuff.
Oh and Metrorail will be connected to Bakersfield so....yeah..in 2022. Part of the goodies associated with the project that will happen before build-out.

[SFBruin]

My main issue with this project is not whether or not it's useful, but it's high price tag. I hope that it is reasonably cheap, though, now that it is being constructed.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Come on. Paris acts as a hub with links to various cities that are much smaller. LA and the Bay Area are each as big or much bigger than Metro Paris. There are far more people linked by regional rail to LA Union Station and the future SF Transbay Terminal than are in Paris plus the various Sacramento-sized cities the TGV serves.

LA is bigger yes, but I don't think the Bay Area is bigger than metro Paris by a long shot. Metro Paris is 12m or so people, most of whom are linked pretty well with central Paris by rail.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Come on. Paris acts as a hub with links to various cities that are much smaller. LA and the Bay Area are each as big or much bigger than Metro Paris. There are far more people linked by regional rail to LA Union Station and the future SF Transbay Terminal than are in Paris plus the various Sacramento-sized cities the TGV serves.

Wouldn't this be an argument against CA HSR? You're arguing there are tons of people in CA, yet no ridership.

LA is bigger than Paris, but rail ridership is almost zero. The Bay Area has like 9 million people and one of the biggest centralized cores in the U.S. and rail ridership is very low. Both regions have spent megabillions on transit and are very pro-transit both culturally and through public policy, yet rail is practically irrelevant.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Plus, the benefits to the Central Valley will be immense. Fresno and Merced will become commuter towns for San Jose. And the secondary city that will benefit the most of all will be San Jose.

This is all fantasy nonsense. Putting aside the odd idea of HSR as an engine for exurban sprawl, has never happened anywhere on the planet. No one is going to be commuting from the Central Valley to San Jose (or anywhere) by HSR. It's for intercity travel, not daily commuting.