High Speed Rail (Boston to... Texas?)

[acroterion]

How about some $$$ for double tracking on the Boston & Albany to assist the perpetually late Lake Shore Limited and prepare for enhanced Inland Route service?

 

[Lurker]

I'm glad Florida rejected the boondoggle projects so that the NEC could get the funding. Florida would have built a semi-useless system and be stuck paying debt service and maintenance for it. At least the NEC spending will actually use the money for something productive that really won't incur any more maintenance costs than what's already being paid.

Now if only Clownifornia had the sense to stop their useless rail projects and send the cash to the NEC as well....

 

[Ron Newman]

LA to San Francisco is not a useless project! If built it will get very heavy use.

 

[Lurker]

When the stations are built in the middle of nowhere in LA somehow I doubt it will be a successful route to San Francisco. If the stations aren't built in dense areas with existing transit connections, the entire route is worthless. That's a major problem with California's HSR plan. All the stations are in the middle of nowhere with no transit connections! It doesn't matter if a train connects two cities if the stations are in remote areas of those cities.

 

[Ron Newman]

LA - San Diego is Amtrak's second most frequent (and probably second-busiest) route after the Northeast Corridor. LA Union Station is downtown and has very good transit connections. So does the current terminus of Caltrain in San Francisco, which I think will also be used for HSR.

 

[czsz]

The current problem with CA HSR is that the first sections are being built from nowhere to nowhere in the middle of the rural Central Valley. Whatever idiot thought that would set some kind of good precedent - whether for ridership numbers, usefulness, or profit - should be strung up. They should have concentrated on downtown LA - downtown SD first, then drove north to SF via the most populated urban centers along the straightest route.

It's a great idea in theory, but being bungled horribly in practice. It would be like building the NEC from scratch by building the first portion of the main line between Boston and NYC between Woonsocket and Hartford - except even less logical.

How about some $$$ for double tracking on the Boston & Albany to assist the perpetually late Lake Shore Limited and prepare for enhanced Inland Route service?

No! No one rides this. It's never going to be worth the investment. None of the cities between Boston and Chicago have heavy enough ridership. Whatever improvement could be made to the LS Limited won't be enough to attract them.

NYC-Chicago HSR with continuing service via NEC to Boston should be heavily studied, though.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Acela to Richmond seems to be obvious. Is there any money going to this? Something should be going to that.

Not that Richmond is some critical destination (though I'm sure there's plenty of traffic Richmond-DC) but to get going on potential routings through the southeast (I'm thinking Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta) which should inevitably run through Richmond.

 

[acroterion]

No! No one rides this. It's never going to be worth the investment. None of the cities between Boston and Chicago have heavy enough ridership. Whatever improvement could be made to the LS Limited won't be enough to attract them.

Much less for the LSL and much more for the inland service. If Boston to Portland can support 5 trips a day, surely frequent and faster through service between New Haven and Boston via three cities over 120k and an international airport warrants consideration. Not taking into account traffic from a possible Boston leg of the Vermonter/Montrealer or Maine Service via Ayer or Grand Junction. CT is getting their act together on their half. Of course this is "somewhat higher speed rail" I'm talking about, considering projects like the Merrimack Bridge that are competing for this cash.

 

[blade_bltz]

When the stations are built in the middle of nowhere in LA somehow I doubt it will be a successful route to San Francisco. If the stations aren't built in dense areas with existing transit connections, the entire route is worthless. That's a major problem with California's HSR plan. All the stations are in the middle of nowhere with no transit connections! It doesn't matter if a train connects two cities if the stations are in remote areas of those cities.

Transbay terminal in SF and Union Station in LA are in remote areas of their respective cities? (Union Station sees 200k more Amtrak passengers *yearly than South Station, btw.)

Remember, HSR will be competing for air travelers, and people are already accustomed to going long distances to get to the airport.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that the Central Valley is not some unpopulated barren wasteland. It's already more populous than Massachusetts, and continues to be one of the fastest growing areas of the state (along with the Inland Empire). I completely agree that building the initial phase in the CV is a terrible idea - I'm merely adding that it's not accurate to view the proposed California route as merely some point-to-point system between South and North.

 

[blade_bltz]

@ Ron - Caltrain will be extended from its current terminus at 4th and King St to the Transbay terminal downtown, where it will link up with the High Speed Rail.

 

[czsz]

Acela to Richmond seems to be obvious. Is there any money going to this? Something should be going to that.

Not that Richmond is some critical destination (though I'm sure there's plenty of traffic Richmond-DC) but to get going on potential routings through the southeast (I'm thinking Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta) which should inevitably run through Richmond.

I don't think so. By itself, Richmond isn't a large enough market, and it wouldn't "get going" HSR to the SE as much as building successful corridors between major cities elsewhere would. The problem with any line in this area? There really aren't such large cities in the SE. They're all relatively small, with the exception of maybe Atlanta, and located much further apart than the NEC cities. So HSR would really have to take off elsewhere before a line from DC to the Research Triangle area, Charlotte, or Atlanta could be contemplated, and those are really the only markets that make sense.

 

[jass]

czsz, the interstate system is a great idea in theory, but being bungled horribly in practice. It would be like building the interstate system from scratch by building the first portion of the main line between nowhere in kansas and nowhere in kansas.

Oh wait. That is how they started.

Is it really so hard to understand?

When you build a house, do you start with the most useful part, the roof, or the foundation?

Do you then complain that a concrete foundation provides no shelter and the house is a boondoggle because nobody wants to live in a house with no roof or walls?

I mean seriously, no project on earth is built by having every step be constructed simultaneously. That's idiotic.


As for Lurker...

LOL

I havent seen something so ignorant in ages, ad we're on the internet for gods sake.

Middle of nowhere?

No transit connections?


Commuter Rail:


Amtrak
Coast Starlight
Pacific Surfliner
Southwest Chief
Sunset Limited
Texas Eagle

Metrolink
91 Line
Antelope Valley Line
Orange County Line
Riverside Line
San Bernardino Line
Ventura County Line

Metro:
Metro Rail Red Line
Purple Line
Gold Line
Metro Liner BRT Silver Line

Bus:
The attached Patsaouras Transit Plaza serves the following bus lines:
Main entrance of Union Station
* Metro Local: 33 (Late nights)
* Metro Express: 439, 442, 445
* Metro Rapid: 733, 740, 745
* Antelope Valley Transit Authority: 785*
* City of Santa Clarita Transit: 794*
* LADOT DASH: D (weekdays only), Bunker Hill Shuttle
* LADOT Commuter Express: 430*, 534*
* Orange County Transportation Authority: 701*
* Santa Monica Transit: 10
* Torrance Transit: 1, 2
* Foothill Transit: 699
* FlyAway Bus: Non-Stop to LAX Int'l Airport**
The following lines stop on Cesar Chavez Ave. & Vignes St., outside of Patsaouras Transit Plaza:
* Metro Local: 40, 42, 68, 70, 71, 78, 79, 378
* Metro Rapid: 704, 728, 770
* LADOT DASH: Lincoln Heights/Chinatow
* LADOT DASH: B (weekdays only), DD (weekends only)


Please stop embarrassing yourself. South Station sees a fraction of that type of service.

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and maybe you were thinking of the middle-of-nowhere stop in san francisco?

Oh wait.

Middle of nowhere Fresno?

It's no san francisco, but 40,000 people work in the area shown in this photograph.

 

[czsz]

You don't have to build the whole thing simultaneously, but you do have to account for economic reality and political will. There was tremendous support for building a massive highway project in the US in the 1950s - the fact that it was supported as a national defense measure, pushed by a Republican president (after it had first been proposed by FDR), facilitated by the auto industry, and done during an economic boom time during which fewer Americans were ideologically suspicious of the need for large and expensive infrastructure projects all meant that they could build the first section wherever they wanted to and counted on everyone giving them the patience and goodwill to continue. I mean, the country had to be physically remade for the interstate system to really prove useful, but relatively few complained about that at the time.

High speed rail? Not so much. Welcome to 2011: recession, partisanship, even the culture wars now make major projects like this difficult. Even though it requires comparatively little reconfiguration of Americans' lives, it's considered a sinister attempt to overspend tax dollars to impose socialist values. Nevermind that the government still loses billions more per passenger subsidizing highways; HSR is expected to approach some form of profitability. You can't build an inch of the thing without an eye toward proving these sort of naysayers wrong. That's why the early Florida line was such a misguided idea, and why pouring money into the NEC - and CA, provided it actually connects major cities and provides an argument that HSR works well - makes sense. A starter line between LA and SD? Sure. A starter line between Fresno and Bakersfield (will it even reach either one of those)? Uhh...not so sure about that.

 

[blade_bltz]

Isn't the "starter line" planned for Fresno-Corcoran, 60+ miles north of Bakersfield?

Since this is of utility to no one, the whole line will be declared a boondoggle by naysayers before it really gets off the ground. Isn't that the issue?

EDIT: ok, ^ is outdated. The starter line will run from Madera County to Bakersfield, via Fresno. This is obviously better than stopping at Corcoran, but the basic criticism nonetheless applies. I know full well that lots of people live in this area. But why not aim for maximum impact by going LA-SD first?

 

[jass]

You don't have to build the whole thing simultaneously, but you do have to account for economic reality and political will.
A starter line between LA and SD? Sure. A starter line between Fresno and Bakersfield (will it even reach either one of those)? Uhh...not so sure about that.

Isn't the "starter line" planned for Fresno-Corcoran, 60+ miles north of Bakersfield?

Since this is of utility to no one, the whole line will be declared a boondoggle by naysayers before it really gets off the ground. Isn't that the issue?

EDIT: ok, ^ is outdated. The starter line will run from Madera County to Bakersfield, via Fresno. This is obviously better than stopping at Corcoran, but the basic criticism nonetheless applies. I know full well that lots of people live in this area. But why not aim for maximum impact by going LA-SD first?

Again, phase 1, the starter line is between LA and San Francisco. Full stop. Thats what will open. Phase 2 is San Diego and Sacramento.

Fresno-Bakersfield is not a starter line, it's not phase 1. It's where the first shovels will begin shoveling. The project is divided into little segments because it makes planning easier. No one plans on opening each segment separately.

MAYBE the current amtrak trains will run on the first track, increasing their speed from 79mph to 110mph. Its unlikely, but it may happen.

But at no point will true high speed rail run exclusively in the valley.

I don't know why this is so hard to understand for so many people.

By the time construction is nearing an end between fresno and bakersfield, other segments will be under construction.

It's simply not prudent to wait for every section to have the EIR finished to begin any of it.

I mean, just look at the timeline.

The first segment was announced to be corcoran to borden. A few months later, borden to bakersfield. Next month should see another billion dollar money drop and bakersfield to los banos might be funded. By the time late 2012 hits and construction begins, there might be another money drop for bakersfield-palmdale.



Heres another comparison...

They built the subway station to nowhere! The new england medical station orange line stop was built and didnt connect to anything! Who will ride the train that literally goes nowhere?

You have to start somewhere.

 

[stellarfun]

On Washington to Richmond, CSX owns the track, and those tracks get very heavy freight use. Not electrified. Doubtful that CSX would welcome high speed Acela trains on that route.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

On Washington to Richmond, CSX owns the track, and those tracks get very heavy freight use. Not electrified. Doubtful that CSX would welcome high speed Acela trains on that route.

We need an independent double tracking. We need to stop mixing trains at some point, so let's start now. Just lay 2 fenced off electrified tracks on the side of the CSX ROW.

 

[porter]

Its a great idea and will hopefully reduce car and plane use. I've ridden high-speed rail in Europe and it really was a delight to be able to get from place to place so quickly, comfortably, and safely. But...why devote a lot of resources to something that isn't really needed (as in we have cars and planes and regular trains) at a time when our deficit is enormous? Why not wait until that issue is fixed and we start getting some 90s-style tax surpluses again to build this?

That argument aside, its a pretty cool prospect connecting Boston to NY and DC, being able to go to those places for a weekend or something for much less than the cost of a plane ticket.

 

[jass]

Its a great idea and will hopefully reduce car and plane use. I've ridden high-speed rail in Europe and it really was a delight to be able to get from place to place so quickly, comfortably, and safely. But...why devote a lot of resources to something that isn't really needed (as in we have cars and planes and regular trains) at a time when our deficit is enormous? Why not wait until that issue is fixed and we start getting some 90s-style tax surpluses again to build this?

Because the population is always increasing, and these projeects take a very long time.

The California project isnt build HSR or NOT build HSR.

Its build HSR...or spend the same amount (or more) widening the highway and expanding airports.

And we're never going to have 90s style surpluses again because some people insist on cutting taxes every week.

 

[bbfen]

How about some $$$ for double tracking on the Boston & Albany to assist the perpetually late Lake Shore Limited and prepare for enhanced Inland Route service?

No! No one rides this. It's never going to be worth the investment. None of the cities between Boston and Chicago have heavy enough ridership. Whatever improvement could be made to the LS Limited won't be enough to attract them.

NYC-Chicago HSR with continuing service via NEC to Boston should be heavily studied, though.

The Lakdshore costs a shitload of money. That's why no one takes it. Cheaper and faster to fly to Chicago and drive to Albany.