4 ms·

This. Regional and state-wide transit is all connected. The high speed rail project also includes regional upgrades like the electrification of Caltrain. 2 hou

This. Regional and state-wide transit is all connected. The high speed rail project also includes regional upgrades like the electrification of Caltrain. 2 hours and 40 minutes from downtown SF to downtown LA by train beats flying once you factor in transport to and from airports, security checks etc. Not to mention that SFO and LAX can't increase capacity to follow demand. The high speed rail project makes a ton of sense.

macintux 11y ago
I keep waiting for train travel to fall into the TSA trap. I used to use Amtrak 'twixt Indy and Chicago a bit, and once in Chicago the TSA did set up for quick checks.
ghaff 11y ago
In the case of the Acela, the electrification of the New Haven to Boston segment significantly sped up the non-Acela Northeast Regional service from Boston to New York. In fact, the ~2X price difference between the Regional and the Acela to save ~45 mins usually doesn't make sense when I'm paying out of my own pocket (or when the Acela doesn't run at a convenient time). I don't have a real opinion on California high-speed rail. It's certainly hugely expensive and probably depends on whether it makes sense for relatively price-insensitive business travelers as the Acela does.
- haugstrup 11y ago
  I don't think it's about price. I believe it's about capacity. Population is growing -- in SF it's growing a lot -- but SFO and LAX are at capacity. California needs another option for moving people between LA and the Bay Area since it's not possible to fly more planes.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    It's still about price then but presumably the argument becomes that airfares on that route will rise enough that even expensive high speed rail is competitive. Acela is basically priced so enough business folks who would consider flying take the train
  - throwaway_exer 11y ago
    Actually, in NorCal there's also Oakland. And San Jose Airport is not at all busy - they just blew 1.2 billion on Terminal 3 with no airlines committing to use it. And in SoCal, I normally use John Wayne, not LAX - one of the worst airports in the world due to endless construction.
- Sanddancer 11y ago
  The poorly discussed situation is that California High Speed Rail really is a backbone type service. While SFO<->LAX is certainly the big point, the intermediary cities -- San Jose with a million people, Fresno with a half million people, Bakersfield with 363 thousand people -- are going to see substantial benefits too. Add in the cities that are planned for subsequent phases -- San Diego with a million people, Sacramento with a half million people, Oakland with 400 thousand people -- and the reasons for the project start becoming more obvious.
  - Gibbon1 11y ago
    The one that clinched it for me was an article pointing out that the large airports in California are at capacity and expansion is either expensive, or impossible. You either need to spend couple of billion each to expand those air ports, or throw the money at high speed rail. Also the big expense is not the high speed rail part of the system, is the commuter rail part through the bay area and LA. That;s the expensive bit. Not the straight high speed sections through the central valley.

macintux 11y ago

I keep waiting for train travel to fall into the TSA trap. I used to use Amtrak 'twixt Indy and Chicago a bit, and once in Chicago the TSA did set up for quick checks.

ghaff 11y ago

In the case of the Acela, the electrification of the New Haven to Boston segment significantly sped up the non-Acela Northeast Regional service from Boston to New York. In fact, the ~2X price difference between the Regional and the Acela to save ~45 mins usually doesn't make sense when I'm paying out of my own pocket (or when the Acela doesn't run at a convenient time). I don't have a real opinion on California high-speed rail. It's certainly hugely expensive and probably depends on whether it makes sense for relatively price-insensitive business travelers as the Acela does.

haugstrup 11y ago
I don't think it's about price. I believe it's about capacity. Population is growing -- in SF it's growing a lot -- but SFO and LAX are at capacity. California needs another option for moving people between LA and the Bay Area since it's not possible to fly more planes.
- ghaff 11y ago
  It's still about price then but presumably the argument becomes that airfares on that route will rise enough that even expensive high speed rail is competitive. Acela is basically priced so enough business folks who would consider flying take the train
- throwaway_exer 11y ago
  Actually, in NorCal there's also Oakland. And San Jose Airport is not at all busy - they just blew 1.2 billion on Terminal 3 with no airlines committing to use it. And in SoCal, I normally use John Wayne, not LAX - one of the worst airports in the world due to endless construction.
Sanddancer 11y ago
The poorly discussed situation is that California High Speed Rail really is a backbone type service. While SFO<->LAX is certainly the big point, the intermediary cities -- San Jose with a million people, Fresno with a half million people, Bakersfield with 363 thousand people -- are going to see substantial benefits too. Add in the cities that are planned for subsequent phases -- San Diego with a million people, Sacramento with a half million people, Oakland with 400 thousand people -- and the reasons for the project start becoming more obvious.
- Gibbon1 11y ago
  The one that clinched it for me was an article pointing out that the large airports in California are at capacity and expansion is either expensive, or impossible. You either need to spend couple of billion each to expand those air ports, or throw the money at high speed rail. Also the big expense is not the high speed rail part of the system, is the commuter rail part through the bay area and LA. That;s the expensive bit. Not the straight high speed sections through the central valley.