4 ms·

Who is this train for? If I'm in business and need to fly between la and sf it's a $100 non stop 1 hour flight. Or $50 in gas (and wear and tear). If I'm not

Who is this train for? If I'm in business and need to fly between la and sf it's a $100 non stop 1 hour flight. Or $50 in gas (and wear and tear). If I'm not well off (or have a family) I'm probably driving because once I get there I still need a car (because la has terrible public transportation and car rentals are pretty expensive these days. ) And it's not bad. 6 hours or so. What they should have done was spend the money to invest in robust and extensive fast public transportation in Los Angeles that would immediately benefit millions of people every single day. As it stands it takes 45 minutes on the metro from Santa Monica to downtown (~10 miles) because they designed it with one rail each direction. So it has to hit every stop (no express lane). It's the same as sitting in traffic. If you are not directly along the metro lines in LA and headed to a place that's also on the lines ( and the entire westside is a desert) you are driving. I would love to take the train from la to San Diego. But it would take me an hour to drive to the train station (over an hour on the bus) and then a 2 hour train ride which still costs $40. What's the point? I see the same for this high speed rail. Who are the customers and how can anyone justify the cost?

kidme5 4y ago
Maybe they can do both (high speed rail and better metro transportation)
- runarberg 4y ago
  And indeed they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R#Measure_M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R#Measure_M
jeandejean 4y ago
Nobody said that's the miracle solution to bring public transportation for all, that's a key step to it though. Public transports in California cities need to be built too! Keeping on doubling down for cars/flights will surely never bring any sustainable and environmental solution.
- subroutine 4y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment, I think some lawmakers in CA think they can get public transportation to rival cities like New York. It will never happen in places like LA/SD unfortunately. There is far too much sprawl. Most ppl in NYC can step off a subway and walk a couple blocks and be at there destination. In SD, where I live, it doesnt seem financially possible. Recently SANDAG approved a $160 billion dollar Transit Plan. That would equate to $110k per resident if we paid out of pocket; hopefully they can do some financial voodoo so that's not the case. A few weeks ago SANDAG officials were forced to withdrawal the most controversial part of their plan, a mileage tax that would tax San Diegans for every mile they drive (obviously very unpopular among residents). But, this tax was the main source of funding for the $163B Regional Transportation Plan, so they are forced to find a new funding mechanism. I'm curious what they will come up with.
Karrot_Kream 4y ago
Money earmarked for HSR is not money that can be applied for LA transit. LA transit can only be funded by increasing transit appropriations by LA residents.
jlmorton 4y ago
#1, it's not exactly cost-free to increase capacity at major airports. LAX currently operates near its maximum capacity. There's a $15 billion upgrade project, but it's not going to add all that much capacity. And given noise abatement and spacing requirements, there are fundamental limits to how much capacity can be added. #2, planes are dirty and we lack the technology to make them clean. Perhaps by the time HSR is built, we'll all have solar-powered e-fuels, or a major battery revolution that enables electric planes. But we don't have that yet and it's not clear we'll have it any time soon. #3, the flying time between LA and SF is quick, but there is much time getting to airports, waiting at airports, delays at airports due to weather and inbound flights, and getting back to city centers. #4, there are all sorts of other locations on the route. For instance, the Bay Area is a major economic center, but housing is extremely expensive. HSR enables people to live in Stockton or Modesto and get to San Jose, or Oakland in under an hour. It will invigorate Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, Fresno, Madera.
- lovecg 4y ago
  > It will invigorate Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, Fresno, Madera. “Monorail! Monorail!” Sorry couldn’t resist.
- double_nan 4y ago
  There is no good public transit even within bay area (where SFO and SJC are located). Without public transit HSR is close to useless. How HSR will make public transit to appear?
  - kolinko 4y ago
    SF is small enough for Uber and Lime to solve the issue - trying to use your own car to get around in SF is not the best idea. For South Bay, if you're there for business, yeah - you probably need a car.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
thepasswordis 4y ago
I think there is a subset of US government officials that have a weird obsession with trains. It's a cargo cult. They see asian/european trains, and just think that if we make trains it will somehow solve transportation problems. I saw in my former city a bus line get replaced by a train. It was infuriating. They tore up the roads and replaced the busses with trains which are worse in every imaginable way. They did this while also passing local laws which made it harder to operate scooter/bike rentals (bird scooters and the like). But these politicians just think literal trains are the solution. Again, its' weird cargo cultism. A legit high speed rail (300kph) line that went from Seattle to San Diego, or from Minneapolis to New Orleans would be great. It doesn't seem like anybody is even trying to do that.
- double_nan 4y ago
  I don’t know: San Jose - Seattle is ~900 miles or 1400km-1500km. That is 5-6 hours direct train at best at 300kmh. I don’t see this as something beneficial to a plane. Borderline comparable to flying and only because of slow TSA.
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    SeaTac is out in the middle of nowhere and easily one of the most unpleasant airports I've ever flown out of. Last time I had to go through immigration at SEA there was vomit smeared all over the floor. Meanwhile the Amtrak station in Seattle is centrally located, about fifteen minutes to downtown by tram. The Amtrak station in Portland is pretty much right in the middle of downtown. I don't know that I'd want to go from the Bay Area to Seattle on a train, but something like Portland to Seattle would benefit greatly from HSR (currently it's about a 4 hour trip).
    - runarberg 4y ago
      There are plans for HSR between Vancouver, BC and Portland, OR. Washington state just allocated a few hundred million to advance design. I think they are waiting for some matching federal grants before proceeding. I think they are hoping for a high speed line within 10 years or something. I actually think that if the High Speed line is built all the way south to Eugene it kind of makes sense to build a traditional electrified rail way between Eugene and Redding CA. through Medford, and a higher speed line to Sacramento where it could interline with California High-Speed Rail to LA. Connecting Medford with Redding and Eugene with a traditional rail should be worth it on its own, but with the surrounding high speed lines it becomes possible to operate a west coast sleeper between Seattle and LA in like 10-13 hours (as opposed to the current 36 hours).
ehnto 4y ago
Public transport will grow from the trunk line, which is essentially what High Speed Rail becomes. The state of public transport and the car centric focus of the state is because the public infrastructure isn't there, rather than in spite of it. > If you are not directly along the metro lines in LA and headed to a place that's also on the lines ( and the entire westside is a desert) you are driving This is a problem with every type of transport. You still have to drive to the highway, to the airport, to intercity the bus station. You might see as 'burbs served well by the HSR become popular and developments form near them, that the stations become hubs for business and commerce.
- quest88 4y ago
  The public transit around the bay area, which is served by Bart and Caltrain, is not very good.
lovecg 4y ago
It’s a throughput play. Assuming population and economic growth continues that $100 one hour flight will run into airport capacity issues sooner or later. The train will start looking attractive when the flight is either frequently delayed or becomes $500.

kidme5 4y ago

Maybe they can do both (high speed rail and better metro transportation)

runarberg 4y ago
And indeed they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R#Measure_M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R#Measure_M

jeandejean 4y ago

Nobody said that's the miracle solution to bring public transportation for all, that's a key step to it though. Public transports in California cities need to be built too! Keeping on doubling down for cars/flights will surely never bring any sustainable and environmental solution.

subroutine 4y ago
While I agree with the sentiment, I think some lawmakers in CA think they can get public transportation to rival cities like New York. It will never happen in places like LA/SD unfortunately. There is far too much sprawl. Most ppl in NYC can step off a subway and walk a couple blocks and be at there destination. In SD, where I live, it doesnt seem financially possible. Recently SANDAG approved a $160 billion dollar Transit Plan. That would equate to $110k per resident if we paid out of pocket; hopefully they can do some financial voodoo so that's not the case. A few weeks ago SANDAG officials were forced to withdrawal the most controversial part of their plan, a mileage tax that would tax San Diegans for every mile they drive (obviously very unpopular among residents). But, this tax was the main source of funding for the $163B Regional Transportation Plan, so they are forced to find a new funding mechanism. I'm curious what they will come up with.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago

Money earmarked for HSR is not money that can be applied for LA transit. LA transit can only be funded by increasing transit appropriations by LA residents.

jlmorton 4y ago

#1, it's not exactly cost-free to increase capacity at major airports. LAX currently operates near its maximum capacity. There's a $15 billion upgrade project, but it's not going to add all that much capacity. And given noise abatement and spacing requirements, there are fundamental limits to how much capacity can be added. #2, planes are dirty and we lack the technology to make them clean. Perhaps by the time HSR is built, we'll all have solar-powered e-fuels, or a major battery revolution that enables electric planes. But we don't have that yet and it's not clear we'll have it any time soon. #3, the flying time between LA and SF is quick, but there is much time getting to airports, waiting at airports, delays at airports due to weather and inbound flights, and getting back to city centers. #4, there are all sorts of other locations on the route. For instance, the Bay Area is a major economic center, but housing is extremely expensive. HSR enables people to live in Stockton or Modesto and get to San Jose, or Oakland in under an hour. It will invigorate Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, Fresno, Madera.

lovecg 4y ago
> It will invigorate Bakersfield, Modesto, Stockton, Fresno, Madera. “Monorail! Monorail!” Sorry couldn’t resist.
double_nan 4y ago
There is no good public transit even within bay area (where SFO and SJC are located). Without public transit HSR is close to useless. How HSR will make public transit to appear?
- kolinko 4y ago
  SF is small enough for Uber and Lime to solve the issue - trying to use your own car to get around in SF is not the best idea. For South Bay, if you're there for business, yeah - you probably need a car.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

thepasswordis 4y ago

I think there is a subset of US government officials that have a weird obsession with trains. It's a cargo cult. They see asian/european trains, and just think that if we make trains it will somehow solve transportation problems. I saw in my former city a bus line get replaced by a train. It was infuriating. They tore up the roads and replaced the busses with trains which are worse in every imaginable way. They did this while also passing local laws which made it harder to operate scooter/bike rentals (bird scooters and the like). But these politicians just think literal trains are the solution. Again, its' weird cargo cultism. A legit high speed rail (300kph) line that went from Seattle to San Diego, or from Minneapolis to New Orleans would be great. It doesn't seem like anybody is even trying to do that.

double_nan 4y ago
I don’t know: San Jose - Seattle is ~900 miles or 1400km-1500km. That is 5-6 hours direct train at best at 300kmh. I don’t see this as something beneficial to a plane. Borderline comparable to flying and only because of slow TSA.
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  SeaTac is out in the middle of nowhere and easily one of the most unpleasant airports I've ever flown out of. Last time I had to go through immigration at SEA there was vomit smeared all over the floor. Meanwhile the Amtrak station in Seattle is centrally located, about fifteen minutes to downtown by tram. The Amtrak station in Portland is pretty much right in the middle of downtown. I don't know that I'd want to go from the Bay Area to Seattle on a train, but something like Portland to Seattle would benefit greatly from HSR (currently it's about a 4 hour trip).
  - runarberg 4y ago
    There are plans for HSR between Vancouver, BC and Portland, OR. Washington state just allocated a few hundred million to advance design. I think they are waiting for some matching federal grants before proceeding. I think they are hoping for a high speed line within 10 years or something. I actually think that if the High Speed line is built all the way south to Eugene it kind of makes sense to build a traditional electrified rail way between Eugene and Redding CA. through Medford, and a higher speed line to Sacramento where it could interline with California High-Speed Rail to LA. Connecting Medford with Redding and Eugene with a traditional rail should be worth it on its own, but with the surrounding high speed lines it becomes possible to operate a west coast sleeper between Seattle and LA in like 10-13 hours (as opposed to the current 36 hours).

ehnto 4y ago

Public transport will grow from the trunk line, which is essentially what High Speed Rail becomes. The state of public transport and the car centric focus of the state is because the public infrastructure isn't there, rather than in spite of it. > If you are not directly along the metro lines in LA and headed to a place that's also on the lines ( and the entire westside is a desert) you are driving This is a problem with every type of transport. You still have to drive to the highway, to the airport, to intercity the bus station. You might see as 'burbs served well by the HSR become popular and developments form near them, that the stations become hubs for business and commerce.

quest88 4y ago
The public transit around the bay area, which is served by Bart and Caltrain, is not very good.

lovecg 4y ago

It’s a throughput play. Assuming population and economic growth continues that $100 one hour flight will run into airport capacity issues sooner or later. The train will start looking attractive when the flight is either frequently delayed or becomes $500.