3 ms·

This argument just doesn't make sense. You can make the exact point about airports as well. What's the point of an airport? It is hard to get there, you have

This argument just doesn't make sense. You can make the exact point about airports as well. What's the point of an airport? It is hard to get there, you have to rent a car, parking is expensive, too much trafic, busses are not that often... etc... etc.. Build the train, and have stations close to downtown, while local government can start/extend local transportation as well. Ideally you have both local and inter-urban rail at the same time, but if you don't, then you have to start somewhere. It is harder to build a major station, then several small tram station. Start with the harder part, and let the local government fill out the smaller parts. The beauty of the train, that it can get very close to downtown, or even in the center of it with minimal disruption (if built underground). You just can't do that with an airport.

jedberg 7y ago
The airports are already there for longer flights, we just happen to use them for the short flights too. That's the main difference. This train would be to replace a single short flight route.
- qwhelan 7y ago
  The single LAX-SFO pair is about 10% of LAX's daily takeoffs, completely ignoring SJC and OAK. Throw in BUR and HSR effectively amounts to a significant capacity increase for non-short haul flights.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    Except that the HSR wouldn't get close to LAX or SFO. It at best would replace SJC to BUR, and even then not really since it will only go to Bakersfield. So most of those flights would probably stay, because why take the HSR if you still have to drive an hour on each end?
    - qwhelan 7y ago
      Nope, the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. They'll be kept for expensive international connections, but the frequency will be dramatically cut. Also, who cares about actually going to an airport? It's only a means to getting where you need to go, which is probably downtown SF or LA
      - jedberg 7y ago
        I was just using the airport as a proxy. But sure let's look at where people actually want to go. If you arrive in San Jose on HSR, and want to go to downtown, you still have to drive an hour or take a train for 90 minutes. And if you arrive in Bakersfield and want to go downtown, you're looking at two hours in the car or three on a bus. > the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars so they can remove those flights? Sounds like we already have a system that works and is subsidizing other flights as well.
        qwhelan 7y ago
        > So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars Because adding comparable capacity to SFO and LAX would be $100B+
seb314 7y ago
I think local public transport might be just a lot more efficient than longer-distance HSR. So if there isn't even a basic solution for the local transport, it seems odd to start with HSR. That impression is mostly based on comparison to Germany though.

jedberg 7y ago

The airports are already there for longer flights, we just happen to use them for the short flights too. That's the main difference. This train would be to replace a single short flight route.

qwhelan 7y ago
The single LAX-SFO pair is about 10% of LAX's daily takeoffs, completely ignoring SJC and OAK. Throw in BUR and HSR effectively amounts to a significant capacity increase for non-short haul flights.
- jedberg 7y ago
  Except that the HSR wouldn't get close to LAX or SFO. It at best would replace SJC to BUR, and even then not really since it will only go to Bakersfield. So most of those flights would probably stay, because why take the HSR if you still have to drive an hour on each end?
  - qwhelan 7y ago
    Nope, the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. They'll be kept for expensive international connections, but the frequency will be dramatically cut. Also, who cares about actually going to an airport? It's only a means to getting where you need to go, which is probably downtown SF or LA
    - jedberg 7y ago
      I was just using the airport as a proxy. But sure let's look at where people actually want to go. If you arrive in San Jose on HSR, and want to go to downtown, you still have to drive an hour or take a train for 90 minutes. And if you arrive in Bakersfield and want to go downtown, you're looking at two hours in the car or three on a bus. > the airlines hate running those routes. They're highly competitive and thus terrible uses of very expensive assets. So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars so they can remove those flights? Sounds like we already have a system that works and is subsidizing other flights as well.
      - qwhelan 7y ago
        > So why exactly should California spend 20 billion dollars Because adding comparable capacity to SFO and LAX would be $100B+

seb314 7y ago

I think local public transport might be just a lot more efficient than longer-distance HSR. So if there isn't even a basic solution for the local transport, it seems odd to start with HSR. That impression is mostly based on comparison to Germany though.