One of the premises behind the CAHSR is that the existing airports and runways in LA and SF are nearing capacity. There's no room to expand, and the metropolitan regions are so sprawling you'd end up driving an additional hour or more to any newly built airport. Cars and buses don't solve the problem, either, precisely because of the sprawl and traffic--it can take longer to traverse Bay Area and LA sprawl than it does to zoom the hundreds of miles down I-5.
From an engineering and planning perspective HSR makes sense anyway you look at it. The problem is our inability to build major infrastructure projects. Even highway construction and expansion in these regions is becoming absurdly expensive, along with all other forms of development. Completely independent from HSR, we need to fix our regulatory policies. The ballooning price tag for CAHSR shouldn't inspire ire against HSR, it should inspire ire against our regulatory policies and governance.
Is that really true? LAX and SFO are near capacity, at least during certain times of the day. But we still have room to increase flights at SJC, STS, OAK, ONT, BUR, SNA, and LGB. With a little more work it should also be possible to shift some cargo flights to NUQ in order to free up SFO capacity.
That analysis may be biased, but it does a decent job sketching out how to compare modes and capacities. Also, regulatory obstruction and cost inflation apply just as much to airport and highway expansion as it does to HSR. In some ways it's much worse. SFO should build a new runway, and it'd be incredibly cost effective, but NIMBY opposition was so intense SFO repudiated the idea years ago and dare not even speak of it, now.
No, that report doesn't address my point. Did you even read it? OAK in particular has been losing flights lately and is well below capacity. We don't need to build a new runway there, the existing ones are under utilized.
It gives number for how much airport (gates and runways) and highway expansion would be needed to meet future demands without the HSR. And it does so apportioning traffic across the 3 major Bay Area airports and 5 LA airports.
The OAK situation only drives home the point. It's not as convenient, at least relative to the segment of people flying. Location matters. If you want to optimally utilize existing airports, we need more infrastructure, including better mass transit systems. OAK is connected to BaRT, but it's yet another transfer with about an extra 15 minutes of travel time, not including walking through the stations. And BaRT itself isn't an effective mass transit system; it's more commuter train than subway.
I'm traveling to LA next month from SF and still haven't decided whether to fly or drive. With CAHSR point-to-point the decision would be easier--take the train and rent a car.
One of the premises behind the CAHSR is that the existing airports and runways in LA and SF are nearing capacity. There's no room to expand, and the metropolitan regions are so sprawling you'd end up driving an additional hour or more to any newly built airport. Cars and buses don't solve the problem, either, precisely because of the sprawl and traffic--it can take longer to traverse Bay Area and LA sprawl than it does to zoom the hundreds of miles down I-5.
From an engineering and planning perspective HSR makes sense anyway you look at it. The problem is our inability to build major infrastructure projects. Even highway construction and expansion in these regions is becoming absurdly expensive, along with all other forms of development. Completely independent from HSR, we need to fix our regulatory policies. The ballooning price tag for CAHSR shouldn't inspire ire against HSR, it should inspire ire against our regulatory policies and governance.
Is that really true? LAX and SFO are near capacity, at least during certain times of the day. But we still have room to increase flights at SJC, STS, OAK, ONT, BUR, SNA, and LGB. With a little more work it should also be possible to shift some cargo flights to NUQ in order to free up SFO capacity.
These questions have been exhaustively studied. For example, https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_pl...
That analysis may be biased, but it does a decent job sketching out how to compare modes and capacities. Also, regulatory obstruction and cost inflation apply just as much to airport and highway expansion as it does to HSR. In some ways it's much worse. SFO should build a new runway, and it'd be incredibly cost effective, but NIMBY opposition was so intense SFO repudiated the idea years ago and dare not even speak of it, now.
No, that report doesn't address my point. Did you even read it? OAK in particular has been losing flights lately and is well below capacity. We don't need to build a new runway there, the existing ones are under utilized.
> that report doesn't address my point
It gives number for how much airport (gates and runways) and highway expansion would be needed to meet future demands without the HSR. And it does so apportioning traffic across the 3 major Bay Area airports and 5 LA airports.
The OAK situation only drives home the point. It's not as convenient, at least relative to the segment of people flying. Location matters. If you want to optimally utilize existing airports, we need more infrastructure, including better mass transit systems. OAK is connected to BaRT, but it's yet another transfer with about an extra 15 minutes of travel time, not including walking through the stations. And BaRT itself isn't an effective mass transit system; it's more commuter train than subway.
I'm traveling to LA next month from SF and still haven't decided whether to fly or drive. With CAHSR point-to-point the decision would be easier--take the train and rent a car.
There's no terminal that's going to make getting on a flight as simple or quick as getting on a bus.
Many smaller airports are comparable. Like a few minutes from parking to being at the gate.