calif rail proposition 1A

[Dan O]

Does it sound like a good idea?

Soiunds good to me but I don't know a thing about trains or rail travel.

Dano

 

[Falco]

This is a very good thing for California

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

Imagine San diego to LAX in 1 hr 18 mins for 30bucks

LAX to Sacramento in 2 hrs 17 mins for 53bucks

( http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm )

 

[montereyan]

I know quite a bit about this - I run the California High Speed Rail Blog which has been covering the proposal since March.

It's a good idea - it'll authorize $10 billion in bonds to start construction on a high speed rail system connecting downtown San Francisco, San José, Fresno, Bakersfield, Lancaster, Burbank, downtown LA (Union Station) and Anaheim. Later phases include an extension from Merced north to Sacramento, and from LA east to Riverside and from there, south to San Diego.

Prop 1A also includes $950 million for non-HSR trains in California, including Amtrak California lines. This will provide more cars and upgraded tracks for the Capitol Corridor, the Pacific Surfliner, and the San Joaquins, and could provide enough money to get the Coast Daylight, between SF and LA via the coast route (Salinas, SLO, Santa Barbara) running by 2012.

Californians are a bit cautious about authorizing bonds during these economic times but that's actually a stronger argument FOR the proposal. We built dams and bridges, including the Golden Gate, with bonds during the Depression. Surely we can build this now - the bonds are repaid over 40 years and the annual service cost will be offset by the tax revenue generated by the construction work.

All in all, it's an excellent idea whose time has come - and it'll provide a much needed boost to other Amtrak services in the state.

 

[zoltan]

Californians are a bit cautious about authorizing bonds during these economic times but that's actually a stronger argument FOR the proposal. We built dams and bridges, including the Golden Gate, with bonds during the Depression. Surely we can build this now - the bonds are repaid over 40 years and the annual service cost will be offset by the tax revenue generated by the construction work.

Nothing like some good old Roosevelt economics to get us a new railway!

 

[cohusker]

Californians are a bit cautious about authorizing bonds during these economic times but that's actually a stronger argument FOR the proposal. We built dams and bridges, including the Golden Gate, with bonds during the Depression. Surely we can build this now - the bonds are repaid over 40 years and the annual service cost will be offset by the tax revenue generated by the construction work.

Nothing like some good old Roosevelt economics to get us a new railway!

Here is an article against the idea...http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122368038058324729.html

I love Amtrak and trains, but I would hate to have to "bailout" California....

 

[zoltan]

Environmentally, a high speed railway in California would be a major boost. As soon as two cities are linked in less than three hours, the air market plummets (hopefully not literally). London to Paris are linked by rail, taking under three hours, and rail now takes 66% of the market; similarly, when Manchester to London took four hours by rail, rail had 38% of the market, now the journey takes two and a half, rail boasts 61% of the market. Bearing in mind that many flights from the North of England to London are in order to make connections with long haul flights, rail's share of end to end journeys will be even greater. (I hate domestic flights, so I personally train it to London when I'm flying to the states).

The rail market between Los Angeles and San Fransisco being at present pretty negligible - for the sake of argument, we'll say 10%. I gather from a quick flight search that about twelve flights per day ply the route from Los Angeles to San Fransisco; there may well be more that don't show up on that search. So, if high speed rail increases the market share from 10% to 65% of journeys from Los Angeles to San Fransisco, that's the emissions 7-8 flights per day, around 2,700 flights per year, saved!

 

[Dan O]

The rail market between Los Angeles and San Fransisco being at present pretty negligible - for the sake of argument, we'll say 10%. I gather from a quick flight search that about twelve flights per day ply the route from Los Angeles to San Fransisco; there may well be more that don't show up on that search. So, if high speed rail increases the market share from 10% to 65% of journeys from Los Angeles to San Fransisco, that's the emissions 7-8 flights per day, around 2,700 flights per year, saved!

I don't know the numbers but I'd venture to guess there are more than 12 carriers that fly between Los Angeles and San Francisco. If not those airports, then surely if you throw in the nearby ones like Burbank, Orange County and Ontario in the south and Oakland and San Jose near San Francisco. I would imagine there are over a hundred flights a day between the two areas. Just a guess there.

Dano

 

[PetalumaLoco]

I just looked up the record of bonds passing in California when compared to the state of the economy. California is a couple of years ahead of the country as a whole with a slow economy. When things are looking up here, bonds pass at a rate of 68%. When the economy is poor it backs off to 23% passing. A lot of people may see the high speed rail as a luxury and vote it down. The argument can be made that in a slow economy, a project like this is a shot in the arm for increased jobs and even increased taxes.

 

[Chris J.]

Bearing in mind that many flights from the North of England to London are in order to make connections with long haul flights, rail's share of end to end journeys will be even greater. (I hate domestic flights, so I personally train it to London when I'm flying to the states).

I did it the other way - flew from Manchester (UK) to Chicago then took the train to the east coast

 

[zoltan]

I did it the other way - flew from Manchester (UK) to Chicago then took the train to the east coast

That is quite simply insane. I like it! Sadly, you don't quite beat me, for this summer's return from Montreal:

Amtrak from Montreal to New York

Air Canada New York to Toronto (rather near where I started, as you will be aware)

Air Canada Toronto to London

...just for the sheer pleasure of one more Amtrak ride on my trip!

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I just looked up the record of bonds passing in California when compared to the state of the economy. California is a couple of years ahead of the country as a whole with a slow economy. When things are looking up here, bonds pass at a rate of 68%. When the economy is poor it backs off to 23% passing. A lot of people may see the high speed rail as a luxury and vote it down. The argument can be made that in a slow economy, a project like this is a shot in the arm for increased jobs and even increased taxes.

Transportation options that don't depend on imported energy hardly strike me as a luxury. Building such transportation infrastructure will probably give us a stronger dollar than we would otherwise have.

 

[PetalumaLoco]

I just looked up the record of bonds passing in California when compared to the state of the economy. California is a couple of years ahead of the country as a whole with a slow economy. When things are looking up here, bonds pass at a rate of 68%. When the economy is poor it backs off to 23% passing. A lot of people may see the high speed rail as a luxury and vote it down. The argument can be made that in a slow economy, a project like this is a shot in the arm for increased jobs and even increased taxes.

Transportation options that don't depend on imported energy hardly strike me as a luxury. Building such transportation infrastructure will probably give us a stronger dollar than we would otherwise have.

I agree. Shortsighted people may not see it that way. I plan on voting for it, and a local Sonoma and Marin counties light rail measure.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I just looked up the record of bonds passing in California when compared to the state of the economy. California is a couple of years ahead of the country as a whole with a slow economy. When things are looking up here, bonds pass at a rate of 68%. When the economy is poor it backs off to 23% passing. A lot of people may see the high speed rail as a luxury and vote it down. The argument can be made that in a slow economy, a project like this is a shot in the arm for increased jobs and even increased taxes.

Transportation options that don't depend on imported energy hardly strike me as a luxury. Building such transportation infrastructure will probably give us a stronger dollar than we would otherwise have.

Given your tomesque rants in other threads about high speed rail, Joel, I am surprised I haven't seen more of you in here.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Given your tomesque rants in other threads about high speed rail, Joel, I am surprised I haven't seen more of you in here.

I haven't actually taken the time to read the text of the proposed California legislation yet, and I'm reluctant to actually say that it's a good idea without reading it first. There is such a thing as a mass transit proposal that I conclude is a bad idea (the MBTA's Silver Line Phase III bus tunnel comes to mind). Then again, everything I know about the California high speed rail project seems like it's generally a good idea, and best can be the enemy of good.

Planning it for 220 MPH may mean that 30 years from now, the California coast section of the US's high speed rail network may be the slowest part, but 220 MPH on that stretch instead of 300 MPH is probably only going to cost roughly 30 minutes of travel time, which probably isn't a huge deal. The big issues there are that if the tracks are spaced too close and the curves too tight, going faster later requires a massive amount of rebuilding in the future. There's also the problem of having trains that can operate at 300 MPH, but if you look at the history of, say, the NEC, you'll observe that buying newer, faster rolling stock seems to be a lot easier than straightening curves, which makes getting the track alignment right the first time a very good idea.

On the other hand, we probably don't really know what the minimum track spacing is for 300 MPH operation; on the gripping hand, choosing to leave somewhat more space than is needed for 220 MPH operation would probably allow for operation at some faster speed, even if we don't know what that speed is, assuming that the curves are also suitably gentle.

I've seen inconsistent things about whether there will be situations where driving would be cheaper than taking the high speed train, and I strongly believe that we should make sure there's never an economic incentive to drive. But if that becomes a problem, it can be fixed sometime after the track is built.

 

[George Harris]

I gather from a quick flight search that about twelve flights per day ply the route from Los Angeles to San Fransisco; there may well be more that don't show up on that search. So, if high speed rail increases the market share from 10% to 65% of journeys from Los Angeles to San Fransisco, that's the emissions 7-8 flights per day, around 2,700 flights per year, saved!

What you are missing is that there are three airports with significant commercial serivce on each end.

San Francisco Bay area end: SFO, OAK, SJC, that is San Fran Int'l, Oakland, and San Jose.

Los angeles: LAX, LGB, SNA, BUR; that is Los Angeles Int'l, Long Beach, John Wayne-Orange County, and Burbank

Take each of these on one end and check for flights to all the ones on the other end and you will find there are a lot more than 12 flights per day. Then there are the intermediate points of Fresno and Bakersfield, each with their own commerical airport. Add in the extensions of the HSR system to Stockton - Sacramento on the north end and San Diego on the south end, and you throw in their airports as well.

Even with all these, my own opinion is that the biggest transfer of travel with come from those that drive to the trains. The only porblem will be if the transportation insecurity people stick the system with an airport like security screening.

Current rail service is ONE through train per day on a very slow schedule down the coast plus six train-bus combinations down the valley that require almost 10 yours end to end over a distance that a road warrior can cover in 6 hours. I am surprised that the rail share of the end point to end point travel demand is as high as 10% of public transportation usage.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

San Francisco Bay area end: SFO, OAK, SJC, that is San Fran Int'l, Oakland, and San Jose.
Los angeles: LAX, LGB, SNA, that is Los Angeles Int'l, Long Beach, and John Wayne-Orange County

Take each of these on one end and check for flights to all three on the other end and you will find there are a lot more than 12 flights per day. Then there are the intermediate points of Fresno and Bakersfield, each with their own commerical airport. Add in the extensions of the HSR system to Stockton - Sacramento on the north end and San Diego on the south end, and you throw in their airports as well.

How many of these three Los Angeles and three San Francisco airports' areas are directly served by the initial phase of the high speed rail proposal?

 

[George Harris]

First, one major oversight in my airport list: Burbank in the LA area. I ahve corrected accordingly.

San Francisco Bay area end: SFO, OAK, SJC, that is San Fran Int'l, Oakland, and San Jose.
Los angeles: LAX, LGB, SNA, BUR that is Los Angeles Int'l, Long Beach, John Wayne-Orange County, and Burbank

Take each of these on one end and check for flights to all three on the other end and you will find there are a lot more than 12 flights per day. Then there are the intermediate points of Fresno and Bakersfield, each with their own commerical airport. Add in the extensions of the HSR system to Stockton - Sacramento on the north end and San Diego on the south end, and you throw in their airports as well.

How many of these four Los Angeles and three San Francisco airports' areas are directly served by the initial phase of the high speed rail proposal?

I really don't understand your "directly served" question. Unless you live at either an airport or a railroad station, you will be traveling to them by some means or other. Obviously, airports are never in a downtown area, and for the most part, if not always, the railroad stations will be. If you are in the Oakland / San Francisco area, you can get to either SFO or OAK by BART for the one and BART/bus for the other, or a $40 taxi ride. Which airport you use depends on who you are flying with and where you are going. For the Rail: The plan is that the north end of the high speed rail will be at the Transbay Terminal, about a block off Market near First street. This is close to a BART station and probably more like a $5 to $10 taxi ride if you are in the city. San Jose will be a stop on the high speed, so for people in that area or other South Bay locations, the access will be the same or easier than the SJC airport. I leave the LA end to someone more familiar with that area.

 

[AlanB]

George,

While it's a bit further out than the other ones that you've mentioned, most people that I know also consider Ontario to be a LA airport too.

And if LA ever follows through with the dream, one day the Gold line will stop at Ontario. Already I believe that one can get to Ontario by Metrolink commuter trains, but the schedule on that line is very light and largely rush hour direction only.

 

[sechs]

Obviously, airports are never in a downtown area, and for the most part, if not always, the railroad stations will be.

You've never been to SJC, have you George?

The building height limits in downtown San Jose are determined by the approach path of planes. Several buildings in downtown have views straight down the runways. If they hadn't stuck interstate 880 in the way, one could probably walk to the airport from downtown (it'd be a bit of a hike, however).

SJC sits between the Caltrain and VTA light rail lines. In fact, there's a free bus that connects them via the airport.

I've never been to the Burbank airport, but I get the feeling that it's kind of the same way.

 

[Guest_TransAtlantic_*]

Here's a question: what's the difference between Prop. 1 and Prop. 1A?? I was reading over my voter pamphlets tonight, and they look ALMOST identical...but I kind of smell a bait-and-switch...

 

[Dan O]

George,
While it's a bit further out than the other ones that you've mentioned, most people that I know also consider Ontario to be a LA airport too.

And if LA ever follows through with the dream, one day the Gold line will stop at Ontario. Already I believe that one can get to Ontario by Metrolink commuter trains, but the schedule on that line is very light and largely rush hour direction only.

I believe Ontario airport sometimes is listed and calls itself LA/Ontario airport. It's about 40 miles east of downtown LA, just off of Interstate 10, almost exactly the same distance John Wayne (Orange County) airport is from downtown LA.

Metrolink doesn't stop in Ontario. The San Bernardino line stops in Upland, which looks to be about 4 miles from the airport. However, there are some freight tracks that are just north of the airport that perhaps could be utilized to provide service to the airport. I don't know a thing about them.

Dan

 

[VentureForth]

I like the proposal because it is steel rail not maglev! Most efficient use of funds in my humble opinion.

 

[gswager]

Metrolink doesn't stop in Ontario. The San Bernardino line stops in Upland, which looks to be about 4 miles from the airport. However, there are some freight tracks that are just north of the airport that perhaps could be utilized to provide service to the airport. I don't know a thing about them.

That's incorrect. The Metrolink Riverside Line stops at East Ontario station which is located on the southeast side of airport. Unfortunately, there's no access to the terminal. You'll have to call the taxi to pick you up.

Upland is a little too far, use Rancho Cucamonga station. There's an Omnitran bus (one transfer) will take you there, but it's not convenient.

 

[AlanB]

Metrolink doesn't stop in Ontario. The San Bernardino line stops in Upland, which looks to be about 4 miles from the airport. However, there are some freight tracks that are just north of the airport that perhaps could be utilized to provide service to the airport. I don't know a thing about them.

That's incorrect. The Metrolink Riverside Line stops at East Ontario station which is located on the southeast side of airport. Unfortunately, there's no access to the terminal. You'll have to call the taxi to pick you up.

Upland is a little too far, use Rancho Cucamonga station. There's an Omnitran bus (one transfer) will take you there, but it's not convenient.

That is correct. Thanks Greg.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

I really don't understand your "directly served" question. Unless you live at either an airport or a railroad station, you will be traveling to them by some means or other. Obviously, airports are never in a downtown area, and for the most part, if not always, the railroad stations will be. If you are in the Oakland / San Francisco area, you can get to either SFO or OAK by BART for the one and BART/bus for the other, or a $40 taxi ride. Which airport you use depends on who you are flying with and where you are going. For the Rail: The plan is that the north end of the high speed rail will be at the Transbay Terminal, about a block off Market near First street. This is close to a BART station and probably more like a $5 to $10 taxi ride if you are in the city. San Jose will be a stop on the high speed, so for people in that area or other South Bay locations, the access will be the same or easier than the SJC airport. I leave the LA end to someone more familiar with that area.

I don't think I quite had a sufficient grasp of the geography to express my question clearly.

It sounds like for the majority of the people who find SFO is the most convenient airport, Transbay Terminal will probably be more convenient than SFO, but those who find OAK the most convenient airport will probably find Transbay Terminal less convenient than OAK.

Perhaps if people tend to choose between SFO vs OAK based on factors other than which airport is closest to their actual destination, this distinction isn't important.

The map in the California High Speed Rail Wikipedia article also includes an Oakland spur, but I'm not sure when that would get built.