Keeping Calif. high-speed rail plan on track

[AsahinaKimi]

Californians have embraced the idea of high-speed rail tying together our state but, like many dreams, it has lost some of its glow in the harsh light of reality. This is especially true on the Peninsula, where a majority favors the high-speed train but community after community has opposed plans to build it.


Opposition has so hardened as the California High Speed Rail Authority fleshes out the scope of its plans for the San Jose-to-San Francisco segment that a trio of legislative leaders - Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Palo Alto, state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and Assemblyman Rich Gordon, D-Los Altos - on Monday urged the rail authority to shrink the project's size and complexity yet ensure that high-speed trains will run seamlessly from Los Angeles to San Francisco.

Add to the mix the Peninsula's other rail problem, the financially challenged Caltrain, which had threatened to shut down half the rail line's stations and severely curtail service. A short-term financing solution emerged Thursday, and Peninsula service will continue (see below) as it has for more than 100 years.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/04/21/ED381J5GQ6.DTL

[Drale]

1. Ok this might sound harsh

but just build it, the people will enjoy it and hell I bet those communities that are opposing it might even see increase in taxes from people using the line.

[msongs]

2. end station in SF only bypassing all those cities who do not want it. makes it faster too nt

[Journeyman]

4. Or something like this might keep the speed up but allow for multiple stations. . .

The train that never stops. . .

http://ebaumnation.com/2010/04/16/the-train-that-never-stops

[AsahinaKimi]

5. Thats a cool idea

I hope it works.

[Journeyman]

9. It certainly seems like a solution to some of the major blocks . . .

Here in South California, a bullet train to Las Vegas makes a great deal of sense. I personally believe the casinos need to put up the lion's share of the money -- they certainly stand to gain a lion's share of winnings once the train is operational.

But every small town between LA and LV insists the train needs to stop in their station. Even across the desert, there are enough towns demanding a stop that the train would be unable to get to get up to speed for more than a few minutes at a time.

With a solution like this, however . . . it just might work. I certainly hope something gets decided and decided soon, as we need better transport than we have (and have since at least the early ’70s).

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. There have been numerous studing of LV to LA HSR...not financially viable yet

Which I consider a clue about how useful LA to SF HSR will be. Nothing I have read shows there is that much traffic between the locations.

[Cant trust em]

12. The problem isn't the stations.

It's the high speed trains running through towns.

Palo Alto nimbys are just going to have to get over it.

[Starry Messenger]

3. The Peninsula is...special.

I live here and there are anti-HSR signs all over. The villagers don't want the train spoiling the view...might not be able to see the jet planes roaring into SFO.

[Retrograde]

6. I also live there

the cities on the Peninsula are there because of the trains: we currently have regular service between San Jose and San Francisco, and the areas near the train stations, the old downtowns, are densely populated and business centers. The current proposal to run high-speed trains through these areas, possibly displacing residents and business, was not well-thoughtout, and, rail fan that I am, I think it's a bad proposal.

Our US congresswoman and state senator had a much better proposal earlier this week: run the highspeed trains to San Jose, than switch to the existing system. Cheaper - we can built the remaining grade separations and electrify Caltrain for the cost of building the new tracks - and quicker, since it uses existing infrastructure, much of it upgraded in the past five years.

[Starry Messenger]

8. Would this help keep some of the Caltrain stations open that are threatened with closure?

Public transportation in our area is already so fragmented. I can see the point of view of your post, but I can see a risk in also adding another layer of trying to sync things up in our piecemeal system. Caltrain is great, but stories I've read seem to portray it as constantly at risk from low funding, etc. I admit I'm not well read on this, but the signs I'm seeing weren't near the business districts but out in the neighborhoods.

[Cant trust em]

14. A Caltrain trip from SF to SJ, then a high speed rail trip to LA will probably be a 4 hour plus trip

I think that most folks will be interested in taking a slightly longer journey from SF to LA on the train compared to the train, but not a significantly longer ride.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. But is there really enough traffic to justify the investment?

[bananas]

17. Prop 1A requires maximum nonstop travel time SF to LA be 2 hours 40 minutes

http://www.cahsrblog.com/2011/04/simitian-and-eshoo-split-on-forced-transfer-at-san-jose/

Prop. 1A also requires that maximum nonstop travel time from San Francisco to Los Angeles be two hours and 40 minutes. Changing trains or running high-speed trains on Caltrain tracks is not legal under Prop. 1A, nor is it what Californians approved in 2008. Weighing in on design issues to minimize impacts along the route is an appropriate role for local legislators; suggesting alternatives that violate the law is not.

The reason HSR needs express trains between major population centers:
HSR is expensive to build and needs lots of passengers to keep ticket prices reasonable.
So it has to directly connect large population centers,
and it has to compete with flying and driving on travel time and ticket prices.
With a longer travel time, more people will choose to fly or drive,
reducing the number of HSR passengers;
reduced ticket sales means ticket prices have to go up to cover the construction costs,
so even more people will choose to fly or drive,
further reducing ticket sales and forcing even higher ticket prices.
The economic projections for ridership and ticket prices are based on the travel time of 2:40,
without that it prop 1a wouldn't have been approved.

[XemaSab]

7. Why not ditch Caltrain and put BART along the existing ROW?

It makes no sense to put high-speed rail within the Bay Area when there are already two commuter rail systems in place that could be expanded.

[Retrograde]

10. I'd rather ditch BART and run Caltrain on their RoW

BART's a bloated, over-managed system that I pay taxes towards even though their attitude seems to be screw the South Bay. Caltrain manages to limp by with little to no special funding: if it got a fraction of the tax dollars that go to BART it would still be able to run all its midday trains.

The best example of the mismatch in philosophies of the two systems are the Millbrae stations:BART has an elaborate structureb built for three times the traffic it has with artworks (and the world's slowest elevator); the Caltrain part is a bench with an awning.

[Cant trust em]

13. Probably because that costs billions of dollars. nt

[AsahinaKimi]

11. Its always been my dream

to ride the shinkansen (Bullet Trains). To have one that goes from SF to LA in an hour or so would be wonderful, because I have so many friends down there. I hate the bus, and flying isn't that much fun anymore with people probing your private parts. I have taken the Train down to LA but it takes all day. Give me a fast train! Europe and Asia have had the bullet trains for years now, and I always wondered why we lagged behind. California will build one, some day. I can't wait to ride it!