California High Speed Rail Thread

[pizzaguy]

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."

The 2008 electorate is very different than the one that will be voting in the 2020s when the train is running.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by pizzaguy

The 2008 electorate is very different than the one that will be voting in the 2020s when the train is running.

So screw the people who voted originally? If that happens, anyone who opposes any major transit project in this country can say " the bill says ZERO public subsidies, but we all saw what happened in California" and then whatever bill they are voting on dies.

As i've mentioned before, this is going to hurt other transit initiatives in the country as they can always point at California and use it as their example.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by numble

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

Metrolink from Anaheim to Union Station runs more than once an hour.
https://www.metrolinktrains.com/sche...=131&weekend=0

A one way Metrolink ticket is $8.75, monthly pass is $245

Originally Posted by numble

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.

The OC Register has had a few articles citing a $30 ticket price in 2015 dollars, for HSR Anaheim to L.A. trip. That seems really high (and not accurate), but I've seen that same figure in a few different articles. If the price to ride HSR over Metrolink is 3.5x higher, that would be enough to discourage commuters.

Fares are estimated to average $89 from San Francisco to Los Angeles or Anaheim and $30 for a trip from Los Angeles to Anaheim, based on the authority’s 2016 business plan in 2015 dollars.

https://www.ocregister.com/2017/03/3...aheim-section/

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by numble

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?

I think Metrolnk provides pretty solid evidence. Metrolink introduced fast, frequent, convenient, cheap rail service downtown when there was none. Metrolink is quite extensive, covering over 500 miles of route. Yet Metrolink has always had pathetic ridership, and ridership has actually been dropping.

A more general point is that LA has invested megabillions in rail transit when there was previously none, yet ridership is significantly lower than when they only had slow, crappy buses. And this despite huge population increases, core revitalization, worse traffic and millions of transit-inclined immigrants. I think most outside observers would agree that further transit investments are far from a "sure thing" in terms of attracting new riders.

Also, re. OC, there's a mismatch between where people live and transit investments. Commuter rail lines, at least in the U.S., have always been oriented towards "executive suburbs", the kind of places that have lots of lawyers, bankers and the like, and who tend to work in city centers. So, for instance, places like Westchester County, NY and SW Connecticut.

But in OC, the "Connecticut" parts of the county (i.e. where the lawyers, bankers, executives live) are further south and along the coast, nowhere near Anaheim. They're in Laguna Beach, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach. Those areas will never have rail service and are an hour's drive from Anaheim. And they all work in business centers in Irvine/Newport anyways. Anaheim is working class and not a natural fit for traditional commuter rail demographic.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

The OC Register has had a few articles citing a $30 ticket price in 2015 dollars, for HSR Anaheim to L.A. trip. That seems really high (and not accurate), but I've seen that same figure in a few different articles. If the price to ride HSR over Metrolink is 3.5x higher, that would be enough to discourage commuters.

Just to use the NYC numbers again since people seem to be in some legit denial about costs. From Newark to New York is $2.75 by the PATH train and $64 on the Acela. That's 23x as much..

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

So screw the people who voted originally? If that happens, anyone who opposes any major transit project in this country can say " the bill says ZERO public subsidies, but we all saw what happened in California" and then whatever bill they are voting on dies.

As i've mentioned before, this is going to hurt other transit initiatives in the country as they can always point at California and use it as their example.

I mean that's generally how democracy works. Newer votes override older ones and not vice-versa.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Just to use the NYC numbers again since people seem to be in some legit denial about costs. From Newark to New York is $2.75 by the PATH train and $64 on the Acela. That's 23x as much..

It makes no sense to encourage short distance commuters to take up seats on intercity trains. This is why there is such a stiff penalty.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think Metrolnk provides pretty solid evidence. Metrolink introduced fast, frequent, convenient, cheap rail service downtown when there was none. Metrolink is quite extensive, covering over 500 miles of route. Yet Metrolink has always had pathetic ridership, and ridership has actually been dropping.

A more general point is that LA has invested megabillions in rail transit when there was previously none, yet ridership is significantly lower than when they only had slow, crappy buses. And this despite huge population increases, core revitalization, worse traffic and millions of transit-inclined immigrants. I think most outside observers would agree that further transit investments are far from a "sure thing" in terms of attracting new riders.

Also, re. OC, there's a mismatch between where people live and transit investments. Commuter rail lines, at least in the U.S., have always been oriented towards "executive suburbs", the kind of places that have lots of lawyers, bankers and the like, and who tend to work in city centers. So, for instance, places like Westchester County, NY and SW Connecticut.

But in OC, the "Connecticut" parts of the county (i.e. where the lawyers, bankers, executives live) are further south and along the coast, nowhere near Anaheim. They're in Laguna Beach, Corona del Mar, Newport Beach. Those areas will never have rail service and are an hour's drive from Anaheim. And they all work in business centers in Irvine/Newport anyways. Anaheim is working class and not a natural fit for traditional commuter rail demographic.

There needs to be an analysis of why transit ridership is falling while billions are being invested. It should not require a rocket scientist to figure out the reasons.

I just read comments by many people who were concerned about transit safety. That is one issue that needs to be addressed if it is true.

Increasing congestion and more rapid transit suggest that there should be a tipping point in favor of transit. But when?

[Sun Belt]

Can we all be real?

Anaheim is getting HSR because of Disney. Nobody is going to use it to commute to and from downtown L.A.

HSR should've gone from LAX to DT. Fly in, take the train to the city center and connect from there to hit up Hollywood.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

There needs to be an analysis of why transit ridership is falling while billions are being invested. It should not require a rocket scientist to figure out the reasons.

I just read comments by many people who were concerned about transit safety. That is one issue that needs to be addressed if it is true.

Increasing congestion and more rapid transit suggest that there should be a tipping point in favor of transit. But when?

I agree with all this, and don't understand the recent U.S. transit decline.

I would imagine Uber plays some role, but there has to be more. People aren't using Uber to replace 50-mile commuter rail trips. Some say that LA specifically has had a transit decline because CA undocumented immigrants can now get drivers licenses. Doesn't sound totally implausible.

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It makes no sense to encourage short distance commuters to take up seats on intercity trains. This is why there is such a stiff penalty.

Exactly. But some people seem to be missing that fact. Using the HSR as a commuter rail SHOULD mean incurring a big financial burden. If someone gets that seat just for the last 20 miles it's basically wasted the whole rest of the trip unless someone else is getting off there which is unlikely since most people are likely going downtown.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I agree with all this, and don't understand the recent U.S. transit decline.

I would imagine Uber plays some role, but there has to be more. People aren't using Uber to replace 50-mile commuter rail trips. Some say that LA specifically has had a transit decline because CA undocumented immigrants can now get drivers licenses. Doesn't sound totally implausible.

I am sure one reason is an improving economy compared to 10 years ago.

[Nexis4Jersey]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Just to use the NYC numbers again since people seem to be in some legit denial about costs. From Newark to New York is $2.75 by the PATH train and $64 on the Acela. That's 23x as much..

Newark to New York is 10miles , DTLA to Anaheim is 30 miles not a fair comparison... Why would anyone use a High Speed Train or Higher priced Amtrak train for 10 miles... NJT is 8$ from Newark to NYC...and the PATH is 2.75... Amtrak Northeast is mean't for longer distances , while local systems pick up the rest... I'm sure it will be the same in Cali...

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Newark to New York is 10miles , DTLA to Anaheim is 30 miles not a fair comparison... Why would anyone use a High Speed Train or Higher priced Amtrak train for 10 miles... NJT is 8$ from Newark to NYC...and the PATH is 2.75... Amtrak Northeast is mean't for longer distances , while local systems pick up the rest... I'm sure it will be the same in Cali...

Anaheim is a dead end spur of HSR. So if people aren't using it to commute to Union Station in Los Angeles due to cheaper alternatives that commuters would prefer, why the spur? Is it just a tourist spur for Disney?

[Parkway]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Anaheim is a dead end spur of HSR. So if people aren't using it to commute to Union Station in Los Angeles due to cheaper alternatives that commuters would prefer, why the spur? Is it just a tourist spur for Disney?

I mean I assume people would want to travel from Orange County to the Bay Area?

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Newark to New York is 10miles , DTLA to Anaheim is 30 miles not a fair comparison... Why would anyone use a High Speed Train or Higher priced Amtrak train for 10 miles... NJT is 8$ from Newark to NYC...and the PATH is 2.75... Amtrak Northeast is mean't for longer distances , while local systems pick up the rest... I'm sure it will be the same in Cali...

So you think it will be 3x the distance and cost LESS? I don't see that logic.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

So you think it will be 3x the distance and cost LESS? I don't see that logic.

Tunneling is always more expensive than building a railroad at grade.
The Gateway Project will be tunneling under a navigable river and several cities.
Per this NYT's article, the average price to pay to build a single track railroad in a tunnel is around $500 million per mile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/n...on-costs.html?
Per Business Insider article, the average price to pay to build a single track railroad at grade is around $2.4 million per mile, and $82 million per mile for double track High Speed Rail.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-t...billion-2009-5

Some math follows: 500 / 2.4 = 208 times more to build in a tunnel than at grade.

MTA will be spending over $12 Billion for a 6 mile double track East Side Access project. This also includes more than the costs of the tunnels, i.e. the costs to expand the tracks at Grand Central Station. Never-the-less, doing the simple math: 12 Billion / (6 miles x 2) = $1 Billion per mile of track, about twice the costs of the average single track railroad tunnel.

So yes, a relatively short tunnel can be easily more expensive to build than tracks at grade that's three times longer....

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by electricron

Tunneling is always more expensive than building a railroad at grade.
The Gateway Project will be tunneling under a navigable river and several cities.
Per this NYT's article, the average price to pay to build a single track railroad in a tunnel is around $500 million per mile.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/n...on-costs.html?
Per Business Insider article, the average price to pay to build a single track railroad at grade is around $2.4 million per mile, and $82 million per mile for double track High Speed Rail.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-t...billion-2009-5

Some math follows: 500 / 2.4 = 208 times more to build in a tunnel than at grade.

MTA will be spending over $12 Billion for a 6 mile double track East Side Access project. This also includes more than the costs of the tunnels, i.e. the costs to expand the tracks at Grand Central Station. Never-the-less, doing the simple math: 12 Billion / (6 miles x 2) = $1 Billion per mile of track, about twice the costs of the average single track railroad tunnel.

So yes, a relatively short tunnel can be easily more expensive to build than tracks at grade that's three times longer....

What does any of this have to do with the current situation? The tunnels being used were built in 1904 for maybe 50 million dollars.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

What does any of this have to do with the current situation? The tunnels being used were built in 1904 for maybe 50 million dollars.

True, but Gateway is all about building two NEW tunnels -
they do NOT exist yet, except as drawings.
East Sider Access is also about brand new tunnels.

HSR is expensive enough at grade or above grade, but it's hundreds times more expensive (per distance) to build it underground in a tunnel.

[TWAK]

According to this document, we are looking at 119 miles of construction so far!
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/...tes_021518.pdf
The project has gone from "never will get built" to "train to nowhere". When construction starts in "somewhere"....what will be the response?