Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4203891/

Topic: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-11-05 21:25:10 and read 8204 times.

Well, the high speed rail plan actually passed here in California, and even though I voted for it, I did not know it was going to stop in Fresno.

The current plans call for connecting Anaheim, Los Angeles, Fresno and San Francisco (and I would have to assume San Jose and the mid-peninsula would get stops too, likely near SFO and SJC, and possibly somewhere near ONT as well). A future bond measure would be needed to expand the route to San Diego, Sacramento and Oakland.

With Fresno being connected via rail to both major markets in the future, what impact will that have on FAT? Travel time will be under 1.5 hours from Fresno to either downtown San Francisco or Los Angeles, so it makes flying pointless unless you are connecting to somewhere else.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Alias1024
Posted 2008-11-05 21:35:56 and read 8188 times.

Probably a reduction in frequency on the SFO and LAX routes, but there is still a great deal of connecting traffic on those flights. I actually wonder if it won't be a boon to Fresno. Taking all those vehicles off of the terrible highway 99 will help the poor air quality in the valley, and the easy link to downtown Los Angeles and San Francisco when combined with lower cost of living may convince some companies to relocate some workers to Fresno. In the end, the growth caused by the train may be enough to negate the impact on air travel demand.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-11-05 21:39:06 and read 8179 times.

When I lived in Palo Alto, I dated a girl north of Fresno. A bullet train would have been great back then. The drive wasn't that bad, but traffic could be bad, and the farms smelled awful in the summer.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Alias1024
Posted 2008-11-05 21:57:59 and read 8124 times.

99 is a real turd of a highway. I don't get it, why run I-5 up the deserted side of the valley, and put crummy 99 on the populated side? The freaking highway is 2 lane in some areas north of Madera. The bullet train can't arrive soon enough.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-11-05 22:26:54 and read 8064 times.



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 3):
99 is a real turd of a highway. I don't get it, why run I-5 up the deserted side of the valley, and put crummy 99 on the populated side? The freaking highway is 2 lane in some areas north of Madera. The bullet train can't arrive soon enough.

All I ever saw of I-5 was crossing it. I went 101, then across Pacheco Pass across to 99, a bit on 99, then up towards Yosemite.

I-5 is a major trucking route, but you are right, it doesn't go near most of the major towns or cities in the valley.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Alias1024
Posted 2008-11-05 22:39:02 and read 8039 times.

I think the bullet train will be good. The construction jobs will be a nice boon the the valley as well. This thread in non-av has a picture of the proposed route system.
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ms/non_aviation/read.main/2001546/

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: DesertAir
Posted 2008-11-06 04:03:25 and read 7793 times.



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 3):
99 is a real turd of a highway. I don't get it, why run I-5 up the deserted side of the valley, and put crummy 99 on the populated side? The freaking highway is 2 lane in some areas north of Madera. The bullet train can't arrive soon enough.

Highway 99 existed before I-5.

It seems to me that a bullet train could be very successful in the San Joaquin Valley. Amtrack has had a lot of success. As the Fresno area grows there should be more demand for air service to hubs to avoid having to fly out of LAX or SFO.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2008-11-06 04:58:58 and read 7726 times.

It's easy, just look at what HSR has done to similar centres in Europe. You don't need to imagine the scenarios in some abstract manner. Just get some facts on the suspension of air services CDG - Lyon, CDG - Brussels, CDG - Marsailles, Cologne - Frankfurt, Madrid - Barcelona or Taiwan, Japan, etc. It's always amazing to me how each time a change is introduced of this type people feel the impact has to be estimated from first principles, rather than just looking over the fence to see how it has worked elsewhere. The ban on smoking in France was the same. The discsussion was as if it had never been tried or suggested anywhere else. Now it's just accepted as normal, less than twelve months later.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Naritaflyer
Posted 2008-11-06 05:39:22 and read 7662 times.

The high speed train concept will not work in America. People there make the mistake of looking to Japan, Germany and France for good examples of how the train system has enhanced inter0city travel. Problem with the U.S. is the lack of train connectivity at destination. Say you catch the train from San Francisco to L.A. once in L.A. you will need a car there. In Japan I can go from my house in Tokyo to my friend's house in Osaka by train. Other than in New York, that's unthinkable in America. But, you got to start somewhere and that's a good start.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: WhatUsaid
Posted 2008-11-06 06:47:24 and read 7549 times.

I doubt that high-speed will have any impact on intra-state air travel at FAT. O&D to those cities has vanished due to the high fares in the market. Express Jet was able to document the demand for low-cost service to San Diego, but that success was very much tied to the fact that driving through LAX is one very big pain.

High-speed train isn't cheap. In my travels in Japan and Europe, it's always been at or above air travel. My $50 RT to Sacramento on Amtrak today would be somewhere close to $400 RT or more, I would think on high-speed. I question whether the voters who approved this bond measure (which is not anywhere close to the final price tag for the system) understand that you don't get a 200 mph train at an Amtrak price.

Amtrak rattles up and down the valley 12 times each day and finally added another coach to the peak trains so that you actually might have a seat. If Amtrak had rental car availability at its stations, the service would be more attractive to those like I, who've given up on air travel due to the expense ($1K RT FAT-SFO on UAX), but remain frustrated that once I'm in Emeryville, there's no rental car on-site.

I really doubt we'll see high-speed rail in my lifetime....and I'm not that old (50)... I'd rather place my bet on WN coming into FAT.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Pnwtraveler
Posted 2008-11-06 06:58:45 and read 7527 times.

I am not sure how many cars the train will take off the road. Hopefully a lot. It will however take flyers off aircraft, particularly between LA and SF. If the route can be maximized for straight and level, speeds will be high and therefore time between cities less. At some point rail becomes time competitive with going through security and congestion at airports. Similarly between YYZ and YUL a high speed service of around two and half hours (downtown to downtown) would kill a lot of Porter and AC Rapidair traffic. Probably more of the latter because Porter already has the advantage of much less hastle at Toronto City Centre than AC at Pearson.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Enilria
Posted 2008-11-06 07:38:07 and read 7454 times.

If the station in FAT is convenient and parking is suitable AND it connects directly to LAX or SFO it will suck the life out of the FAT airport. It is likely, however, one of those things won't happen and it will only marginally hurt the airport.

How would you like to be on it during an earthquake?

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: GSPSPOT
Posted 2008-11-06 07:44:36 and read 7434 times.



Quoting Naritaflyer (Reply 8):
The high speed train concept will not work in America. People there make the mistake of looking to Japan, Germany and France for good examples of how the train system has enhanced inter0city travel. Problem with the U.S. is the lack of train connectivity at destination. Say you catch the train from San Francisco to L.A. once in L.A. you will need a car there. In Japan I can go from my house in Tokyo to my friend's house in Osaka by train. Other than in New York, that's unthinkable in America. But, you got to start somewhere and that's a good start.

I disagree - but it won't look exactly the same, either. I would suggest making stops at major airports instead of downtowns. A high-speed rail station at major (and maybe even some no-so-major) airports would give travelers access to "ground transportation", including rental cars & public transport. I would LOVE to have a workable alternative to the hassles of flying, or fighting trafffic and road construction on mid-length trips.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: PanAm747
Posted 2008-11-06 07:48:44 and read 7419 times.

Don't forget that Bakersfield will be a stop on this route!!

As for FAT, I think it will be fine - as stated, some of the short distance flights may see a reduction in frequency, but the business traveller connecting to other locales may want to skip the hassle of transferring from the train to the airport. Besides, has it been stated for a fact that it will stop at LAX or SFO?

Realistically, though, you won't see if for at least 20+ years, and who knows what air travel will look like then?

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Highflier92660
Posted 2008-11-06 07:50:36 and read 7413 times.

Despite the California proposition passing nobody should hold their collective breathes. These high speed rail measures have a way of being tossed around for years between politicians and political parties, or studied ad-infinitum until they die a quite death; see Florida. I voted for the proposition with full knowledge of the insurmountable odds of a 200 mph TGV type train ever serving California between Los Angeles, Sacramento and the Bay area. A similar project, the maglev train between Anaheim and Las Vegas, is another fanciful project that is likly to die on the launching pad. The construction costs alone for these projects are prohibitive.

If anyone doubts the amount of inertia and political will it takes to build infrastructure in the State of California, look at the numerous freeway projects that have taken decades to build (the 105 freeway to LAX) or improvement projects that are still underway that will be obsolete upon ribbon cutting (the I-5 widening north of the Orange County line.)

Still, it's always fun to dream of these high speed trains in artist depictions.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: NRA-3B
Posted 2008-11-06 08:27:43 and read 7354 times.

It appears you folks are not familiar with the state government of California. I really don't expect to see a high speed train system in California in my lifetime based on the tax increase forced by this proposition. The legislature here has a long track record of not properly using tax money. They will most likely spend it on their pet pork barrel projects. I saw nothing in the proposition that will provide accountability for the use of this money. As an example, all the gas taxes that supposedly are intended for highway and road construction have never been used for that purpose during my 30+ years in California. They just send that money to the general fund for use in their 'social engineering programs'.
It is possible that some private capital may eventually do something similar; the Las Vegas- LA route.......

Cheers,
Bob

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: GSPSPOT
Posted 2008-11-06 10:26:41 and read 7224 times.



Quoting Highflier92660 (Reply 14):
If anyone doubts the amount of inertia and political will it takes to build infrastructure in the State of California, look at the numerous freeway projects that have taken decades to build (the 105 freeway to LAX) or improvement projects that are still underway that will be obsolete upon ribbon cutting (the I-5 widening north of the Orange County line.)

Don't forget about feasability studies, etc. UGH. The governments in the I-85 corridor where I live (basically Atlanta northeast thru SC, NC in into VA) have been kicking around a high-speed rail line to relieve the region's overworked interstates for a while now. What will it take to get these things past the concept stage?

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-11-06 12:28:33 and read 7226 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 7):
It's easy, just look at what HSR has done to similar centres in Europe. You don't need to imagine the scenarios in some abstract manner. Just get some facts

The USA is NOT Europe, California is not Europe, and thus we can look to the EU and Japan for perspective, but it's not as easy as applying "facts" to the situation.

I assume you've never been to Fresno…

Non-stop and relatively fast train service between NYC and DC has not lead to a major decrease in flights between the markets, they more compliment each other.

I would assume the same would be true between SFO and LAX areas, as it would convince some flyers to take the train, and some drivers to take the train.

Quoting Naritaflyer (Reply 8):
Problem with the U.S. is the lack of train connectivity at destination.

Absolutely. We don't have subway systems in most cities. We have limited light rail at best, and these systems usually involve the "park and ride" concept. If you are visiting a city, where's the car going to come from to get your where you need to go?

This is why I could see it working if it connected to SFO and SJC, or if there were rental car facilities at each stop similar to an airport (and they didn't overcharge like some very small airports do).

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: BOSSAN
Posted 2008-11-06 12:30:58 and read 7224 times.

The California High Speed Rail Authority has a map of the proposed system up: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm.

The best train-plane transfer for Central Valley residents appears to be on the initial segment, at SFO/Millbrae. Presently a BART shuttle train takes Caltrain passengers from Millbrae one stop to SFO's International terminal. It's projected to be a 1 hour 9 minute trip from central Fresno to SFO/Millbrae.

Other stops proposed at airports are Ontario Airport and Palmdale Airport; Burbank, San Jose and San Diego will be placed within a couple of miles of their respective airports. None of these have as many direct flights as San Francisco, though.

I believe that the high frequency of trains along the mainline will make O&D flights to cities along the rail line uncompetitive, and only ones with connection opportunities will continue. Thus, LAX has a chance at keeping some flights while SFO might disappear or be replaced by a rail code share a la Continental/Amtrak at Newark. On the other hand, flights from Fresno to Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Seattle, Dallas and Salt Lake City should not be impacted.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: MOBflyer
Posted 2008-11-06 12:45:02 and read 7227 times.

I think the biggest impact may be a positive one... on PMD. According to the schedules, bullet train transit time from downtown LA to ONT and PMD will vary by less than ten minutes. PMD's commercial viability increases exponentially as access to the primary city center improves.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Enilria
Posted 2008-11-06 13:00:35 and read 7225 times.



Quoting BOSSAN (Reply 18):

The best train-plane transfer for Central Valley residents appears to be on the initial segment, at SFO/Millbrae. Presently a BART shuttle train takes Caltrain passengers from Millbrae one stop to SFO's International terminal. It's projected to be a 1 hour 9 minute trip from central Fresno to SFO/Millbrae.

If it doesn't go within a few hundred feet of the terminals I don't think it will hurt FAT significantly. People aren't going to want to take their bags on the train, then BART, and then arrive at SFO. That's another ugly step.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-11-06 13:33:33 and read 7225 times.



Quoting Enilria (Reply 20):
If it doesn't go within a few hundred feet of the terminals I don't think it will hurt FAT significantly.

It's a shuttle no different than AirTrain or monorails or many other ways of getting from the station to the terminal. Is it as ideal as some EU airports where the high speed stop is in the basement at multiple terminals? No, but it's not the same as getting on a commuter train either.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2008-11-06 13:40:30 and read 7226 times.



Quoting BOSSAN (Reply 18):
Presently a BART shuttle train takes Caltrain passengers from Millbrae one stop to SFO's International terminal.

That link got shut down for lack of ridership. Right now, arriving by rail in Millbrae to take the airplane at SFO involves taking BART northbound to San Bruno, changing to BART southbound to SFO, and changing to the airport people mover to get to the terminal. That's right, THREE transfers.

Ten years ago, there was a shuttle van that met every train and dropped you off at the terminal.

Ah, the cost of progress...

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Scutfarcus
Posted 2008-11-06 13:40:49 and read 7227 times.

I agree with the first commenter - this is very good for Fresno and will likely have a big role in improving the economic situation of the entire central valley. This might cause fewer flights to LAX, but with economic growth I would not be surprised to see flights added to DEN, PHX, and other connecting cities to points east.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2008-11-06 14:04:50 and read 7223 times.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):

Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 7):
It's easy, just look at what HSR has done to similar centres in Europe. You don't need to imagine the scenarios in some abstract manner. Just get some facts

The USA is NOT Europe, California is not Europe, and thus we can look to the EU and Japan for perspective, but it's not as easy as applying "facts" to the situation.

I assume you've never been to Fresno…

Non-stop and relatively fast train service between NYC and DC has not lead to a major decrease in flights between the markets, they more compliment each other.

I would assume the same would be true between SFO and LAX areas, as it would convince some flyers to take the train, and some drivers to take the train.

Nor is the USA Mars.... We're talking about deploying an HSR service of the same specs as in Europe and Japan, between a string of cities currently served by high frequency air services. There are analogous examples with available data which should allow a good deal of modeling to be done. The point about local metro rail services to meet these rail hubs is pertinent, but far from a show stopper when there is so much city centre to city centre traffic today. BART in SF is not a bad start at that end.

The DC - NY train is not HSR, just an accelerated classic line with new technology. It would cut into air services if it were 200mph all the way. It is still my preference today as it is nonetheless infinitely more civilized than dealing with all the airport commute/security nonsense.

No need to make assumptions about where I've been. I do actually get around.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: DL767captain
Posted 2008-11-06 16:05:15 and read 6769 times.

I'm sure there will be some frequency reductions on SAN/LAX-SFO but i'm sure there will still be plenty. Every time i have flown to SFO it was for a connecting flight which i'm sure most of the traffic out of SAN will allow for them to keep just about every flight slot.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-11-06 16:19:18 and read 6906 times.



Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 24):
We're talking about deploying an HSR service of the same specs as in Europe and Japan, between a string of cities currently served by high frequency air services.

You don't know the situation if that's how you classify the market for Fresno.

Sorry, but you don't. You've never been to Fresno.

I am not asking about the impact of travel between SFO and LAX, but between FRESNO and SFO and FRESNO and LAX.

It's possibly it barely impacts air travel at all, much like in NYC, where it more likely takes people out of cars and off buses…

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: OzGlobal
Posted 2008-11-06 17:43:36 and read 6870 times.



Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
With Fresno being connected via rail to both major markets in the future, what impact will that have on FAT? Travel time will be under 1.5 hours from Fresno to either downtown San Francisco or Los Angeles, so it makes flying pointless unless you are connecting to somewhere else.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 26):
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 24):
We're talking about deploying an HSR service of the same specs as in Europe and Japan, between a string of cities currently served by high frequency air services.

You don't know the situation if that's how you classify the market for Fresno.

Sorry, but you don't. You've never been to Fresno.

I am not asking about the impact of travel between SFO and LAX, but between FRESNO and SFO and FRESNO and LAX.

It's possibly it barely impacts air travel at all, much like in NYC, where it more likely takes people out of cars and off buses…

If you know everything about it, why ask the question?

If you don't want input on comparable routes, don't discuss it.

I am often in SF and LA and I never said I had been to Fresno, but you provided the comparison of air and rail and the other thread has the full route map for the HSR.

Paris - Lille - Brussels ( - Antwerp - Amsterdam); There are several parallels with a minor city between to majors on an HSR route.

Lighten up.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2008-11-06 17:53:08 and read 6863 times.



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 1):
Probably a reduction in frequency on the SFO and LAX routes, but there is still a great deal of connecting traffic on those flights. I actually wonder if it won't be a boon to Fresno.

I think you'll probably see the elimination of the SFO flight. LAX might live on, albeit with reduced frequency.

So pretty much all traffic into FAT is O&D. It's not exactly a major connecting hub. The proposed route would stop at SFO, but not at LAX. Thus, if I lived in Fresno (and no offense, but I really hope I never do!) and I needed to get to SF or to SFO I'd take the train.

But if I lived in Fresno and I needed to get to LAX to take a flight somewhere, the train wouldn't be such a great idea because it basically stops at the eastern end of the city and LAX is at the western end.

I very much doubt that I will live to see the day that an express non-stop train from the LA station to LAX starts to run.

Thus, passengers traveling to LA as a destination would undoubtedly prefer that train, but passengers connecting at LAX would still do better to fly. OTOH, because the train will stop at SFO, you'd have to be out of your tree to fly to SFO, even if you have a connecting flight out.

Doesn't FAT also have service from other cities, like SEA and PDX?

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2008-11-06 18:05:45 and read 6865 times.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
I think you'll probably see the elimination of the SFO flight. LAX might live on, albeit with reduced frequency.

I doubt FAT-SFO will disappear. Fresno feeds a lot of connecting passengers for United at SFO. Plus Fresno is a major Skywest maintenance operation. As long as Skywest flies as UAX they will want to rotate flights through FAT and back to the Northern California route structure (and via LAX to the southern routes).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
Doesn't FAT also have service from other cities, like SEA and PDX?

FAT has flights to GDL on Mexicana; UAX to DEN, LAS, LAX and SFO; USAir Express to PHX and LAS; QX to SEA and PDX; AA to DFW; AmEagle to LAX; and DLConn to SLC.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
(and no offense, but I really hope I never do!)

But hey you should come to Fresno sometime and get a drink at Sammy Hagar's Cabo Wabo and go visit the national parks.

Quoting WhatUsaid (Reply 9):
I really doubt we'll see high-speed rail in my lifetime....and I'm not that old (50)... I'd rather place my bet on WN coming into FAT.

You youngster, LOL I didn't realize that I've got an extra year of experience over you.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2008-11-06 18:15:42 and read 6867 times.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28):
So pretty much all traffic into FAT is O&D. It's not exactly a major connecting hub. The proposed route would stop at SFO, but not at LAX. Thus, if I lived in Fresno (and no offense, but I really hope I never do!) and I needed to get to SF or to SFO I'd take the train.

But if I lived in Fresno and I needed to get to LAX to take a flight somewhere, the train wouldn't be such a great idea because it basically stops at the eastern end of the city and LAX is at the western end.

I think you are basically right. You'll still probably get 1 or 2 FAT-SFO flights a day to connect to international flights, but that's about it. With the train travel time being about the same as the flight block time, the only convenience of flying for connections is luggage check-through.

But LAX is different. The train isn't planned to go anywhere near LAX, and the travel time is longer than flying, so for the connections at LAX, it makes sense to fly. But for just getting to Los Angeles in general, the train would be a good bet. Assuming you don't need a car when you arrive. Which is a big assumption here in Los Angeles.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: ExFATboy
Posted 2008-11-06 19:34:44 and read 6842 times.

There's still too many variables to try to figure out exactly what will happen to Fresno's air service if the HSR system is built. And yes, I deliberately say "if" - the bond measure approved was for just under 10 billion, less than half of the projected total cost. The proposal presumes matching (or better) Federal funds, which could be a long time in coming given the budget deficits we currently face.

And there's the question of exactly what will Fresno look like in 2030, or whenever the train starts running? If Fresno continues to grow at its current rate, there could be enough demand for travel to support both the train and substantial air service. A good chunk of Fresno's connecting traffic already avoids SFO and LAX, connecting instead at other airports, as FATFlyer listes above. In fact, if you look at the airport's flight schedule, there isn't that much domestic connectivity (excluding Hawaii) at SFO at all, and even less at LAX.

If the train proved popular (and presuming the current airline players and their hubs are still in place by then, a pretty big "if") I'd expect to see UA cut most of the FAT-SFO service and offer a codeshare on the train, just as CO does on some Amtrak services in the Northeast right now, and take what little domestic connection traffic it has through DEN instead, or perhaps even start FAT-ORD. Unless there's a very convenient connection from the HST to LAX, I don't see it having that much impact on FAT-LAX service.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Spark
Posted 2008-11-06 19:44:36 and read 6843 times.

As for the effect at FAT, I think it all depends on the cost and convenience of the train between SFO and Fresno (I highly doubt the station will be any near FAT, as FAT is east near the campus, and the tracks will likely be west). If the train is convenient, then there may be a serious reduction in flights from FAT.
I don't know how it is now, but when I was living in Fresno the airport was expensive to fly out of when compared to SMF, SFO, OAK, and SJC. We drove the two hours to those airports, and flew from there. I imagine if fast, convenient trains were available, people would op for them.
On the other hand, if the rail is as expensive as it is in Europe and as convenient as Amtrak is, it will be a huge failure and of course have ZERO effect on FAT.
Of course, this won't happen until about 2030 and who has any idea where we will be.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2008-11-06 22:04:44 and read 6849 times.



Quoting Spark (Reply 32):
Of course, this won't happen until about 2030

It will happen by 2015, i.e. the next 6 or 7 years. The engineering is already well advanced, the technology is not anything new, and the money (usually the greatest stumbling block) has now started to flow. San Diego and Sacramento may happen by 2030, but Fresno will happen by 2015.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: JoFMO
Posted 2008-11-06 22:30:54 and read 6832 times.



Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 33):
It will happen by 2015, i.e. the next 6 or 7 years. The engineering is already well advanced, the technology is not anything new, and the money (usually the greatest stumbling block) has now started to flow. San Diego and Sacramento may happen by 2030, but Fresno will happen by 2015.

I really hope you are right. And I think the chances are not that bad. Especially when I consider that there is a 'socialist' in the White house now who might be more willing to counter the recession with big infratsructure spending instead of tax cuts for the wealthy.

I am only a little bit concerned where the other 3rd of the money shall come from. It was planned to come from the private sector, but they have problems to get credit....

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: KC135TopBoom
Posted 2008-11-07 03:39:03 and read 6849 times.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
California is not Europe

But many in California think they are as smart as the Europeans are.


 duck   duck   duck 

Quoting BOSSAN (Reply 18):
The California High Speed Rail Authority has a map of the proposed system up: http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/ma....htm.

I notice the CHSRA estimates a trip from Fresno to LA will cost just $38.

 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Maybe they should pass around some of whatever it is they are smoking.
 praise 

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: AirNZ
Posted 2008-11-07 05:03:59 and read 6836 times.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
If you are visiting a city, where's the car going to come from to get your where you need to go?

If I can ask, why so much talk about the necessity of rental cars at train stations, or why is one seemingly vital within a city? Surely, the way forward is to invest in public transportation like Europe. Yes, I fully understand and know that for most US 'cities' there is none, but surely it's infrastructure like that which needs to be invested in for the long term.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2008-11-07 05:45:23 and read 6841 times.



Quoting WhatUsaid (Reply 9):
High-speed train isn't cheap.

Yes it is, it's cheaper with greater frequency to travel between Brussels, London and Paris on Eurostar than on a plane, lots of other routes especially domestic in France and Germany have been killed due to the increased frequency and lower costs of HSR.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Access-Air
Posted 2008-11-07 09:17:02 and read 6832 times.



Quoting Ikramerica (Thread starter):
Travel time will be under 1.5 hours from Fresno to either downtown San Francisco or Los Angeles, so it makes flying pointless unless you are connecting to somewhere else.

Perhaps only if this high speed rail takes them right to SFO or LAX airports....otherwise, flying will be better. Plus if you are flying say from FAT, your 2 hour check in only applies to the initial check in at FAT. With an arrival into SFO or LAX by ANY ground transport, two hours check in would be required adding extra time and hassle.

Access-Air

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: QXatFAT
Posted 2008-11-18 13:48:10 and read 4402 times.

Well it seems like the people of the valley though are a little to lazy to drive down to LAX and SFO to connect flights and I think still a train ride is too much for them. Buisness travel from FAT to SFO or LAX might go down on flights but there is not enough to eliminate flights to these two cities.

What this MIGHT do, but I will not hold my breath, is cause new non-stops maybe. Possibly an ORD flight maybe? If flights are cut down to SFO and LAX maybe connecting flights to ORD and so forth will alow for a 3 time weekly or so with AA?

So could be the possibility of new destinations. Who knows. Just rambling.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Spacecadet
Posted 2008-11-18 14:17:42 and read 4373 times.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):
Non-stop and relatively fast train service between NYC and DC has not lead to a major decrease in flights between the markets, they more compliment each other.

What?! Amtrak has decimated the airlines in the northeast corridor. They currently have something like 57% market share, which is up from 11% only 8 years ago. Total ridership has not risen nearly that fast - that's all at the expense of airlines:

http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSSIB27628520080612

That said, there is a difference between the NEC and California. You can get on a train in Washington or Boston, get off in New York and easily get anywhere you want without a car. In many cases, you can get anywhere you want by walking. Penn Station is right in the middle of Manhattan.

The same is true of Boston. I'm not so sure about Washington.

I doubt California would be the same.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: WhatUsaid
Posted 2008-11-18 14:30:38 and read 4336 times.



Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 40):
That said, there is a difference between the NEC and California. You can get on a train in Washington or Boston, get off in New York and easily get anywhere you want without a car. In many cases, you can get anywhere you want by walking. Penn Station is right in the middle of Manhattan.

The same is true of Boston. I'm not so sure about Washington.

I doubt California would be the same.

DC is easy, with the Metro right at Union Station. I always use Amtrak in the NE.

Amtrak California is a problem. The BART connections at Richmond are slow. In Sacramento, there's Hertz on demand or via a short walk...but what about an 11pm arrival, do you really want to hang out at that station? Amtrak is not viable to LA due to the bus connections. Amtrak California is actually more bus connections than train. Amtrak California targets leisure travel, not business. The NE is heavy to business.

High speed rain is only part of the solution to intra-state travel in California. There needs to be the infrastructure at the terminals. That's a factor that has not been figured into the cost analysis...

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: PanAm747
Posted 2008-11-18 14:35:05 and read 4327 times.



Quote:
Penn Station is right in the middle of Manhattan. The same is true of Boston. I'm not so sure about Washington.

Be sure of it. Washington, DC's train station is located on Massachusetts Avenue, less than a mile from the Capitol building and within easy walking distance of the center of DC. In addition, the Metro system also serves Union Station, negating the need for walking to public transport in inclement weather.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: ExFATboy
Posted 2008-11-18 18:37:17 and read 4173 times.



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 36):
If I can ask, why so much talk about the necessity of rental cars at train stations, or why is one seemingly vital within a city? Surely, the way forward is to invest in public transportation like Europe.

American cities are, outside of the Northeast and perhaps Chicago, very spread out, lacking the population density necessary to make public transportation a viable alternative without vast subsidies, especially in cities like Fresno that don't have a clear commute flow into a central business district.

Also, for leisure travel, keep in mind that on top of the whole population-density-sprawl issue, Americans take shorter vacations than Europeans and thus don't want to lose valuable time waiting for public transport connections, especially in places like California where a family may want to move from place to place every day. Besides being transportation, a car gives you someplace to store your stuff during the day while you're touring Yosemite or going to the beach.

While there's certainly a need to expand the role of public transport in the US, it will never replace cars, and for both business and leisure travel rental cars are a necessary consideration in projects like the California HST.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: WingedMigrator
Posted 2008-11-18 18:58:41 and read 4150 times.



Quoting WhatUsaid (Reply 41):
There needs to be the infrastructure at the terminals. That's a factor that has not been figured into the cost analysis...

Sure it has. San Francisco is planning a $4.2B terminal.
www.transbaycenter.org

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Centrair
Posted 2008-11-18 20:27:29 and read 4094 times.

The key for any effective High Speed rail is "within 3 hours".

If it can be reached within 3 hours by High-speed train, the train wins.
If it can not be reached within 3 hours by High-speed train, the plane wins.

Example:
I live in Shinjuku and have a meeting in Umeda (Osaka) at 14:00 on the 26th.
I am flying from Haneda.
I will have to leave my house at 10:15 and will arrive at Umeda at 13:35
Cost ¥23,910

I live in Shinjuku and have a meeting in Umeda (Osaka) at 14:00 on the 26th.
I am taking the Shinkansen from Shinagawa.
I will have to leave my house at 10:27 and will arrive at Umeda at 13:46
Cost ¥13,850

You can see that the winner is .... almost no one except the pocket. If it were an emergency, the train would win for convenience. The Shinkansen is rarely delayed and a train is never "canceled". The only thing that keeps it from leaving a station is weather or suicide on the track (which is rare for the Shinkansen due to the fencing and having the train tracks largely above ground.)

We have few flights to Tokyo from places within the 3 hours circle. Those that exist are mostly for connecting to International locations. On NGO-NRT only NH flights do not require you to have a connecting international flight but JL and NW do.

So where does the train vs airplane level out in a country the size of California?
If three hours is the key, then a plane would be just as good as train or better for San Diego to San Francisco. But after that the train wins out every time.

If the train works in the way they want it to, then you will see massive reductions on flights. You could also see a rescheduling of flights into blocks that help people connect to longer flights. You could also see new flights that connect the in-between areas to destinations such as DEN, SLC, SEA and even farther east or north.

Remember 3 hours. Any more and the plane wins.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2008-11-18 21:30:46 and read 4031 times.



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):

Non-stop and relatively fast train service between NYC and DC has not lead to a major decrease in flights between the markets, they more compliment each other.

That's because it's not relatively fast. It's about as fast as driving and far more expensive. A true high-speed train would do the trip in just over an hour and would decimate the air market.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 30):
But LAX is different. The train isn't planned to go anywhere near LAX, and the travel time is longer than flying, so for the connections at LAX, it makes sense to fly. But for just getting to Los Angeles in general, the train would be a good bet. Assuming you don't need a car when you arrive.

I'm sure there will be car rental available near the LA station. That's one area where the private sector already has a good infrastructure set up. I have no doubt that a few of the rental companies will be snapping up space around the station in LA. I, for one, wouldn't dream of taking the train to LA if I couldn't rent a car at the station. You simply cannot reasonably do LA without a car (it can take you all day to get from one side to the other on public transport).

At SF, it will be different. At SFO, there are already rental cars available, so the SFO station will not require much additional investment. The transbay terminal probably won't have rental cars because there isn't space. There are some rental companies on the Embarcadero, but I can't see the train bringing them that much more business. And, besides, you don't really need a car in downtown SF. If you need to rent a car at SF, just get off the train at SFO and drive the remaining 25 minutes into the city.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: JoFMO
Posted 2008-11-18 22:34:54 and read 3990 times.

Don't you guys in the US have Taxis?

What people in europe would do is driving with their car to the train station, park there for the day, take the train and catch a taxi to your meeting and back home in the evening.

If you stay longer and wont pay too much parking fees at the station you you ask a friend/mother/wife to drop you off at your station before you catch the train. Or you take a taxi already in your hometown.

I can hardly understand what all the fuss is about in regards to missing public transport links at the station. It is nice to have them, certainly. But a most airports in the US work fine without any proper public transport link. Why should that be the same with ahigh speed train system?

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2008-11-18 22:59:46 and read 3960 times.



Quoting JoFMO (Reply 47):
Don't you guys in the US have Taxis?

Not so much, no. Well, at least not so much in SF.

Yes, there are taxis, but only about 1,000 badges in the city. So it can take quite a while to get a taxi to anywhere. They'll probably be lined up at the station, but getting one to go back can be a bit of a wait.

And in LA, a taxi is fine if you're just going to a meeting and then getting back on the train, but if you're going to be in LA for any more than a few hours, you really need a car. Not having a car in LA is like not having feet; you can't go anywhere. It's one of the reasons I can't stand the place.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: JoFMO
Posted 2008-11-19 01:17:57 and read 3854 times.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 48):
And in LA, a taxi is fine if you're just going to a meeting and then getting back on the train, but if you're going to be in LA for any more than a few hours, you really need a car. Not having a car in LA is like not having feet; you can't go anywhere. It's one of the reasons I can't stand the place.

LA sucks.... Wink


That stereotype of LA is why I never felt encouraged to spend any time in the city during my numerous transfers through it with NZ.
But a couple of days without a car in SanFran was nice.

I think taxis are still one of the best modes of transport ever invented. Unfortunately they are too expensive in many western countries like Germany where I would rarely consider moving myself by this mode of transport. But here in Sydney they are great and bring you everywhere you want at ab reasonable price. In the City you have them all over the place and just need to put out your finger to get one. But even in the suburbs where I work I rarely takes more than 20 minutes after you called them to show up.

I also must admit that I have never understood how the transport system in the USA works. Because rental cars are also quite expensive from my experience. So just arriving at any Airport (or railway station for that matter) and renting a car for a day to meet a client somewhere in the suburbs might an option if the company pays, but not when you have to pay on your own.
So how do all these people get to their destinations after arriving an an airport when there is no public transport, rental cars are expensive and taxis are non-existent or expensive?

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: RJ111
Posted 2008-11-19 02:09:36 and read 3804 times.

They really need to go to LAX i think. With the amount of transpacific flights, people could go from the smaller areas of Caliafornia and change at LAX and connected to a huge proportion of Asia, as well as Europe. Very similar to the system in place in France which i believe is very effective.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: ExFATboy
Posted 2008-11-19 05:24:36 and read 3701 times.



Quoting JoFMO (Reply 47):
What people in europe would do is driving with their car to the train station, park there for the day, take the train and catch a taxi to your meeting and back home in the evening.

That works fine for business travel, not so much for leisure. In order to capture tourist travel to the Central Valley (and no jokes at Fresno or Bakersfield's expense, here, I'm talking mainly about Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon), the Fresno HST station will need a rental car outlet, especially if it's positioned on the far west side of the city as at least one of the route proposals has it.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: TAN FLYR
Posted 2008-11-19 07:16:52 and read 3579 times.



Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 3):
99 is a real turd of a highway. I don't get it, why run I-5 up the deserted side of the valley, and put crummy 99 on the populated side? The freaking highway is 2 lane in some areas north of Madera. The bullet train can't arrive soon

Obvoiusly you have not been on 99 in a while. Yes, in many areas is still is quite sub-par, however bond monies passed a few years back did improve sections between Kingsburg , Selma and Fresno. The 3 laning of all of it from Fresno south to Bakersfield can not come soon enough, as well as north to Stockton.(remember 99 has been there since the late 1920's and sections 4 laned as early as the late 40's/ early 50's) All the old 2 lanes are long gone and the last traffic lite was gone in the late 90's.

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 13):
Realistically, though, you won't see if for at least 20+ years, and who knows what air travel will look like then?

My bet is the first shovel of dirt is not even turned for 5 years..then 20+ to build it.

Quoting NRA-3B (Reply 15):
It appears you folks are not familiar with the state government of California. I really don't expect to see a high speed train system in California in my lifetime based on the tax increase forced by this proposition. The legislature here has a long track record of not properly using tax money. They will most likely spend it on their pet pork barrel projects. I saw nothing in the proposition that will provide accountability for the use of this money. As an example, all the gas taxes that supposedly are intended for highway and road construction have never been used for that purpose during my 30+ years in California. They just send that money to the general fund for use in their 'social engineering programs'.
It is possible that some private capital may eventually do something similar; the Las Vegas- LA route.......

Amen..we said my friend!

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2008-11-19 07:20:50 and read 3573 times.



Quoting ExFATboy (Reply 51):
That works fine for business travel, not so much for leisure. In order to capture tourist travel to the Central Valley (and no jokes at Fresno or Bakersfield's expense, here, I'm talking mainly about Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon), the Fresno HST station will need a rental car outlet, especially if it's positioned on the far west side of the city as at least one of the route proposals has it.

Some people in Fresno are talking about National Park Service supported shuttles to the parks. They would operate from both FAT and Amtrak (later the HSR station) to Yosemite and Kings Canyon.

The City of Visalia has started shuttle buses from VIS and area hotels to Sequoia during the summer. They are doing quite well. Once in the park, visitors use a new internal park shuttle at Sequoia.

NPS like the idea of shuttles since it would reduce the impact of the high number of private cars in and to the parks.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Spacecadet
Posted 2008-11-19 10:25:01 and read 3415 times.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 46):
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 17):

Non-stop and relatively fast train service between NYC and DC has not lead to a major decrease in flights between the markets, they more compliment each other.

That's because it's not relatively fast. It's about as fast as driving and far more expensive. A true high-speed train would do the trip in just over an hour and would decimate the air market.

Apparently you did not read my earlier reply. Amtrak owns the northeast corridor at this point. Absolutely owns it. It's just wrong to say anything otherwise. The airlines have gotten themselves killed on the NEC by Amtrak. There's really nothing they can do about it either. They can't fly any faster, they can't move the airports closer to the cities. Amtrak has a lot of built-in advantages on this route.

And traveling by train *is* faster than flying on the NEC. Otherwise they wouldn't have the market share that they do. I can walk to Penn Station from my office and be on a train in the span of 15 minutes. It would take me about 2 hours to even get on an airplane, with the transportation to the airport, the security, etc. Then we wait through the ground delays, finally take off, then I have to figure out how to get where I need to be at the destination. The total trip to either Washington or Boston is faster on the train, more convenient, and frankly a lot more pleasant.

Again, this is not to say the same will happen in California, although I will say that Amtrak California is doing a very good business even with their regular-speed trains. The Pacific Surfliner is the most heavily-traveled route Amtrak has outside the NEC. So no doubt Californians are ready to use good rail service.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Buzz100ca
Posted 2008-11-19 10:28:10 and read 3413 times.

Although I'm always for progress, I think that the train will unfortunately bring an end to MOD-SFO.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: R2rho
Posted 2008-11-19 14:04:57 and read 3286 times.

THis is a very interesting project and it's great news to see it passed. Although as with all infrastructure projects, I will only believe it when I see it built.

Two things worry me though: I don't see it stopping at LAX (this is absolutely a must), and there's an awful lot of intermediate stops. Intermediate stops defeat the purpose of HSR. As Centrair correctly warned:

Quoting Centrair (Reply 45):
Remember 3 hours. Any more and the plane wins.

I still think it's a good project and should be built though. The consequence for Fresno and the likes will likely be a reduction in having shuttle flights every hour to some place, and airlines would tune their schedules more towards connecting flights at one of the large hubs. The HSR project would free up tons of slots at LAX and SFO that can be used for more national and international destinations & frequencies.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: TheCheese
Posted 2008-11-19 14:24:41 and read 3266 times.



Quoting R2rho (Reply 56):
Intermediate stops defeat the purpose of HSR.

Many of the communities in the service area seem to have an attitude of "if it doesn't benefit us, we're against it" so bypassing those communities for faster service is not an option. Not having intermediary stops in some of those towns is equivalent to inviting the town to actively oppose the project.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Exaauadl
Posted 2008-11-19 14:27:29 and read 3263 times.

the train will never get built

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Anonms
Posted 2008-11-19 14:41:20 and read 3245 times.



Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 37):
Yes it is, it's cheaper with greater frequency to travel between Brussels, London and Paris on Eurostar than on a plane, lots of other routes especially domestic in France and Germany have been killed due to the increased frequency and lower costs of HSR.

The projected costs for California's HSR for a trip from San Diego to the Bay (since that's the most likely routing for me) is comparable to a plane ticket, and the amount of time it takes is about the same, if not more.

It may be cheaper in Europe, but it's not cheaper everywhere. It's more expensive in Taiwan to take HSR in some cases, IIRC.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: JoFMO
Posted 2008-11-19 18:48:38 and read 3105 times.



Quoting R2rho (Reply 56):

Two things worry me though: I don't see it stopping at LAX (this is absolutely a must), and there's an awful lot of intermediate stops. Intermediate stops defeat the purpose of HSR. As Centrair correctly warned:

Having stops does not mean a train has to stop there! There are nonstop trains planned from SF to LA but also semi-fast and all-stoppers. Check out how many stops there are between Tokyo and Osaka. Osake is stop No 16 from Tokyo nevertheless the express trains only to stop 4 times in between.

Quoting Anonms (Reply 59):
It's more expensive in Taiwan to take HSR in some cases, IIRC.

Then flying must be incredible cheap in Taiwan. A peak hour train in 4 days costs in business just 2000 T$, that is 60$. 2nd class is only 45$. That seems to be a very fair price to me.
I took the Taiwan train 4 weeks ago in first. I was early at the station and changed my ticket to the next train. Done in 5 minutes (incl queeing) without any extra cost. Great service!

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2008-11-19 19:39:05 and read 3084 times.



Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 54):

Apparently you did not read my earlier reply. Amtrak owns the northeast corridor at this point. Absolutely owns it. It's just wrong to say anything otherwise. The airlines have gotten themselves killed on the NEC by Amtrak.

No, they do not own it. They have 60-70% of the passengers who used to go by air. A good portion of passengers still go by Chinatown bus and by car. I have extreme difficulty believing that those numbers take road traffic into account.

The train moves at an average speed of about 86 MPH. And that's the Acela Express. That cuts about 30 minutes off the journey as done by the regular train or by car/bus. And given that there are now buses that give you on-board internet for about $20 one-way, I know which I'd take. And if you're needing to do it on the cheap, the Fung-Wah service, while no-frills, is $15 one-way. They do a ROARING business and I'm sure their numbers don't fit into yours.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: JoFMO
Posted 2008-11-19 20:25:44 and read 3021 times.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 61):

Quoting Spacecadet (Reply 54):

Apparently you did not read my earlier reply. Amtrak owns the northeast corridor at this point. Absolutely owns it. It's just wrong to say anything otherwise. The airlines have gotten themselves killed on the NEC by Amtrak.

No, they do not own it. They have 60-70% of the passengers who used to go by air. A good portion of passengers still go by Chinatown bus and by car. I have extreme difficulty believing that those numbers take road traffic into account.

These number mus be the air/rail ratio. The overall ratio is rarely given by high speed train companies. They are not after the 15$ packpackers, they wan't to get the air market.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2008-11-20 05:31:22 and read 2911 times.



Quoting JoFMO (Reply 62):

These number mus be the air/rail ratio. The overall ratio is rarely given by high speed train companies. They are not after the 15$ packpackers, they wan't to get the air market.

That's because they can't compete with BoltBus and I'm willing to bet that BoltBus and similar "premium" bus lines will eat into Acela a lot now that they're coming into service.

But no bus will be able to compete with CA-HSR.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: Jaws707
Posted 2008-11-20 07:05:34 and read 2860 times.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63):
That's because they can't compete with BoltBus and I'm willing to bet that BoltBus and similar "premium" bus lines will eat into Acela a lot now that they're coming into service.

I believe that busses will not be able to compete with Acela. I would imagine that Amtrak is constantly working on increasing speeds where ever possible on the system. The trains they have are capable of doing 150 mph and there are some short stretches where they hit those speeds. Many other places they hit 125 mph or 110 mhp. The limitations are from the rail and the overhead catenary. This is a long and expensive project, but as ridership is growing and the service is making a good return, I think they will invest in the system to continue upgrading the speed. Busses can't drive any faster and planes can't fly and faster, but Acela has all the potential to continue growing and expanding.

Topic: RE: Bullet Train Long Term Impact On FAT…
Username: R2rho
Posted 2008-11-24 13:18:52 and read 2607 times.



Quoting Anonms (Reply 59):

It may be cheaper in Europe, but it's not cheaper everywhere.

Actually HSR is not cheap at all over here, I find it quite expensive. I don't know why some people give the false impression that in Europe it is dramatically cheaper than flying. It has competitive prices, yes, but it is not necessarily always the cheaper option.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/