California High Speed Rail

[phattonez]

I guess that this is the best place for the thread on this. So anyway, here's the latest news.

http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6453393.html

I'll change this post later with a synopsis on the project.

[krudmonk]

So the latest developments are that Sacramento and San Diego finally get included but there's no spur route to San Jose? Fuck that.

[phattonez]

No, it says that preliminary engineering and environmental analysis will be conducted.

[metropolismayor]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

So the latest developments are that Sacramento and San Diego finally get included but there's no spur route to San Jose? Fuck that.

Agreed.

[arturo]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

So the latest developments are that Sacramento and San Diego finally get included but there's no spur route to San Jose? Fuck that.

It was my understanding that the first line built would be from SJ to LA, followed by the following extensions: SJ>OAK; SJ>SF; Modesto>SAC; LA>SD. I believe the article only says the norhternmost points will be SF, OAK and SAC which is true. So I think we're good. SJ has historically been a major train hub for the Bay Area due to its location and will be so in the future.

[gladisimo]

I want to go on HSR to LA, SD, would save a lot of trouble, but only if it is reasonably cheap...

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by arturo

It was my understanding that the first line built would be from SJ to LA, followed by the following extensions: SJ>OAK; SJ>SF; Modesto>SAC; LA>SD. I believe the article only says the norhternmost points will be SF, OAK and SAC which is true. So I think we're good. SJ has historically been a major train hub for the Bay Area due to its location and will be so in the future.

I think you're assuming they go the Pacheco route, not Altamont. That decision is still way up in the air (more than HSR itself).

[arturo]

Originally Posted by gladisimo

I want to go on HSR to LA, SD, would save a lot of trouble, but only if it is reasonably cheap...

Id pay $50-$60 each way...then again since it's a downtown to downtown service you save A LOT by not hiring a cab. Why is Ahnold so against this???

[phattonez]

Originally Posted by arturo

Id pay $50-$60 each way...then again since it's a downtown to downtown service you save A LOT by not hiring a cab. Why is Ahnold so against this???

Because he wants to pay back the bonds early. That's why he's also stealing money from the spillover fund. All of our transportation projects are going down the drain because of him (except for freeways, and we all know that freeways are the solution ).

[phattonez]

From what I've heard, this is definitely going to be on the 2008 ballot unless the legislature tries to amend it.

[metropolismayor]

My proposal is to have a hsr extension from central Cal that goes to Las Vegas. and the casinos should pick up the tab, since they'd seen a boon in business.

[Gary_A_Hill]

Originally Posted by phattonez

I guess that this is the best place for the thread on this. So anyway, here's the latest news.

http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6453393.html

Why not in the "urban transport" section?

[arturo]

Originally Posted by metropolismayor

My proposal is to have a hsr extension from central Cal that goes to Las Vegas. and the casinos should pick up the tab, since they'd seen a boon in business.

there's a private initiative to to get HSR from l.a. grand central to vegas. it's definitely plausible since widening highway 58 and expanding capacity at vegas intl would be extremely expensive and that money could be put towards a HSR line co-funded by casinos.

[-Corey-]

With bullet trains operating at speeds up to 220 miles an hour, the express train time from downtown San Francisco to Los Angeles will be just under two and a half hours.

wow, that would be awesome, i would love to go to SF in less than 4 hours.

[phattonez]

Originally Posted by Gary_A_Hill

Why not in the "urban transport" section?

Because this is for California. You can go ahead and post this in the "Urban Transport" forum if you want.

Btw, the proposal to Vegas is a link from Anaheim to Las Vegas. This would tie in great with CAHSR.

[phattonez]

So to pick this discussion up a bit, why doesn't everybody say which route that they're for?

I'm gonna say Altamont all the way. I think that a lot of us have seen the picture of density in California and the Altamont route follows that line of density, Pacheco doesn't.

[krudmonk]

The objective should be to curb that sprawl. It's about connecting the current major metro areas, not patching together new ones in the middle of the central valley with random exotic Spanish names used to sell new tract homes. Pacheco all the way.

[Taco]

I think West Coast is brilliant place, but so unstabile about country. If I could be in high speed train at earthquake area it would not be fun to think what could happen.

[arturo]

Originally Posted by phattonez

So to pick this discussion up a bit, why doesn't everybody say which route that they're for?

I'm gonna say Altamont all the way. I think that a lot of us have seen the picture of density in California and the Altamont route follows that line of density, Pacheco doesn't.

Pacheco is the best option for the simple reason that Altamont splits the service three ways once it enters the Bay Area: 1/3 of trains to SJ, 1/3 to SF and the other 1/3 to OAK. The Pacheco Pass alignment serves SJ with 100% of the trains and SF and OAK each with 50% (ideally of course).

People's main argument for the Altamont alignment is that is would serve all of those suburban commuters between Stockton and the Bay Area but if the HSR stopped at five or six of those cities it would cease to be HSR and resemble the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) train service which already serves that area. HSR requires as few stops as possible to achieve those high speeds and unfortunately many cities need to be left out.

The group that administers transportation money for the Bay Area counties– the Metropolitan Transportation Commission– favors the Pacheco alignment, as do the cities of San Jose and San Francisco. Oakland is still on the fence. It's important to remember that when the plan was drawn up the engineers had it going through Pacheco Pass; the reason we're now discussing Altamont is because legally other options have to be explored.

[phattonez]

krudmonk is right about sprawl, we shouldn't encourage it. The best way to do this is to build where the people are, and the people live along the Altamont alignment.



Remember, CASHR will be built for long distance and can also work as commuter rail. That is why there are so many stops in the urban areas.

For anyone arguinig for trip times, you should see that there is not a big difference between Pacheco and Altamont for a train from SF to LA.