Comments on: Obama Administration Unveils HSR Strategic Plan

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:39:37 +0000

Nice dig at the Southland, Wes ;-)

I think true HSR between SF and Portland, and also to Truckee/Reno, is pushing it, but a less robust rail upgrade is something to investigate. As for non-LA destinations: there is chatter of a spur off the mainline to Las Vegas; and then later phases of CAHSR include Sacto (albeit via a circuitous route from SF) and San Diego.

By: Wes

Wes — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:30:13 +0000

I’d be more excited about HSR if it allowed me to go somewhere besides Los Angeles. I wonder if HSR to Truckee/Reno is economically justifiable? And, in the long run, HSR to Seattle?

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:36:12 +0000

MikeD, California has rejected a coastal HSR route. This map depicts the coastal route because the strategic plan map is based on the former designated 90 mph corridors (now several years old). However, USDOT will prepare a National Rail Plan, which will be updated and will be consistent with the individual corridor planning that states are now carrying out.

By: MikeD

MikeD — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:07:22 +0000

I noticed that this map still shows the coastal route in California. Is there really a justification for bringing any truly high-speed service to that route? There is not that much population served by adding that route.

Improving the Coast Starlight (now much busier than when I rode it six years ago) and restarting the Coast Daylight (and running it, at least initially, to 4th and King in SF) seem like good ideas, but that route seems like an overbuild for real HSR.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 23:03:44 +0000

Re: Transbay being “away” from downtown – that feeling may have been more true years ago, but I don’t think many people feel that way anymore, especially now as skyscrapers fill in the space south of Howard. And if they have any doubts, we now have a 645-foot tower across the street from the terminal, to clear up any confusion about it being downtown. The distance from BART/Muni would really be the only legitimate complaint at this point, although mitigated with an underground pedestrian connection.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:53:24 +0000

I don’t know why it’s surprising that it looks familiar. Most transportation systems, as a general matter, are based on a combination of local and express service (street -> freeway, bus -> BART, etc), so it stands to reason that an actually comprehensive rail system would have similar qualities. This is the model that has evolved throughout the world because it makes sense. Quite frankly, the more inspiration and expertise we can gain from other countries, the better.

By: switchingmodes

switchingmodes — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:47:29 +0000

In response to 'missiondweller': you are completely correct. One example of this is with the Transbay Terminal. People can't understand why we would build a new terminal away from downtown. The truth is, the new terminal will become downtown: it is just part of a massive transit-oriented development. On my site, SwitchingModes.com, I discuss this issue. If you have a chance take a look at what we're about. Anyways, thanks for the comment, it brightens my day to hear people are excited about big picture. One of the reasons why I like The Transbay Blog, is that it is one of the few websites that bridge the gap between transportation and land use.

By: switchingmodes

switchingmodes — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:33:13 +0000

Good post. I pointed out some of these same point in an article called Obama Is On The Right Track. There's a lot we can learn from how other countries approached high-speed rail. Obama laid out a clear plan for America... it looks surprisingly familiar to another countries approach.

By: missiondweller

missiondweller — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:21:40 +0000

Thanks for describing the concept of feeder lines. What I don’t think most people realize is the CA HSR is the backbone of a new type of land use and zoning in CA that will allow people to live farther away from job centers w/o creating more traffic and pollution. Builidng California’s growth around rail rather than car driven urban sprawl will maintain and even improve our state’s livability.