California High Speed Rail Thread

[M II A II R II K]

Preparing the Automobile City for High-Speed Rail


http://www.aia.org/practicing/AIAB086429

It’s up to Roger Sherman, AIA, to find a way to make high-speed rail mass transit work in car-obsessed Los Angeles.

Principal of Roger Sherman Architecture and Urban Design and co-director, with Dana Cuff, of cityLAB, an urban design think tank affiliated with UCLA, Sherman has made a career out of tackling thorny, seemingly intractable urban conundrums and making sense of them. One such project involves urban design strategies for California’s planned high-speed rail network.

Through careful research and analysis, Sherman is attempting to re-assert the urbanizing force of public transit in a city whose history, development patterns, and urban fabric is based almost entirely on the automobile. With $2.25 billion in federal funding, California is moving forward with plans to lay down tracks, linking San Francisco with San Diego. This effort is the leading edge of the Obama Administration‘s $8 billion plan for a nationwide high-speed rail network. Through cityLAB, Sherman was awarded part of a $250,000 grant from the Haynes Foundation to study the urban implications of high-speed rail.

“We always use a research-based approach to design,” explains Sherman. “This allows us to understand the particularities of each site.”

[DJM19]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Preparing the Automobile City for High-Speed Rail


http://www.aia.org/practicing/AIAB086429

Im tired of articles saying LA development history is based almost entirely on the automobile. It simply isn't true. Rail went to nearly all reaches of LA proper, and up into the San Fernando Valley. Areas that werent built up before the freeways were definitely going to at some point thanks to the trains that extended far away from downtown in ever direction.
But I digress.

[Busy Bee]

^Absolutely correct. The Pacific Electric was the glue of the region before the freeways. Selective memory or revisionist history seems to be taking over here - pretending a sprawling megacity has always existed here and a failure to remember anything before 1945.

[dave88]

It`s an interesting topic. This speed highway is going very helpful for the whole infrastructure in this region. Anyway good points from all of you.

dave,

[BrennanW]

Most American "auto-centric" cities were built by urban railroads, most notable outside of L.A. are Indianapolis and Kansas City, who now have no rail mass transit, but were completely suburbanized by fast, efficient access to the central city by rail. Now these cities invest soley in limited access highway systems and sometimes BRT systems. Kansas City has the highest per-capita mileage of limited access highway in the world, and it struggles to get a light rail plan off the ground.

Other cities that have large footprints, especially Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Dallas, and other midwest cities, are so large because of their once very successful, for-profit tram systems. While it is no lie that sprawl was initially caused by transit, cities which retained effective systems (like Chicago) have very high rail ridership, a dense urban core and dense, mid-urban corridors and suburban cores.

[DJM19]

Los Angeles is dense city. And though it doesn't have the highest mass transit participation in the country, it certainly stands alone in the south west (and the south for that matter).

CTA (chicago) has 1.65 million daily ridership in Jun 2010 according to wikipedia. MTA (LA) has 1.4 million daily ridership in Aug 2010 according to wiki again. This doesnt seem like a big difference. And this is prior to LA's doubling of its rail system that it is now working on.

I think its just a misnomer that transit doesn't work in LA, or that we need think tanks to ponder how to make it work.

[202_Cyclist]

Los Angeles is dense city. And though it doesn't have the highest mass transit participation in the country, it certainly stands alone in the south west (and the south for that matter).

CTA (chicago) has 1.65 million daily ridership in Jun 2010 according to wikipedia. MTA (LA) has 1.4 million daily ridership in Aug 2010 according to wiki again. This doesnt seem like a big difference. And this is prior to LA's doubling of its rail system that it is now working on.

I think its just a misnomer that transit doesn't work in LA, or that we need think tanks to ponder how to make it work.

Density, the rate of car ownership, and the availability/supply of transit are certainly factors that help determine transit ridersip. The price of subsitutes is another factor. The cost of auto ownership (excluding parking) is higher in California than New York or Chicago, with longer commute times or higher gas prices. According to the Energy Information Agency (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petro...home_page.html), gas is 20 cents more per gallon in LA than NYC and ten cents per gallon more than Chicago. Pricing parking, however, would have an even greater impact on encouraging transit ridership. People are far more likely to drive if they have free parking at their destination.

[Sodha]

Originally Posted by DJM19

Los Angeles is dense city. And though it doesn't have the highest mass transit participation in the country, it certainly stands alone in the south west (and the south for that matter).

CTA (chicago) has 1.65 million daily ridership in Jun 2010 according to wikipedia. MTA (LA) has 1.4 million daily ridership in Aug 2010 according to wiki again. This doesnt seem like a big difference. And this is prior to LA's doubling of its rail system that it is now working on.

I think its just a misnomer that transit doesn't work in LA, or that we need think tanks to ponder how to make it work.

Wow, I didn't realize how close we were to Chicago in terms of ridership. Is that bus AND rail for Chicago? I know LA bus and rail is 1.65 million...but I thought Chicago was 1.6 million for rail only. Can you post the source?

[OhioGuy]

Originally Posted by Sodha

Wow, I didn't realize how close we were to Chicago in terms of ridership. Is that bus AND rail for Chicago? I know LA bus and rail is 1.65 million...but I thought Chicago was 1.6 million for rail only. Can you post the source?

It's gotta be bus & rail combined. There isn't a city in the US other than NYC that has average daily rail ridership above 1 million. I think DC has the 2nd highest average daily rail ridership somewhere around 800,000?

[mfastx]

Daily boarding numbers for most public transportation systems in the US can be found here.

[DJM19]

The numbers I quote from wiki are for all services provided by the CTA and MTA, including bus and rail.

This doesn't include the commuter rail and all other other smaller bus operators in both cities.

[JDRCRASH]

Wow, LA is #2 in Bus transit?

[Gordo]

^Is that surprising? LA is the second largest city in the country by more than a million people and is more reliant on buses than NYC or Chicago. I'd be shocked if it wasn't #2.

I don't think comparing CTA to MTA is a valid comparison though. MTA covers nearly twice as much population as CTA and is a county-level agency. CTA is city-level, and just happens to spill out into some of the suburbs. MTA is the only agency operating in many LA suburbs.

[202_Cyclist]

White House warns Jerry Lewis stimulus cuts will hurt him at home
By DAVID ROGERS
11/19/2010
Politico

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45424.html

“Wasting no time, the White House is firing back at a top House Republican, warning that his proposed $12 billion cut from unspent stimulus funds will be felt most in the lawmaker’s back yard in California.

An estimated $2 billion for high speed rail— a priority for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger— could be lost to California as well as energy and transportation projects in or near the home district of Rep. Jerry Lewis, the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee….”

[pesto]

Ah the beauty of govt. spending: once you drink the Kool-Aid you have to keep on drinking.

When you think about it, what is really needed is for everyone to think like Lewis, that is, cut projects that don't make economic sense to them. The answer is not for everyone to keep on pushing the pork for their own neighborhoods. In fact, that's the PROBLEM.

And, again, please notice that the administration's position doesn't even pretend to defend the project on transportation grounds. It goes straight to political concerns over employment.

[JDRCRASH]

^ How is this "pork"? It's not some politician's "pet project".

[northbay]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

^ How is this "pork"? It's not some politician's "pet project".

your right jdr, it's not. you know, it's best to just ignore him. he trolls the forums and uses every opportunity to preach his libertarian ideology and refuses to consider any other points of view. he's just trying to provoke people with his post.

[northbay]

california joins the call to redirect high speed rail funds not wanted elsewhere here:

Feinstein, Boxer want federal HSR funds rejected by other states

Published Wednesday, November 17, 2010, by the Associated Press

Lawmakers want other states' rail money for California
White House could redirect the federal money, senators say

By Kevin Freking
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- With some incoming governors rejecting money for high-speed rail,
California's two U.S. senators are asking the Obama administration to redirect
federal funding to their home state.

The request reflects a national debate about the viability of high-speed rail,
as California officials embrace the effort while officials in other states are
skeptical that such trains are a wise investment.

The Obama administration has awarded billions of dollars to states to jump-start
high-speed rail projects, including $3 billion for California's project. That
rail system would eventually extend some 800 miles, linking Sacramento and the
Bay Area to San Diego. The trains would travel at a speed of up to 220 miles an
hour.

Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer told Transportation
Secretary Ray LaHood on Tuesday that no state was more determined than
California to put the rail money to use. They pointed out that California voters
have already committed more than $9 billion in bonds to high-speed rail.

"It has come to our attention that several states plan to cancel their
high-speed rail projects," the two senators said in a letter. "We ask that you
withdraw the federal grants to these states and award the funds to states that
have made a strong financial commitment to these very important infrastructure
projects."

...

In Wisconsin, Gov.-elect Scott Walker set up a website called
<http://NoTrain.com>, which criticizes a proposed high-speed rail project
extending from Madison to Milwaukee. "I will put a stop to this boondoggle the
day I take office," he said.

Three Republican congressmen from Wisconsin introduced a bill Tuesday that would
give states the option of returning unwanted high-speed rail funds to the U.S.
Treasury toward reducing the national debt. Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Paul Ryan
and Tom Petri said state leaders should have the authority to prioritize how tax
dollars are being spent.

Cullen Werwie, a Walker spokesman, said the governor-elect "is pleased that
these three leaders understand that the train between Milwaukee and Madison is
dead." Werwie did not immediately return a request for comment about what Walker
thought about the idea that money directed to Wisconsin could end up in another
state.

While there is widespread support for a high-speed train in California, the
project has run into legal trouble.

A coalition of cities and nonprofit groups on the Peninsula recently filed a
lawsuit seeking to halt the first segment of the project -- a proposed line
between San Francisco and Los Angeles. It claims that environmental studies
inflated ridership figures for the proposed train and that the studies did not
meet state requirements.


BATN: See also:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Joins Call for Redirecting HSR Money
http://tinyurl.com/3xuke8z

source: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/47140

[Busy Bee]

Amazing how the hero complex can stem from legislating against your own interests. What a nightmare.

[pesto]

Let's not get childish with ad hominem arguments.

Lewis takes a principled position on cutting a wide variety of projects that he believes are less valuable than their costs. The administration criticizes him for cutting funds to his own district. What could more clearly delineate the worldview and motivations of the two?

This is not "libertarian". This is common sense financial review and being a rational adult. Please remember the comments from the Calfornia state auditor on the original HSR proposals.

More generally, we should stop thinking in terms of good and evil here. We are all looking at getting to the same place (freedom, justice, a better standard of living, greater opportunities, etc.). The discussion is over methods.