CA Bullet Train Should have Fewer Stops

[FayeforCure]

Many on this board advocated for more stops on the FL HSR route..........here is why this is foolish, not just in terms of slowing down the train, but also in terms of inadequate additional ridership from those stops:

CAHSR should learn lessons from Thalys bullet train

Jul 18, 2011
  By Tom Elias

Want to know what a California high speed rail system might actually be like? What might be some strengths, flaws and weaknesses in current plans of the state commission working to get such a system built? Or who might ride it?
One good way to find out, some readers of this column have suggested, might be to ride one of the systems operating in other parts of the world. So it was that on a cool, drizzly morning in late June, a California columnist boarded second-class coach No. 18 of the maroon-colored Thalys bullet train that zips 316 miles between Paris and Amsterdam, two sprawling European metropolitan areas separated mostly by farmland.

That's just about 40 miles less than the distance between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Intermediate stops were scheduled in Brussels and Antwerp, Belgium and Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

You immediately notice that this is a very long train. Even with luggage that rolls, it's a long way from car 1 near the gate in Paris' Gare du Nord (North Station) to No. 18, third car from the engine at the front of the train, way out near the end of the platform. That's far beyond the glass roof sheltering the lower-numbered first-class cars from the light rain.

This train is popular, packed, maybe loved. You can't miss the throngs on the platform. Every seat in coach 18 has been booked; but there is no discomfort. Plenty of leg room. Plenty of space for baggage of all sizes overhead or at the front and rear of the car. Four airlines operate between Paris and Amsterdam, but thousands of passengers preferred the train this morning, even though it costs a bit more than many flights and significantly more than an ordinary train - even for second class.

Seating at the lowest price levels is far wider, more supportive and comfortable than on hedgehopper flights between European cities.

All this might indicate the California High Speed Rail Commission is correct in figuring that plenty of California residents and tourists would prefer the train to almost any airplane, even at a premium price.

The terrain traversed by the Thalys is, if anything, less interesting than what passengers would see from a California bullet train. And far, far less interesting than what passengers might watch if and when San Diego and Sacramento are added to the California system.

The parts of northern France and the Low Countries crossed by the Thalys are mostly open fields, with no mountain ranges or coastlines, and only one smallish body of water, the Zuider Zee. No one is riding this train for the scenery.

California would offer far more diversity, along the coast north of San Diego, over the Tehachapi Mountains north of Los Angeles and crossing the Coast Range between planned stops in Merced and San Jose.

It's also true that if the California route were changed to run along the Interstate 5 corridor between Grapevine at the northern foot of the Tehachapis and whichever Northern California point from which it might head west over the Coast Range, the scenery would be no more boring than what's offered by the heavily-used Thalys.

Instead of wheatfields and pastures, an I-5 route would pass cotton fields, almond orchards and more as it paralleled much of the California Aqueduct. Smooth might be the one word to describe ride on the Thalys. The railbed feels cushioned. Almost like butter. That's for the entire route, most of which sees the bullet train coursing along the same rights of way as other passenger trains at a maximum 187 mph.

And while some Central Valley farmers who insist high-speed tracks would disrupt their hugely productive operations, it's plain this route is surrounded by prosperous farms - many overrun during World War II by German Panzer divisions and later by American tanks and infantry.

The thought arose while riding that America would look very different today if ranchers had prevailed with objections to Transcontinental Railway tracks traversing their land.

One other item: When passengers begin debarking at intermediate points like Brussels and Antwerp, almost no one gets aboard to replace them. This suggests bullet trains may not be for short- or intermediate-distance commuters. Today and typically, just over half those who board in Paris stay with the train all the way to Amsterdam. Maybe ordinary trains and cars suffice for shorter commutes.

This reality suggests cities like Bakersfield, Merced, Fresno and San Jose might never produce the passenger numbers California planners say they expect, calling into question the need for so many expensive stations and stops.

Meanwhile, the columnist found the Thalys loaded not only with business folk talking shop for most of their three-hour, 18-minute ride, but also families with kids, college-age travelers and assorted types not so easily categorized. They seemed to love the ride and reached Amsterdam looking more relaxed than when they left Paris. All of which suggests a bullet train could work well in California - but only with significant changes to the current plan.

http://www.gilroydispatch.com/opinion/277528-cahsr-should-learn-lessons-from-thalys-bullet-train

[thelakelander]

Not more stops for a HSR trian.  The point being advocated here for the I-4 corridor was using the infrastructure and ROW for local and express service.  Basically, your express train would make limited stops and another train would utilize the same infrastructure to serve local commuting needs.  In essence, you're killing two birds with one stone.

[FayeforCure]

Not more stops for a HSR trian.  The point being advocated here for the I-4 corridor was using the infrastructure and ROW for local and express service.  Basically, your express train would make limited stops and another train would utilize the same infrastructure to serve local commuting needs.  In essence, you're killing two birds with one stone.

OK, point taken. Still to obfusate the HSR issue by calling for more stops to allow for local as well as express service, does nothing to promote simple HSR. Lets work to get HSR working as quickly and cheaply as possible.........then we can consider adding the additional stops to allow for local service as well on the same HSR infrastructure.

That is also the point of the article.............DO NOT PLAN for those additional stops if you are talking true HSR!

24 stops for CA HSR seems excessive when even major intermediate stops like Brussels and Antwerp, which as large as they are, do not generate any appreciable ridership.

High-Speed Rail, California
The Little Engine That Should

The plan to build a high-speed rail connecting 24 cities in California is still on the radar despite some calls for the project’s derailing. 

Opponents cite cost, location and environmental impact as major roadblocks.

But with California’s population expected to grow by some 12 million people over the next 25 years, this long-term railway proposal makes a lot of sense. 

When was the last time you drove through Los Angeles, San Diego or San Francisco during rush hour? 

How much more lane-widening can you do to existing freeways to even come close to accommodating that many more cars?

You can’t.

Build more freeways? Good luck.

Talk to anyone who’s ridden the rails in Europe and nearly all of them will describe the experience in glowing terms.

High-speed rail makes it possible to wake up to breakfast in Amsterdam, have lunch in London and arrive in Paris in time for dinner. 

Heck, I just want to get from San Diego to L.A. without growing a beard first. 

Two and a half years ago California voters approved a high-speed rail project that would connect Los Angeles and San Francisco by 2020 and eventually expand to Sacramento and San Diego.

But would Californians support the project again if it were put to a vote today?  Probably. 

Back then a barrel of oil went for $55. As of this writing it’s bouncing around $100. 

Just last year voters rejected an initiative to overturn California’s greenhouse gas emissions law.  That was a green light for this project.

A bullet train powered by electricity generated by wind and photovoltaic sources.

The High Speed Rail Authority estimates the entire project will cost about $43 billion.  The state’s Legislative Analysts Office, however, puts the price tag up around $67 billion.

But projects like this already have the full support of the Obama administration.

“Within 25 years our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to high speed rail which could allow you to go places in half the time it takes to travel by car”, says President Obama. 

About $10 billion worth of federal high-speed rail funds has been committed to building bullet train lines throughout the nation. 

Even better for California is the fact that plans have been scrapped to build similar projects in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin. 

That might leave additional government largesse on the table for the Golden State’s rail.

Even so, federal funds alone won’t do it.  Not even close. 

Fortunately California voters have already approved $9 billion in state funds. Only a small portion of those funds would be required to get the project started.

Then there’s private funding. In Europe and Asia, once construction began the private sector came knocking for their piece of the pie. 

Similarly, long-term plans call for private enterprise to eventually take over the operation and maintenance of California’s bullet train system in the 1950’s.

In June the mayors of five large California cities released a statement in support of the project. 

They support beginning construction in the Central Valley and building out from there. It’s the same model the Eisenhower administration followed when building the California portion of our nation’s highway system.

Then there are jobs. An estimated 100,00 jobs would be created during each year of the construction phase (which is expected to last until at least 2025).  Add to that number 450,000 permanent jobs upon completion. 

It’s a future where thousands of people gain quality jobs in a trend-setting economic sector.  Thousands of people traveling at speeds up to 220 mph on a train that uses renewable energy sources for power, effectively taking thousands of automobiles off the freeways.   

It’s a future Californians should get on board with today.

BY Jason Austell // 5 minutes ago | Print

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/blogs/prop-zero/The-Little-Engine-That-Should-125969038.html

[thelakelander]

Not more stops for a HSR trian.  The point being advocated here for the I-4 corridor was using the infrastructure and ROW for local and express service.  Basically, your express train would make limited stops and another train would utilize the same infrastructure to serve local commuting needs.  In essence, you're killing two birds with one stone.

OK, point taken. Still to obfusate the HSR issue by calling for more stops to allow for local as well as express service, does nothing to promote simple HSR. Lets work to get HSR working as quickly and cheaply as possible

I think that's the point missed about the comments regarding the Florida plan.  Simply put, screw HSR.  Ultimately, its not about promoting HSR at the expense of other mass transit modes.  Its about designing the best system for each specific corridor segment in a fiscally responsible manner.  That particular stretch worked better as a commuter rail corridor.  It would have not done anyone (HSR advocates included) good to have trains blowing by major destinations like the Seminole Hard Rock Casino at +100mph only to be dropped off at a surface parking lot under an elevated expressway 10 miles away with no direct link to get to what was immediately adjacent to $2.7 billion worth of recently installed infrastructure. 

My feeling was, that HSR as proposed would have never attracted the ridership numbers being pushed.  However, with the feds/private sector basically begging give us a quality rail line on their own dime, I was ready to wait for the results of the RFP.  My line of thinking was this is an opportunity that comes around once every generation and with the infrastructure in place, modifications could have been made to serve I-4 commuters too.  Unfortunately, Rick killed the whole thing so its now water under the bridge.

That is also the point of the article.............DO NOT PLAN for those additional stops if you are talking true HSR!

24 stops for CA HSR seems excessive when even major intermediate stops like Brussels and Antwerp, which as large as they are, do not generate any appreciable ridership.

If HSR advocates are smart, they'll stop arguing amongst themselves and focus on the changing political current across America that threatens to torpedo their entire dream.  That means simply moving as quick as possible to get the infrastructure put in place before the funding faucet stops instead of getting carried away by the actual rail cars that would use it.

[FayeforCure]

My feeling was, that HSR as proposed would have never attracted the ridership numbers being pushed.  However, with the feds/private sector basically begging give us a quality rail line on their own dime, I was ready to wait for the results of the RFP.  My line of thinking was this is an opportunity that comes around once every generation and with the infrastructure in place, modifications could have been made to serve I-4 commuters too.  Unfortunately, Rick killed the whole thing so its now water under the bridge.

Agreed!

Still, fewer stops does simplify a project, making it quicker to implement before the money runs out.

[thelakelander]

For the type of HSR you're talking about (ex. California's because the rest of the US projects are all convention rail at 90 to 110 mph), the fewer the stops the better, although the number of stops isn't the thing holding the project back.  It's the multi-billion dollar price tag to implement that type of technology.