tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post6069751873582704609..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: San Diego Group Opposes UCSD/Downtown SD HSR AlignmentRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger140125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-72052096421723809872009-11-14T16:58:42.984-08:002009-11-14T16:58:42.984-08:00Actually Lynn Schenk, board member of the CAHSR Au...Actually Lynn Schenk, board member of the CAHSR Authority, clearly stated at an Authority meeting that there was a developing "consensus" in San Diego for locating the HSR station at the airport. I also talked to Dan Leavitt of the Authority and he confirmed that this is the direction they are getting from the San Diego leadership and he seemed to support the concept. Also talked to the lead consultant for the LA-SD section, and he confirmed that it was his understanding that the airport station had the most momumentum.<br /><br />I have also heard that it in the news as well. While I hope Brandon in SD is right about the motive behind pomoting the airport location (and that is is not much to worry about), I for one am going to take this the possible move to the airport in lieu of a downtown station seriously and that is why support for the downtown station needs to be voiced consistenty.Daniel Krausenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-64905354493259828832009-11-14T16:35:00.760-08:002009-11-14T16:35:00.760-08:00Daniel,
With due respect, your information is not ...Daniel,<br />With due respect, your information is not accurate. Any political mention & support of HSR being at the airport had only one function.... to make an eastside airport terminal + super transit hub look more attractive.... as it was proposed by the Mayor and Steve Peace TO the airport authority. <br /><br />Steve Peace also worked for the Padres owner... who had realestate interests on the eastside of the airport. <br /><br />The airport authority did not take the bait.<br /><br />A political push for HSR being at the airport... if it still remains... would still have roots in trying to persuade the airport authority to relocate those terminals. <br /><br />Additionally...<br /><br />No one outside of... maybe CCDC (the downtown redevelopment agency), would ever conceptually suggested getting rid of the downtown Santa Fe Depot. Anyone that did, would be political folly. No one has the political power to do so... even our Govenor.<br /><br />Sante Fe Depot is owned by Catelus/Prologis...the development arm of UPRR. And, Amtrak and the Coaster run service to the airport... which are quite successful. A terminus at the airport would defeat that success. A Trolley connection would be insufficient at bridging the gap.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-62644263411754568882009-11-14T10:15:52.882-08:002009-11-14T10:15:52.882-08:00@ Spokker -
30' is wide enough for two light ...@ Spokker -<br /><br />30' is wide enough for two light rail tracks. For heavy rail, you need at least 34'. Small difference - until you need to exercise eminent domain along 15 miles, much of it through minority areas protected by environmental justice laws.<br /><br />It may be possible to fit a third track in certain sections, allowing express trains to bypass slower locals if the timetable is designed properly.<br /><br />In particular, it might make sense to run an LAUS-LAX non-stop shuttle with baggage check-in at LAUS. This would require segregated platforms to enable secure baggage handling.<br /><br />Light rail to LAUS isn't at all trivial, though. For one thing, some aerials and tunneling would be required to get from Century/Aviation to the airport terminals (underground loop track, please!)<br /><br />For another, the tracks would need to somehow connect to the new Gold Line Eastside Extension, e.g. near Alameda/1st. Note that LRT and heavy rail tracks are normally not even allowed to cross, though there are exceptions in e.g. south SF. Also, according to AndyDuncan, the LA Metro Blue Line tracks are pretty saturated as it is.Rafaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05471957286484454765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-39262595303173121312009-11-14T09:46:33.021-08:002009-11-14T09:46:33.021-08:00It appears that most folks making comments support...It appears that most folks making comments support a downtown San Diego station. Unfortunately, the political momentum in the San Diego area is to eliminate the downtown station in favor of an airport station. While I think there is merit considering a scenario where there would be both a downtown and airport station, it is absolutely necessary for the downtown station to happen for a successful project segment. <br /><br />Comments are due for the scoping for the LA-SD section of the project-level eir-eis on Friday November 20th. Please consider sending a note to the following address and let them know a downtown San Diego needs to be preserved.<br /><br />Mr. Dan Leavitt, Deputy Director <br />California High Speed Rail Authority<br />Attn: Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire Section EIR/EIS<br />925 L Street, Suite 1425<br />Sacramento, CA 95814Daniel Krausenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-34932419212648154082009-11-13T20:22:11.949-08:002009-11-13T20:22:11.949-08:00Oops, looks like the Green Line isn't even 3rd...Oops, looks like the Green Line isn't even 3rd rail, no biggie.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4911097297328864752009-11-13T20:08:51.190-08:002009-11-13T20:08:51.190-08:00I'm another anon, #37534.
Gimme a break, half...I'm another anon, #37534.<br /><br />Gimme a break, half the current HSR plan through urban areas is expensively elevated, trenched, or tunneled, but somehow getting from LA Union to LAX isn't possible? A 30' ROW can fit 2 elevated HSR tracks, perhaps with some overlap (to accomodate safety walkways and cat poles) above the parallel roads or industrial properties that line the entire Harbor Line route needed.<br /><br />But that isn't even the best option, instead the Green Line and Alameda Corridor should be the route for HSR into LAX. Convert the Green Line to a transit technology compatible with the planned HSR, basically whatever is chosen for SF-SJ. Add a short elevated segment above the Alameda Corridor freight rail trench, either 4 miles north to the Harbor Sub or 3 miles further north to the LA Union-Irvine HSR line. Extend the Green Line into LAX, convert the southwest end to LRT as an extension of the Harbor Sub LRT, and extend the east end a couple of miles to allow direct Irvine-LAX trains. Gets HSR directly to LAX cheaper than via the Harbor Sub, allows direct access to LAX by every HSR line when demand warrants, and greatly improves Green Line ridership by enhancing connectivity.<br /><br />Sure there's details to work out, such as perhaps adjusting platform heights and clearances and removing or adapting to the existing 3rd rail. Yes, a constrained existing 2-track Green Line corridor will slow the express HSR trains behind all-stop locals, but only for 7 stations over less than 9 miles so the total HSR trip time is still less than for connecting to a Harbor Sub LRT/express DMU/express bus service. 20-30 minutes LAX-LA Union with no seat change (and much faster direct LAX to OC, Inland Empire, and San Diego) is the best option. Likely some NIMBY barking from the usual Compton political grifters, but why should they be allowed to thwart HSR if the Palo Alto NIMBYs are not?<br /><br />Direct LAX HSR access and a converted, broken up, and extended Green Line would make a great Phase III project once the Sacramento and San Diego extensions are done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-38002822051420821912009-11-13T19:53:28.875-08:002009-11-13T19:53:28.875-08:00I have a simple solution:
Low cost carriers (Sout...I have a simple solution:<br /><br />Low cost carriers (Southwest,JetBlue, Virgin America, Spirit, SunCountry, Midwest, etc.) should all move to Ontario<br /><br />LAX should be kept for the big global alliances: the legacy carriers (American, United, Delta, etc) and their int'l carriers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-70226049878012553922009-11-13T19:51:16.405-08:002009-11-13T19:51:16.405-08:00The aesthetics of University City? What aesthetics...The aesthetics of University City? What aesthetics? Wide boulevards with ugly tract condos/homes. Man it's ugly there. A train could only do it some good.Paul Petersonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00337082439464131108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-63777363145669268162009-11-13T12:32:55.481-08:002009-11-13T12:32:55.481-08:00To give you statistics, the number of passengers t...<i>To give you statistics, the number of passengers that passed through LAX last year was roughly 60 million. Approximately 70% of passengers use LAX as O-D (origin-destination). The separation of domestic and international airports works perfectly fine for them. <br /><br />It's the remaining 30%, or 18 million passengers at LAX that are gonna feel the pain the in the butt for connecting crosstown between LAX and Ontario. </i><br /><br />If we can move even half of that 70% out of LAX, you could then have plenty of international flights and connections running out of LAX.<br /><br />Even just moving southwest out of LAX would provide nearly a whole terminal's worth of capacity.<br /><br />We're not Tokyo, we already have six airports with various levels of international and domestic service. We don't have to ban domestic service from LAX to see the benefits of having more domestic flights at ONT.<br /><br />But let's turn it around, if having all your domestic and international flights out of one airport is a great idea, then why don't we shut down all our other airports and fly everything out of LAX?<br /><br />How much capacity would be left for international flights then?<br /><br />LAX is big enough to have plenty of connecting domestic flights available to international passengers even with half the domestic flights it has today.<br /><br />You said it yourself, 70% of the passengers at LAX are going to or coming from LA. ONT isn't big enough to handle that many passengers, and Palmdale probably isn't going to happen for 50 years. There will be plenty of connections available at LAX for as long as it's an airport.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-82475537181818168692009-11-13T08:02:04.066-08:002009-11-13T08:02:04.066-08:00To Anon,
I would suggest that the 30% book their ...To Anon,<br /><br />I would suggest that the 30% book their flights intelligently. Its not impossible to know that a flight arrives at a particular airport and the connections from there. Why do you keep backing the train up to pick up more passengers that are going everywhere we aren't?David Archboldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256139543115433197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51454237509691693302009-11-13T06:12:18.721-08:002009-11-13T06:12:18.721-08:00No we dont need a single Fox news type party.all w...No we dont need a single Fox news type party.all we need is less crybabie whinney Nimbys and go back to the time when the USA would get things done as a group instead of letting every little selfish nimby cry about the terrible pains they will endureNONIMBYSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-35983531688314564182009-11-13T00:09:45.356-08:002009-11-13T00:09:45.356-08:00Things would be easy if this were China. No meetin...Things would be easy if this were China. No meetings, no scopings, no EIR studies and endless debates. Just draw a red line through a map, and start bulldozing anything in its path. If anyone opposes, that person mysteriously disappear and is never heard from again.<br /><br />The "sucks to be you if you happen to live or have a business along the path, but it benefits society as a whole" method. Keeps costs and time down to minimal, and one can go from blueprint to operational status in a few years as opposed to a few decades.<br /><br /><br />Sounds like the Chinese method is working great to get things done in a short time. Can I vote for an authoritarian single-party Communist rule until the job gets done? :DAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-20921483552612687982009-11-12T23:39:30.771-08:002009-11-12T23:39:30.771-08:00Dave,
The idea of separated domestic an internati...Dave,<br /><br />The idea of separated domestic an international airports completely failed completely in Tokyo. While it made good sense initially, once people started using it, they began to experience the hassle and the pain in the butt aspect to crosstown when making a connection. And like any other citizen of a democratic country, they began bashing the government (whom they chose in the first place) as a huge waste of tax funds for something that's so obvious as night and day (which again, if they're so smart, why didn't they object to it in the first place?).<br /><br />The key here is connection. The idea of separated airports only works if you're flying point to point. But it works crap when one has to travel crosstown for a connecting flight. <br /><br />Would you deliberately book a flight to Newark and make your way across the Hudson and Manhattan dragging your suitcases and carryons and your family to catch your connecting flight at JFK to Istanbul? Plus, you also have the worry that anything could go wrong: from the delay getting into Newark, your bags not coming out at Neward, bus transfer to JFK stuck in a traffic jams in New York, etc. etc.<br /><br />Or would you rather avoid the hassle and just book LAX to JFK to Istanbul? Mind you that a direct LAX to Istanbul flight does not exist.<br /><br /><br />To give you statistics, the number of passengers that passed through LAX last year was roughly 60 million. Approximately 70% of passengers use LAX as O-D (origin-destination). The separation of domestic and international airports works perfectly fine for them. <br /><br />It's the remaining 30%, or 18 million passengers at LAX that are gonna feel the pain the in the butt for connecting crosstown between LAX and Ontario. And the airports in the Los Angeles areas are not that great to begin with. These 18 million annual passengers are going to be the biggest and loudest voices to start saying "LAX is the crappiest place to go, avoid it like the plague!" which will further damage our reputation as a visitor friendly city (which it isn't to begin with).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-12076915794402890812009-11-12T23:18:09.681-08:002009-11-12T23:18:09.681-08:00The Harbor Subdivision project is not really going...The Harbor Subdivision project is not really going very far... the staff report on the Alternatives Analysis is on Metro for one of their subcommittees coming up. <br /><br />The first supported recommendation to advance into DEIR/DEIS is extending the Green Line to the south... to the Torrance RTC. LRT appears to be the lead technology; however, it appears DMU's is an option too. LRT has higher projected ridership.<br /><br />Another semi-highly recommended for advancing into DEIR/DEIS links the Blue Line at Slauson to the proposed Crenshaw line.<br /><br />None of the concepts to Union Station appear to be favored.<br /><br />On the other hand, there once was a Green Line extension on the east end to connect to the Sante Fe Springs Metrolink Station (and possible future HSR station) . I don't know the status of that as there is nothign on the Metro site that I could see.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51265156829372677922009-11-12T22:01:55.204-08:002009-11-12T22:01:55.204-08:00To Anon,
The idea that airlines would shun operat...To Anon,<br /><br />The idea that airlines would shun operations at two airports in a close region ignores the benefits of diversity in airports. Yes, there would be some disagreement about which flights should be destined for Ontario; there is the all to logical possibility that passengers would recognize that a secondary airport for domestic connections from international flights and another for other international destinations makes a lot more sense than 'all eggs in one basket' if you consider undesirable events. Just because things have always been done a certain way doesn't mean they will always be done that way.David Archboldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04256139543115433197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4603250521517572692009-11-12T21:49:53.133-08:002009-11-12T21:49:53.133-08:00You can't break an omelette without breaking a...You can't break an omelette without breaking a few eggs... I know it would require eminent domain. Though a real EIR would be necessary to determine if it would really be worth it; I'm just speculating based on probable need.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-58993330030702074692009-11-12T21:46:43.561-08:002009-11-12T21:46:43.561-08:00Like you said, there's hardly room for two tra...Like you said, there's hardly room for two tracks there.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-50995946205670757642009-11-12T21:38:53.537-08:002009-11-12T21:38:53.537-08:00I don't dispute that the areas along the harbo...I don't dispute that the areas along the harbor subdivision need service. I'm just wondering if an express connection might be useful AS WELL as light rail/local rail.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31100096805203812192009-11-12T21:27:26.743-08:002009-11-12T21:27:26.743-08:00I support light rail on the Harbor Subdivision. It...I support light rail on the Harbor Subdivision. It would go through a lot of low income areas full of people who wouldn't be able to use HSR anyway. They'll be able to get a lot of use out of a light rail link though.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-33229813527293052282009-11-12T21:24:39.900-08:002009-11-12T21:24:39.900-08:00Well then, that leaves ... let me count ... ZERO o...Well then, that leaves ... let me count ... ZERO options for extending HSR to LAX. Pity, I suppose. LAX could really benefit from at the very least an express connection to downtown LA.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-68257534696592816782009-11-12T21:04:28.798-08:002009-11-12T21:04:28.798-08:00Joey, the Harbor Subdivision is claimed by Metro. ...Joey, the Harbor Subdivision is claimed by Metro. It will most likely be light rail. CAHSRA won't be able to touch it.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-68555956758299203972009-11-12T20:32:24.637-08:002009-11-12T20:32:24.637-08:00Some of the flights that are not aligned with the ...Some of the flights that are not aligned with the major global alliances can be moved out of LAX. <br /><br />Carriers such as SunCountry, Virgin America, Frontier, Midwest, AirTran, Allegiant, Spirit, Southwest and JetBlue could be shifted towards ONT. Most of their model is based on the low-cost carrier and point-to-point model.<br /><br />Several non-aligned international flights can also be relieved at Ontario: TACA, LACSA, Avianca, Volaris, WestJet, Virgin Atlantic, V Australia, airberlin, Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, El Al, Air Pacific and Air Tahiti Nui.<br /><br />Of course there are some regional majors that should remain at LAX for partnership purposes. Most notably are Alaska/Horizon and Hawaiian, which has this weird relationship of codesharing across the board with all the majors and international carriers without being a particular member to a single alliance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-8464681584430526682009-11-12T19:23:42.491-08:002009-11-12T19:23:42.491-08:00Let's also remember that diverted air travel i...Let's also remember that diverted air travel is only about 25% or so (by trips, not passenger miles, they haven't said what the expected split is for passenger miles) of the expected ridership for CAHSR. The rest is coming from a small percentage of an incredibly large number of trips that are currently auto-based.<br /><br />LAX could have a connection, I disagree with Rafael that it's infeasible, but I agree with him that it probably won't happen, mainly for political reasons as the communities the line is supposed to run through will demand light rail and a bunch of stations, and the LA basin has essentially no long term regional rail plan.<br /><br />I do think, however, anon, that Ontario could be a successful overflow airport for LAX even if all or nearly all of the international flights remain at LAX. We have a large number of secondary airports in LA already that are nearing capacity, ONT just happens to be one that still has some left. Burbank, Santa Ana and Long Beach all have large numbers of flights for domestic "low cost" airlines like southwest and jet blue that aren't part of the alliances you mention, in addition to the big american carriers like United, American and Delta.<br /><br />While HSR code-shares with Cathay Pacific out of ONT aren't going to happen, it's still possible that ONT can provide overflow for LAX, and being able to get to ONT in 20 minutes from Downtown LA is going to be a huge part of that.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08878685680339441795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-46454213651123382542009-11-12T18:39:38.995-08:002009-11-12T18:39:38.995-08:00Anon, the global alliance system just means that f...Anon, the global alliance system just means that for operations purposes, airlines within OneWorld, or Star, or Skyteam, are effectively merged. From CAHSR's perspective, this means that instead of getting many independent airlines to switch, it needs to either get one alliance to switch, or get many different airlines to serve both airports. New York is a pretty good model here - there are no separate airports for Star and OneWorld; US-based airlines and many foreign airlines fly into both JFK and Newark. New York and Los Angeles are large enough destinations and hubs they can support two major airports each.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-7484300467396389662009-11-12T18:07:22.332-08:002009-11-12T18:07:22.332-08:00Well after hearing the case for HSR to LAX, I gues...Well after hearing the case for HSR to LAX, I guess it makes sense. The problem still remains of GETTING THERE, however. The Harbor Subdivision corridor, as previously mentioned, isn't even wide enough for two tracks in many places. That means eminent domain on a large scale (mostly industrial but some homes too). This makes it (a)controversial and (b)expensive. I doubt it could happen unless the airport/airlines contributed significant backing/funding for this project. While I'm at it it might be worth mentioning that that corridor could justify as many as four tracks, for local, express, and HSR service, though I'm not exactly sure how that would be divided up. In any case, this is not a project to be taken lightly.Joeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16406340564037825796noreply@blogger.com