Why not both? Because when dealing with tax money(money extracted from peoples paychecks) it is wise to pick projects to have the biggest impact and serve the most people or the most people who need serving the most(poor and middle class people) This rail line in California is not for the poor or middle class.

Source?

http://www.latimes.com/local/politic...510-story.html

First off, the numbers keep on changing, so who knows what it will be in a decade(allowing for inflation, of course).

Second, a family of four is going to pay nearly 400$ at the most recent price. They could drive in a sedan for a about 25% that cost. *edit* or 800 for a round trip. And actually, from my Google map directions, and basing a cars MPG at 28 and gas at 4 dollars a gallon, you are looking at around $110 dollars round trip. So that family will save about $650 by driving. Most middle class and poor folks will be driving*

Third, how many low wage workers are traveling between the Bay Area and LA? My guess would be, and locals help me out, most people of lower or mid means in LA or the Bay area typically don't travel between the two cities. I am sure the wealthy are much more likely to do so.

Are you aware that the train has stops between LA and SF?

Yes. But this train isn't being built to get people from downtown LA to Bakersfield. The big selling point is that you can get to the largest two metros in the state. And again, I believe a family will still be driving to those cities, as my edited previous post kind of shows why.

...from the Central Valley where housing is cheap yet jobs are sparse.

How much would a ticket from say Stockton to San Francisco cost? Again, lower and middle class people come into the equation. If you have to spend $50 round trip to get to work everyday, equaling out to $1000 a month, what middle class person is gonna bite that bullet, or what low income person can?

Making 15 an hour wont do it. You would be spending nearly half your income just to get to work, never mind the fact you live in an area where a car is necessary for daily living, so tack on another 500-700 for a car payment, insurance, gas, taxes etc. Literally 60% of your income will go to transport before you even begin to pay rent.

This daily commute just isn't gonna happen.

You could tack on another 1,000 for rent, ditch the car saving another 700 dollars and now be able to afford a place for 1,700 more than you could in Stockton.

Subsidies (both public and private) and monthly passes can cover that.

Are you talking about if you work for the state or business and they provide you a subsidy or....

"Fares will be one of the most important factors in the decisions that millions of travelers will make when choosing to fly, drive or ride the bullet train. And they are central to revenue calculations for a system that by state law must operate without a taxpayer subsidy."

Is this still correct? The tax payers of California were promised they wouldn't have provide a subsidy for this, correct or not, when they voted for this?

If the answer is correct, then it is typical government and why people don't vote for this stuff. Cost overruns in the 10s of billions...and then *surprise*, the tax payers(poor to middle to rich) will be paying taxes for a train they never use.

@Jtownman why are you not counting wear and tear on your car in your calculations? Parking fees when you arrive? Tolls? etc

But yes, if you have four people traveling at the same time, it will almost always be more economical to drive than to fly or take the train. Not everybody is primarily concerned with a small price differential anyways and that is not their primary market. Nor does everyone own a vehicle, either.

HSR LA - SF will be as expensive as a no frills airline ticket -- which is to say it won't be for long distance commuters, but rather business travelers between SF to LA and those on leisure trips.

Those that commute via HSR will likely do so from Central Valley sprawlies to The Bay that can no longer afford the CoL in The Bay and perhaps Bakersfield to LA.

Sounds like a nightmare of a commute but some will do it because they have no other choice.

I'll use my car: 2016 Jetta
250.00 payment
120 gas
zero tolls for me
50 a month to park at my apartment, zero for work
100 insurance
75 a month for maintenance(ive actually only changed the oil once in the last 9 months, so its a lot less, but averaging out because stuff happens)

595. The example I used was 700, so I think I accounted decently well for extra cost.

True, but that was kind of my point all along. This train isn't for your everyday Californian. Its for business people and tourist. This massive amount of money could have been spent a lot better locally to actually impact peoples lives. Not saying the project has zero use, but I think the taxpayers of California aren't getting as much as they could.

People who don't own a vehicle, will they be traveling much using this? I don't know. My guess is not. They either are really poor, and probably don't have the extra income to even travel( I know on this site full of folks who travel all around the world might not know a sizable portion of this country are people who really never leave their local area), or they choose not to have a car, which is probably like some urbanist on here that could fly just as well or take the train. So once again it looks like the taxpayers are subsidizing the rich and better-off.

No I meant if you drive up to SF and stay in the city unless you are extremely lucky you will pay 20 to 75 or more a day in parking (or parking tickets). That's also not how depreciation on a vehicle works, but whatevs.

Most importantly, you missed Pedestrian's post about the lack of capacity at SF and LA area airports

Poor and lower class people aren't paying 400-1500 a month to park today. A worker making 10 an hour could barely even pay their parking bill every month.

My only point is this is not for the poor and the lower middle class. So this money does not help those that need it most. That. Is. All.

Why must every government subsidized service be aimed only for the poor?
The government shouldn't be the largest charity organization, taking from the rich and giving it to the poor. Let the Red Cross, United Way, and Religious Organizations fill that void.
Income redistribution shouldn't be the government's primary mission. It is not and should never be Robin Hood and his merry band or thieves. :yuck:

Thankfully people like you are a very very small minority.

Note I included "only" for the poor. I strongly disagree with the very, very small minority statement. Government should provide services to everyone, rich and poor alike. And I suggest that is the sentiment of the very, very, vast majority.

Exactly! We are talking about California, which is one of the world's wealthiest economies. The state already spends a ton of money working to lift the poorest out of poverty. Why can't we also have nice things? :cheers:

And jtown i don't understand your point. We were having a discussion about a hypothetical family from LA going to SF for a vacation, or a business trip or what have you. Where will they park their when they are visiting SF? What I quoted are realistic per day prices to park their car there. Ask any of the SF posters.

I don't personally think that. It seems a large portion of this country goes nuts though if plans aren't specifically aimed to those less well off though.

I totally agree, but I would bet the people of California do not agree with you.

I think there is quite a disconnect. A family of little means aren't visiting each city for vacation, first off. Secondly, if they do visit the other cities(la/sf) they are not staying in areas that cost that much to park. They are probably staying with family or out in the burbs where parking is free.

I visit NYC quite often. I never stay in the city as I don't like to spend 30-45 a day to park. I stay in the burbs and take the train into the city. Poor and middle class people like me make these types of decisions a lot of people on here simply do not even have to think about.

We're all completely ignoring the fact that this train would allow companies to set up back-office and low cost operations in places like Bakersfield and Fresno while maintaining a quick and convenient connection to headquarters locations in LA and SF. I think that's where the real opportunity for the Central Valley cities is. Managers could easily visit their Central Valley locations on a weekly basis without having to spend the night. That's a big deal.

Comparing China to the US... whatever. That is almost as absurd how posters here like to compare Europe to the U.S., but not that absurd.

Not having a single party communist state controlled planned economy using hundreds of billions of foreign debt as capital.

But I still wouldn't want to trade places.

Streetcar suburb to High Speed suburb?
It's a viable option especially if the system were to expand.

Is there really such a thing as a viable HSR suburb? At $100 a work day for a round trip ticket you're spending $26,000 of you after tax income each year in travel. That's like 50% of the median family income.

Anaheim to Los Angeles would take 22 minutes and had a projected fare of $19.

The median home price is San Francisco is about $1,400,000 while the median home price in Fresno is about $220,000. If you amortize the difference over 30 years, your mortgage payment will be $69,000 higher per year in SF - so the ticket price would not be the deterrent, but you would have to spend the time commuting.

Welcome to the forum!

The beauty of trains is with a laptop, you can work while riding them. With WiFi and outlets, passengers can work during their ‘commute.’

See my previous post

"We're all completely ignoring the fact that this train would allow companies to set up back-office and low cost operations in places like Bakersfield and Fresno while maintaining a quick and convenient connection to headquarters locations in LA and SF. I think that's where the real opportunity for the Central Valley cities is. Managers could easily visit their Central Valley locations on a weekly basis without having to spend the night. That's a big deal."

Yes it is, as long as everybody works together.
Another way to look at it as, TOD. The station happens to be HSR.
It seems ticket prices are going by if you like the project or not. :uhh:
What are actual reliable prices?
and 50% of an income from what part of the state?

OK, but only the most wealthy people can ever consider one of those San Francisco houses so it's not really a representation of the average commuter, only the top 1% commuter. Additionally there are still lots of other advantages to living in the city aside from just time to work.

You do realize my projection was very low right? I was trying to give a best case scenario. The cost to take the Acela a similar distance would be significantly higher than what I quoted.

you seem to be very conveniently and consistently missing my comment that the point would not be for daily commuting, but for satellite offices that would then be more easily accessed from HQ locations in LA/SF on a weekly/bi-weekly/monthly basis.

Is that 19 each way? If so, that's 38 dollars a day(if we are to believe their projections, of course).

Or that's 760 a month to get to just work. Is it workable? Sure. But if you live so far out in the burbs for affordability that you take a HSR to work everyday, I highly doubt you could live without your car in said suburb. So you're adding around 760 a month to get to work while still needing all the spending for a car. Not feasible. Even with my 2016 car with a note, my monthly spending is around 700 dollars (Note/gas/insurance/parking/depreciation/maintenance).

But, lets not kid ourselves. The person looking for a 1.4 million dollars home isn't the same person who would look at a 220k home in Fresno. And if all you could afford is a 220k home in Fresno, what would your typical income look like? Probably be between 50-70k. After mortgage, and your car costs you WILL have, the cost of using HSR to get to work becomes unworkable in any meaningful way.

Has that ever happened, anywhere on the planet?

In Western Europe, HSR has been a tool for agglomeration of cities, and depopulation of the countryside. Why would some firm currently in SF move to Bakersfield just because there's a faster train to Bakersfield?

Why not? There's plenty of middle class couples/families making a combined $200k+ a year that COULD afford a $1.4 million 1000-1500 sq ft crappy house in the Bay Area but would then be forced to live frugally, barely scraping by, that would be more than willing to move to Fresno for a $500,000-$800,000 3000+ sq ft home with luxury amenities, a driveway, a yard, and have enough leftover to save, travel, and still be able to afford using HSR daily.

1. There's a big difference in distance between Anaheim and Bakersfield.

2. That $19 is pretty meaningless at this point. Why would you think this train would cost so much less than the Acela which didn't have nearly the same Capital costs to deploy?

A firm in SF might open it's back-office location, with $50k/year accounting employees, to Fresno, not it's whole operation.

Agreed that it would be a tool of agglomeration, I would just now include Fresno and Bakersfield in the equation.

I would never commute that distance if the job paid the same as local jobs - people commute to get the higher paying job without the higher cost of living in large urban areas. Fresno would just be another option for a place to live instead of Walnut Creek, Concord, Livermore etc. And you can get much more home for 400K in Fresno than 1.4 million buys you in SF. However, I agree that it would be better to relocate some jobs to Central Valley cities instead of daily comuting

Regardless, I think the larger problem is that the HSR first shied away from building the crossing over the Tehachapies, which is the biggest challenge for the planned alignment, and they haven't started tunneling through the Pacheco Pass yet - the less they make a new world record in tunneling it looks like a big delay ahead :shrug:

Your quote does not mention Bakersfield. Why would you bring up Bakersfield?

How much is Acela for the equivalent distance from Anaheim to Los Angeles?
How much do you think the cost would be on HSR between Anaheim to Los Angeles.
Metrolink already runs between Anaheim and Los Angeles at a slower speed for $9.

The 2010 census found 180,000 workers commuting from Orange County to Los Angeles:
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/pres.../cb13-r13.html

The typical commute time when driving during rush hour is 1-2 hours, one-way. That is the typical commute, not when there are delays:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Anah...1518075600!3e0

The commute will likely even take longer in the future based on population growth. If these 180,000 commuters face 4+ hours on the road vs 40 minutes on the train, I would think some percentage would switch to the train.

What % of those 180,000 workers are working in downtown LA? I bet almost none. It's already an impossible commute. HSR is useless for commuters unless you're headed downtown.

Orange County is a highly populated county spread out over a large geographical area of approx. 950 square miles. HSR would be a great alternative if and only if you live near the Anaheim station and work in Downtown L.A.

Otherwise, it could easily take 30 minutes to an hour to drive to the rail station, wait another 10-15 minutes for the train, arrive in downtown L.A. (40 minutes travel time?). Once in Downtown - which is another huge area with Union Station set off to the side of the core of the city-- this will require more time to walk, transfer to public transportation or hail an Uber.

Yes, it does seem like the future of LA's transit and HSR dreams hinges not on actually getting the systems built, but on reinventing the city around those systems. Compared to other Sunbelt cities, LA actually has the bones to do this, with well-maintained sidewalks virtually everywhere, a grid pattern of streets, etc.

Right now most of LA is locked in amber by harsh zoning restrictions/Prop U, howling neighbors, etc but there are some hairline cracks forming in the amber with increased recognition of how important TOD is to the city's continued growth.

Of course, to build TOD you need the transit, but LA is making serious progress on this front under Measure R. Metrolink ridership is unimpressive right now, but that system is already in place, so an increased focus on TOD will only lead more Angelenos to live and work around rail stations in places like Glendale, Burbank, Anaheim, etc. and also in DTLA.

Plenty do. Major law firms are located in downtown LA

The Anaheim station could be accessed via Metrolink. Additionally, Garden Grove and Santa Ana are building a streetcar system, which eventually could provide connectivity to the Anaheim high-speed rail station. Futhermore, Anaheim has considered building its own streetcar route.

There is also a lot of dense development planned for the Platinum Triangle area around Angel stadium.

It wouldn't be an impossible commute if there were no workers taking it. Metrolink already shows that 5% of the 180,000 go from Orange County to Downtown LA take the trip via Metrolink. A lot more going from Orange County to Downtown LA probably drive because driving currently is still competitive with Metrolink--Metrolink takes about an hour to do that route, longer if you're coming from further south.

The one way commute can be longer than 2 hours if you are coming from other parts of Orange County and heading to other employment centers in Los Angeles, like West LA, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Hollywood, etc. If it is 2 hours now, how long would it be in 10 years with population growth?

By the time the OC-LA HSR link opens up, Union Station will be connected to 2 subways running through Downtown, have public transit lines to give you a 1 ride, no transfer train to LA Live, Pasadena, Hollywood, West LA, and Santa Monica.

Anaheim to Union station on Metrolink (no transfers) is already just a 49 minute ride.

But look at Metrolink passenger counts. When I said "no one works downtown", I didn't literally mean not a single human from OC works downtown. But there are very few, by any mode, I bet. That's a tough commute.

Anecdotal, but my uncle in OC used to work Mid-Wilshire, but at some point the traffic got so insane that my aunt basically forced him to move his office to Costa Mesa.

Yes, this is true and I agree. The point I was making was that a future HSR line from Anaheim to Downtown is redundant to the current Metrolink and Amtrak services. HSR is not going to attract too many new commuters to downtown that Metrolink would not be able to attract.