Gavin Newsom No Longer Supports High Speed Rail (San Diego, Sacramento: light rail, land)

[wooliemonster]

Originally Posted by jade408

This is my beef with the project. It should have followed the Amtrak's Capital Corridor route. The Amtrak route that id popular, profitable, and the 3rd highest performing route in the country (after those ones in the Northeast).

The idea of skipping Oakland and Sacramento is ludicrous. And the Peninsula NIMBYs as well. I initially supported the project, with an assumption it would mirror the popular existing train routes on Amtrak and Caltrain, as HSR could replace or augment those routes, reducing congestion on 80, 205 and 101.

Traffic congestion cannot be decreased, ever, without removing people, jobs, or cars. It's a hopeless cause with a bottomless appetite. Any reduction in congestion due to shifts in mode share will simply invite more drivers. Imagine a Realtor® saying, "Don't worry! Ever since Caltrain went electric, the 101 is a breeze in the mornings." Traffic exists in equilibrium with people's tolerance for traffic.

I support intensive rail development for many reasons, but reducing highway traffic is not one of them. That problem can't be solved, so why worry about it. I like rail because it is more predictable, energy efficient, encourages better land use, uses ROW more efficiently, allows one to accomplish other tasks while commuting, etc.

Anyway, Caltrain going electric and the DTX is more relevant than HSR in many ways. It's possible we might see 125mph Caltrain many years before we see full SF-LA HSR. I believe the Capitol Corridor is also planning for significant upgrades to 125mph, targeting 1hr trips from SAC-OAK and 1.5hr SAC-SJ. Viewpoints: A different vision for train travel - Viewpoints - The Sacramento Bee

[shooting4life]

Originally Posted by wooliemonster

Traffic congestion cannot be decreased, ever, without removing people, jobs, or cars. It's a hopeless cause with a bottomless appetite. Any reduction in congestion due to shifts in mode share will simply invite more drivers. Imagine a Realtor® saying, "Don't worry! Ever since Caltrain went electric, the 101 is a breeze in the mornings." Traffic exists in equilibrium with people's tolerance for traffic.

I support intensive rail development for many reasons, but reducing highway traffic is not one of them. That problem can't be solved, so why worry about it. I like rail because it is more predictable, energy efficient, encourages better land use, uses ROW more efficiently, allows one to accomplish other tasks while commuting, etc.

Anyway, Caltrain going electric and the DTX is more relevant than HSR in many ways. It's possible we might see 125mph Caltrain many years before we see full SF-LA HSR. I believe the Capitol Corridor is also planning for significant upgrades to 125mph, targeting 1hr trips from SAC-OAK and 1.5hr SAC-SJ. Viewpoints: A different vision for train travel - Viewpoints - The Sacramento Bee

I agree with a lot of what you said.

I would just like to point out that worrying about train travel between different areas of the state at this point is a waste of resources since the largest need is travel in the Bay Area and in LA, not between BA, LA and sac.

If the state wants to do some good they should move Bart further out to Brentwood, Tracy, Marin and down the peninsula with a another crossing from east bay to SV some place between San Mateo and rwc. Of course this would be extreamly expensive, but at least it would actually help the biggest traffic issue in NorCal, not a fantasy project that is a worse option than flying and bleeds money.

[wooliemonster]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

If the state wants to do some good they should move Bart further out to Brentwood, Tracy, Marin and down the peninsula with a another crossing from east bay to SV some place between San Mateo and rwc. Of course this would be extreamly expensive, but at least it would actually help the biggest traffic issue in NorCal, not a fantasy project that is a worse option than flying and bleeds money.

Under my benevolent dictatorship, Caltrain would be folded into BART as the 2nd eBART line. This would result in a unified fare system, transfers, branding, etc. Electrified Caltrain will be able to run with BART like speed and frequency, and you could even order cars that are similarly designed and branded as normal BART -- maybe something lke the Bombardier M7 cars. From here, I'd add the Geary Subway and 2nd Transbay Tube as standard gauge BART/Caltrain, and tie into existing East Bay commuter lines. Add new dedicated tracks as necessary to fully segregate from freight rail traffic. BART is already a hybrid metro/commuter rail like LIRR and PATH, so I'm fine with it gobbling up the world.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by wooliemonster

Traffic congestion cannot be decreased, ever, without removing people, jobs, or cars. It's a hopeless cause with a bottomless appetite. Any reduction in congestion due to shifts in mode share will simply invite more drivers. Imagine a Realtor® saying, "Don't worry! Ever since Caltrain went electric, the 101 is a breeze in the mornings." Traffic exists in equilibrium with people's tolerance for traffic.

I support intensive rail development for many reasons, but reducing highway traffic is not one of them. That problem can't be solved, so why worry about it. I like rail because it is more predictable, energy efficient, encourages better land use, uses ROW more efficiently, allows one to accomplish other tasks while commuting, etc.

Anyway, Caltrain going electric and the DTX is more relevant than HSR in many ways. It's possible we might see 125mph Caltrain many years before we see full SF-LA HSR. I believe the Capitol Corridor is also planning for significant upgrades to 125mph, targeting 1hr trips from SAC-OAK and 1.5hr SAC-SJ. Viewpoints: A different vision for train travel - Viewpoints - The Sacramento Bee

I agree it doesn't "reduce" highway congestion. But alternative can help keep it fairly steady. And some people will see improvements, because of the mode shift.

I do believe if you build it they will come. If you assume that some people are willing to shift modes (because it is convenient) they will. On the flip side, if you build more highways, they will get congested too. Better to make the road alternatives more convenient for some people, they will take them.

[Ruth4Truth]

People keep saying "build more highways", but there's not much more room for that. More and more concrete taking over farmland? Really? And what about places like the Bay Area, where the congestion is getting ridiculous, but there simply is no more room to expand the freeways. It's about time money were invested in public transport. It makes the most sense. I don't know why people fight it so much, but they don't fight highway/freeway expansions, they view that as inevitable.

[Wilson502]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

I don't know why people fight it so much, but they don't fight highway/freeway expansions, they view that as inevitable.

Simple, people in CA love their cars, even more so in LA/OC than the Bay. You get a lot of the same stuff up here to, they need to build a light rail line down the 405 up here, widening the 405 in the southern half isn't very feasible due to the terrain.

[bentobox34]

In 2008 I voted "yes" on issuing $10b in bonds for a project that would be $30b (total) and would provide high speed train travel between SF, LA, SD and Sacramento by 2019. The project we have now costs more than twice as much and will only get from SF to LA by 2030, if we're lucky.

Scrap the whole thing and direct all available funds to upgrade existing rail transit systems in LA and Norcal!

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Wilson502

Simple, people in CA love their cars, even more so in LA/OC than the Bay. You get a lot of the same stuff up here to, they need to build a light rail line down the 405 up here, widening the 405 in the southern half isn't very feasible due to the terrain.

But more and more people in the Bay Area are feeling like driving a car is futile, due to the congestion. The time for expanded public transport is at hand, but it's hard to figure out where to find the space to put it.

In the meantime, the auto, petroleum and highway lobbies are very powerful still, and are sticking behind the "America's love affair with the car" hype. Public transport, being public and all, not having access to obscene amounts of corporate funding, has no hype. Which do you think the public will go for short-term, at least, until the public wises up? Money does talk, until the situation becomes dire, at which point it's too late to be pro-active and do something intelligent.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

But more and more people in the Bay Area are feeling like driving a car is futile, due to the congestion. The time for expanded public transport is at hand, but it's hard to figure out where to find the space to put it.

In the meantime, the auto, petroleum and highway lobbies are very powerful still, and are sticking behind the "America's love affair with the car" hype. Public transport, being public and all, not having access to obscene amounts of corporate funding, has no hype. Which do you think the public will go for short-term, at least, until the public wises up? Money does talk, until the situation becomes dire, at which point it's too late to be pro-active and do something intelligent.

The one that doesn't take twice as long and twice as much to deliver half the results. The public got on board on CA HSR. Then the project soured. The public doesn't need to wise up. It pretty much knows what's going on in aggregate.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by Malloric

The one that doesn't take twice as long and twice as much to deliver half the results. The public got on board on CA HSR. Then the project soured. The public doesn't need to wise up. It pretty much knows what's going on in aggregate.

Well, I was speaking more broadly, too, of adding transit to freeways on the east and west sides of the Bay.