Los Angeles - San Francisco

Question 2:

No, yes and maybe.  Depending.

It was no.  They were just going to build it piece at a time and operate only that piece.  They, apparently, they figured out that was not good, so they decided it would be OK to connect to existing routes in the north and south - at least for a while.  Then someone took a good look at what the voters had actually voted on and it didn't allow for any such thing.  

This is a developing comic opera.  I hear MTV is going to do a reality show about it:  "Pacific Shore".

Will SF to LA be a corridor?  If they build it and run every 30 minutes or so, like they say they will, yes.  I can't imagine Amtrak continuing the southern half of the Starlight under those conditions anymore than you can still book passage on the Erie Canal or the SS United States.

daveklepper

 

Question 2:   When the limited amounts of high speed money now authorized produce results on the easy segments of the planned high-speed route, will a useful service result, using exisiting connecting tracks?   This includes the commuter track upgrades at SF and LA as well as the "valley" portion of the high-speed line.   Or will the high speed tracks be unused until the  project is completed with a lot more money spent?

 

If HSR and conventional trains (especially freight) share tracks the HSR trains will need, by FRA regulation,  to be able to survive collisions of a 800k buff force (as I recall), which means that they will be enormously heavy. Just this month a writer in Trains commented on this fact in regard to regional trains in Japan.

The sleek, lightweight DMUs that beat out competition from Boeing 737s in Hokkaido would be illegal to operate in the United States. They do not meet Federal Railroad Administration crashworthiness standards for passenger rail equipment, which would require so much additional weight as to render moot many of the m.u.'s advantages (August 2012, 52).

That is a big part of the problem with Acela. As told by Don Phillips the French engineers employed by their manufacturer Bombardier derisively referred to Acela as La Cochon, or "the pig" because it was so overbuilt compared to a TGV. A dedicated right of way is the best way to go.

Still waiting for an answer to the first question.  

daveklepper

Still waiting for an answer to the first question.  

Question 1.   I have only used the Amtrak Emeryville to SF bus to connect from the Zephyr to downtown.  It was easy.  I would do it again.

daveklepper

My experiences in this route include the old Coast Daylight with a parlor reservation using the rear seat of the obs that ran as the parlor, but with the automat food serve car serving a chicken enhelada, overal OIK, and overnight from Oakland in a roomette during the period when Amtrak ran an overnight train.    

Question 1:   Today, in using Amtrak's Coast Starlight, which I believe is the only train today, what is best?   (1) Using Cal Trans to San  Jose and boarding there?   The Amtrak bus?   BART to the train?  And in the reverse direction?

Question 2:   When the limited amounts of high speed money now authorized produce results on the easy segments of the planned high-speed route, will a useful service result, using exisiting connecting tracks?   This includes the commuter track upgrades at SF and LA as well as the "valley" portion of the high-speed line.   Or will the high speed tracks be unused until the  project is completed with a lot more money spent?

Question 3:  Right now, with the limited service provided and the distances and time involved, this cannot be called a corridor by any standard.  Will the construction now authorized make it a corridor?   Or will it only become a corridor when the vast additional money is available and used?

 

With the other thread locked, I will make the point here, that I believe that money for high speed in traffic and airport relieving corridors makes sense.   Money to really speed up long distance service does not make sense to me, because the kiind of market the long distance trains serve is not really all the time dependent.   Reliable service and good acommodations and food are more important. 

I took the Coast Starlight from Los Angeles to San Francisco in May.  It was a very nice experience. Make sure to go first class if possible.  That way you get to sample the Pacific Parlor car, which offers an alternative meal option.  Also, I have taken the San Joaquin both ways between Los Angeles and San Francisco.  The San Joaquin is quicker by approximately three hours.

Northbound on the Cost Starlight I got off in Oakland and caught the bus to Fisherman's Wharf, which is approximately 1/2 mile from my favorite hotel in San Francisco.  The San Joaquin runs to and from Emeryville, where I catch the bus to Fisherman's Wharf or get dropped off from the Wharf.  

Through ticketing on Amtrak irrespective of the train gets you into and out of San Francisco.  The bus picks-up and drops-off at five or seven points.  You can find them on Amtrak's webpage. You could take BART, but there is no need to do so.  And you could catch a cab, which there really is no need to do so.

San Francisco is one of my favorite cities. I attend the San Francisco Symphony three or four times a year.

Thanks Sam.   It is one of my favorite cities too.   I am a proud member of the Market Street Railway Association who operate the museum and store near the Ferry Building and have helped MUNI with the Market Street heritage streetcar project, resulting in one of the few transit lines in the country that earns a profit!   It's true, the F line, using mostly a mixture of beautifully restored PCC cars Milan Peter Witt K-controller cars actually does more than pay its operating costs.   I am sure I must be the only Jerusalem resident with a Market Street Railway patch on the shoulder of my most frequently worn jacket, but some of my 1/4-my-age clasmates wear SF teeshirts with the cable-car symbol.

Sasn Francisco has more varieties of public transit than any other city in the World (8):

Commuter Rail            CalTrans to San Jose and Gilroy

Heavy Rapid Transit    BART to Oakland, Richmond, Concord, Daly City. Emeryville, etc.

Light Rail                      MUNI-Metro J, K, L, M, N, street running, private right-of-way, tunnels, subway

Streetcar                       MUNI F

Cablecar                      Double-end California St., Single-end Powell-Mason and Powell-Hyde

Trackless trolley         F Stockton-SP Station and many others including Castro St.

Lots of bus lines of course

Ferry boats

Monorail and inclined cable railways missing

Want to join MSRA?     www.streetcar.org    The quarterly magazine, THE INSIDE TRACK is well worth it/

In further answer to question #2, this is from the CA HSR Revised (April) 2012 Business Plan (page 2-14):

"The segment will become operational by allowing Caltrans to operate expanded San Joaquin service 

between Bakersfield and Merced on the first IOS section. To achieve this, track connections would be 

built to connect to the BNSF Railway line at the northern and southern ends of the first constructed 

segment. Relatively minor investments would be made in rail systems (signaling, positive train control) 

and other investments to augment the base infrastructure so that the San Joaquin service can operate 

on it. Combined with  improvements described earlier,  this would allow trains to travel at speeds up to 

125 mph or more in the Central Valley, which would reduce travel times on the San Joaquin service 

between Northern and Southern California—already one of Amtrak’s five busiest corridors in the 

country—by at least 45 minutes and likely well over one hour. " 

While closing the Bakersfield-Palmdale rail gap is a high priority, it will require a transfer (page 2-17):

"It is important to note that high-speed, electrified train service is the only effective means to close this 

Bakersfield-to-Palmdale passenger rail gap. Today, there is a single freight line, owned and operated by 

the Union Pacific Railroad that provides a vital freight connection between the Los Angeles Basin (and 

the Ports of Los Angeles/Long Beach) with the Central Valley. Since diesel-powered locomotives are 

limited to no more than approximately 2-percent grades to ascend the mountains, the routing is 

circuitous and speeds are modest. These limitations have no great effect overall on freight movement 

through that corridor but would be unacceptable for passenger service. Electrified trains can efficiently 

ascend greater gradients and maintain higher speeds climbing and descending the Tehachapi 

Mountains. Thus, the only effective means to bring intercity passenger rail service across the mountains 

that separate Los Angeles from the Central Valley is with an electrified high-speed rail line, which will be

the IOS."

The SF-San Jose commuter line will be used as a "blended line" if it is rebuilt as planned.  Palmdale- LA Union Station is planned as a separate dedicated HSR, sharing a couple of intermediate stations with the commuter line.  The only "blended line" in the LA area will be the Anaheim extension.

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/assets/0/152/431/1a6251d7-36ab-4fec-ba8c-00e266dadec7.pdf

MidlandMike

(quoting CAHSR officials or consultants or something)

"Combined with  improvements described earlier,  this would allow trains to travel at speeds up to 125 mph or more in the Central Valley, which would reduce travel times on the San Joaquin service between Northern and Southern California—already one of Amtrak’s five busiest corridors in the country—by at least 45 minutes and likely well over one hour. " 

A mile at 125 mph takes 16.77 seconds less than a mile at 79 mph. You can see why people expect CAHSR to be a fiasco.

I see the plan is basically to allow existing San Joaquin services to use the line as built and later electrify it with dedicated operation into LAand blended operation into SF.

The new high speed equipment could be lightweight if the electric commuter equpment on the blended line into SF is similar and compatible, and both commuter and highspeed have together complete time separation (like the NJT diesel light rail River Line and Salt Lake City's light rail) from freight operations.   Can freight operations on this line be restricted to 1-5AM?

Using the Sam Joaquine route LA-SF instead of the Coast Starlight saves time as Sam pointed out, but it means a bus journey on both ends, with the Coast Starlight only at the SF end.

Today:  Suppose one wanted to be purist today and go all rail.   Are the connecting times at San Jose at all convenient?   How much longer would it be than going via Jack London Sq and the connecting bus?   (But I agree, I doubt the CALTRANS commuter cars are really a lot more comfortable than buses.)

timz

 

MidlandMike:

(quoting CAHSR officials or consultants or something)

 

"Combined with  improvements described earlier,  this would allow trains to travel at speeds up to 125 mph or more in the Central Valley, which would reduce travel times on the San Joaquin service between Northern and Southern California—already one of Amtrak’s five busiest corridors in the country—by at least 45 minutes and likely well over one hour. " 

 

A mile at 125 mph takes 16.77 seconds less than a mile at 79 mph. You can see why people expect CAHSR to be a fiasco.

The quote was from the CAHSR website link at the bottom of the original post.  The 125 mph service is an interim phase with conventional equipment after HSR track is in but before regular HSR is started, which will be 220 mph.  In the interim, saving an hours time, is saving an hours time, no matter how you slice it.

You know, a dedicated right of way for the San Joaquins could actually turn that section of the route into a winner. That actually makes some sense. And did I read the above right that the San Joaquin + bus connection is already faster LA to NorCal? 

That alone could be compelling service.

It would be a shame to lose the coast starlight though for the land cruisers among us. Though perhaps the answer would be to just extend the Surfliner up to San Jose? The Surfliner is already a busier route than the San Joaquins. 

All this talk and I just wish Amtrak California would run more Capitol corridor extensions to/from Roseville. I would spend more time in Sacramento, Oakland and San Francisco if they did (hint hint to the respective chambers of Commerce).

daveklepper

    

Question 1:   Today, in using Amtrak's Coast Starlight, which I believe is the only train today, what is best?   (1) Using Cal Trans to San  Jose and boarding there?   The Amtrak bus?   BART to the train?  And in the reverse direction?

Are you starting in downtown San Francisco when you head for the Coast Starlight? If so, the Amtrak bus to Emeryville is easier than Caltrain, because the northernmost Caltrain station at 4th & Townsend in San Francisco is still quite a distance south of downtown--not an unpleasant walk, but it could be annoying if you have much luggage.

If you're starting near some other Caltrain station, the transfer from Caltrain to Amtrak in San Jose is easy--platform to platform within the same station.

If you're starting near some BART station, there's a free shuttle bus called "Emery Go Round" (emerygoround.com), operated by the Emeryville merchants, which connects the McArthur BART station with the Emeryville Amtrak station.

Another way to get from BART to the Coast Starlight is to take an Amtrak California Capitol Corridor train from the Oakland Coliseum/Airport station (which serves both BART and Amtrak) to either San Jose or Oakland Jack London Square. This is also a way to get from the Oakland Airport to the Coast Starlight: take the AirBart bus ($3 exact change) from the airport to the Oakland Coliseum/Airport station and get on the Capitol Corridor train instead of BART.

Unfortunately the connections between the various forms of transit in the SF area aren't as obvious and easy as one would like.

Re: Question 1:

I would think that the guaranteed Amtrak Thruway bus connection is the most convenient for straight travel.  But if you're a railfan ...

How about a cable car down to Powell & Market; then an "F" Line streetcar (PCC or Peter Witt) nearly to the foot of Market Street (in front of the old Southern Pacific HQ building, and across from the Ferry Building, where the SP ferries once connected to the trains to the east and north); there you go underground to catch a "J" or "T" Muni Metro LRV (which, to tell the truth, you could have caught at Powell St) to the CalTrain station; and then CalTrain to San Jose & Amtrak!  (Between Powell St & the foot of Market, you could even ride BART 1 stop, then shift to the streetcara of a few stops.)

Obviously, not a comfortable trip with luggage, but if Henry was leading on the West Coast rather than the East, he might do it that way!  Four or five different rail vehicles to get you in the mood for the Coast Starlight.

Despite my MSRA membership, I did not know that there is a "T" Muni-Metro line,  but thought that certain of the old J, K, L, M, N trips are extended to run along Third Street.   You mentioned the J, Church, so I suppose that is correct.  But what are the end points of the "T"?   Does it just run to Portal  or where?

daveklepper

Despite my MSRA membership, I did not know that there is a "T" Muni-Metro line,  but thought that certain of the old J, K, L, M, N trips are extended to run along Third Street.   You mentioned the J, Church, so I suppose that is correct.  But what are the end points of the "T"?   Does it just run to Portal  or where?

Well, my mistake on the "J" -- it's the "N" that surfaces and runs along the southern Embarcadero and King St. past the ball park to 4th, at the CalTrain depot.

The "T" is a new line/extension from 4th & King, south a few blocks back to 3rd, then south nearly to the city limits.  Operationally, the "T" is a continuation of the "K" service.  But by the time the cars reach the "Embarcadero" station, the headsigns read "T".

See this Muni Metro map: http://transit.511.org/static/providers/maps/SF_712200722226.pdf

And on the return, to they start out with a T sign and the change to K before going underground?