Comments on: The Five Year Curve http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-five-year-curve California High Speed Rail support blog, spreading news and info about the high speed trains project approved by California voters in November 2008. Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:10:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: jim http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53741 jim Wed, 18 Mar 2009 08:20:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53741 In the valley where many of the HSR riders will likely be found, the increases in ridership that come with increases in trains seem to be exponential. Given they loyalty and pent up need in the valley for more service, HSR should do very well there.<br/><br/>---" In the San Joaquin corridor, trains have increased from a single round trip carrying approximately 80,000 riders per year, to six round trips daily with ridership exceeding 800,000 in Fiscal 2005-2006. Revenue rose during the same period to over $26 million."<br/><br/>--and in car crazy southern california of all places, the building of ridership is most impressive of all - frequencies increased x6 and resulted in ridership increasing by almost 9<br/>-"Caltrans, working together with Amtrak, had increased the frequency of Pacific Surfliner trains from three round trips daily in the mid 1970's, with annual ridership around 300,000, to eleven round trips (twelve on Fridays) daily with ridership exceeding 2.6 million for the fiscal year 2005-2006. Revenue for the same period was $32.6 million."<br/><br/>So the point is again, californians will ride and the more choices you give them they more they ride and once hsr passes the threshold to where it becomes "the" thing to do. Then they'll really ride. 9 (that's where our abundance of celebs and movie makers come in) yep the first time a hollywood producer makes a blockbuster action flick that features CA hsr - ridership will bump way up. And if anyone doubts we californians are that shallow... may I point to exhibit A - our governor. In the valley where many of the HSR riders will likely be found, the increases in ridership that come with increases in trains seem to be exponential. Given they loyalty and pent up need in the valley for more service, HSR should do very well there.

—” In the San Joaquin corridor, trains have increased from a single round trip carrying approximately 80,000 riders per year, to six round trips daily with ridership exceeding 800,000 in Fiscal 2005-2006. Revenue rose during the same period to over $26 million.”

–and in car crazy southern california of all places, the building of ridership is most impressive of all – frequencies increased x6 and resulted in ridership increasing by almost 9
-”Caltrans, working together with Amtrak, had increased the frequency of Pacific Surfliner trains from three round trips daily in the mid 1970′s, with annual ridership around 300,000, to eleven round trips (twelve on Fridays) daily with ridership exceeding 2.6 million for the fiscal year 2005-2006. Revenue for the same period was $32.6 million.”

So the point is again, californians will ride and the more choices you give them they more they ride and once hsr passes the threshold to where it becomes “the” thing to do. Then they’ll really ride. 9 (that’s where our abundance of celebs and movie makers come in) yep the first time a hollywood producer makes a blockbuster action flick that features CA hsr – ridership will bump way up. And if anyone doubts we californians are that shallow… may I point to exhibit A – our governor.

]]> By: jim http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53740 jim Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:56:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53740 building riderhsip in california - keeping in mind that none of these services have the potential to replace air travel the way that HSR will. So HSR should exponential gains by not only taking new and existing train riders, but grabbing at least half the air market.<br/><br/>-In 1991, Caltrans created the Capitol corridor between Sacramento/Roseville and San Jose where no local (non-interstate) trains had operated for over twenty years. With-- three-- trains operating daily, ridership was higher than the Pacific Surfliner ridership was when Caltrans got involved there -- approximately 400,000 per year. In Fiscal 96-97. one daily round trip was added to the Capitols, and ridership eclipsed the previous year's total by nearly 100,000. Revenue rose 6.6% during the same period to nearly $6 million. In 1998, the service was removed from Caltrans' management. Since then, frequency of service have increased to-- sixteen round trips daily. Ridership has reached 1.2 million in FY 2005-2006. Revenue was approximately $16 milion for the fiscal year. building riderhsip in california – keeping in mind that none of these services have the potential to replace air travel the way that HSR will. So HSR should exponential gains by not only taking new and existing train riders, but grabbing at least half the air market.

-In 1991, Caltrans created the Capitol corridor between Sacramento/Roseville and San Jose where no local (non-interstate) trains had operated for over twenty years. With– three– trains operating daily, ridership was higher than the Pacific Surfliner ridership was when Caltrans got involved there — approximately 400,000 per year. In Fiscal 96-97. one daily round trip was added to the Capitols, and ridership eclipsed the previous year’s total by nearly 100,000. Revenue rose 6.6% during the same period to nearly $6 million. In 1998, the service was removed from Caltrans’ management. Since then, frequency of service have increased to– sixteen round trips daily. Ridership has reached 1.2 million in FY 2005-2006. Revenue was approximately $16 milion for the fiscal year.

]]> By: jim http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53739 jim Wed, 18 Mar 2009 07:39:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53739 @CCR I don't have the numbers on how many point to point monthlies are sold on the CC or the SJ routes but if we weren't selling them they'd get rid of them. I do know that there is a large amount of regular riders between the valley and sf. Up and down the valley Id imagine there are as well (bakersfield fresno etc) I guess my point was for people wondering who is going to pay to commute and picking at that famous $55 dollar fare from HSR, that the fare is possible and in fact much lower per a multi ride ticket. and while not many would travel 3 hours from fresno to work, they will travel 80 minutes or whatever, on the HSR and likely have a similar pass. I can tell you that after all these years I am still amazed at how many people actually take the train, at how many people absolutely DEPEND on the train, and how many people even enjoy the train. who'd a thought??? To make this relevant to the topic as afar as building ridership... well the cali state trains (Caps/san joaqs/surliners) are all perfect examples of how to build ridership. The valley started with tow trains a day and old beat up ancient rolling stock and the folks out there pushed for more trains and now they have 16 per day. I think caps started with 4 trains each way per day in the early 90s, and now there are 32 or so, and the state is currently building ridership via the surfliner buses north from SLO to SF until the numbers can justify a train. ANd the 6 or so, 8 hour bus rides from santa barbara are full all the time. SO if you build it they will ride and I'd say 80 percent of californians who don't ride, don't ride because they don't even know the state trains exist. You may be surprised to know that californians for all our tech, are incredibly uninformed about many many things. HSR is going to need to hire the best advertising firm on the planet to get people to ride at first. @CCR I don’t have the numbers on how many point to point monthlies are sold on the CC or the SJ routes but if we weren’t selling them they’d get rid of them. I do know that there is a large amount of regular riders between the valley and sf. Up and down the valley Id imagine there are as well (bakersfield fresno etc) I guess my point was for people wondering who is going to pay to commute and picking at that famous $55 dollar fare from HSR, that the fare is possible and in fact much lower per a multi ride ticket. and while not many would travel 3 hours from fresno to work, they will travel 80 minutes or whatever, on the HSR and likely have a similar pass. I can tell you that after all these years I am still amazed at how many people actually take the train, at how many people absolutely DEPEND on the train, and how many people even enjoy the train. who’d a thought??? To make this relevant to the topic as afar as building ridership… well the cali state trains (Caps/san joaqs/surliners) are all perfect examples of how to build ridership. The valley started with tow trains a day and old beat up ancient rolling stock and the folks out there pushed for more trains and now they have 16 per day. I think caps started with 4 trains each way per day in the early 90s, and now there are 32 or so, and the state is currently building ridership via the surfliner buses north from SLO to SF until the numbers can justify a train. ANd the 6 or so, 8 hour bus rides from santa barbara are full all the time. SO if you build it they will ride and I’d say 80 percent of californians who don’t ride, don’t ride because they don’t even know the state trains exist. You may be surprised to know that californians for all our tech, are incredibly uninformed about many many things. HSR is going to need to hire the best advertising firm on the planet to get people to ride at first.

]]> By: Capitol Corridor Rider http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53736 Capitol Corridor Rider Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:04:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53736 Jim 11:50 PM. RE: Amtrak monthly pass from Fresno to SF = $567.<br/>Sorry for going sort of off-topic, but does anyone actually ride Amtrak from Fresno to San Francisco on a 5-day-per-week round trip basis? Checking the timetable, the earliest Fresno to SF trip is 6:50 AM - 11:20 AM, and the latest return is 5:15 PM - 9:51 PM. So our hypothetical commuter is spending more than 9 hours per day on the train and less than 6 hours per day in their place of employment... a little bit absurd if you ask me. Anyway since you are the one in the know, I am definitely curious to find out how many monthlies for this route (and other similar length routes, like Fresno-LA) are sold per month. Jim 11:50 PM. RE: Amtrak monthly pass from Fresno to SF = $567.
Sorry for going sort of off-topic, but does anyone actually ride Amtrak from Fresno to San Francisco on a 5-day-per-week round trip basis? Checking the timetable, the earliest Fresno to SF trip is 6:50 AM – 11:20 AM, and the latest return is 5:15 PM – 9:51 PM. So our hypothetical commuter is spending more than 9 hours per day on the train and less than 6 hours per day in their place of employment… a little bit absurd if you ask me. Anyway since you are the one in the know, I am definitely curious to find out how many monthlies for this route (and other similar length routes, like Fresno-LA) are sold per month.

]]> By: arcady http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53732 arcady Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:39:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53732 Andre Peretti: At least SNCF, even back in the politically-run days, was still a large and functioning railroad full of people who knew how to build and run a rail system. CHSRA is a board of nine politicians and a staff of six. Not at all encouraging.<br/>ladyk: Yeah, there's definitely a pork-barrel factor in various communities trying to pile onto the line. Palmdale, Riverside, and Temecula come to mind. Serving Visalia would be a matter of building a station on the existing line, which is not as bad as diverting the line via a less direct route. Andre Peretti: At least SNCF, even back in the politically-run days, was still a large and functioning railroad full of people who knew how to build and run a rail system. CHSRA is a board of nine politicians and a staff of six. Not at all encouraging.
ladyk: Yeah, there’s definitely a pork-barrel factor in various communities trying to pile onto the line. Palmdale, Riverside, and Temecula come to mind. Serving Visalia would be a matter of building a station on the existing line, which is not as bad as diverting the line via a less direct route.

]]> By: ladyk http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53730 ladyk Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:08:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53730 Maybe we could add one item to the list of potential problem areas. Some of the bad design decisions could be characterized as reverse-NIMBYism. Once a HSR plan surfaces, every shitty little town potentially along the line wants a stop and some guaranteed service. That problem is probably minor compared to technical problems, finances, NIMBYism and so forth. But considering that millions, even billions are spent to shave minutes off the total trip time... Then out of political considerations or because of political wrangling, the line is 'disfigured' and you get such stops as Montabaur or Limburg on the Cologne-Frankfurt line. Ever heard of Montabaur or Limburg? Me neither. Montabaur's population is 13,000 - Limburg's is 33,000. There has been some development around the Montabaur station but clearly it's in no proper relation to the cost. It's simply not what a HSR main line is about. Another fruity example is Forbach in France (population 22,000). Once a day an ICE3 train stops there on its way between Paris and Frankfurt. Why? Because early on some town official thought it would be nice to have a convenient way to travel into the 'big big world'.<br/>I'm not a Californian, so I don't know - but is Visalia maybe such a case? Maybe we could add one item to the list of potential problem areas. Some of the bad design decisions could be characterized as reverse-NIMBYism. Once a HSR plan surfaces, every shitty little town potentially along the line wants a stop and some guaranteed service. That problem is probably minor compared to technical problems, finances, NIMBYism and so forth. But considering that millions, even billions are spent to shave minutes off the total trip time… Then out of political considerations or because of political wrangling, the line is ‘disfigured’ and you get such stops as Montabaur or Limburg on the Cologne-Frankfurt line. Ever heard of Montabaur or Limburg? Me neither. Montabaur’s population is 13,000 – Limburg’s is 33,000. There has been some development around the Montabaur station but clearly it’s in no proper relation to the cost. It’s simply not what a HSR main line is about. Another fruity example is Forbach in France (population 22,000). Once a day an ICE3 train stops there on its way between Paris and Frankfurt. Why? Because early on some town official thought it would be nice to have a convenient way to travel into the ‘big big world’.
I’m not a Californian, so I don’t know – but is Visalia maybe such a case?

]]> By: Car-less in San Diego http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53723 Car-less in San Diego Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:16:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53723 We will be looking at multiple problems given that Phase II (build-out to San Diego and to Sacramento) is dependent on ridership numbers and profitability of the LA-SF route. If CAHSR does not meet expected ridership goals until 5 years out this will inevitably delay phase II by at least that much. <br/><br/>When do we think the system to San Diego and Sacramento will be built out in reality? Are there ways to ensure it will be built in a timely manner and can these ridership realities be built into the financing without pushing the schedule?<br/><br/>Perhaps a portion of Prop 1A funds could be used now to begin acquiring ROW for and designing phase II. Once money has been spent on these segments there will be a disincentive to stop or delay them. We will be looking at multiple problems given that Phase II (build-out to San Diego and to Sacramento) is dependent on ridership numbers and profitability of the LA-SF route. If CAHSR does not meet expected ridership goals until 5 years out this will inevitably delay phase II by at least that much.

When do we think the system to San Diego and Sacramento will be built out in reality? Are there ways to ensure it will be built in a timely manner and can these ridership realities be built into the financing without pushing the schedule?

Perhaps a portion of Prop 1A funds could be used now to begin acquiring ROW for and designing phase II. Once money has been spent on these segments there will be a disincentive to stop or delay them.

]]> By: Rafael http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53710 Rafael Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:15:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53710 @ morris brown -<br/><br/>one of the persistent problems is that some of those who say "Altamont" really mean "Altamont-via-Dumbarton", which is not at all the same thing.<br/><br/>There isn't going to be an HSR-capable link across the bay at Dumbarton because of the DENWR. Altamont-via-SantaClara/SJC would still run through Menlo Park so that's why comments regarding Altamont were out of scope for the project-level EIR/EIS process for the SF-south bay segment.<br/><br/>As far as CHSRA is concerned - i.e. unless a court forces it to change tack or SF-Gilroy proves impossible - the only questions that remain relate to <i>how</i> the tracks will be run through the peninsula. The decision regarding the preferred route has been made.<br/><br/>@ Tony D -<br/><br/>I cited AB3034 language because that is the legal basis for CHSRA's actions going forward. While it's true that a non-forked route through both SF and SJ via Pacheco is preferred, its implementation depends on securing a ROW down to Gilroy, which has not happened yet. @ morris brown -

one of the persistent problems is that some of those who say “Altamont” really mean “Altamont-via-Dumbarton”, which is not at all the same thing.

There isn’t going to be an HSR-capable link across the bay at Dumbarton because of the DENWR. Altamont-via-SantaClara/SJC would still run through Menlo Park so that’s why comments regarding Altamont were out of scope for the project-level EIR/EIS process for the SF-south bay segment.

As far as CHSRA is concerned – i.e. unless a court forces it to change tack or SF-Gilroy proves impossible – the only questions that remain relate to how the tracks will be run through the peninsula. The decision regarding the preferred route has been made.

@ Tony D -

I cited AB3034 language because that is the legal basis for CHSRA’s actions going forward. While it’s true that a non-forked route through both SF and SJ via Pacheco is preferred, its implementation depends on securing a ROW down to Gilroy, which has not happened yet.

]]> By: jim http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53707 jim Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:30:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53707 So we've had hsr threatening to only go to 4th st cuz they don't want to pay for caltrains tbt extesion, you have caltrain, hoping hsr money will help pay for the extension and electrification, you have sf and tbt expecting hsr to be located in the terminal, and you hsr saying that terminal is not adequate and that the city will have to make it bigger. Does anyone have any faith that caltrain hsr and tbt can work together to get this done or do you think that we will end up with infighting and fragmented less than perfect result? And instead of guessing at this solution or that solution in this case wouldn't it be better to advocate for an outpouring of public outrage and pressure on these guys to snap out of it and get the job done instead of playing politics? Or shall we just let it go as usual and maybe in 20 years we'll finally open a flawed railroad? So we’ve had hsr threatening to only go to 4th st cuz they don’t want to pay for caltrains tbt extesion, you have caltrain, hoping hsr money will help pay for the extension and electrification, you have sf and tbt expecting hsr to be located in the terminal, and you hsr saying that terminal is not adequate and that the city will have to make it bigger. Does anyone have any faith that caltrain hsr and tbt can work together to get this done or do you think that we will end up with infighting and fragmented less than perfect result? And instead of guessing at this solution or that solution in this case wouldn’t it be better to advocate for an outpouring of public outrage and pressure on these guys to snap out of it and get the job done instead of playing politics? Or shall we just let it go as usual and maybe in 20 years we’ll finally open a flawed railroad?

]]> By: Tony D. http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/the-five-year-curve/comment-page-1/#comment-53704 Tony D. Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:13:00 +0000 http://www.cahsrblog.com/2009/03/16/the-five-year-curve/#comment-53704 Looking on 8:24,<br/><br/>No worry's!<br/><br/>Despite what Rafael subtlety suggests, Pacheco Pass WILL BE the HSR route from the Central Valley into Bay Area.<br/><br/>And the Altamont HSR-overlay, which will basically be a completely overhauled/upgraded ACE service, will serve Diridon Station/San Jose.<br/><br/>Why Rafael selectively cited (G) from AB 3034 is beyond me.<br/><br/>A little San Jose/Silicon Valley bias still lingers? Looking on 8:24,

No worry’s!

Despite what Rafael subtlety suggests, Pacheco Pass WILL BE the HSR route from the Central Valley into Bay Area.

And the Altamont HSR-overlay, which will basically be a completely overhauled/upgraded ACE service, will serve Diridon Station/San Jose.

Why Rafael selectively cited (G) from AB 3034 is beyond me.

A little San Jose/Silicon Valley bias still lingers?

]]>