Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

California high speed rail


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#81 me_little_me

me_little_me

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,378 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:09 PM

 


 

I think the thinking is that if you put in fast and frequent high capacity corridors, that those corridors will atract development and high denisty residential and commercial developments will estbalish themsleves around the stations. Thus in addition to serving structures that are already there (which is very difficult iof they are spread out) you are also catalyzing future development which will be more transit frienldy.

 

 

Government doesn't get it. You buy up the vacant land or buy options on it in secret around where you are going to put up the stations and pay for the transit with the profits when selling/leasing the land. Government announces where they are putting things then after everyone has bought up the land, they pay the inflated price for it. And if they do happen to own the land, the politicians make them change the location so their buddies make the profits. Brightline is probably buying the land nowaround their future stations on the way to Orlando or selling the information to local community insiders in exchange for certain rights, easements, or other considerations. [Cynicism off]



#82 WoodyinNYC

WoodyinNYC

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,492 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NYC

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:22 PM

 

the thinking is that if you put in fast and frequent high capacity corridors, [they] will attract ... high density residential and commercial developments ... around the stations. ... catalyzing future development which will be more transit friendly.

Government doesn't get it. You buy up the vacant land or buy options on it in secret around where you are going to put up the stations and pay for the transit with the profits when selling/leasing the land. Government announces where they are putting things then after everyone has bought up the land, they pay the inflated price for it. And if they do happen to own the land, the politicians make them change the location so their buddies make the profits. Brightline is probably buying the land now around their future stations on the way to Orlando or selling the information to local community insiders in exchange for certain rights, easements, or other considerations. [Cynicism off]

[Cynicism on] Story is told that plans were released for a new airport NE of Austin. Soon after, due to the end of the Cold War, the Defense Dept offered the surplus Bergstrom Air Force Base to the city of Austin. It had long concrete runways, hangers and other facilities, everything but a new terminal building. All conveniently located SE of Austin. The talk was that a number of insiders took a big loss on land they'd acquired NE of the city. Just sayin'.


Edited by WoodyinNYC, 13 December 2017 - 10:25 PM.


#83 Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,526 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:Passenger Trains/Travel/Sports/Gov't/ Politics/History/Reading/
    Movies/Music/Space-Ancient Aliens

Posted 13 December 2017 - 10:35 PM

True story Woody! It was mostly Politicians and the Wealthy movers and shakers in Austin and Texas that took a bath on the rumoured Manor Location for the new Austin Airport.
"There's Something About a Train! It's Magic!"-- 1970s Amtrak Ad
 "..My heart is warm with the friends I make,and better friends I'll not be knowing,
Yet there isn't a train I wouldn't take,No matter where its going!.." -Edna St. Vincent Millay

#84 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 December 2017 - 07:27 AM

 

The problem is that the LA area probably needs an insane amount of investment into its transit systems.  What they have is nice, and the medium-term plans for more cross-connecting lines and the like are useful, but the area is so spread out that getting reasonable-frequency two-seat or three-seat rides between various locations is a very real problem (while having more than two transfers in a trip is going to weigh against using transit).  The Bay Area is a bit better off (if only because development is awkwardly jammed into various corridors) but in the long run there's going to need to be much more expansion of the feeder networks in the LA area to really make CAHSR useful.

 

I think the thinking is that if you put in fast and frequent high capacity corridors, that those corridors will atract development and high denisty residential and commercial developments will estbalish themsleves around the stations. Thus in addition to serving structures that are already there (which is very difficult iof they are spread out) you are also catalyzing future development which will be more transit frienldy.

 

You can observe in places as diverse as New Orleans or Houston how a lot of stuff is being built or refurbished near light rail stops but a couple of block further away all is much more static. If you project a continuation of this develoment into the future, the percentage of people served by light rail will grow organically, even if you don't add further lines. But the adding of lines becomes necessary as the existing corridors run out of usable plots.

 

That's generally the idea, and very often it works (look at the DC Metro or the Vancouver Skytrain for examples).  In the LA area, however, no small part of the problem is that there's only so much you can really hope to condense into some of these areas...and then you get into "around your ASCII to get to your elbow" situations where you have two parallel lines but no way to get between them [1], at least for a long time [2].  There's also the fact that unlike DC and some other cities, there's not a single "easy" downtown area to point to in the LA area on the (relative) scale of some other cities.

 

 

[1] In most cases, a high-frequency bus option would probably be the shorter-term winner, but that's probably not a permanent solution in many cases.

[2] e.g. the Sepulveda Pass project presently does have a connection to LAX coming...in 2059.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users