California High Speed Rail Thread

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

People I know living in the bay area have said to me that it feels completely impossible to raise a child without leaving, even dual incomes of $100K+ don't buy you an enough space to comfortably fit a family. Being able to afford that while still being able to maintain your career in SF would certainly interest some people. But the price and the commute times would have to be right, and it's hard to know exactly how many would actually use it.

I would not bet on this project being completed.

That said, assuming it's completed, and assuming it's a success, I don't see why it would increase affordability within the Bay Area. The region would obviously be more expensive if it had a highly successful, high capacity rail corridor, as opposed to the current scenario, where SF proper has no intercity rail, and commuter rail is a limited diesel line that doesn't even go to the downtown core.

I mean, that's like saying the NE Corridor would be more expensive if you removed the NE Corridor line. Obviously the corridor would be less desirable if you removed a vital transit link.

Also, affordability within the Bay Area is a bit different than in other high-cost metros. Typical high-cost metros have an expensive core and affordability generally rises as you head further out (NYC would be pretty typical). In contrast, SF city proper is arguably more affordable than the Peninsula, and relative affordability is more a function of access to Silicon Valley major HQ. This means that relative affordability isn't an issue for most SF-bound Caltrain commuters, unlike most suburban rail commuters around the world.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

The fastest baby bullet express currently makes 5 stops between Gilroy and SF (and doesn't stop in Gilroy). CAHSR will make 2 stops. So unless Caltrain decides to introduce an ultra-super limited service CAHSR will be faster than Caltrain in the corridor.

Yes, but not significantly faster. The dwell time for Caltrain will be greatly reduced once the new electric fleet is running and high platforms are installed, so the stopping penalty will not be as dramatic as it is today with diesel trains and low platforms.

Plus, any train to Merced is likely going to stop in Gilroy as well (which is already part of the Bay Area commute shed). I’ll say again, this will not cause people to move to Merced so much as move to Gilroy and other Santa Clara Valley communities.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

So get off your high horse, and take a long reflected look from the other sides point of view of the issues at hand. Their views are just as valid as yours - because when it comes to increasing taxes it is the same!

Yeah dude I grew up in a hardcore Reagan household. Had numerous Republican relatives in local office. The one holding a state office ran on a "family values" platform and ended up getting arrested with a stripper.

Somehow the fact that major features of the rail line currently under construction in California will still be running in 100-200 years is lost on those who fancy themselves to be masters of finance. Almost innumerable 100+ year-old railroad bridges and tunnels are still in operation in Europe and the United States, with some approaching or surpassing 150 years in age with very little modification or regular maintenance.

A dozen or more high speed trains will roar through the Pacheco Pass tunnel each waking hour in the years 2100, 2200, and beyond. Same with the tunnels between Palmdale and Burbank. The cost of this system is a blip - like 1/20th - compared to Bush's Iraq misadventure.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by Crawford

No one is going to be doing this. If it were feasible it would be happening somewhere on the planet with HSR, and it isn't.

I've heard of people living in Kunshan or Suzhou or Jiaxing (or even futher out like Wuxi or Changzhou) and commuting into Shanghai by HSR. It definitely happens here in China.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Yeah dude I grew up in a hardcore Reagan household. Had numerous Republican relatives in local office. The one holding a state office ran on a "family values" platform and ended up getting arrested with a stripper.

Somehow the fact that major features of the rail line currently under construction in California will still be running in 100-200 years is lost on those who fancy themselves to be masters of finance. Almost innumerable 100+ year-old railroad bridges and tunnels are still in operation in Europe and the United States, with some approaching or surpassing 150 years in age with very little modification or regular maintenance.

A dozen or more high speed trains will roar through the Pacheco Pass tunnel each waking hour in the years 2100, 2200, and beyond. Same with the tunnels between Palmdale and Burbank. The cost of this system is a blip - like 1/20th - compared to Bush's Iraq misadventure.

Just from a purely technical point of view I find it incredibly unlikely much of this infrastructure will still be used in 2200. Even in 2100 it would be pretty unlikely but at least somewhat reasonable. Then again if you look at those global warming seal level rise maps it might get rendered useless by then once half the bay area is underwater.

Also whatever benefits may or may not exist in 2100 or 2200 they are essentially irrelevant in calculating the value of building this system today. The time value of money for 82 years or 182 years will make any contributions meaningless.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

I've heard of people living in Kunshan or Suzhou or Jiaxing (or even futher out like Wuxi or Changzhou) and commuting into Shanghai by HSR. It definitely happens here in China.

I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I would like to show data indicating that Chinese HSR has heavy commuting share.

And of course there are anecdotes. I know an Acela commuter from Philly. But there is no appreciable intercity commuter share; it's way too difficult.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

I've heard of people living in Kunshan or Suzhou or Jiaxing (or even futher out like Wuxi or Changzhou) and commuting into Shanghai by HSR. It definitely happens here in China.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I would like to show data indicating that Chinese HSR has heavy commuting share.
And of course there are anecdotes. I know an Acela commuter from Philly. But there is no appreciable intercity commuter share; it's way too difficult.

Some data for comparison sake:
Albany to New York City = 141 rail miles
Philadelphia to New York City = 91 rail miles
New Haven to New York City = 72 rail miles
Kunshan to Shanghai = 38.5 miles
Suzhou to Shanghai = 65 miles
Jiaxing to Shanghai = 61 miles
Wuxi to Shanghai = 83 miles
Changzhou to Shanghai = 113 miles
Golly, I am not surprised if there were commuters traveling 38 miles by train, you wouldn't even need HSR for it to be viable.

[R@ptor]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I would like to show data indicating that Chinese HSR has heavy commuting share.

And of course there are anecdotes. I know an Acela commuter from Philly. But there is no appreciable intercity commuter share; it's way too difficult.

It is actually VERY commonplace in Germany and France to commute with HSR.

Probably a quarter of the people I work with commute to Frankfurt by HSR (particularly from Mannheim (35min), Fulda (55min), Cologne (70min) and Düsseldorf (85min))

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Just from a purely technical point of view I find it incredibly unlikely much of this infrastructure will still be used in 2200. Even in 2100 it would be pretty unlikely but at least somewhat reasonable.

So CAHSR is a future rails-to-trails?

Originally Posted by BrownTown

The time value of money for 82 years or 182 years will make any contributions meaningless.

Somebody took a business class in college and wants everyone to know it.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

So CAHSR is a future rails-to-trails?

Depending on how much of the phase 1 HSR system is completed it might at the very least serve as an effective high(er) speed commuter rail from the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area. The southern Central Valley has always underperformed economically academically compared to the rest of the state (coastal) & Sacramento.

Hopefully high speed rail will pump some economic hope into the San Joaquin Valley in time.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Depending on how much of the phase 1 HSR system is completed it might at the very least serve as an effective high(er) speed commuter rail from the San Joaquin Valley to the Bay Area. The southern Central Valley has always underperformed economically academically compared to the rest of the state (coastal) & Sacramento.

Hopefully high speed rail will pump some economic hope into the San Joaquin Valley in time.

If you ask me, the most likely situation to come out of this is: the central valley segment finishing up around 2022 as scheduled. Even if it breaches the grant agreements on the 2022 deadline or on overruns all the fed will do is release a strongly worded report. After the EIR comes out for the Pacheco Pass segment the lawmakers up in Sacramento will hem and haw over costs but eventually okay the funding rather than be ridiculed over the project's complete and utter failure.

When the Tehachapi Pass segment EIR releases though it will be DOA, no lawmaker will be willing to face the waiting controversy. The SF to Bakersfield route will open up in the late 2020s, there might be an extension to Palmdale soon after, but that will pretty much be it for the next 10 or so years. After a rough few years in the beginning HSR will go on to moderate success, managing to cover its overhead but not leaving anything for further expansion. Sometime in the 2030s or 40s Angelinos will probably start getting mighty frustrated at seeing their promised HSR line stopping short in the high desert, and they'll be a renewed push to complete the Tehachapi Pass segment. It's tricky to predict what politics will be like 10+ years in the future but I'd put my money on a full SF to LA route opening around 2050-ish. HSR settles into its place within the overall transportation network, not quite the game changer it might have been but a valuable piece of infrastructure nonetheless.

The Sacramento and San Diego extensions will probably never be seriously contemplated, and end up forgotten by everyone other than future generations of transit fanatics pinning over what might have been. Best case scenario if/when the LOSSAN corridor gets electrified Amtrack will get replaced by HSR.

[jmecklenborg]

^The Democrats will likely regain control of the Senate and the White House in 2020, which will mean a return to the federal government funding intercity passenger rail improvements as it did during Obama's first two years, which is where the big stimulus grant originated, along with the money that appeared in 2011-12 after having been rejected by tea party governors in Ohio and Wisconsin in 2010-11.

The Phase 2 extension to Sacramento would be about 115 miles, which roughly what is under construction currently in the Central Valley. The whole thing might cost less than the 13-mile Pacheco Pass tunnel.

The wye is being built as part of Phase 1, including a station at Merced. This means an incremental extension of this spur will be possible, such as a 35-mile extension to Modesto, a second 25-mile extension to Stockton, and then a final 45-mile extension to Sacramento.

Look for CAHSR to leverage HSR to Las Vegas while building its case for funding the Palmdale-Burbank segment. The way to do this is to build a bistate coalition and have the Nevada legislature allocate money. It's probably illegal for Nevada to pay directly for something in California, but since Las Vegas needs LA much more than LA needs Las Vegas, and only 35~ miles of such a line would be within Nevada, they could devise a clever way for Las Vegas to pay for some of the construction in California, or do something like have Nevada pay for all of the rolling stock necessary for the line.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by electricron

Some data for comparison sake:
Albany to New York City = 141 rail miles
Philadelphia to New York City = 91 rail miles
New Haven to New York City = 72 rail miles
Kunshan to Shanghai = 38.5 miles
Suzhou to Shanghai = 65 miles
Jiaxing to Shanghai = 61 miles
Wuxi to Shanghai = 83 miles
Changzhou to Shanghai = 113 miles
Golly, I am not surprised if there were commuters traveling 38 miles by train, you wouldn't even need HSR for it to be viable.

And even at 113 miles from Changzhou to Shanghai, you can get there in only 45 minutes, and there's enough trains per day to make it totally convenient.

People in the US commute by car for much longer than that on a daily basis - why should anyone be surprised that people in other countries do long commutes by rail when it's available for similar reasons?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would not bet on this project being completed.

That said, assuming it's completed, and assuming it's a success, I don't see why it would increase affordability within the Bay Area. The region would obviously be more expensive if it had a highly successful, high capacity rail corridor, as opposed to the current scenario, where SF proper has no intercity rail, and commuter rail is a limited diesel line that doesn't even go to the downtown core.

I mean, that's like saying the NE Corridor would be more expensive if you removed the NE Corridor line. Obviously the corridor would be less desirable if you removed a vital transit link.

Also, affordability within the Bay Area is a bit different than in other high-cost metros. Typical high-cost metros have an expensive core and affordability generally rises as you head further out (NYC would be pretty typical). In contrast, SF city proper is arguably more affordable than the Peninsula, and relative affordability is more a function of access to Silicon Valley major HQ. This means that relative affordability isn't an issue for most SF-bound Caltrain commuters, unlike most suburban rail commuters around the world.

I actually agree with Crawford here.

CAHSR is going to make affordable areas, less affordable. The end result: more sprawl in green field/agricultural lands in the Central Valley.

*Prices aren't going to drop in the Bay Area because of HSR. They'll drop for other reasons, like a Great Recession 2.0, or yet another tech crash type event, but not because of a train line.

[Busy Bee]

If the commuting possibilities of HSR make the central valley cities desirable bedroom communities, which is an "if" at this point, I think where you're going wrong is assuming the housing growth would come in the form of "suburban sprawl." I think a much more likely possibility is the housing growth comes predominantly in the form of high density multi-family TOD, within say a mile from the stations. Something we should all be happy to see happen.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

And even at 113 miles from Changzhou to Shanghai, you can get there in only 45 minutes, and there's enough trains per day to make it totally convenient.

People in the US commute by car for much longer than that on a daily basis - why should anyone be surprised that people in other countries do long commutes by rail when it's available for similar reasons?

Agreed. The only limiting factor would be the ticket prices. I'm not sure how much it would cost to commute daily from say Merced to SF, but assuming it's around $100 round trip, that comes out to about $26,000/year. Sounds high, but for some people it may be worth it so they can afford a house in the Central Valley.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

If the commuting possibilities of HSR make the central valley cities desirable bedroom communities, which is an "if" at this point, I think where you're going wrong is assuming the housing growth would come in the form of "suburban sprawl." I think a much more likely possibility is the housing growth comes predominantly in the form of high density multi-family TOD, within say a mile from the stations. Something we should all be happy to see happen.

You will likely see both, as single family housing will be much more affordable than closer to SF. No doubt, stations will include park n ride facilities that will allow for sprawly development, but distance will control the amount that will be built.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Agreed. The only limiting factor would be the ticket prices. I'm not sure how much it would cost to commute daily from say Merced to SF, but assuming it's around $100 round trip, that comes out to about $26,000/year. Sounds high, but for some people it may be worth it so they can afford a house in the Central Valley.

26k times 30 years would be an extra 780k one could spend on a house. Sure, there are obvious flaws in that logic, like adding in the extra taxes, insurance, and the fact that lenders might not even lend you that extra money, but I think the point is still mildly clear- probably not gonna happen.

You will spend over 25k a year in transportation strictly to work. You will then live in an area will you will still need a car, so no cost savings there besides using less gas. And on top of all this, you will live in an area with much fewer amenities. I am sure some people may make this choice, but not enough to make any type of dent...anywhere.

[jmecklenborg]

It's not hard to imagine one half of a married couple living in the Central Valley commuting into the Bay Area or LA 4 days per week.

Also, remember that ALL trains will stop in San Jose, and since some will terminate there, SJ will actually have more service than DTSF and it'll be 30 minutes closer to the Central Valley.

It's hilarious as a non-Californian seeing how the coasters look down on the Central Valley with such unmitigated contempt.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's not hard to imagine one half of a married couple living in the Central Valley commuting into the Bay Area or LA 4 days per week.

Also, remember that ALL trains will stop in San Jose, and since some will terminate there, SJ will actually have more service than DTSF and it'll be 30 minutes closer to the Central Valley.

It's hilarious as a non-Californian seeing how the coasters look down on the Central Valley with such unmitigated contempt.

As several people have already pointed out the issue isn't primarily the distance, it's the cost. HSR tickets cost a lot more than your local commuter rail line does and will make a serious dent in most people's budgets unless California creates some massive subsidies to encourage people to move to the Central Valley (which isn't entirely implausible, but would be awfully stupid).