California High Speed Rail Thread

[numble]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Is that 19 each way? If so, that's 38 dollars a day(if we are to believe their projections, of course).

Or that's 760 a month to get to just work. Is it workable? Sure. But if you live so far out in the burbs for affordability that you take a HSR to work everyday, I highly doubt you could live without your car in said suburb. So you're adding around 760 a month to get to work while still needing all the spending for a car. Not feasible. Even with my 2016 car with a note, my monthly spending is around 700 dollars (Note/gas/insurance/parking/depreciation/maintenance).

The 2010 census found 180,000 workers commuting from Orange County to Los Angeles:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres.../cb13-r13.html

The typical commute time when driving during rush hour is 1-2 hours, one-way. That is the typical commute, not when there are delays:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Anah...1518075600!3e0

The commute will likely even take longer in the future based on population growth. If these 180,000 commuters face 4+ hours on the road vs 40 minutes on the train, I would think some percentage would switch to the train.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by numble

The commute will likely even take longer in the future based on population growth. If these 180,000 commuters face 4+ hours on the road vs 40 minutes on the train, I would think some percentage would switch to the train.

What % of those 180,000 workers are working in downtown LA? I bet almost none. It's already an impossible commute. HSR is useless for commuters unless you're headed downtown.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by numble

The 2010 census found 180,000 workers commuting from Orange County to Los Angeles:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres.../cb13-r13.html

The typical commute time when driving during rush hour is 1-2 hours, one-way. That is the typical commute, not when there are delays:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Anah...1518075600!3e0

The commute will likely even take longer in the future based on population growth. If these 180,000 commuters face 4+ hours on the road vs 40 minutes on the train, I would think some percentage would switch to the train.

Orange County is a highly populated county spread out over a large geographical area of approx. 950 square miles. HSR would be a great alternative if and only if you live near the Anaheim station and work in Downtown L.A.

Otherwise, it could easily take 30 minutes to an hour to drive to the rail station, wait another 10-15 minutes for the train, arrive in downtown L.A. (40 minutes travel time?). Once in Downtown - which is another huge area with Union Station set off to the side of the core of the city-- this will require more time to walk, transfer to public transportation or hail an Uber.

[ardecila]

Yes, it does seem like the future of LA's transit and HSR dreams hinges not on actually getting the systems built, but on reinventing the city around those systems. Compared to other Sunbelt cities, LA actually has the bones to do this, with well-maintained sidewalks virtually everywhere, a grid pattern of streets, etc.

Right now most of LA is locked in amber by harsh zoning restrictions/Prop U, howling neighbors, etc but there are some hairline cracks forming in the amber with increased recognition of how important TOD is to the city's continued growth.

Of course, to build TOD you need the transit, but LA is making serious progress on this front under Measure R. Metrolink ridership is unimpressive right now, but that system is already in place, so an increased focus on TOD will only lead more Angelenos to live and work around rail stations in places like Glendale, Burbank, Anaheim, etc. and also in DTLA.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What % of those 180,000 workers are working in downtown LA? I bet almost none. It's already an impossible commute. HSR is useless for commuters unless you're headed downtown.

Plenty do. Major law firms are located in downtown LA

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Orange County is a highly populated county spread out over a large geographical area of approx. 950 square miles. HSR would be a great alternative if and only if you live near the Anaheim station and work in Downtown L.A.

Otherwise, it could easily take 30 minutes to an hour to drive to the rail station, wait another 10-15 minutes for the train, arrive in downtown L.A. (40 minutes travel time?). Once in Downtown - which is another huge area with Union Station set off to the side of the core of the city-- this will require more time to walk, transfer to public transportation or hail an Uber.

The Anaheim station could be accessed via Metrolink. Additionally, Garden Grove and Santa Ana are building a streetcar system, which eventually could provide connectivity to the Anaheim high-speed rail station. Futhermore, Anaheim has considered building its own streetcar route.

There is also a lot of dense development planned for the Platinum Triangle area around Angel stadium.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What % of those 180,000 workers are working in downtown LA? I bet almost none. It's already an impossible commute. HSR is useless for commuters unless you're headed downtown.

It wouldn't be an impossible commute if there were no workers taking it. Metrolink already shows that 5% of the 180,000 go from Orange County to Downtown LA take the trip via Metrolink. A lot more going from Orange County to Downtown LA probably drive because driving currently is still competitive with Metrolink--Metrolink takes about an hour to do that route, longer if you're coming from further south.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Orange County is a highly populated county spread out over a large geographical area of approx. 950 square miles. HSR would be a great alternative if and only if you live near the Anaheim station and work in Downtown L.A.

Otherwise, it could easily take 30 minutes to an hour to drive to the rail station, wait another 10-15 minutes for the train, arrive in downtown L.A. (40 minutes travel time?). Once in Downtown - which is another huge area with Union Station set off to the side of the core of the city-- this will require more time to walk, transfer to public transportation or hail an Uber.

The one way commute can be longer than 2 hours if you are coming from other parts of Orange County and heading to other employment centers in Los Angeles, like West LA, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Hollywood, etc. If it is 2 hours now, how long would it be in 10 years with population growth?

By the time the OC-LA HSR link opens up, Union Station will be connected to 2 subways running through Downtown, have public transit lines to give you a 1 ride, no transfer train to LA Live, Pasadena, Hollywood, West LA, and Santa Monica.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

The Anaheim station could be accessed via Metrolink. Additionally, Garden Grove and Santa Ana are building a streetcar system, which eventually could provide connectivity to the Anaheim high-speed rail station. Futhermore, Anaheim has considered building its own streetcar route.

There is also a lot of dense development planned for the Platinum Triangle area around Angel stadium.

Anaheim to Union station on Metrolink (no transfers) is already just a 49 minute ride.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Anaheim to Union station on Metrolink (no transfers) is already just a 49 minute ride.

But look at Metrolink passenger counts. When I said "no one works downtown", I didn't literally mean not a single human from OC works downtown. But there are very few, by any mode, I bet. That's a tough commute.

Anecdotal, but my uncle in OC used to work Mid-Wilshire, but at some point the traffic got so insane that my aunt basically forced him to move his office to Costa Mesa.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But look at Metrolink passenger counts. When I said "no one works downtown", I didn't literally mean not a single human from OC works downtown. But there are very few, by any mode, I bet. That's a tough commute.

Anecdotal, but my uncle in OC used to work Mid-Wilshire, but at some point the traffic got so insane that my aunt basically forced him to move his office to Costa Mesa.

Yes, this is true and I agree. The point I was making was that a future HSR line from Anaheim to Downtown is redundant to the current Metrolink and Amtrak services. HSR is not going to attract too many new commuters to downtown that Metrolink would not be able to attract.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Why not? There's plenty of middle class couples/families making a combined $200k+ a year that COULD afford a $1.4 million 1000-1500 sq ft crappy house in the Bay Area but would then be forced to live frugally, barely scraping by, that would be more than willing to move to Fresno for a $500,000-$800,000 3000+ sq ft home with luxury amenities, a driveway, a yard, and have enough leftover to save, travel, and still be able to afford using HSR daily.

I feel like Bernie Sanders talking on here sometimes. A couple making 200k brings in 16,666 pre-tax every month.
I was never talking about those folks. I was talking about average folks and how they are not going to use this.

Most people in California don't make anywhere near 200k for their household. So again, *once again*...this project is being paid for by ALL taypayers for the rich.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by numble

The 2010 census found 180,000 workers commuting from Orange County to Los Angeles:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres.../cb13-r13.html

The typical commute time when driving during rush hour is 1-2 hours, one-way. That is the typical commute, not when there are delays:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Anah...1518075600!3e0

The commute will likely even take longer in the future based on population growth. If these 180,000 commuters face 4+ hours on the road vs 40 minutes on the train, I would think some percentage would switch to the train.

No doubt, the percentage who can afford to.

[pizzaguy]

You keep harping on this as if California doesn't have a Democratic supermajority that can pass train subsidies at the drop of a hat. Or an electorate that would be glad to approve them via ballot measure.

Everyone will be riding this train.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

You keep harping on this as if California doesn't have a Democratic supermajority that can pass train subsidies at the drop of a hat. Or an electorate that would be glad to approve them via ballot measure.

Everyone will be riding this train.

So the tax payers will subsidize what...was 70 billion dollar system and then subsidize the trains operation forever(when they were promised this wouldn't be so)? Sounds like a lousy deal.

And at the end of the day, the reason I harp on this is obvious....even if you make the ticket 10 dollars a day round trip the vast majority of Californians will still have a car and associated cost and will most definitely have to drive to the station or from the station to work.

Just to build this HSR each Californian is being taxed like 1700 a person. So everyone in the state has already put their fair share in and now you want them to pay more....every year for eternity?


This project is making me look anti transit, but it couldn't be further from the truth. This project will help others become anti transit after its all said and done.

[Eightball]

You are really outta pocket rn bro. You do know California has the highest state income tax (by far) in the US right? like 12.2 percent. Gov Moonbeam didn't even want to renew it but voters did anyways. Point being that most state government functions are funded by the rich. And don't get it twisted, there are a ton of rich ppl in California. So, just like Amtrak California (the very successful California Amtrak routes with heavy frequencies and ridership), ticket sales will likely be subsidized on an ongoing basis. Which makes sense bc the roads and highways are also.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

So the tax payers will subsidize what...was 70 billion dollar system and then subsidize the trains operation forever(when they were promised this wouldn't be so)? Sounds like a lousy deal.

And at the end of the day, the reason I harp on this is obvious....even if you make the ticket 10 dollars a day round trip the vast majority of Californians will still have a car and associated cost and will most definitely have to drive to the station or from the station to work.

Just to build this HSR each Californian is being taxed like 1700 a person. So everyone in the state has already put their fair share in and now you want them to pay more....every year for eternity?


This project is making me look anti transit, but it couldn't be further from the truth. This project will help others become anti transit after its all said and done.

Not to the voters of California, who have the only voice that matters in this situation.

[numble]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Anaheim to Union station on Metrolink (no transfers) is already just a 49 minute ride.

Originally Posted by Crawford

But look at Metrolink passenger counts. When I said "no one works downtown", I didn't literally mean not a single human from OC works downtown. But there are very few, by any mode, I bet. That's a tough commute.

Anecdotal, but my uncle in OC used to work Mid-Wilshire, but at some point the traffic got so insane that my aunt basically forced him to move his office to Costa Mesa.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Yes, this is true and I agree. The point I was making was that a future HSR line from Anaheim to Downtown is redundant to the current Metrolink and Amtrak services. HSR is not going to attract too many new commuters to downtown that Metrolink would not be able to attract.

Metrolink runs once an hour. It takes over twice as long in travel time than the HSR.

Can you provide a source for the claim that cutting a commute down by more than half, and increasing frequencies, will not attract many new commuters? There seems to be a plethora of evidence to the contrary when other transit (train lines taking away bus riders) and new transportation methods (ExpressLanes filled up even though drivers could still use the free lanes) open up in Southern California.

[lrt's friend]

As highways become more congested and air travel becomes more unpleasant, there is an opportunity for a rail alternative for the first time since World War II.

HSR is the equivalent of airline travel. In both cases, you need to get either to the station or the airport. Neither are designed for door to door service. Neither are generally designed for commuting.

Let's face it, HSR will mostly be for occasional travellers for business or pleasure. That is fine. Even if HSR has stations that could allow local commuting, that is not its main purpose and ticket prices will discourage this kind of use. Only so many seats are available and longer distance travellers will be the target. If seats are mostly occupied by short distance travellers, then most seats will be empty for the rest of the trip. This is not cost effective. Local service should be offered by local trains. HSR should get you from city to city, while local transit should get you to your final destination. So, if local transit does not get you to your destination, then improvements are needed there.

Regardless, there are no easy solutions. We can let roads get impossibly congested and let transit continue to languish. Investment will be needed no matter what. If rail is considered part of the solution, there needs to be an understanding that HSR is only one component. The local connections also must be improved and this will take time.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

Not to the voters of California, who have the only voice that matters in this situation.

Well, according to the LA Times, and the measure voted on already(by voters in California, duh):

"And they are central to revenue calculations for a system that by state law must operate without a taxpayer subsidy."

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Well, according to the LA Times, and the measure voted on already(by voters in California, duh):

"And they are central to revenue calculations for a system that by state law must operate without a taxpayer subsidy."

Then it has to be very competitive with car and airline travel in order to grab sufficient market share. What are expected travel times between SF and LA? It is becoming apparent that there is a sweet spot for distances and times that will make train travel very attractive. The distance between SF and LA is too far for traditional rail service to be truly competitive.