What will happen to Amtrak California when the HSR gets built?

[homersimpson101]

What will happen to Amtrak California when the high speed rail between SF and Los Angeles is finished (eventually)? Also, would Amtrak terminate the San Joaquins because passengers would choose to ride a faster form of transportation (HSR)? And would there still be customers for the Coast Starlight even though it averages 16 hours between SF and Los Angeles, while HSR will only take 2-3 hours?

 

[Anderson]

The word "when" is carrying a lot of weight in this discussion...

 

[Amtrakfflyer]

My bet is CA dumps Amtrak as the operator way before then.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

Well, I figure this question was going to get asked sooner or later. Let's see, so far CAHSR is doing pretty well with its construction, of its initial operating phase. The environmental reviews for the segment between San Jose, Merced, and Madera have cleared, along with the Bakersfield to Palmdale segment, and finally the Los Angeles to Burbank segment.

The Burbank to Palmdale segment is expected to clear its environmental review in 2025. San Francisco to San Jose is being electrified by Caltrain, and provisions have been made for high speed trains to share the corridor. Completion of phase 1 of the project you're probably looking towards late 2030s to early 2040s at best, if funding is secured for the rest of phase one. The most challenging part of the project is the Pacheco Pass Tunnels, which will take six years to complete alone.

Now let's say tomorrow funding for all of phase one of CAHSR is secured, well what happens to Amtrak California? It's simply going to increase in capacity due to the high speed train service. Through the Valley Rail program, it's probably going to improve before all of phase one gets built and is open.

https://www.sjrrc.com/valley-rail/
Just because high speed train service is present, doesn't mean the commuter train becomes useless. Japan's commuter trains take passengers to places the Shinkansen doesn't go too. Europe is the same story, to a degree as they have high speed trains sharing the same tracks as their conventional regional and S-Bahn trains. I hope I've given you a decent answer, it was a lot for me to unpack.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

And the Coast Starlight will be there for those going to the coast or just wanting to see it and not in a hurry. And for the rest of the route north of Sacramento.

 

[GDRRiley]

For the initial segment
San Joaquins service will be cut back to Merced but ACE service will be extended to there. Both will receive an extension to Sacramento via the old WP main and onto Chico.
Coast starlight and more service on the coast in general isn't seen as redundant with HSR running because it serves a different market. Caltrans is putting funding together now to get PTC between Gilroy and San Luis Obispo where there currently is none.

The word "when" is carrying a lot of weight in this discussion...

We've got nearly all the funding we need to get this done by 2030 its now about can we keep the project moving at anything other than a stumbling pace.

 

[user 14106]

Also, very much like the situation in Florida with Brightline and Amtrak, the Amtrak routes particularly the coast ones serve different intermediate stops it’s not all about trips between the endpoints. The San Joaquin obviously has the biggest overlap but even there it kind of depends on the price point. If there’s a big price point difference between San Joaquin and CAHSR, people will still use the San Joaquin that do not wish to pay the high speed fare - just as people take slower trains on the NEC that don’t wish to pay for Acela. These markets are big enough where you’d probably still have the business.

 

[cirdan]

From what I understand, when the initial segments become available, they will initially be used by re-routings of existing Amtrak California trains. As further segments come online I guess these will similarly be integrated. Thus to some extent you can say the existing service is going to evolve into a high speed line rather than be replaced by it.

 

[user 14106]

My bet is CA dumps Amtrak as the operator way before then.

My guess is they’ll bark and push Amtrak over some of their issues with Amtrak’s state supported cost accounting but quite possibly their bark will be worse than their bite. Another operator has to want to operate the service which is no guarantee and any non Amtrak operator has to make a profit operating the service which is also never a guarantee. One often misunderstood thing is Amtrak does not have to make a profit or break even operating state supported service. While states pay the primary costs and subsidies as the customer under PRIIA 209, Amtrak often still loses money on a fully allocated cost basis operating PRIIA 209 service even after the state supported payments are factored in (which Amtrak books as passenger revenue) and can earmark operating subsidies from the national network account to cover this - which private operators like Herzog and Keolis can’t do. While obviously there’s always been a lot of questions on how Amtrak assigns costs to various routes, it remains true that Amtrak is the only potential operator backed by federal subsidies - so there’s again no guarantee a private operator can do it cheaper. When operating over freight tracks there’s also advantages related to Amtrak’s statutory access rights. It’s not impossible for other operators to be brought in but it’s far from a sure thing that it would happen - after all there’s a reason Amtrak exists in the first place. If private operators were lining up to operate services all over the country Amtrak would have been privatized or phased out long ago.

I think the more likely outcome is that California and the involved agencies take their objections to the federal level and try to push to get more transparency and rules about how Amtrak assigns costs.

 

[jiml]

Also, very much like the situation in Florida with Brightline and Amtrak, the Amtrak routes particularly the coast ones serve different intermediate stops it’s not all about trips between the endpoints. The San Joaquin obviously has the biggest overlap but even there it kind of depends on the price point. If there’s a big price point difference between San Joaquin and CAHSR, people will still use the San Joaquin that do not wish to pay the high speed fare - just as people take slower trains on the NEC that don’t wish to pay for Acela. These markets are big enough where you’d probably still have the business.

Much like Europe, where local and standard speed trains complement HSR rather than being replaced by it. For almost all HSR journeys it is possible to complete the same route on a regular train or multiple regional/local trains. The trade-off of slower speed is usually balanced by lower cost and the ability to access stations that might be skipped by HSR.

 

[Anderson]

My guess is they’ll bark and push Amtrak over some of their issues with Amtrak’s state supported cost accounting but quite possibly their bark will be worse than their bite. Another operator has to want to operate the service which is no guarantee and any non Amtrak operator has to make a profit operating the service which is also never a guarantee. One often misunderstood thing is Amtrak does not have to make a profit or break even operating state supported service. While states pay the primary costs and subsidies as the customer under PRIIA 209, Amtrak often still loses money on a fully allocated cost basis operating PRIIA 209 service even after the state supported payments are factored in (which Amtrak books as passenger revenue) and can earmark operating subsidies from the national network account to cover this - which private operators like Herzog and Keolis can’t do. While obviously there’s always been a lot of questions on how Amtrak assigns costs to various routes, it remains true that Amtrak is the only potential operator backed by federal subsidies - so there’s again no guarantee a private operator can do it cheaper. When operating over freight tracks there’s also advantages related to Amtrak’s statutory access rights. It’s not impossible for other operators to be brought in but it’s far from a sure thing that it would happen - after all there’s a reason Amtrak exists in the first place. If private operators were lining up to operate services all over the country Amtrak would have been privatized or phased out long ago.

I think the more likely outcome is that California and the involved agencies take their objections to the federal level and try to push to get more transparency and rules about how Amtrak assigns costs.

So, there are four services that are tangled up in this discussion: The Pacific Surfliner, the Capitol Corridor, the San Joaquins, and the Coast Starlight. Let's go down the list:
-The Pacific Surfliner are probably not going to be changed until a putative Phase 2. Aside from LA-Anaheim, there's no duplication of service in Phase 1, but this would turn the Surfliners into a feeder line in that timeframe.
-The Capitol Corridor also has no duplication with Phase 1. So, see the above.
-The San Joaquins are duplicated. My understanding is that a few will remain (as local service to the HSR's express service), and I think there will be a few transfer points.
-The Coast Starlight is duplicated on paper...but not really. LA-Bay Area is a significant market, but there's a lot of intermediate traffic along the coast as well. My guess is that while you'd have some displacement on through passengers heading to/from points north (e.g. LA-Seattle) who could simply take CAHSR to San Jose (or Sacramento, if Phase 2 is ever done), you'll also get some shift in the Starlight getting some traffic as well for folks who don't want to lose that whole second day. LA-Sacramento-[Starlight] could allow you to leave LA at like 7-8 PM or get into LA before lunch. However, California has been looking to run a "Coast Daylight" on a similar timetable to help with the local traffic for some time, so this just seems likely to shuffle traffic around and limit such a need (well, at least presuming that Amtrak ever stops being short on equipment).

By the way, Brightline has listed the Surfliners as a line they'd like to run, and all three state corridors are under separate authorities. My guess is that Amtrak eventually loses the Surfliners, and there's a good chance that the Capitol Corridor eventually goes under some commuter authority.

 

[GDRRiley]

My guess is they’ll bark and push Amtrak over some of their issues with Amtrak’s state supported cost accounting but quite possibly their bark will be worse than their bite. Another operator has to want to operate the service which is no guarantee and any non Amtrak operator has to make a profit operating the service which is also never a guarantee. One often misunderstood thing is Amtrak does not have to make a profit or break even operating state supported service. While states pay the primary costs and subsidies as the customer under PRIIA 209, Amtrak often still loses money on a fully allocated cost basis operating PRIIA 209 service even after the state supported payments are factored in (which Amtrak books as passenger revenue) and can earmark operating subsidies from the national network account to cover this - which private operators like Herzog and Keolis can’t do. While obviously there’s always been a lot of questions on how Amtrak assigns costs to various routes, it remains true that Amtrak is the only potential operator backed by federal subsidies - so there’s again no guarantee a private operator can do it cheaper. When operating over freight tracks there’s also advantages related to Amtrak’s statutory access rights. It’s not impossible for other operators to be brought in but it’s far from a sure thing that it would happen - after all there’s a reason Amtrak exists in the first place. If private operators were lining up to operate services all over the country Amtrak would have been privatized or phased out long ago.

I think the more likely outcome is that California and the involved agencies take their objections to the federal level and try to push to get more transparency and rules about how Amtrak assigns costs.

California has talked about before leaving amtrak and going to someone else. I'd prefer if we just brought that all in house along with metrolink, caltrain and ACE.
The feds haven't subsidized state routes in 15 years when the last of the under 750 mile base network was given to states.

 

[frequentflyer]

By the way, Brightline has listed the Surfliners as a line they'd like to run, and all three state corridors are under separate authorities. My guess is that Amtrak eventually loses the Surfliners, and there's a good chance that the Capitol Corridor eventually goes under some commuter authority.

That would be verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting. If Brightline had not gotten Amtrak attention, that will.

 

[frequentflyer]

My guess is they’ll bark and push Amtrak over some of their issues with Amtrak’s state supported cost accounting but quite possibly their bark will be worse than their bite. Another operator has to want to operate the service which is no guarantee and any non Amtrak operator has to make a profit operating the service which is also never a guarantee. One often misunderstood thing is Amtrak does not have to make a profit or break even operating state supported service. While states pay the primary costs and subsidies as the customer under PRIIA 209, Amtrak often still loses money on a fully allocated cost basis operating PRIIA 209 service even after the state supported payments are factored in (which Amtrak books as passenger revenue) and can earmark operating subsidies from the national network account to cover this - which private operators like Herzog and Keolis can’t do. While obviously there’s always been a lot of questions on how Amtrak assigns costs to various routes, it remains true that Amtrak is the only potential operator backed by federal subsidies - so there’s again no guarantee a private operator can do it cheaper. When operating over freight tracks there’s also advantages related to Amtrak’s statutory access rights. It’s not impossible for other operators to be brought in but it’s far from a sure thing that it would happen - after all there’s a reason Amtrak exists in the first place. If private operators were lining up to operate services all over the country Amtrak would have been privatized or phased out long ago.

I think the more likely outcome is that California and the involved agencies take their objections to the federal level and try to push to get more transparency and rules about how Amtrak assigns costs.

Everything you state is true, especially Amtrak's Federal mandate to start pax service pretty much where ever. With that stated UP and BNSF fear Sacramento more so than Amtrak in DC. Whoever the State California chooses to operate its trains, UP and BNSF will play nice.

 

[jis]

I think the Brightline List of potential routes of interest was more about routes that could fit their business model, rather than something they would necessarily run.

Everything you state is true, especially Amtrak's Federal mandate to start pax service pretty much where ever. With that stated UP and BNSF fear Sacramento more so than Amtrak in DC. Whoever the State California chooses to operate its trains, UP and BNSF will play nice.

I don't think it is fear as much as the fact that California has figured out what the appropriate elements of a bribe is, to get agreement from these two companies. There is a price and where it makes sense California comes up with the price and gets cooperation.

For example merely upon California's statement of desire to run a few San Jaquins across Tehachapi does not cause UP+BNSF to roll over and let them do so. They will extract significant pound of flesh before that ever happens.

An example of California figuring out the right payment structure leading to agreement for infrastructure enhancements is the Capitol Corridor including restoration of double track etc.

 

[allanorn]

I can see a state where nothing changes from the Amtrak California perspective and the current services run as slower regionals. It would be similar to Deutsche Bahn offering ICE and DB Regio services.

HSR isn't going to cover the coastal routes, so the CS and Surfliners can stay relatively intact as long as the rails don't end up in the ocean. For Surfliners that means they won't get as much SD-to-LA traffic if HSR is competitively priced, assuming it makes it to SD.

I haven't checked the State Rail Plan lately but I remember it mentioning a state-wide ticketing platform similar to what NS runs in the Netherlands. I doubt it would happen, but I can see a world where HSR is priced like ICE trains and they offer a Deutschland-style ticket; e.g. one monthly price for all public non-HSR rail/bus travel in California.

I think HSR is meant as a capacity increase to offset intrastate air travel and not to replace current Amtrak services.

 

[stevie]

I travel by train when I can — to have a private room and attendant; the camaraderie of fellow rail enthusiasts from around the world; usually excellent Dining and Cafe service; the scenery; the rhythm of the rails; the sounds of the horns and bells; and the relaxing ride.

I love the idea of CHSR, and would definitely prefer it over flying — but only if I were in a hurry. Otherwise, see you on the Starlight.

 

[Northwestern]

https://is.gd/S3jynG
The now estimated cost for Calif. High Speed Rail is $128 billion. When Calif. citizens voted for HSR, in 2008, it was going to cost $33 billion.

From the above article:

******************************************
"Ardent supporters just as erroneously constantly point out that California is the world’s fifth-largest economy. And if nations with smaller economies — in Europe and Asia — can afford bullet trains, they argue, California certainly can.

Wrong. Those are nations, not states. They heavily subsidize high-speed rail and can do that because their purse strings are much looser. States have budget-balancing requirements. And they can’t print money."
******************************************

Depending on where you're going, the cost of a flight could be less than taking a HSR train.
I voted for Calif. HSR, back in 2008, but I now regret it. Future projections, back then, said the train could eventually terminate in Sacramento.

I would rather see existing Calif. Amtrak trains significantly improve their onboard accommodations and on time performance. I don't mind conventional speeds. The proposed "Dreamstar" overnight train, LA to SF, I think is a good idea. Why not try a new LA to SF, "Coast Daylight" train, Make it privately owned, (Brightline?) with luxury lounge cars, cafe and restaurant cars.

I'm afraid, even with federal fiat money for the project, we Californians will still see further bond measures and taxes coming down the pike to help finance HSR. I don't want my already outrageous taxes to continue to fund this boondoggle.

 

[George Harris]

First and foremost, California HSR is NOT a boondoggle. The boondoggle about it is everyone in the state trying to stuff everything they can into the project and gold plating things to satisfy all the local squawkers. If you want to see boondoggle, look at the replacement of the east part of the Bay Bridge, for what, is I remember right, a price of around 4.5 billion, which was about twice or more of the original estimate they got a pretty structure without one more lane of capacity than the bridge it replaced. All supposed defects could have been dealt with by having an aggressive maintenance process, but with that no politician gets to prance around saying hey, look what I did. The other part of the any "boondoggle" would be the absolute ineptitude seen in the state Transportation Department. (I am no longer working so I will say that.) I could go on for a long time on the goofy things I say happening there that delayed progress and increased costs.

The demand is there, assuming somehow the flow of people to Texas and elsewhere stops. If that does not the whole state becomes a museum of ineptitude in governance. If Taiwan is any example, when their HSR opened, the air traffic between end points dropped to near zero, there was some reduction in highway traffic, but not much in the loss of existing passenger rail traffic.

 

[west point]

CA HSR line is being saddled with many road projects that belong to the CA highway department or the Federal highway funds.

 

[west point]

Suspect that there will actually be more demand on the Coast route and the valley than now. There is a quickly realization the battery vehicles are not that good especially in cooler to cold weather. Too expensive that will require much more passenger train service. But even more important will be major increases of the thruway bus lines that California heavily sponsors.

 

[PaTrainFan]

I can't speak with any conviction (yet) as to whether this project is worth the egregiously escalated price tag. There any number of reasons why it got to this point, but it is where it is right now and the cost of abandoning it it would be far greater. This happens with many public works projects. But what I don't like is that the costs related to the original promises have effectively killed any like projects in this country, likely forever. So we may have a small handful of "higher speed" Brightline type of projects and a few slightly upgraded 110-125 mile Amtrak corridors. But genuine high speed rail? Never. Not even on the NE corridor, which is where it should work, with political will.

 

[allanorn]

First and foremost, California HSR is NOT a boondoggle. The boondoggle about it is everyone in the state trying to stuff everything they can into the project and gold plating things to satisfy all the local squawkers. If you want to see boondoggle, look at the replacement of the east part of the Bay Bridge, for what, is I remember right, a price of around 4.5 billion, which was about twice or more of the original estimate they got a pretty structure without one more lane of capacity than the bridge it replaced. All supposed defects could have been dealt with by having an aggressive maintenance process, but with that no politician gets to prance around saying hey, look what I did. The other part of the any "boondoggle" would be the absolute ineptitude seen in the state Transportation Department. (I am no longer working so I will say that.) I could go on for a long time on the goofy things I say happening there that delayed progress and increased costs.

The demand is there, assuming somehow the flow of people to Texas and elsewhere stops. If that does not the whole state becomes a museum of ineptitude in governance. If Taiwan is any example, when their HSR opened, the air traffic between end points dropped to near zero, there was some reduction in highway traffic, but not much in the loss of existing passenger rail traffic.

The east span replacement cost $6.5 billion, which was at the time the most expensive state project they ever completed. The initial budget was just to retrofit the bridge and that was only $250 million. Apparently the final cost was at least twice what was budgeted after initial bids, and probably closer to 4x.

Much as I don't like a 4x increase in cost and that the state mishandled a lot the first five years of the project, HSR is still needed. Sure it might be cheaper to fly it now, but we're not going to have the airport capacity throughout the state to keep up with demand.

 

[sportbiker]

If you haven’t figured it out by now, here’s the truth: the Anglosphere (UK, US, Canada, Australia, etc) sucks at building infrastructure. Basically every project everywhere goes way over time and budget (HS2, anyone?).

Thinking of diverting CAHSR funds to conventional rail? To highways? To airports? Those are also stupid expensive and go way over time and budget. The only difference is that those projects don’t have the “first time in this country” microscope on them.

There’s a robust discussion in urbanist circles about why we’re so bad at building. I won‘t rehash the arguments here, but this video is a good primer:



It is not a good look for CAHSR to have had the experience it did, but to think in any way it is unique to that project or to high-speed rail is to evidence selective vision.

 

[joelkfla]

But genuine high speed rail? Never. Not even on the NE corridor, which is where it should work, with political will.

Brightline West: real HSR, So. Cal. to Las Vegas