High Speed Rail vs. Air: California Edition!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2024
- High Speed Rail in the USA, and California High Speed Rail in particular, has had a rough go of it to this point. In a previous video, we acknowledged that even though connecting the Bay Area and Los Angeles makes sense from the standpoint of connecting large cities with high existing travel volumes (both by road and by air), the stance between the two metro areas, close to 400 miles, is towards the upper end of the range where high speed rail can be effective.
This video drills down into the details of an example trip between West Covina in the L.A. metropolitan area, and downtown San Francisco's Financial District, comparing current air travel options with potential future high speed rail service. Our hypothetical journeys take us through the Golden State's most notorious transportation hubs:
- Los Angeles Union Station
- San Francisco Transbay Terminal (my moniker for it...but Salesforce Transit Center if you must)
- San Jose Diridon Station
- Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center (ARTIC)
- Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
- Long Beach Airport (LGB)
- Ontario International Airport (ONT)
- John Wayne Airport (SNA)
- Burbank Airport (BUR)
- San Francisco International Airport (SFO)
- Oakland International Airport (OAK)
- and, of course, the El Monte Busway!
We dig into technical documentation from the California High Speed Rail Authority, the provisions of Proposition 1A, and some snazzy marketing materials from the Texas Central Railway ("America's Bullet Train"). And, of course, we finish by crowning a winner, evaluating both travel time (including transit connections and reliability) and the travel experience. - Наука та технологія
Thank you for calling it "ride-hail", not the horrible misnomer "ride-share". That's a real, substantive, peeve of mine.
Oh, don't get me started, haha. Glad you noticed.
You are absolutely right! The Experience alone is worth it.
Flying can be a nightmare. LAX is a stressful place to get to and to be at. SFO is rarely on time. Lugging stuff from car, through the airport, onto the plane, through another airport, onto a BART train, is just a pain. It's even more convenient if your end location is in Silicon Valley. SJC, like Burbank, has fewer flight options. The HSR stations will be integrated with transit in San Jose, SFO, and downtown SF. So getting from those stations to your destination will not be as foreboding as to/from Union Station or Burbank to your end destination.
One of the other main objectives of the CA High Speed Rail project is to provide intra-California connections. Because of the extremely high cost of housing, people are commuting from 100-150 miles away to LA or the Bay Area. Connections between Bakersfield and LA, Fresno and Bay Area, and Merced and Bay Area, would allow these cities to become bedroom communities for the Bay Area and LA. This would increase economic activity and potentially be a catalyst for positive economic growth in what is historically one of the poorest parts of California. These cities are the last "affordable" cities in California. Being a Fresno native who lived in Los Angeles for 20 years, I can attest to the desperate situation Central Valley cities are in and the decades of being forgotten by the state as well as the time and expense of getting from LA to these cities. Driving to them is a pain in the ***.
The current San Joaquin Amtrak train is very popular (one of Amtrak's busiest routes w over 1 million rides annually and 7 round trips daily) but it is frequently delayed by the freight traffic on the BNSF tracks that it has to share with. Also the trains only go to Oakland or Sacramento and don't go from Bakersfield to LA.
Travel between these cities to the Bay Area or Southern California is by car or by air. Flying seems almost silly since you begin descending almost right after you've ascended and flights from Fresno are expensive. I fly into Fresno often and my connection from LAX to Fresno (45 minutes) cost as much as my ticket from Chicago to LAX!
It's only a 2 hour drive from Fresno to San Jose (w the 152 turning into a two-lane highway full of trucks w few ways off for the last winding 10 miles into Gilroy) but if you get caught by the Central Valley's Tule fog, you will be white knuckling it for quite a lot longer as you slow down to 10 mph on the 5 or on 99. That fog is nothing to take lightly. It's whiteout and the cause of many multi-car pile ups on 99 and the 5. Driving over the Grapevine is also not without its problems in bad winter weather which can close the 5 down over the Tehachapi Pass. Even on the best of days, you have to deal with a lot of truck traffic since the 5 and 99 are the only two routes to get from N CA to S CA (the 101 is an option. It's slow but beautiful).
So, the role of the CA High Speed Rail project goes beyond simply getting people to/from LA and SF. It's a key to unlocking the potential of the Central Valley to finally claw themselves out of the stagnant desperate hole they're in and share some of the gold of the Golden State.
You can get to sf from la via train using the Amtrak coast starlight, only it takes like 10 hrs so that's your day. Really only useful for vacay or if your business gives you a travel day.
So don't fly SFO-LAX, fly OAK-BUR.
I think you overestimate the ability of the HSR to bedroom community the central valley. I haven't seen the pricing for this, but even if we're really generous and price a ticket from Fresno to LA or SF at 20 a direction, you're looking at a commute cost of 1000 a month, for what is a very long commute. And unless your office is right on top of union station (heavily unlikely) or embarcadero (more likely) you'll have to pay more for transit once you hit your destination.
And that's assuming very very cheap pricing. A shinkansen from Nagoya to Osaka is around 60 bucks one way for a similar distance.
@@SuperAqueos Fair point, however with a median home price of almost $1 million, there are many house-constrained people in the Bay Area making over $150,000/yr. that could afford the ticket in exch for a house of about $250,000.
If your rent is $3500/mo in Cupertino and you could get a house in Fresno for about $1000/mo or less, you're still better off paying $1000 for commutes.
The housing crisis is big and disrupting enough to force concessions by many parties. Employers may subsidize commute costs to keep people. It's also possible that cities, which are having to start subsidizing housing for public employees, may even pay for the commutes as a cheaper option than to subsidize housing.
Also, it's likely that 5-day in-office work weeks will not fully come back. In most cases, a few days a week in office seems to be becoming the norm for several sectors. I also think that most corps are looking to keep their real estate leasing savings as low as possible. I do think that the South Bay will be the bigger market for Fresno than SF.
All that said, I think HSR will likely have a difficult time in the beginning setting the right balance between price/ridership. There are lots of HSR pricing models in the world to explore (HSR tix from Valencia to Madrid, about 200 miles, are starting at 7 Euros one-way). There are lots of moving parts to consider as the economic calculus is very complex right now.
@@bryanCJC2105in all likelihood there’ll be some kind of rail pass that lasts a year, so pay $200-300 or so upfront but then with enough rides it’ll pay for itself.
Just found this channel and am shocked at the number of subscribers for the quality of videos. You’ve earned a subscriber!
right? this account basically doesnt exist on the algorithm but his videos are so good
@@bobbyswanson3498 It exists now, that is what brought him another transit nerd.
Teleporting technology could never be possible. This would mean you would have to die demoleculorize in one place and me made alive and whole in another. So instead of there being four fast ways of travel only three are possible. By car plane and of course speed rail.
I am a former airline pilot. For many years, I was based at LAX and flew the LAX/ONT/BUR/LGB/SNA - SFO/OAK/SJC routes so many times I lost count after the first year of so doing. Let me give you my six cents worth ...
If you're a passenger, take the high-speed rail over flying - Every. Single. Time.
And if you're a California taxpayer, pay to build the high speed rail, even if the overall project cost rises to US$150 billion (or beyond).
The cost of expanding airports to accommodate more flights and building highways to allow people to drive instead will cost far, far more. Indeed, the costs of constructing the alternatives will be absolutely astronomical - likely three times the cost of the high speed rail project.
And that's before you even begin to take environmental considerations into account - do you really want to cover the entire State of California in concrete and highways ... ?
The only parties truly opposed to high speed rail are the oil industry, automobile manufacturers, the airlines (believe me!) and the very rich (who already own private jets and fear their operational costs and their taxes may go up).
High speed rail is a no-brainer: just build it.
It is being built but at the slow rate maybe it will be completed by the end of 2090 if the world by then did not end. Maybe take a trip to Japan just to at least experience the ride.
Rail transit is a dystopian scheme to heard into solar agricultural serfdom.
@@user-jc2we4sn1iwhat?
@@user-jc2we4sn1ilmao what an idiotic comment
You nailed the west covina part. As a resident of San Gabriel Valley. You could not have hit the bullseye better than picking West Covina as the most average LA Metropolitan City. Made my day
That silver streak from Covina to LA is amazing. Love taking it to Covina. You get there in no time. It’s such a nice alternative to driving.
Would love to see this rail line made available. I'd take the rail over the airport any day!
based
Wyatt I agree with you. I hate domestic flying which is a hassle & a drudgery. I travel on Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner between San Diego, Los Angeles & Oxnard when I’m home in Chula Cista on visits from Casa Grande,AZ. It’s a shame that there isn’t a Los Angeles-Phoenix-Tucson-El Paso corridor of Amtrak trains. If there were a corridor of trains on the Amtrak corridor I mentioned were in existence outside of the tri weekly Sunset Limited I would be riding Amtrak into Los Angeles, transfer to the Pacific Surfliner to San Diego or Oxnard.
When I travelled from London to Dublin recently 450km (approx, 280 miles) no rail link because the Irish Sea is in the way, the actual flying time was about 45 minutes, but the front door to hotel door travel time was about 6 hours. Local bus 10 minutes, airport bus to Heathrow 45 minutes, airport bus to Dublin about an hour. No passport control or anything like that because it is in the common travel area, but nevertheless, 3h 20m to get in and out of the airport.
A second current available option is to take the Amtrak Coast Starlight from Union Station leaving the day before the meeting. Stay overnight at a San Francisco or Emeryville hotel.
That’s not really a good option though. It’s expensive takes to long although the Train ride itself is beautiful. HST is the way to go. I can have a meeting in Paris at 10 o clock. Have dinner there (you know French food) and be back in Amsterdam before midnight. It’s roughly the same distance as LA to SF
Or you can take an overnight Amtrak thruway bus from LA to Bakersfield, catch the 4 AM San Joaquin, and arrive in Oakland around 10 AM
Interesting presentation. I'm a West European living in East Asia, so I've always taken high speed rail for granted but I know it's definitely not in the US. And this is why your exposé is so interesting and convincing. Please, keep "preaching the good word" in North America, dear City Nerd (btw, the Canadians need it even more badly than you). I don't want to take a confrontational approach and treat the US or Canada with disdain when it comes to public transport - rather, I choose a pragmatic and friendly approach and say: wake up, try high speed rail and adopt it, it will prove a great benefit to your economy, to your people, to your country.
Re: experience: In the 90s I lived in Boston (Somerville) and my parents lived near Washington DC. I flew "home" for Christmas the first few years, but I switched to taking the train and never looked back. Even though door-to-door time was longer (especially as this was before Acela) and this was before 9-11 made airport security worse, the experience was so much less stressful (Christmas is the worst time to fly) and the ability to "work" on my laptop for almost the whole trip was huge.
There's not that much traffic on the I-5 in the central valley. I mean its definitely more than in rural Texas but its just like a mildly busy rural Texas highway.
While SF is a big hub of companies. A lot of the big companies are actually all situated close to San Jose (Apple. Micron, Google, Cisco, etc). Facebook is about halfway between SFO and SJC airports. So its actually crucially to consider San Jose (south bay) as a vital point on the high speed rail line (which would be San Jose Diridon).
Yeah, the vast majority of the trains they modeled stop at Diridon -- it's definitely important.
Also why Bart to Silicon Valley project is so important
All this does is make the case for HSR even better, since the last 45 min of the trip to SF will be spent sharing the CalTrain tracks at normal speeds going up the peninsula. If you get off at Diridon, it's a 15-min Uber ride to Apple headquarters.
I've made the I-5 car trip from the north edge of LA County to South Bay dozens of times, and I've often hit traffic jams in the miasma of dairy farms. There's also an annoying pattern of passenger cars stacking up in the left lane to pass semi trucks, with some of the cars rushing to pass on the right and dive in to the left at the last moment.
It's often not a pleasant trip and I'm grateful that most everyone has opened up for videoconference meetings.
@@NelsonBrown this is by far my least favorite experience of driving. happens all over the US anywhere it's down to two lanes. youre forced to tailgate while waiting in line in the left lane or else someone will dangerously pass you on the right.
I loved this video, having lived west covina adjacent (Glendora), having done that trip at least 50 times for work, driving is the easiest and most convenient. From west covina you go to the covina metrolink station (train), the silver streak gets stuck in traffic.
For the trip, drive the 210 to the 5 then to the 580. You exit Castro Valley blvd and hop the BART (has a park and ride) to downtown, no need to find parking. Very simple, 4 hours and 15 minutes to the BART, and then maybe 30 more downtown.
I love your due deligence!
How is your wife's boyfriend's truck driving these days.
Like others have mentioned, this is a VASTLY underrated channel for the quality and depth of analysis that you provide. Keep it up, we'll spread the word.
Much appreciated!
Metrolink runs frequent regional-rail service between the Covina station and downtown Los Angeles.
I took the Eurostar from Paris to London and it was so much an enjoyable experience than the airport. A plane ride from Paris to London is around an hour and 15 minutes. A high speed train ride is about an 2 hours and a half. However, you don't have to be there 2 hours before takeoff. I had to go through customs and 45 minutes before take off will give one plenty of time to board your train. On the train, it is spacious, clean, with big windows to sight see. You can put your luggage on a median rack or on an overhead ben. The lavatory on board are more spacious and clean than that on the plane. The wifi was decent, not spectacular, but free and way better than my recent plane flight from Frankfurt Germany to LAX. Once high speed rail connects two major cities, there is no turning back, it will change this nation for the better. The ride was enjoyable. And you land in the heart of the city. When I flew back from Paris to Los Angeles, I almost missed my connecting flight to LA because of airport security and customs. I literally got my pass port checked about 3 times in Frankfurt Germany, waiting in these slow lines hoping I don't miss my flight. Go through the train, go to security, go to your platform, and off you go. I am looking forward to that day when I am whisk away from LA to Las Vegas and back. That route will be so popular my only concern is that it might sell out on Weekends.
An hour from landing to meeting won't work. Bay Area airports are outside SF. I'd do 2 hours with debourding the plane, traffic, getting up the tower to the meeting.
I remember spending 11 hours San Francisco to LA , the world's longest parking lot 1974
I love your nonchalant, yet accurate approach to your calculations.
Ughhh I’m facing this exact dilemma - drive 6 hrs or fly to visit my friend in SF. I have friends and family in bay area, and would love to hop onto a Shinkansen type HSR to visit for a weekend without a big fuss. Siiiigh
Love your channel, thanks for putting in the work to educate the masses.
Hey I'm not an educator...just a nerd with a different perspective!
Foothills Silver Streak is problematic. It is ment for commuters and in the morning rush is often fully packed with standing passengers. During those times luggage is at the discretion of the driver as luggage is not part of the policy. The El Monte Busway is a former rail right of way, but unlike real BRT it is shared with cars. This makes being on time unreliable. A better choice is Metrolink San Bernardino line from Covina Station. While it can get crowded it is a train running on tracks. After El Monte Station, it runs next to the El Monte Busway, where it frequently passes the Silver Streak. The real problem with LaLa land is the fractious transit agencies. While Metrolink works well, getting to it or from it is a problem. In your scenario the issue will getting to the Metrolink Station. If like me you are in Pasadena, Metrolink doesn't run there. You could take Metrorail's Gold line but this is bad choice. The Gold line does not have grade separation much of the way and is often delayed. Predators often give well dressed passengers a hard time (multiple attempts to roll the passengers have been observed by me and even attempted on me). LA's beautiful Union Station is overrun with Homeless and do not go to the bathroom their unless it is at the AMTRAK 1st class lounge.
Very interesting and honest observation. Perhaps I can paraphrase your thoughts. Convenience is not the only priority. So is personal safety. Driving or taking a cab to the airport is safer than public transport to a train station. Also, security don't allow homeless into airports. I have never been to the US to experience your culture, but have used European rail, where city center stations have many homeless, and I have not felt unsafe. Perhaps it is the high number of passengers that gave me a sense of security & a successful California HSR might do the same?
@@michaeloreilly657 Having traveled to Europe, and lived in the US, I think you have it right. I've experienced homeless people experiencing mental health issues in transit hubs within Europe, and the same within the US. The big difference is, as you suggest, the number of other people within the area. I feel much safer if there are many other people around me than if it's just me alone waiting for the train next to someone going through a mental health crisis. Feelings of safety are a big barrier for many transit options for many Americans, and I feel much of that is ironically solved by getting higher ridership. But until you get higher ridership, people feel unsafe. And while people feel unsafe, you won't get higher ridership... There's a barrier to break there for sure.
Like all of your informative videos - well explained and thought from the practical side. Thanks for sharing 👍
The SFO fog is so real. I used to travel between Bay Area (south bay) and LA, and pretty consistently would end up flying SJC-LAX or SJC-BUR b/c SFO flights always get delayed...
Yes, high speed rail-or higher speed & excellent passenger rail services is so really badly needed-way overdue-thanks for excellent video-another new subscriber!!!
Super unique & entertaining! I really like this versus format
I got a kick out of your having picked West Covina as the starting point of the trip. As a kid and teenager, my family and I lived first in one and then another neighboring city. It's indeed a fairly typical representation of the greater LA area.
Thank goodness your presentation skills have improved dramatically since you made this a year ago.
100 Billion dollars to have a better travel experience. I think that this money needs to be spent on local and regional rail rather than HSR
I watched all your vids already. Totally stocked for the next one 🕐🕐
All the problems with air travel you mentioned are not inherent problems but created problems. Governments and bureaucrats have made check in and security a nightmare. Decades ago air travel was like catching a bus, just turn up and board. The same people who have ruined air travel will likely ruin high speed rail travel.
In Canada some rail services have introduced baggage check in and security screening, to make the experience more consistent with air travel.
Thats sad, the most you need is just scan the bags and empty pockets. Trains don't care about weight and if security really is an issue (i don't think american trains are high enough profile to be targets of terrorism yet, and certainly can't be hijacked to do anything particularly useful for their means, especially considering the train traffic controllers have remote override abilities) just have the US Air Marshalls or an equivalent ride the trains with likely issues, its not like weight is a particular concern for trains.
@@jasonreed7522 Also, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun on some trains in the US.
@@Kriss_L i didn't know that, or expect it. I'm fine with it but personally would never chose to do so. (Bear spray is just as effective and has a less legally complicated aftermath)
Although I'm sure none of those trains are in NY, a state that recently passed a law that basically banned guns in the woods because most of our woods are within state parks. (Just the governor and legislator picking a fight with the supreme court, i haven't kept up with it.)
@@jasonreed7522 Actually, using bear spray on a human is not legal anywhere that I know of. That would be worse legally than a justifiable shooting.
In Washington, the only legal chemical agents for use against humans is CN or CS (i.e., tear gas).
@@Kriss_L wait tear gas is legal but mace/pepper spray/ ext isn't, thats messed up.
The entire point of non-lethals is that you don't have to justify shooting someone. (Something even the cops have trouble with) But the other side is you still need stopping power, especially if the assailant is on something like bath salts. (Also holding a gun durring an active shooting isn't the best way to befriend the cops)
The whole issue of self defense is complicated but i know that atleast in NY mace is legal, but I have no intentions of going anywhere i realistically should need it.
I also haven't looked into chemical defense sprays like mace or bear spray because i take a gun into the woods and avoid sketchy urban areas so i never felt the need to figure out what is what power level and what is legal or not. (I just said bear spray because if its supposed to repel a bear it can repel a human)
Taking the bus from North Hollywood, Los Angeles to San Francisco takes 7hrs and 30 minutes and is only $45 one way trip. Amtrak is about 9hrs via bus connection with San Joaquins train or 11 hrs from Van Nuys station to Oakland Station on coast starlight and can be around $50 if booked in advance by 2 weeks.
In practice, I'm definitely taking the early ONT flight and just hanging out in SF for a few hours. Saves over an hour of driving round trip, can easily make use of that time in SF, even if it is just renting a desk at a co-work space.
11:45 Aguilar pointed this out during a promotional interview. I think people in the US who have never traveled on good rail are going to be very surprised and will tell their friends.
I'm from San Jose, and have traveled to LA multiple times to see family. Typically, if we're there for more than 3 days, we drive, but if we're there for just a weekend, we fly. When we fly, it's from SJC to BUR, and sometimes LAX. Flight is 1 hour, total travel time is around 2hr45 min (including getting to/from airport & security). SJC and Burbank are generally very easy airports to get through. When driving, it takes about 6-7 hours, which includes a stop in places like Kettleman City, Buttonwillow, or Gorman. With a family of 5 including 2 severely autistic kids, sometimes driving is the better option.
The majority of travel on HST won't be from LA to SF.
It will be to/from LA and the San Joaquin Valley and to/from the SF Bay Area and the San Joaquin Valley.
Cal HST is planning on 45-minute travel times between San Jose and Fresno which will open up the valley (Los Banos, Chowchilla, Merced, Madera, Fresno) as a major commuter destination.
I suspect that the same thing will happen with HST commuter passengers going to/from LA and Bakersfield (Palmdale, Lancaster, Mojave, Tehachapi, Bakersfield).
I generally agree with your analysis but one thing is clearly off: Southwest is by far the best operator for this route in pretty much all the airports mentioned. They have great routes out of Burbank, ONT, LAX (& the others) to SFO, OAK and SJC at many times per day, and they don't appear on a Google or Kayak search. I flew weekly on this route when I worked at LAX as a consultant and SW was the clear best option. Otherwise great video!
Karl the Fog is no joke. SFO does ground holds at west coast airports (even up to YVR), so it's possible that you could be sitting at LAX or BUR for *hours* waiting for Karl to back off. This is dependent on the season though and early autumn (i.e. right now) is usually the clearest, and mid-summer is usually the worst.
Definitely. I didn't have a good way to quantify this, but it's a major concern if SFO is on your itinerary.
@@CityNerd Let me again cite my background as an airline pilot who was based at LAX and flew between the LA Basin and the Bay Area for many years.
The flight from one location to the other - which should be only about 55 minutes in the air - now averages 1 hr 20 mins (ie 80 mins) airborne. Indeed, it actually takes long now than it did back in the 1960s, when jet aircraft were introduced commercial air service in large numbers.
You do you indeed have fog and diversions on this route with which to contend, albeit that they are rare.
What everyone seems to forget is that before take-off, you also have a taxy out of about 20 mins to 40 mins to endure and a taxy in of similar length at destination to worry about. So, from push-back at departure to parking on-blocks (ie "blocking in") at destination, you will have another 35 to 80 mins of taxy time on the ground for which to plan.
Plus, airports at both ends are now ever-more congested. Upon arrival at destination, frequently all the gates are occupied by aircraft waiting to depart. I have often experienced having to hold some 50 yards short of the gate for 15 mins or so - upon occasion, it has been as long as 45 mins - waiting for the departing aircraft to push back and vacate the gate.
Thus, the 'one hour' flight' (gate-to-gate) could take as long as 3 hrs 25 mins (ie 205 mins).
And make sure to arrive at the airport at least an hour and a half (ie 90 mins) before scheduled departure time: aircraft are more heavily booked now than they have ever been before and airlines authorize over-booking in order to maximize operational load factors - this is crucial to airline profitability.
If you arrive only one hour prior to scheduled pushback, you could find that the flight is now full and that your booking/seat has already been given away to another passenger, even though you are 'on time' for check-in. There's still nothing you can do about it, except demand compensation from the airline.
So, it depends on how important your noon-time meeting at the other end is: if you're flying in order to attend, I guess it must be pretty important ... ? If so, don't plan on landing at SFO at 11 am, make sure your flight is scheduled to land no later than 10 am. And allow three hours for the flight, not an hour and twenty mins.
Thus, if you are the prototypical West Covina resident flying up to the Bay Area and the meeting is sufficiently important to justify flying, then don't take the 0925 flight, take one that is scheduled to depart at 0730. Plus, get to the airport no later than 0600.
In turn, if the drive from West Covina to LAX is 75 minutes, then leave the house around 0445.
And you might - just might - make that noonday meeting on time.
Honestly, flying between the LA Basin and the Bay Area makes less sense than driving. And neither makes anywhere near as much sense as high speed rail. It's not even close.
Excellent.
I "love" driving but not long distance at all :D
Being in LA, Burbank IS BY FAR the best airport in the whole city for so many reasons and shortest time through TSA (also they have pretty good Breakfast Burritos).
Also seems like the news that broke while you were probably uploading this video isn't good news for CA HSR.
What news?
@@angelsaavedra633 The California legislature didn't give CAHSR the money that they were looking for to keep working full speed. They will have to curtail construction in 8-9 months unless the legislature authorizes more funds, which they likely will.
@@shawng8613 they fucking better
I love the way you say San Bernadino
I live in Orange County, and there's a couple key problems here;
1. LA Union Station is completely overrun with homeless people; tents, tarps, forts taking over the waiting areas inside and out, etc. It's a miserable and dangerous place for anyone to be. It also smells strongly of urine and BO and meth smoke.
2. Downtown SF is emptying out and most businesses are not even located there any more. They're all further south from Palo Alto to San Jose. You'd want to fly into San Jose instead of SFO.
3. Why not just attend a Zoom meeting instead? Cheaper, faster, more efficient for all involved.
The Anaheim station will be a very nice place to board CAHSR trains.
@@tim1724 It will be nice to see that fancy station finally get some actual use.
Here comes Orange county to the rescue, All that is government policy. When it happens, the government can clear the homeless problem and clean up the station in a day. That is what they did in Inglewood before they bult that massive stadium.
Thanks!
Thank YOU!
The focus is all on the direct trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles but the real advantage of high speed rail is regional travel like San Diego to Los Angeles or San Jose to San Francisco
No doubt. But it seems that the big-ticket, “Wow!” factor of L.A. to S.F. is the only thing that can overcome the opposition and get the thing built. People are funny that way.
I just really, really hope its (frankly, rather marginal) utility will allow it to succeed, and pave the way for more useful services. If it crashes and burns, that’ll be it for U.S. high speed rail in our lifetime.
The high speed train network in Italy is wonderful. California can do it too. Good regional public transportation also adds to the benefits of such systems. Once it is completed, manage it correctly. Californians will wonder why it wasn’t done decades earlier.
As CityNerd indicated, both NorCal and SoCal have good and steadily improving regional transportation. For example, if you live in West Covina and you need to travel with a suitcase, you might want to go to L.A. Union Station by Metrolink, using either the San Bernardino (ex-PE) or Riverside (ex-SP) lines.
I love how there is a cable car in the thumbnail but they only go 9 miles per hour max😂
Silly little rectangle ding dings
I used to have my son fly out of Long Beach or Ontario. Those airports are very easy to get into and out of. LAX is a huge hassle to just get into and out of! I live within walking distance of Powell Street staion so once we get in just walk home- ten minutes to home with no need to find parking. You would say Embaradero Station. Embaradero Center is a series of shopping blocks
Real world opinion having flown and driven between the two cities (and I’m someone who does like driving): while the fastest drive is indeed I5, it’s also the most boring. I would ONLY drive if I have the time to go on 101 and stop for a meal in SLO. If I had to be in SFO in time for a lunch meeting, the ONLY choice would be to fly (ignoring the train for a moment). Transit is indeed pretty much non-existent in LA, so you’d definitely need to drive to the airport (in your or someone elses car), but once in the Bay area you can use BART to get from SFO or Oakland Airport to where you need to go. If flying into San Jose, you’ll need to rent a car or ride-share to get to your destination. I haven’t been to every airport in LA but I’ve been to LAX and Burbank, and Burbank is drastically more low-key/smaller, so you can show up later, get through security faster, and be at your gate quicker. The same is likely true for Ontario. As for having a good selection of flights, I think Southwest wins here. They have lots of direct flights between a lot of the airports in the two areas, so depending on the timing you want you can easily catch a flight from one of the smaller airports into SFO/SJC/Oakland. Additionally, TSA pre saves a TON of time here. I can’t think of a time I’ve waited for longer than 10 minutes in an airport security line since I got TSA pre.
As for high speed rail: I absolutely can’t wait for it to be real, but it honestly only makes sense for people traveling from LA to SF. If you’re taking the train to LA, you’ll still need a car once you get to town.
Lots of love for BUR in all these comments.
And with brightline hopefully rhis will get even better
You should talk about a high speed line between san diego and los angeles
The first section built could have been SF - San Jose, which would serve commuters well, have a lot of use, and show that the system was a good investment. Starting in the Central Valley was not as good of an idea. Something rarely mentioned is by the time this is built, if it ever is completed as a full system, we will probably be well into oil rationing given conventional oil is mostly gone and fracking for oil may have peaked in 2020 (due to Covid and geological limits). It takes a lot of energy to get a plane to 30,000 feet.
they should have made the Central Valley section the final missing piece of the entire construction. Construction could have started from LA - Bakersfield & LA - San Diego as well just to keep the cashflow going first. I can imagine the demands for LA - San Diego route will far exceed the LA - SF route.
Its kind of like how the intercontinental railroad got built, they started at the ends and met in the middle. They started with the high population areas and moved on to low population. If you really needed to go fast you would have an end start in every city with a stop and build all sections at once, but historically Cali's government is inept at managing things.
The problem with San Fransisco to San Jose is that even the current compromise i.e. upgraded the existing Caltrain corridor (also part of the full CAHSR project, mind you) still had a lot of opposition (one station even got closed just because its local residents opposed electrification!), a full blown high-speed line just wouldn't fly there at least for the near future (though that could change with CAHSR), the only thing you would prove is how much better Brightline could have been using electrification and better grade separation.
I've made the trip across California more times than I can count, both by air, by car, and by bus. At this point, going maybe 2x a year, maybe 4 max, I've chosen to drive. All the hassle of checking in/out, and having to confrom to a schedule along with their delays has really made me dislike flying for this corridor. The bus is not a bad option but I've only gone on it twice since having a car. Since I'm well acclimated to the drive and because I find that I need a car for visiting in Socal, driving is the least evil of my options.
Drove round trip from Fair Oaks CA (just east of Sacto) to Irvine in Feb 2002. Left on Friday, drove through Friday afternoon rush hour on I5, 8 hours door to door. Drove home on SuperBowl Sunday, 7 hours door to door. This was right after 9/11 so they wanted you at the airport 5 hours ahead of time. 442 miles each way, just as fast as flying, easier with luggage, golf clubs, schedule. BTW SuperBowl Sunday the freeways are empty.
i5 doesn't have too much traffic, so once you get out of LA it isn't bad, the issue is on both ends you get to deal with massive amounts of traffic.
I grew up in the SF bay and now live outside of LA in Venture County. We never took a car into SF, unless it was 6-8 people and we were going to be far away from a bart stop.
LA needs high speed rail+a metro or at least more frequent metrolink. at this point metrolink is really only good for commuters. its not an all day transit system
Great example! Also worth thinking about the conservative/anxious traveler who follows the directions of arriving 90-120 min before their flight departs (or 30 min before a train, as Amtrak suggests- although this train's frequency may make that smaller). That makes your waiting difference of 45min in the video become more like 60-100min in favor of rail.
Edit: If a conservative traveler normally gets to the airport 2hrs early, all of a sudden driving seems competitive!
Definitely -- depends on an individual's tolerance for stress and uncertainty! I know people who like to get to the airport as late as possible, and I knnow people who are the opposite.
I'm that "conservative" flyer, arriving two hours before every flight -- I suspect that a lot of people of color (I'm Japanese-American, btw, so I don't expect TSA hassles) are that sort too, because they perceive that TSA racially profiles passengers.
West Covina. That made me laugh. Though, in some ways, it could also serve as the worst case scenario for HSR. Living within walking distance of Union Station would be the best case scenario.
he picked west covina cuz Josh just happens to be there
I think that this is possible. The time-saving is relatively minor, though.
Now I am become Engagement, the bringer of views.
I just wanted to share my perspective as a California native: over the course of my time living in Los Angeles I have gone up to the Bay Area and back probably about a dozen times, and only twice did I do it in an airplane. I don't know what the actual numbers are on this, but my intuitive guess would be that most Californians actually do usually drive when they want to get between SoCal and the Bay. Don't get me wrong, it IS a nightmare, but people still do it, usually for cost reasons. Also, the traffic is only bad coming out of the LA basin and up to the Bay area, the actual bulk of the trip has no traffic, straight two lanes in the middle of nowhere through the valley. It is miserable, which is why on a lot of those trips people actually will elect to add another two hours to go the longer, winding route up the coast on PCH (That's I-1 to you) just since it has gorgeous views and most people take the trip the day before they need to actually be anywhere anyway.
Is driving the norm for business travel, or only leisure? Where I live, we also have 2 major hubs. They're much smaller and closer together than SF & LA, only about a 3 hour drive apart. People traveling on their own dime invariably drive, but business travel is probably 70% by air. I would have thought that with the ~7 hour drive, SF-LA business travel would pretty much universally be by air.
@@The2wanderers I'd agree with that for sure. In this context I'm talking about "leisure" but not in the typical sense I don't think. Lots of Californians have family members or otherwise close relatives who live in the other half of California (living in the LA area, I can't really think of a family of native Angelenos I know who don't at least have some family up in the bay area, and vice versa) so it's more like people driving up or down to visit relatives for Christmas or Thanksgiving, which counts as leisure I suppose but it's not like a lot of Angelenos are really going up to the bay to relax or vacation
If you leave West Covina at 4am, you wont encounter any traffic so you'd probably arrive about 2 hours early (since you are gonna be driving 80+ mph most of the way- basically until you hit the Bay Bridge). But of course since it's southern California, if you left at 6am you wouldnt arrive till the meeting is over. But hey, 4am gives you plenty of time to stop at the Water Museum (Vista Del Lago Water Education Center) along the Grapevine and Bravo Farms! Or if you leave at 4am you might as well take the "scenic route" up the 101 and get a decent breakfast in San Luis Obispo!
How do you only have 63,000 subscribers?
I made almost this exact trip regularly pre-Covid. 4 hours was about as bad as it got, and I never managed to do it in sub 3 hours. Flying out of BUR is the way to go. TSA honestly isn’t bad at BUR, SFO, or OAK. Delays are rare if you avoid flying into or out of SFO in the afternoon or evening. There’s plenty of flights from OAK. You’re almost surely flying Southwest and can easily change flights if one is delayed. Booked in advance, you’re looking at $60 or maybe $80 each way. Given my experiences, I found it difficult to think CAHSR would improve the trip much. That’s taking the 2 hr 40 min trip time and Transbay Terminal claims at face value. I almost wish I was wrong because I really enjoy taking the trains in Europe and Japan.
Lots of love for BUR in my comments! I agree it will be hard for CAHSR to compete on pure travel time. You really have to buy into the idea that your time on the train is more pleasant and productive than whatever you'd be doing at the airport and on the plane itself. I'd probably go for the train, but it would be an easier call if it was clearly a better travel time option, like it will be from Dallas to Houston.
If you start in West Covina, you have to factor in delays caused by locals who break into song.
Really Loved your video
Can I edit your vids?
Did I miss something? Did you forget about the travel time from Oakland airport to Downtown San Francisco? It's even longer from the San Francisco airport to downtown!! PS Even the current long slow amtrak trip is less stressful than flying OR driving
great video but i was very distracted by the way you pronounced the second R in “bernardino”
Just a local nitpick. No one refers to SNA as “Santa Ana.” It’s either Orange County or John Wayne (because we like to name airports after actors who just happened to own property here).
Good video. I think that the thing with that 2 hr 40 min travel time is that the line has to be "capable" of achieving that time. I think that they will do a demonstration run at some point, but in practice it will be 10-30 minutes slower depending on the number of stops.
Also, while West Covina doesn't have train access Metrolink does serve Covina and that's probably a better method to get to Union Station. Service is about every 20 minutes at rush hour during normal times.
The Baldwin Park station also serves (parts of) West Covina and, for morning commuters, offers a 31-minute ride to LA Union Station at 1/2 hr intervals.
Sounds great. When this thing is finally completed in 2060 or 2070.
This aged poorly
An interesting follow up would be to look at the total cost of the two options, especially compared to driving.
If a hsr is say twice or thrice as expensive as flying then even with shorter travel times and a better travel experience most people will fly. If flying ends up being twice or thrice as expensive, then the opposite will end up being true.
I fully expect that hsr would come out on top here, but is that actually the case?
I just don't have a great sense of what the fare would be. It'd have to be competitive with air, I'd think.
Googling it just now, it looks like you can get a 1-way economy flight from LAX to SFO reliably for $50, and both Alaska and JetBlue have $31 flights available at this moment. I'd call it 50 just to be safe. We don't know what operations will cost for the line, but it will take about 1.5-2.0 billion passengers to cover construction costs at that fare if operations cost is free. The LGV Sud-Est cost $13.8 billion francs to build (less than $4B dollars adjusted for inflation) vs the $80-100 billion that California are spending.
@@JETZcorp Construction costs are sunk costs, and shouldn't be considered in setting prices. The best financial return on that investment means maximizing gross margin (revenue less variable costs), even if that means never making back the up front investment. There's also a bunch of other revenue streams to be tapped once you get the ticket sold, so it's worth considering the onboard spending and station retail revenue in determining what the best fare is. If it's state owned, it may even make sense to set lower fares than strictly make business sense, as the state benefits from externalities like reduced road costs, reduced pollution, and increasing economic efficiency (and therefore tax revenue).
In the end, they might charge a bit of a premium over air, but setting the price at 2 or 3 times air travel is going to cost more in lost business than it makes up for in higher per passenger revenue.
@@The2wanderers I agree that ultimately whatever the construction costs won't actually affect the real ticket price. But the amount of return the system can generate does give perspective on whether it's worth sinking the cost in construction in the first place. If it takes 850 years to make back the construction cost, it's probably a bad project and the resources are better used elsewhere. If it takes 12 years, it's an excellent project.
@@JETZcorp You'd also have to weigh the cost of constructing HSR against the costs of expanding local airports to meet the increased travel demand.
At 4:23... Did I read that right? A train is roughly 20% more expensive?
I hate to say it...but for 2hr + train trips... Air makes more sense. Even in dense Europe. I can fly Stockholm to London for $40, and even less on a cheap day. (granted, it's Ryan air though). If going by rail... It's in the $100's. I think the Chunnel taxes alone are roughly the cost of the entire airplane trip.
Just in case it wasn't clear ... I love the channel! 🙂 Some fun data and things to think about! And I appreciate the reasonable examples of a guy who lives in a normal part of town going on a business trip to another city
Yeah, the Eurostar ticket prices (and current frequency) are not great. I don't know if a lot of people in the US realize how affordable/abundant air travel within Europe is, too. They think it's all trains everywhere!
Perhaps not the best example - Stockholm to London is a long way by train! And we are recently starting to see 'low cost' High Speed Rail services on a few routes in Europe, which are much more competitive even with the likes of Ryanair.
That $39 airfare between L.A. is extreme optimistic, especially if you’re flying on the spur of the moment, and it’s hardly representative of all area airports. OC is a lot more.
If one live in West Covina go to the neighboring city Covina and catch the Metrolink to Union Station.
TSA security might be part of high speed rail, as it was for London's high speed rail when I lived there. Going through the Channel tunnel might have been one reason, but I went on a car carrier train through that tunnel without such security checks, so I think that it's more a matter of HSR in a country concerned about terrorism. I recall reports that there could be long queues for passing through security. That might push leaving home to 6:30a, versus 7:30a-ish for air.
It’s definitely the exception. I’ve never come across any kind of security screening on rail in Europe, including long distance trains in Germany, Italy, Austria, France, Portugal and the Netherlands. Remember that passports are required for trips to/from the UK, but not elsewhere in Europe due to the Schengen Agreement.
The HS rail promoters should really try and keep the TSA type checks out of the system on the basis of the lack of incidents to justify it.
For that matter, aside from the Eurostar (due to border checks between France and the UK), only Spain uses TSA within Europe.
I am quite certain parking, in San Francisco, costs quite a premium.
I’m from the bay and go to school in Santa Barbara (near-ish LA). I can attest that the driving experience from norcal to socal is hellish. LA to SF you have to first sit in LA traffic for about two hours to get out of north LA, and then drive on a two-lane road for 4 hours, then go through san jose (the bay’s version of LA: horrible traffic at all times, mess of a highway system) to get to SSF.
But flying is twice the price. A better train would make life much easier. (But train and bus definitely both exist right now. Bus is pretty good actually i recommend it)
Did you overlook Metrolink from the Baldwin Park or El Monte stations to Union Station?
Metrolink train departing Baldwin Park 7:48am is scheduled to arrive at LA Union Station at 8:21am metrolinktrains.com/schedules/?type=station&originId=101&destinationId=107&weekend=0
The bus is 46 minutes door-to-door from the particular location Google Maps identified as "West Covina" (intersection of Sunset Ave and West Covina Parkway) for an 8:30 AM midweek arrival at Union Station. The Baldwin Park Metrolink is a 30-ish minute walk from this admittedly arbitrary location in West Covina...but you could take a ridehail to Baldwin Park in maybe 10 minutes, so maybe the Metrolink is the way to go? Thanks for the comment!
@@CityNerd Metrolink is, at best, a push against the express bus that you chose from West Covina. You are right that Metrolink does require one additional transfer, either a ridehail service or a local bus from West Covina to either Metrolink station. That gives a real advantage to the direct bus. The ride time on the Metrolink could add to the number of billable hours of work en route. I am unsure if the time working on Metrolink is enough to compensate for the extra transfer. I thought it was an entertaining coincidence that your choice of a representative starting location split the two so evenly.
@@MartinHoeckerMartinez Yeah, I was a bit disappointed that the location it gave wasn't closer to Metrolink, but I try to make sure I'm not putting my thumb on the scale for these kinds of analyses.
It's also worth noting that it is highly likely there will be more frequent Metrolink service by the time the high speed rail system is on-line. I believe some HSR money will actually go towards improving such service.
Building HSR from Bakersfield to somewhere before SF first seems like things going back front. Wouldn't a tunnel between LA and Bakersfield be the first thing to build and thus reduce that traffic in and from LA?
I kinda have to agree with this. Amtrak has no rail rights beyond Bakersfield to LA other than their through coaches. I can imagine anyone taking Amtrak to Bakersfield to either switch train to HSR or just let Amtrak using the HSR tracks directly to LA.
The problem is that the LA-Bakersfield segment is an extremely difficult engineering problem and hugely expensive. They've only just recently figured out a route that works and they need to find many billions of dollars in new funding to build it. They've been focusing on the easier and cheaper segments first while they figure out how to tackle the bigger challenges.
@@tim1724 Yes, I suppose this is reasonable strategy in order to make sure the intire damn thing gets built in the end. But the mind does boggles... How is the terrain for tunnels? That would probably be the best option - to have as many tunnel kilometers as possible/viable. Especially in earthquake regions tunnels are pretty safe... At least Elon Musk seems to think so...
@@CARambolagen Tunnels of the size needed are hugely expensive. There will be a few, but the plan avoids them wherever possible to save money. The Bakersfield-Palmdale segment has 10.8 miles of tunneling planned and the Palmdale-Burbank segment has around 28 miles of tunnels planned.
LA to SF, you don't need to rent a car in SF. SF to LA, you probably do, or taxi/Lyft/Uber/beg a friend to pick you up and chauffeur you around.
Don't trust Google maps for driving times! I've driven between SF and LA countless times and NEVER done it in 5h 40 min! 7-8 hours is the norm!
I'm shocked at how large the ranges are, I live in Florida and it will give me my accurate eta across the state down to the minute
Ah, West Covina! Hometown of Greg Camp - guitarist and main songwriter of Smash Mouth! All-star choice! 😁
San Bernardino is the only silent "r" you have in California, but he pronounced it of course. Understandable
CA high-speed train would run along the bus way and would have a station closer to West Covina so there wouldn't be a need to travel to Union Station. Thus, cutting the trip further.
When the train gets to los banos it's going down Henry Miller rd and on that rd is the burial grounds of the yokuts Indians and California doesn't care just dig them up it's ok I my self have found remains and turned them over to the Merced county sheriff dept
Wouldn't there also be a cost advantage?
On paper this is good but it goes against the reality I've seen. Sure you could take the Commuter Express but it is subject to the came accident induced traffic issues as most other cars. Also the "busway" is actually a toll lane shared with cars.
Sure, the Commuter rail, Metrolink is an option but the timetables can be problematic outside of key rush hour times. That's assuming there isn't a delay for mechanical or track issues. BTDT.
As for High Speed Rail, that's all determined by what is actually built and operated. I have a hard time believing geography and legal issues around obtaining the land will result in track alignments compatible with high speeds until after the greater LA area.
couldn't this meeting be a zoom?
Assuming the LA Union Station-Bakersfield and Merced-Embarcadero portions get built any time soon is pretty wishful thinking and your travel times should be adjusted accordingly.
USA focused it's resources and subsidies on airplanes and cars, but trains can be a great option. I want trains from city to city so bad!!! I lived in Austria, Italy, and China.Trains are awesome. But, it takes a gov't program. for profit transportation always fails.
The reasons why we don't have proper high speed rail in this country, in my opinion, go right to the core of our nation's identity.
… and into LA.
I am that "weird person" who likes to drive. In stead of flying, I drove from Virginia to Washington in just 2.5 days, and found it very relaxing.
And no, not DC the state.
... Yeah driving is relaxing. Listen to audio of sitcoms... Compared to walking in rain and waiting for bus, a car ride of 1 hour in congestion beats a 10min walk 15min ride 5 minute walk. Partly is knowing you have a ride home. .. 2:1. It's weird how people act like a comfy car listening to music is hell, but sitting on a subway platform waiting is better .. lately I've walked long ways, need the exercise, I could bus it but why not walkkkkkkk, why make a vehicle needed when ok a 50 minute walk isnt hellish if it's not raining ... Texas... Sorry to ramble .
@@mostlyguesses8385 I disagree, and many people in Seattle also disagree. We have ear phones and rain coats now days which solve both of your issues
... No western rich country gets more than 30% of workers out of cars nationally. Netherlands workers is 70% car, 20% walk and bike, and 10% is publi transit vehicle... Per statista com. Washington about 90% drive to work....... sigh .... I see no way US can not have least 85% driving to work......... I walk, sailboat, and kickscooter, rain makes it unpleasant, cold rain worse, freezing rain deadly. No way will most families with kids under 10 or old over 50 risk February wet icy days in Seattle. Would you WANT some 55 year old lady to walk 40 minutes in February and risk a fall?? .. I grew up Minnesota and man now in Texas I know wow nice weather is such a help to walking/biking/kickscootering.... No way can Minnesota ot Boston or Chicago have kids and old over 50 walk half-hour in February, so bull that weather isn't huge factors.... MAN I WISH WE FOUND A SOLUTION BUT LETS NOT KID OURSELVES, CARS WILL STAY ABOVE 80%... Peace
@@mostlyguesses8385 congratulations, you proved yourself wrong
... My friend owns 4 story house in Houston where developers push density to make money... It's weird inside just so many flights of stairs to get to top, but I guess one gets use to going up 3 times to get to bedroom.... There are even 5 story houses, per article. This is the density pre1930 and pre cars that make transit work, past neighborhoods built after 1930 transit don't work, this is 3/4ths of US neighborhoods and luckily 1/4 of Europe and less of Japan. Being 3x denser means a train stop in the 1km around station has 300% more riders. Low density can't be fixed unless we ban lawns, ban garages, and force 4 story construction, and that ain't happening. Oh well..
I guess Greyhound and Megabus aren't options. Lol!
From the perspective of a multi-million mile traveller, that train trip is a complete non-starter. Bus? Nope. 3hrs on a train? Nope. For a day trip, the airport experience isn't much different than a train station experience with no checked bags.
If the meet is big enough to require checked bags, you fly the evening before. I always flew day before anyway to eliminate the worry of arriving late and if the meet is important enough to travel to, the hotel, car service or ride-share is a trivial cost.
The only advantage a train would have is _maybe_ a less expensive 1st class seat. Let's be real, non-premium seats in Europe aren't much better than main cabin in the air.
Finally, I'd never, ever, take local transit with anything more than a back pack or *small* roller. Transit isn't designed for any baggage and even if so, you rish being separated for too long.
I'm actually the complete opposite - I detest flying, so someone like me would greatly benefit from, and frequently use this kind of travel. Flying is an anxiety-inducing experience for me, and I would happily take the rail over the plane any day, even on longer distances than LA-SF. Plus because of the excessive fees with airlines, a checked bag + picking your seat will put you at an additional $100 on some airlines.
Nobody is forcing you to take a bus. 3 hours on a train with good seats is a million times better than 3 hours at the airport and in the air. Being able to get work done on your laptop for 3 hours straight is such a huge advantage.
bruh, i just realised even if you live in downtown LA, you are absolutely gridlocked if you dont have a car, since even with a bike its just uncomfortable since theres a half a minute waiting time at every second fucking intersection...
god that must suck so much, i bike 10km to uni in like 20-25 minutes if i chill in a metropolitan area.
The lack of Crazy Ex-Girlfriend references in the comments saddens me, its not often I see a West Covina reference
Unlike Texas Central, California HSR has too many stations slowing the overall product down considerably. At every stop HSR will lose five minutes, slowing down, embarking and disembarking, and speeding up. HSR is NOT commuter rail where stops are less than a minute and when the slowing down and speeding up are in seconds, not minutes...
The video covered this - there are different trains, with different stop patterns, including a number of non-stop trains per day.
The Shinkansen has got a high density of stops with a distance of 20km being quite normal and the resulting time is 3 hours and 40 minutes from Tokyo to Osaka if a train stops at every station. Nonetheless, it's still possible to get from Tokyo to Osaka in 2 and a half hours because surprise, some trains skip stations!
I respect parts of this video, disrespect other parts. Basically, I think this video is just really hard to make unless you live in the LA area, and it comes off as mean-spirited when you take pot shots at the city while clearly demonstrating pretty abysmal knowledge of the city. But yes, by luck, West Covina is a decent "median resident" of the metropolitan area. Though the metro area is arguably pretty loosely defined. It's like choosing a farflung place in New Jersey and calling it the place where a median New Yorker lives. Point is, there are millions of people living in more transit connected areas within the LA metro than West Covina. And even West Covina has good access to commuter rail to downtown LA. You mention the Silver Streak bus line like it's the only option. Yes, LA has commuter rail, though the bus is still competitive in this case because of dedicated bus lanes. But, the overall conclusion I still agree with, as I would with most cities separated by the distances we're talking about: that HSR is a better and more comfortable option between SF and LA.
"das bild hing schief"
For me in Sacramento, it makes no sense. I highly doubt that it will ever make it's way to Sacramento. If it ever even makes its way to SF, I will either need to get to SF or possibly the Merced station first. That alone makes it impractical.
The Sacramento leg really only makes sense if you're traveling south (say to Bakersfield or Los Angeles) not to the Bay Area.
@@tim1724 I understand. I'm referring how impractical it is for me to use it to get to LA because I would have to go to SF first (assuming it even comes to SF).
@@mushieslushie The plan is to have a track from Sacramento to Merced, for a direct trip from Sacramento to LA. (Trips from Sacramento to SF would also have to go through Merced, thus making them completely impractical.) But that's "phase 2" (along with the southern extension to San Diego) which I suppose won't be built until after we're all dead anyway.
Biggest reason to fly: it's currently possible to do so. California high-speed rail is not even close to going to San Francisco. It is just a wish. Might as well do a video about flying vs hyper-loop. Or even flying vs. teleportation.
First, business meeting trips is a narrow group. How many in that category each weekday?
If I am a family of 4, won’t I continue to drive whether ICE or EV? Simply due to the aggregate cost, ability to stop along the way along with getting around once at my destination (though some number would no doubt rely on relatives/friends to get around or rent at destination).
What will be the capacity of the trains? Allegedly, 1,300 persons.
A 737 can hold 183 passengers. So 7 planes would be the rough equivalent. You can add flights more easily if traffic increases than you can cars relative to the number of engines and platform length.
How do you figure there are currently 11 trains between LA and SF when Amtrak doesn’t even go to SF? If I do LA->SJC there are only 7-8 departure times to choose from currently. (August 2, 2022).
If built, will HSR fares be lower than airfares (as you show in PRC) or will they be significantly higher as is the case with Amtrak? If subsidized at the farebox, what are the overall costs we’ll eat relative to what we eat with airports?
In a video I’ve seen on Shinkansen, the narrator comments that 60 years on, no one talks about the outrageous initial cost that required national funding. Fair enough, but we’re at the start so over how many people will the cost have to be spread and when might we reasonably expect that threshold to be met relative to the number of airport passengers at a given airport into the cost of that airport?
What is the land footprint for the green energy sources for the HSR electricity?
Finally, to my mind the real interests bucking for this boondoggle are not the business travelers between LA-area and SF-area, but the real estate speculators of the Central Valley for whom this would be a godsend. This would send urban sprawl to these remote cities which will not do a favor to anyone, other than the land speculators and building trades. Recent changes to state law to permit denser developments over local recalcitrance offer some hope that this will not be as much as before the law. What about that impact?
"You can add flights more easily if traffic increases than you can cars relative to the number of engines and platform length."
This is a flawed argument as it compares apples to oranges. It's true you can run more airplanes but you can do the same with trains. In addition, you can also run bi-level trains as SNCF does to increase capacity without changing the train length (I also remember some bi-level airplanes). In addition, airports also can only run so many airplanes before logistics and turbulences becomes too much of a problem while railway stations and tracks have a much higher capacity (the Shinkansen has a train every three -hours- minutes during rush hour, for example).
@@MarioFanGamer659 you could certainly run longer trains tho then you have to build longer platforms in advance to the wife. Also, I have some schedule. If you add another level to the train, then you have to increase the heights of any tunnels along the line and that’s more time and money.
And I still haven’t read anything to persuade me that this train line would make any significant dent in the current traveler throughput accomplished with airplanes