YoHo1975 They probably wouldn't mind the change is SF has a robust multimodal transit infrastructure. But lets go back, because I think you missed my point. The statement I was addressing was that Amtrak would ipso facto raise fares to cover costs. while that certainly is possible, I was merely pointing out that there are legitimate and quantifiable operational savings to be had in terms of the throughway bus service.
They probably wouldn't mind the change is SF has a robust multimodal transit infrastructure. But lets go back, because I think you missed my point. The statement I was addressing was that Amtrak would ipso facto raise fares to cover costs. while that certainly is possible, I was merely pointing out that there are legitimate and quantifiable operational savings to be had in terms of the throughway bus service.
I don't think I missed your point. I just previously acknowledged those savings that you were merely pointing out.
And then I brought in mention of the costs that those savings would apply to.
On top of intangibles such as not using the bay bridge which means a faster time into SF which would presumably increase ridership.
I think it will be pretty tangible whether people choose different commuter methods. Especially to those people making the choices. Surely, if I could get to work faster and cheaper with rail instead of my car, I would.
Given that, the sale of the bonds I mentioned earlier will be a done deal. The "product" will sell like hot cakes, generating the profit to pay off the bonds. As I suggested, you should buy some of those bonds. Thus you win two ways: you get fast and cheap rail service to SF, and also a return on your investment.
Right?
I know I personally would be more inclined to use the CC if it went through to the SF CalTrain station without a modality change. Are those savings and potential ridership increases enough to offset the capital costs? Probably not. I never intended to suggest they would. Good thing Amtrak wouldn't be the only org ponying up.
Oh my. Is your new investment failing? Maybe it wasn't a good idea after all.
Or perhaps you would like me to invest MY money into it and not expect any back. So that you can have a better transit experience.
Do I get a vote on that?
Ed
They probably wouldn't mind the change is SF has a robust multimodal transit infrastructure. But lets go back, because I think you missed my point. The statement I was addressing was that Amtrak would ipso facto raise fares to cover costs. while that certainly is possible, I was merely pointing out that there are legitimate and quantifiable operational savings to be had in terms of the throughway bus service. On top of intangibles such as not using the bay bridge which means a faster time into SF which would presumably increase ridership. I know I personally would be more inclined to use the CC if it went through to the SF CalTrain station without a modality change. Are those savings and potential ridership increases enough to offset the capital costs? Probably not. I never intended to suggest they would. Good thing Amtrak wouldn't be the only org ponying up.
YoHo1975 Ugh, this is why I rarely venture into this forum. If Amtrak could continue service past Emeryville without a change to a bus, then that would save a signficant amount of money...no cost of buses, not cost for bus drivers. Just the small incremental cost of having the train crew go one more station stop. I mean COME ON.
Ugh, this is why I rarely venture into this forum. If Amtrak could continue service past Emeryville without a change to a bus, then that would save a signficant amount of money...no cost of buses, not cost for bus drivers. Just the small incremental cost of having the train crew go one more station stop. I mean COME ON.
So, it would "save a significant amount of money...". That's absolutely great.
And there'd only be a slight increase in crew costs. That's also great.
And it would cost hardly anything to put another set of tracks under the bay. And probably only a few bucks to deal with those tracks once they got to the city.
Since this is turning out to be quite cost effective, why don't we just raise the fares a couple of bucks to cover the cost.
How many bucks would that be?
What we can do is sell bonds to finance the tunnel. And the bonds will be paid off from the increased fares. Yup, that works for me.
Would YOU care to buy such a bond?
Oh, by the way. There are buses to FIVE locations in the City. There would only be ONE train station. Hope the riders don't mind the change.
A question: If the CZ were run into San Francisco, where would it be serviced? At the present location, which would entail a trip back across the bay and then into San Francisco again?
Johnny
Ugh, this is why I rarely venture into this forum. If Amtrak could continue service past Emeryville without a change to a bus, then that would save a signficant amount of money...no cost of buses, not cost for bus drivers. Just the small incremental cost of having the train crew go one more station stop. I mean COME ON. As a person living in the the Sacramento Area who often must commute to the bay, a few thoughts. First, switching to bus or BART aren't the only options. you can also switch to Ferry at Jack London. Which costs additional monies, but is at least pretty. I occasionally have need to get to Palo Alto. The current options from Sacramento are horrible and that includes by car and a Capitol Corridor stop on the Penninsula with a switch to CalTrain there would be far superior to the current routing down to San Jose and then up CalTrain. Based on my experience and talking to others that commute to the bay area regularly, I think no having to switch out to Bart in East Bay or route down to San Jose and the attendent time sync would be a huge advantage. I thin HSR could also see advantages without thinking of the currently being built portions. depending on where this crossing i it might circumvent a lot of contentious build out. Or it might alter Phase 2 (Sacramento) portions of the existing plan. California's HSR dream is admirable, but infrastructure like this is the blocking and tackling of transit that needs to occur even if talking normal speeds. the Bay Area is a mess.
7j43k So they want the train to go underwater over to SF
So, Amtrak is going to spend all this money, with no tangible return.....I guess in hopes that they will boost ridership? Since they claim to be losing money on every passenger, they must expect to make up the difference on volume?
Convicted One GERALD L MCFARLANE JR You don't have to increase the ticket price just because you now go directly into SF. You really believe that Amtrak is going to invest potentially hundreds of millions of dollars as their share of a new bridge/tunnel, and not expect to see some kind of return on the money? If not, then why even do it?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR You don't have to increase the ticket price just because you now go directly into SF.
You really believe that Amtrak is going to invest potentially hundreds of millions of dollars as their share of a new bridge/tunnel, and not expect to see some kind of return on the money?
If not, then why even do it?
Because the powers-that-be in San Francisco want to be the navel of the west coast. And that's tough to do when the train to San Francisco stops at Emeryville. And you take a bus. Masters of the Universe DON'T take buses. Especially to catch trains. So they want the train to go underwater over to SF. BUT. They most certainly DON'T want to pay for it. THAT would make the Masters of the Universe SAD. And they don't LIKE being sad.
7j43k GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I80 carries about 150K vehicles a day between the two areas, just take 10% of that traffic and put it on a train between Sacramento and San Francisco and it will pay for itself very shortly. That's 15k a day times 365 days comes out to 5.5M a year, and that's a relatively conservative amount...so $10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer. Re: 150K vehicles, etc: A lot of that traffic passes through Sacramento going east. Most of that traffic passes into the Bay Area but does not stop in San Francisco. A lot of that traffic is commercial vehicles. A lot of that traffic is people who want to/need to bring their car with them, even to Sacramento. So using the term "just" might better be replaced with "must". It might be interesting if one could interview the current drivers and ask if they could/would take a train (Sacramento to San Francisco) instead of driving--not in theory, but for the very trip they are taking during the interview. Ed
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR I80 carries about 150K vehicles a day between the two areas, just take 10% of that traffic and put it on a train between Sacramento and San Francisco and it will pay for itself very shortly. That's 15k a day times 365 days comes out to 5.5M a year, and that's a relatively conservative amount...so $10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer.
Re: 150K vehicles, etc:
A lot of that traffic passes through Sacramento going east.
Most of that traffic passes into the Bay Area but does not stop in San Francisco.
A lot of that traffic is commercial vehicles.
A lot of that traffic is people who want to/need to bring their car with them, even to Sacramento.
So using the term "just" might better be replaced with "must".
It might be interesting if one could interview the current drivers and ask if they could/would take a train (Sacramento to San Francisco) instead of driving--not in theory, but for the very trip they are taking during the interview.
CMStPnP GERALD L MCFARLANE JR You do realize that 750,000 a year that currently ride Amtrak between Sacramento and San Francisco is a miniscule amount compared to the number of people that drive between the two cities don't you? I80 carries about 150K vehicles a day between the two areas, just take 10% of that traffic and put it on a train between Sacramento and San Francisco and it will pay for itself very shortly. That's 15k a day times 365 days comes out to 5.5M a year, and that's a relatively conservative amount...so $10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer. Nice math but completely irrelevant to the article.... Read the attached article again, this time, don't read like a railfan, read like your interested in the articles content. Don't read with what you think the authors conclusions should be, read what the author wrote in print. BART wants the crossing built, BART is paying for the study, extra participants which if you read carefully is expected to be way more than Amtrak and it's 750,000 riders. I actually asserted this fact in my posts again and someone counter posted: "You realize that California HSR is not planned to go over the bridge"..........was never my assertion they would......the article asserted they might. Along with Caltrains, and other uses. I let that go figuring that poster had an eyesight issue. Where has any cost of this study been assessed to Amtrak in the article? It hasn't. So tell me again, why is this a terrible idea that Amtrak raised it's hand and expressed an interest in the project? An act that has incurred the company very little if any expense beyond possibly a few phone calls? So far all positive PR for Amtrak. If Amtrak ceases to exist, likely the project will still go ahead if BART finds it feasible.
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR You do realize that 750,000 a year that currently ride Amtrak between Sacramento and San Francisco is a miniscule amount compared to the number of people that drive between the two cities don't you? I80 carries about 150K vehicles a day between the two areas, just take 10% of that traffic and put it on a train between Sacramento and San Francisco and it will pay for itself very shortly. That's 15k a day times 365 days comes out to 5.5M a year, and that's a relatively conservative amount...so $10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer.
Nice math but completely irrelevant to the article....
Read the attached article again, this time, don't read like a railfan, read like your interested in the articles content. Don't read with what you think the authors conclusions should be, read what the author wrote in print.
BART wants the crossing built, BART is paying for the study, extra participants which if you read carefully is expected to be way more than Amtrak and it's 750,000 riders. I actually asserted this fact in my posts again and someone counter posted: "You realize that California HSR is not planned to go over the bridge"..........was never my assertion they would......the article asserted they might. Along with Caltrains, and other uses. I let that go figuring that poster had an eyesight issue. Where has any cost of this study been assessed to Amtrak in the article? It hasn't.
So tell me again, why is this a terrible idea that Amtrak raised it's hand and expressed an interest in the project? An act that has incurred the company very little if any expense beyond possibly a few phone calls? So far all positive PR for Amtrak.
If Amtrak ceases to exist, likely the project will still go ahead if BART finds it feasible.
Convicted One blue streak 1 Persons who would need to go to other locations not in the SFO downtown could still change to BART. Never really thought about it that way, but you are absolutely right. Passengers destined to other locations throughout the peninsula (destinations other than the central business district) would be highly unlikely to pay Amtrak even an additional $10 to cross the bay, if they are going to have to board BART anyway to conclude their journey.
blue streak 1 Persons who would need to go to other locations not in the SFO downtown could still change to BART.
Never really thought about it that way, but you are absolutely right. Passengers destined to other locations throughout the peninsula (destinations other than the central business district) would be highly unlikely to pay Amtrak even an additional $10 to cross the bay, if they are going to have to board BART anyway to conclude their journey.
samfp1943 There seems to be an important element missing from the discussion, referencing the multiple users of the track by BART and AMTRAK. No idea as to the gauge that California is/was building their HSR lines at. Amtrak, is of course on the National gauge of 4'8.5". BART uses a track gauge of 5'6" . see linked site @ http://www.bayrailalliance.org/question/why-does-bart-use-wider-non-standard-guage-rails So it seems that multiple use of the tracks is a moot point. Such a use would require a far more expensive set of track work options?
There seems to be an important element missing from the discussion, referencing the multiple users of the track by BART and AMTRAK. No idea as to the gauge that California is/was building their HSR lines at.
Amtrak, is of course on the National gauge of 4'8.5".
BART uses a track gauge of 5'6" . see linked site @
http://www.bayrailalliance.org/question/why-does-bart-use-wider-non-standard-guage-rails
So it seems that multiple use of the tracks is a moot point. Such a use would require a far more expensive set of track work options?
The concept has been dealt with before:
Of course, back then, it was relatively inexpensive. But I'm pretty sure THAT would have to change radically.
CMStPnP Otherwise you're just half assed posting.
Not worth starting a fight over, I'll just have to remember that you have a convenient memory.
Convicted One What ever the linked article says is irrelevant. YOU made the claim that you never said the bridge would include HSR,
What ever the linked article says is irrelevant. YOU made the claim that you never said the bridge would include HSR,
And the part you quoted above says.......
I actually asserted this fact in my posts again and someone counter posted: "You realize that California HSR is not planned to go over the bridge"..........was never my assertion they would......the article asserted they might. Along with Caltrains, and other uses. "
Meaning I sourced it from the article. So your reading for what you want to appear on a page and responding to that. Next time read the original article then the comments responding to it and the responses to the article will make more sense to you and be in context. Otherwise your just half assed posting. The first post you quoted was responding to assertions you were making which made it clear you missed parts of the original article or did not read the original article carefully.
What ever the linked article says is irrelevant. YOU made the claim that you never said the bridge would include HSR, And I was just responding to that claim by pointing to the post where you clearly did say that. (By asserting that it's inclusion along with the others would justify the $10billion expenditure) The word "and" is inclusive.
Perhaps you didn't mean what you wrote, but you clearly did write it .
Convicted OneEyesight?
.......And he does it yet again...
Now read the last two sentences in the above linked article....it is really sad I have to step you through this....
"The new connection might also be able to accommodate California’s high speed rail project, and could make possible direct rail connections to Caltrain locations between San Francisco and San Jose."
CMStPnP I actually asserted this fact in my posts again and someone counter posted: "You realize that California HSR is not planned to go over the bridge"..........was never my assertion they would......the article asserted they might. Along with Caltrains, and other uses. I let that go figuring that poster had an eyesight issue
AHEM!!! 2:49 pm February 10
CMStPnPIt's going to be hard to measure the Economic impact to be sure the more players there are but I think with BART, Amtrak and HSR all using the structure the improvement in quality of life of them all terminating in SFO vs Oakland is probably worth the $10 Billion.
Eyesight?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JRYou do realize that 750,000 a year that currently ride Amtrak between Sacramento and San Francisco is a miniscule amount compared to the number of people that drive between the two cities don't you? I80 carries about 150K vehicles a day between the two areas, just take 10% of that traffic and put it on a train between Sacramento and San Francisco and it will pay for itself very shortly. That's 15k a day times 365 days comes out to 5.5M a year, and that's a relatively conservative amount...so $10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer.
The obvious question is how many more passengers would travel by AMTRAK to SFO since they would not transfer to BART. Persons who would need to go to other locations not in the SFO downtown could still change to BART. That also the small percentage of passengers who would no longer need to drive!
Hard question to answer is "what is the potential number of new Amtrak passengers"?
GERALD L MCFARLANE JR$10B for new pair of tunnels under the Bay, no brainer.
Well,.... at least we agree about that.
Convicted One CMStPnP It's projected right now to cost $10 Billion for the tunnel option alone I guess that my sarcasm was a bit too subtle? Amtrak: Sacramento to San Fran 750,000 trips per year Even if all the proceeds from those trips was funneled dirctly toward ammortizing Amtrak's share of the cost of the bridge/tunnel, how long will it be to reach breakeven? Would the useful lifespan of the structure be sufficiently long to reach breakeven? So this is not a feasible project....Thankyou very much I'll take my $50 million now My point really is that this is a public works project, let California pay for it, they deserve it.
CMStPnP It's projected right now to cost $10 Billion for the tunnel option alone
I guess that my sarcasm was a bit too subtle?
Amtrak: Sacramento to San Fran 750,000 trips per year
Even if all the proceeds from those trips was funneled dirctly toward ammortizing Amtrak's share of the cost of the bridge/tunnel, how long will it be to reach breakeven? Would the useful lifespan of the structure be sufficiently long to reach breakeven?
So this is not a feasible project....Thankyou very much I'll take my $50 million now
My point really is that this is a public works project, let California pay for it, they deserve it.
CMStPnPAlso, another prospective partner would be the California HSR system so that is a third partner to split the costs.
You might want to review your sources on that. Even if the California HSR connection to San Francisco is eventually built, it is slated to be built up through Gilroy, San Jose, Milbrae, and into San Francisco from the south side.
Not really comptible with a direct route to Sacramento
Convicted One CMStPnP I would favor a bridge over a tunnel though as it is probably less expensive than the $10 billion quoted. Just for discussion, where would you build such a bridge? Equadistant from the Bay bridge and San Mateo bridge? Perhaps an extension of the 238? Somewhere else?
CMStPnP I would favor a bridge over a tunnel though as it is probably less expensive than the $10 billion quoted.
Just for discussion, where would you build such a bridge? Equadistant from the Bay bridge and San Mateo bridge? Perhaps an extension of the 238? Somewhere else?
Well. Let me consider:
You could get off at Emeryville and catch an Uber over the Bay Bridge. Or you could stay on the train, take longer and pay more.
Gee. It's a tough decision.
Thank God someone built a super cool new bridge to give us all such an option.
CMStPnPhave to see what they propose
Well, it could be quite a chore corraling railroad, transit, and highway onto one bridge, complete with safe approaches on both sides of the bay for all. Quite a bit of dirt is going to have to be repurposed. You might get away with calling it "urban renewal" on the east side of the bay, but on the west side I'd expect significant opposition.
Convicted OneIt'll be interesting to see how an Amtrak that believes that serving decent food is an unaffordable extravagance, will justify spending $5 billion to serve 750,000 trips per year
Your kidding right? When has California charged Amtrak full cost for anything? Why do you think the equipment says "Amtrak California" on it? Amtrak paid for very, very little in California. California foots the bill and uses the Amtrak brand and Amtrak crews. California will foot the bill. Amtrak might get charged maybe a few million or token amount. Hence why I indicated it's a good move on Amtraks part in the first post. California will of course be Amtrak's Sugar Daddy on the project as in the past. So of course I am for it, California taxpayers foot almost the entire bill......why not? Complete net benefit for Amtrak and the Amtrak brand at minimal cost.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.