# California high speed rail



## Amstruck

Does anyone know or have a theory on why there's such a strong resistance to the construction of high speed rail system in California? I've heard one of the strong opponents is the freight train companies that own the current tracks on which Amtrak is leasing. It's all greed and low on vision, is it?


----------



## chakk

Many people in California are opposed to the high cost for high speed rail to build a train on a route that won't be competitive with plane or even driving oneself.

Others do not like the rrain being routed theough their neighborhood, some of which might require taking of land with what some consider inadequate compensation.


----------



## Paulus

chakk said:


> Many people in California are opposed to the high cost for high speed rail to build a train on a route that won't be competitive with plane or even driving oneself.


How in the world do you plan on driving between Los Angeles and San Francisco in under three hours?


----------



## WoodyinNYC

chakk said:


> Many people in California are opposed to the high cost for high speed rail to build a train on a route that won't be competitive with plane or even driving oneself.
> 
> Others do not like the train being routed theough their neighborhood, some of which might require taking of land with what some consider inadequate compensation.


The NIMBYs are out in force, for sure.

Much of the opposition comes from people who built or bought homes alongside the tracks in the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. Now they say they worry about noise, for example, tho HSR will probably be less noisy than the conventional trains running now, and that were running when the NIMBYs bought their rail-side properties.

But polling shows that California citizens continue to favor the CAHSR project despite the loud opposition. And in the recent election, one candidate for governor made anti-HSR a big part of his campaign, and he lost in a landslide.

The train will take what, 3 or 4 hours downtown L.A. to downtown S.F. Don't try that in a car. LOL. It would take twice the time.

HSR is quite competitive with flying when you consider getting to the airport from your downtown office, going thru security, waiting to board, then flying time is almost the least of it, before at the other end deboarding, renting a car or getting a taxi to get downtown to your business meeting. Never mind many, many European examples of successful HSR routes. Even Amtrak's slow boat Acelas taking 3 hours D.C.-NYC and the Regionals taking 4 hours together take more than 2/3rd of the combined air/train market.

+++++++++++++

As for the notion that the freight lines care at all whatsoever, No. Just No. CAHSR will not run on their tracks. Near or even beside their tracks for much of the way, but in no way will HSR interfere with the freight operations.

Heavy freight trains degrade and destroy the roadbed and tracks for HSR, and HSR can't safely run on ordinary tracks at high speed. So they will Not get in each other's way.


----------



## cirdan

I think there is also a scaremongering campaign by the usual suspects who have a vested interest in cars and oil.


----------



## Anderson

@Woody: I think the idea that the OP had raised was that BNSF was somehow getting enough money in track access fees from CA that they'd lose from the HSR project that they were opposing it _so as to keep Amtrak on their tracks_. Considering most of the last 50 years' history this comes across as _completely_ against everything we're used to (for the most part the issue is that Amtrak's access fees are locked in at a low enough level that the freights would prefer the trains gone, all else being equal, though things get a bit hazy if you have a line that Amtrak is a major customer on).


----------



## jis

Yeah, that thing about BNSF worrying about access fees paid to it by CalDOT (not Amtrak) directly or indirectly via Joint Powers Boards, is bogus, even though the fees negotiated between CalDOT and BNSF and UP in California is probably higher than the original Amtrak fees.


----------



## TinCan782

Would the Amtrak California San Joaquins go away? The service might change but I wonder, would there still be a need for a more "local" service than HSR would provide? If that does go away, Greyhound could fill the need.


----------



## Amstruck

chakk said:


> Many people in California are opposed to the high cost for high speed rail to build a train on a route that won't be competitive with plane or even driving oneself.
> 
> Others do not like the rrain being routed theough their neighborhood, some of which might require taking of land with what some consider inadequate compensation.


These people could be either shortsighted, greedy, or being manipulated by special interest groups like freight train companies, people who benefit from status quo, or all of the above. They're the reason why the US is on the decline.


----------



## Amstruck

WoodyinNYC said:


> chakk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people in California are opposed to the high cost for high speed rail to build a train on a route that won't be competitive with plane or even driving oneself.
> 
> Others do not like the train being routed theough their neighborhood, some of which might require taking of land with what some consider inadequate compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> The NIMBYs are out in force, for sure.
> Much of the opposition comes from people who built or bought homes alongside the tracks in the Peninsula between San Francisco and San Jose. Now they say they worry about noise, for example, tho HSR will probably be less noisy than the conventional trains running now, and that were running when the NIMBYs bought their rail-side properties.
> 
> But polling shows that California citizens continue to favor the CAHSR project despite the loud opposition. And in the recent election, one candidate for governor made anti-HSR a big part of his campaign, and he lost in a landslide.
> 
> The train will take what, 3 or 4 hours downtown L.A. to downtown S.F. Don't try that in a car. LOL. It would take twice the time.
> 
> HSR is quite competitive with flying when you consider getting to the airport from your downtown office, going thru security, waiting to board, then flying time is almost the least of it, before at the other end deboarding, renting a car or getting a taxi to get downtown to your business meeting. Never mind many, many European examples of successful HSR routes. Even Amtrak's slow boat Acelas taking 3 hours D.C.-NYC and the Regionals taking 4 hours together take more than 2/3rd of the combined air/train market.
> 
> +++++++++++++
> 
> As for the notion that the freight lines care at all whatsoever, No. Just No. CAHSR will not run on their tracks. Near or even beside their tracks for much of the way, but in no way will HSR interfere with the freight operations.
> 
> Heavy freight trains degrade and destroy the roadbed and tracks for HSR, and HSR can't safely run on ordinary tracks at high speed. So they will Not get in each other's way.
Click to expand...

Well said!


----------



## Amstruck

cirdan said:


> I think there is also a scaremongering campaign by the usual suspects who have a vested interest in cars and oil.


YES! You've said it well!


----------



## Amstruck

FrensicPic said:


> Would the Amtrak California San Joaquins go away? The service might change but I wonder, would there still be a need for a more "local" service than HSR would provide? If that does go away, Greyhound could fill the need.


While I am not sure if it is going to go away, I believe it needs a major overhaul in management and services. The trains are almost always late, the tracks are rough and uneven causing lots of rolling motion, the conductors are unfriendly, egotistical, and rude. Amtrack customer service is abysmally shameful. Amtrack is indeed a waste of taxpayers money under the current management.


----------



## Eric S

Amtrak. Not Amtrack. And the San Joaquins are now managed by a regional Joint Powers Board. And prior to that they had been managed by Caltrans (Amtrak California), not by Amtrak itself.


----------



## cirdan

Amstruck said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the Amtrak California San Joaquins go away? The service might change but I wonder, would there still be a need for a more "local" service than HSR would provide? If that does go away, Greyhound could fill the need.
> 
> 
> 
> While I am not sure if it is going to go away, I believe it needs a major overhaul in management and services. The trains are almost always late, the tracks are rough and uneven causing lots of rolling motion, the conductors are unfriendly, egotistical, and rude. Amtrack customer service is abysmally shameful. Amtrack is indeed a waste of taxpayers money under the current management.
Click to expand...

There's not going to be a day that you wake up one morning and the San Joaquin has vanished over night and in its place there is a high speed train.

On the contrary, California's high speed line is being developed and built over many many years in different phases with some phases being complete years before other are even begun. The existing San Joaquins will thus start using the new tracks as they become available and where it is viable to do so. Initially the existing equipment will be used and later high speed trains will replace it capable of using the line speed to its full capacity. So think of it more as a phased transition.

Whether some trains will continue using the old tracks will probably be decided closer to the time. I guess it will also depend on whether there will actually be sufficient passenger numbers to fill such trains.


----------



## VentureForth

Amstruck said:


> chakk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people in California are opposed to the high cost for high speed rail to build a train on a route that won't be competitive with plane or even driving oneself.
> 
> Others do not like the rrain being routed theough their neighborhood, some of which might require taking of land with what some consider inadequate compensation.
> 
> 
> 
> These people could be either shortsighted, greedy, or being manipulated by special interest groups like freight train companies, people who benefit from status quo, or all of the above. They're the reason why the US is on the decline.
Click to expand...

What kind of work do you do?


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

URGENT ACTION NEEDED TO HELP California HSR

California High Speed Rail NEEDS everyone's support in sending an email to the US Forest Service BEFORE OCTOBER 23RD!!! The US Forest Service is asking for public opinion about whether or not they should allow the California High Speed Rail commission permission to perform 8 drill location on existing forest secure roads to study three route tunnel alternatives. One needs to send an email to Mr. George Farrah at [email protected]

Here's a link to the related newspaper article.

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/20150925/high-speed-rail-authority-asks-permission-to-drill-under-angeles-national-forest


----------



## alan_s

I am a HSR advocate for my own country's South Eastern corridor of Melbourne > Canberra > Sydney > Brisbane. It will never happen in my lifetime, sadly. For those wondering if people will use it instead of planes look at China. I visited in 2012, my trip report is here: http://loraltravel.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/china-trains.html

I took G trains (300km/hr+ or 185mph+) from Hangzhou to Shanghai, Suzhou to Beijing and Zhengzhou to Xi'An. I took slightly slower D (200km/hr) anf K (140km/hr) trains on other legs. Using Suzhou to Beijing as an example the trip took just over five hours from the station 10km north of Suzhou to the heart of Beijing. The distance is equivalent to San Francisco to Seattle.

Waiting time, including security, at the station was about 30 minutes although many Chinese only turned up about ten minutes before departure. Time from our hotel in Suzhou to our hotel in Beijing was just over six hours. Flight time is two hours; allowing for cabs to out-of-town airports, check-in and security I doubt we would have saved much more than an hour, two at the most, if we had flown. All the trains were well patronised.

This is an example of a G train from Guangzhou, on China's south coast, to Beijing in the far north, noting rough equivalent distances to North American West Coast cities.

G66 http://www.cnvol.com/train-11/en-3049.htm

Station Arr. Dep. Elapsed km Miles Equivalent

Guangzhou South - 10:00 0 LA to SF, 380 miles, would be 2 hours.

Changsha South 12:17 12:20 02:17 707 440 LA to Sacramento via San Francisco

Wuhan 13:38 13:41 03:38 1069 665 San Francisco to Portland

Zhengzhou East 15:26 15:29 05:26 1605 998 Los Angeles to Portland

Shijiazhuang 16:50 16:53 06:50 2017 1254 San Diego to Seattle

Beijing West 18:00 - 08:00 2298 1429 San Diego to Whistler


----------



## grover5995

FrensicPic said:


> Would the Amtrak California San Joaquins go away? The service might change but I wonder, would there still be a need for a more "local" service than HSR would provide? If that does go away, Greyhound could fill the need.


Once HSR runs over the full SFO-LAX route, the San Joaquins will likely be reduced to 2 round trips daily between Oakland and Bakersfield on the current route.


----------



## Anderson

grover5995 said:


> FrensicPic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the Amtrak California San Joaquins go away? The service might change but I wonder, would there still be a need for a more "local" service than HSR would provide? If that does go away, Greyhound could fill the need.
> 
> 
> 
> Once HSR runs over the full SFO-LAX route, the San Joaquins will likely be reduced to 2 round trips daily between Oakland and Bakersfield on the current route.
Click to expand...

I've long figured that there would be a reduction in "local" service but I suspect a lot will come down to stopping patterns, passenger behavior, and relative costs. Notwithstanding official estimates, if per-mile ticket costs behave like you see on the NEC, a yield-per-mile of $0.50 would translate into $190 one-way LAX-SFO*. FWIW, this is in line with the cheapest WAS-NYP Acela Saver ticket ($119 for a 225-mile trip). A similar ticket BFD-SFO would probably be...something like 280-300 miles, so you'd be looking at a $140-150 one-way ticket.

Going with lower levels, the cheapest regular ticket WAS-NYP on a Regional is $88 and the cheapest Saver ticket is $52. Those translate into $0.39/mile and $0.23/mile, respectively; the comparable prices for LAX-SFO and BFD-SFO would be $148/$109 at the higher price and $87/$64 at the lower price. For reference, prices on the San Joaquins tend to run $48-88 BFD-OKJ at present.

Basically, a lot depends on where the HSR trains are priced: There are a ton of passengers who won't pay $109, let alone $150, for a one-way bullet train ticket no matter how fast that train goes. Some of the damage might be controlled if return ticket prices were less than twice that of one-way prices ($300/person r/t is out of the range of plenty of families...$1200 r/t for a family of four would price out plenty of tourists, I suspect...even if that's the price for a weekend at Disneyland for them).

Of note, this has been one of my strongest criticisms of Amtrak's presumed revenue from a ramped-up Acela service: Their figures tend to indicate "present" per-passenger revenue levels (e.g. those occurring under a significant capacity squeeze) while massively increasing the amount of traffic on said trains (I seem to recall some estimates implying that HSR traffic would rise by 8-10x, Regional traffic would be close to flat, and that both trains would retain their present PPR levels (HSR being on par with the Acela). The issue as I tend to see it is that there are plenty of people who simply could not afford/would not opt for "Acela level" fares if they were for a teleporter.

Back to the situation in CA, I suspect that you'd probably see at least 3-5x daily trains continue on the San Joaquin route almost no matter what unless (and I think this is a fair caveat) there are either "cheap seats" (some "actual" coach equivalent or even a sort of "commuter class") or "cheap trains" (think OuiGo). Some of the pricing issues might be alleviated if CAHSR were to stick to plans to run lots and lots of trains, but based on history it seems like they'll opt to attempt to price in only slightly below airline pricing (subject to demand controls) and reduce frequencies to support higher prices unless there's some real political pressure not to do so...and as we all know, such pressure tends to "blow hot and cold" at random intervals.

I'll say that the solution I see most likely is for some trains (I'm thinking perhaps 1x/hr) to run LAX-BFD on the HSR tracks and then dump pax off for a transfer to a San Joaquin-esque service at BFD. I really see there being an impetus to keep the "fast" trains more expensive and, as they can't really run a "mixed" service without adding lots of tracks, that's the "best of both worlds" option to fall back on (not to mention, I suspect, likely accounting for some level of commuter service which I suspect will move over to the HSR lines in time...basically this "shuttle" would be with far more packed seating and a few added stops).

*Of course, this presumes the 380-mile number generally used.


----------



## alan_s

The Chinese use an elegant solution. The Shanghai-Beijing line is an example. There are many 300km/hr+ trains on the line each day, but each only stops at less than ten stations on a route 820 miles long which takes about 5 1/2 hours.

Each train has slightly different stops, with some minor stations only getting one train a day and major stations getting more. The only stations getting every train are Shanghai and Beijing. Every station in between has a through non-stop track; it is exhilarating being near that when an express passes through.

That allows service to every town along the line while maintaining a high speed service with minimal stops for each train. Some old local lines are retained, but many were not when they are effectively duplicated by the new HSR.


----------



## Anderson

The issue with CAHSR, if I'm recalling right, is that there was an arbitrary station count thrown in on the bond item (I want to say it was 28 stations). In the long run, this creates all sorts of questions on how infill stations might happen; what I was envisioning, in essence, would be that you'd retain the existing San Joaquin system to at least some extent (potentially having at least one transfer point aside from BFD) and then any other stations you'd need to add might nominally be the result of a regional authority adding them.


----------



## cirdan

alan_s said:


> The Chinese use an elegant solution. The Shanghai-Beijing line is an example. There are many 300km/hr+ trains on the line each day, but each only stops at less than ten stations on a route 820 miles long which takes about 5 1/2 hours.
> 
> Each train has slightly different stops, with some minor stations only getting one train a day and major stations getting more. The only stations getting every train are Shanghai and Beijing. Every station in between has a through non-stop track; it is exhilarating being near that when an express passes through.
> 
> That allows service to every town along the line while maintaining a high speed service with minimal stops for each train. Some old local lines are retained, but many were not when they are effectively duplicated by the new HSR.


That works well if you have a situation where end to end traffic plus end to interediate point traffic is far more significant than intermediate point to intermediate point traffic. If you can't get from one intermediate point to another without an extended wait in the middle, you effectively lose that traffic.

Personally I like the Spanish system where they alternate between very fast trains serving only the endpoints or maybe a very limited number of intermediate points, and then a lower teir of trains doing virtually all the stops and charging a slightly lower fare.


----------



## seat38a

FrensicPic said:


> Would the Amtrak California San Joaquins go away? The service might change but I wonder, would there still be a need for a more "local" service than HSR would provide? If that does go away, Greyhound could fill the need.


According to San Joaquin Corridor Agency, there are no plans to reduce service but actually increase service along with the CAHSR. Also, according to their business plan, if the CAHSR is delayed, then the San Joaquin may fill in temporarily by running on the dedicated HSR tracks in central valley. According to Wikipedia, the San Joaquin will share the tracks with HSR between Bakersfield and Fresno allowing the train to run at the max 125 MPH and shave about an hour off of the current sched.

I'm thinking in worst case, the San Joaquin will end up using whatever stretch of dedicated rail is built. Personally, I would take 125 MPH any day over the 79 MPH. If and when San Joaquin does run on the dedicated HSR, this train will beat the pants off Acela when it comes to speed.


----------



## chakk

The current cost estimate from the Calif governor's office is $68 billion to build the high speed rail systen -- about $2,000 per resident of California. Some other folks have suggested the cost will be triple that amount. So far, the citizens of Calif passed a $10 billion bond measure in 2008, and the federal govt has commited an additional $3 billion. I don't think the issue is NIMBYs -- I live in the Bay Area and I probably would ride it at least once to LA (even though i will be well into my 80's when it is completed between SF and LA and I will not likely have any particular reason to go to LA at that age. But I strongly question whether it will be worth my $2,000 - and the other residents' $67,999,998,000 - to build this system, given the already available plane, rail, bus and car alternatives. And since there is currently no commitment from anyone to provide the other $55 billion, is it even realistic to assume that the line will be completed in the next 20 years?


----------



## seat38a

chakk said:


> The current cost estimate from the Calif governor's office is $68 billion to build the high speed rail systen -- about $2,000 per resident of California. Some other folks have suggested the cost will be triple that amount. So far, the citizens of Calif passed a $10 billion bond measure in 2008, and the federal govt has commited an additional $3 billion. I don't think the issue is NIMBYs -- I live in the Bay Area and I probably would ride it at least once to LA (even though i will be well into my 80's when it is completed between SF and LA and I will not likely have any particular reason to go to LA at that age. But I strongly question whether it will be worth my $2,000 - and the other residents' $67,999,998,000 - to build this system, given the already available plane, rail, bus and car alternatives. And since there is currently no commitment from anyone to provide the other $55 billion, is it even realistic to assume that the line will be completed in the next 20 years?


But those roads aren't getting any better, and the airports are at capacity at least the ones that people want to fly out of. The whole carmagedon 405 widening. We spent over 2 billion dollar for all that and now its even more crowded and the time to travel through it longer.

Just as with the drought of ours, we can't just conserve our way out, unless we stop anyone else from moving into this State or ban showers to once a week and flushing toilets to once a day. More and more people are projected to move here and the strain on our infrastructure will be greater and greater. As you mentioned, you will be 80 something when this thing is done. Its really not about YOU, but about an investment in the future of the State. The start of the 20 years or whatever timeframe for building any investment has to start somewhere. Going from LAX to SFO is already a GOOD 4 hour ordeal from start to finish, and that is IF the flight is on time and not delayed due to fog and or other weather related issues at SFO. With all the security crap and airlines shoving more flights into an already crowed airspace on smaller aircraft, total travel time will probably only get worse.


----------



## jis

That is quite true. California will find and spend way more than 68 billion in the next 40 to 50 years. The question is not whether but when and on what.


----------



## leemell

There is one other source of funding and it can be a doozy in the future. The CHSRA gets 25% of the Cap and Trade funds every year. This year (nearly the first) they are currently getting $750M. Next year about $1B. Depending on how things go, it could be a lot more. Some outyear projections are for $60B for the next five years which gives HSR about $12-13B. This source is a revenue stream that can be borrowed against to get the future revenues to complete the system, minus interest of course.


----------



## Anderson

seat38a said:


> chakk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The current cost estimate from the Calif governor's office is $68 billion to build the high speed rail systen -- about $2,000 per resident of California. Some other folks have suggested the cost will be triple that amount. So far, the citizens of Calif passed a $10 billion bond measure in 2008, and the federal govt has commited an additional $3 billion. I don't think the issue is NIMBYs -- I live in the Bay Area and I probably would ride it at least once to LA (even though i will be well into my 80's when it is completed between SF and LA and I will not likely have any particular reason to go to LA at that age. But I strongly question whether it will be worth my $2,000 - and the other residents' $67,999,998,000 - to build this system, given the already available plane, rail, bus and car alternatives. And since there is currently no commitment from anyone to provide the other $55 billion, is it even realistic to assume that the line will be completed in the next 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> But those roads aren't getting any better, and the airports are at capacity at least the ones that people want to fly out of. The whole carmagedon 405 widening. We spent over 2 billion dollar for all that and now its even more crowded and the time to travel through it longer.
> 
> Just as with the drought of ours, we can't just conserve our way out, unless we stop anyone else from moving into this State or ban showers to once a week and flushing toilets to once a day. More and more people are projected to move here and the strain on our infrastructure will be greater and greater. As you mentioned, you will be 80 something when this thing is done. Its really not about YOU, but about an investment in the future of the State. The start of the 20 years or whatever timeframe for building any investment has to start somewhere. Going from LAX to SFO is already a GOOD 4 hour ordeal from start to finish, and that is IF the flight is on time and not delayed due to fog and or other weather related issues at SFO. With all the security crap and airlines shoving more flights into an already crowed airspace on smaller aircraft, total travel time will probably only get worse.
Click to expand...

Having dealt with both SFO and LAX, I feel justified in saying that neither airport is fun to get into or out of. SFO is transit-accessible...but it's also a heck of a ride from SFO into the city on either BART or BART+Caltrain. LAX is at least as much of a hike...I figure from downtown to boarding a flight you probably want to allow two hours or so: 30 minutes for travel time, 60 minutes for "standard" airport time, and 30 minutes on top of that for contingencies (e.g. missing your intended Flyaway bus, getting stuck in traffic)...in both cases, the travel time via transit (per Google Maps) is a shade over an hour. Long story short is that neither airport is terribly accessible from the city center in some respects.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Here's a link to an article with current information about this project. The US Forest Service is allowing the test core drilling of soil samples for possible tunnel locations between Palmdale and Burbank.

http://www.signalscv.com/m/section/36/article/146526/


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

California High Speed Rail has announced today the award of the packages No. 4 construction contract. I believe that this is a different joint - venture firm than the other contractors working on other segments.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/high-speed/single-view/view/california-rail-builders-consortium-to-build-next-section-of-high-speed-line.html


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

I just read an article that San Francisco city's leaders are not moving forward on raising the remaining funds to extend the Caltrains tracks from the existing station to the new station and transit facility. If they do not start THIS YEAR, San Francisco will have a grand new bus and train station facility WITHOUT ANY TRAINS!!!!!! Everyone needs to contact their representatives to get the city to start the track extension project.

Here's a link to the article.

http://sf.streetsblog.org/2016/01/05/guest-editorial-sf-needs-to-get-serious-about-connecting-caltrain/


----------



## bretton88

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> I just read an article that San Francisco city's leaders are not moving forward on raising the remaining funds to extend the Caltrains tracks from the existing station to the new station and transit facility. If they do not start THIS YEAR, San Francisco will have a grand new bus and train station facility WITHOUT ANY TRAINS!!!!!! Everyone needs to contact their representatives to get the city to start the track extension project.
> 
> Here's a link to the article.
> 
> http://sf.streetsblog.org/2016/01/05/guest-editorial-sf-needs-to-get-serious-about-connecting-caltrain/


This plan is badly flawed. I'm not where Streetsblog is getting their information, but San Francisco has no intention of supporting the plan in its current design. There are 3 non interlocking tracks for access on a hairpin curve, which is a huge capacity restraint. San Francisco has a different preferred alignment, so if it gets shifted to City halls preferred plan, I'm sure you'll suddenly see a lot of enthusiasm.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Thanks for the information. Is there any information on-line about these track alignment options?


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Here's a link to information about the California High Speed Rail station planning development agreement that they just announced with Burbank

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/news/California-High-Speed-Rail-Authority-inks-station-funding-pact-with-Burbank--47015


----------



## DSS&A

California High Speed Rail is preparing to submit it's 2016 business plan that may include a decision to connect the segment under construction to San Francisco first. Here's a link to the article.

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article57420203.html


----------



## DSS&A

This article explains some of the issues related to the 206 business plan to connect the middle of the HSR to San Francisco first.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article61457937.html


----------



## Anderson

The question of SF or LA first is a sticky one. "LA First" would allow through-service to commence (I know the complications, but at least in theory you could get some dual-modes along the lines of NJT's (the ALP-45DP) and run diesel service to Palmdale/Lancaster, electric to Bakersfield, and then whichever you needed the rest of the way to Oakland/San Jose/Sacramento), which I think is the most vital factor here...you could put in a plan for the HSR sets but ultimately only plan to buy them once you have at _least_ Burbank-San Jose ready to go along the HSR line. Added bonus: In the short run, doing so _should_ let you extend most or all of the San Joaquin service down to LAX. In theory you could even run said service all the way from San Diego to San Francisco, though the political and operational issues there likely make for a non-starter. Such a run would be between 120 and 150 miles depending on exact alignment; assuming an average of 80 MPH (I'm thinking that you'd basically be going 125 all the way from Bakersfield to Lancaster followed by averaging 60-80 MPH depending on your situation south of there) you'd be looking at 90-120 minutes for the run. Knock the hour off north of there that has been mentioned and I _think_ you'd be looking at about 7:30 OKJ-LAX (and only that long because the San Joaquins go the "wrong way around" to Oakland).

"SF First" is less expensive while still getting you into a major metro area (LA First is expensive as heck) and it would also allow for an improvement of the San Joaquin service if you punt on the bullet sets (getting to OKJ via SJC/Gilroy on new tracks would almost assuredly be faster than the present routing via Davis).

All of this being said, my opinion (hopefully somewhat informed) is that the connection south of Bakersfield is the key component here.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

I'll be interested to know more about the $2 Billion to be spent Burbank to Anaheim.

I'm in a fog there. Paying for the run-thru tracks at L.A.Union Station I grasp. Then a fistful or two of grade crossings made grade-separated crossings. Some widening or what to provide more capacity for the *Surfliners* and Metrolink. Maybe saving a few minutes around Fullerton.

I'd love to see the "more capacity" lead to hourly departures on the _Surfliners_ to San Diego. They only need 2 or 3 more trains to do it. And saving a few minutes is always good.

But isn't all that stuff south of Union Station? What's gonna happen LA-Burbank?

I'd love to see "more capacity" bringing 3 or 4 more _Surfliners_ to Santa Barbara. And saving a few minutes is always good.

But I haven't seen anything with any info L.A. Burbank.

And will any of these Southern California improvements kick in by, say, 2020, or will they all wait for the 2025 Central Valley openings?


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

I am hoping that this announcement will get the people in San Francisco to get moving on a final decision to connect the railroad tracks to the new railroad and transit station currently under construction. The quantity of third mainline trackage between San Jose and San Francisco should also be re-evaluated.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Here's a link to an article about the just released city plan to connect to the new train station. This should make for an interesting year in San Francisco!

http://sfist.com/2016/02/23/caltrain_rail_yard_280_demolish_proposal.php


----------



## cirdan

DSS&A said:


> Hi,
> 
> California High Speed Rail has announced today the award of the packages No. 4 construction contract. I believe that this is a different joint - venture firm than the other contractors working on other segments.
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/high-speed/single-view/view/california-rail-builders-consortium-to-build-next-section-of-high-speed-line.html


For those of us not up to speed on California geography, are all the sections awarded so far contiguous?


----------



## leemell

cirdan said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> California High Speed Rail has announced today the award of the packages No. 4 construction contract. I believe that this is a different joint - venture firm than the other contractors working on other segments.
> 
> http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/high-speed/single-view/view/california-rail-builders-consortium-to-build-next-section-of-high-speed-line.html
> 
> 
> 
> For those of us not up to speed on California geography, are all the sections awarded so far contiguous?
Click to expand...

Yes. From about 29 miles north of Fresno at Madera to almost Bakersfield. About 100 miles.


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The high speed rail project has just won a court challenge which supports the current efforts to get the railroad built.

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/usworld/judge-allows-california-high-speed-rail-project-to-proceed/


----------



## Shawn Ryu

If it makes people feel better there has been a lot of projects declared boondogle and ran over budget that turned out to be pretty damn important.


----------



## MARC Rider

Shawn Ryu said:


> If it makes people feel better there has been a lot of projects declared boondogle and ran over budget that turned out to be pretty damn important.


I know one - The Big Dig in Boston. Imagine what real estate values would be in downtown Boston if they still had that Godawful elevated highway splitting the downtown in two. It's also nice for me when I arrive on Amtrak, rent a car, and want to drive to New Hampshire.


----------



## DSS&A

The Federal Government and the California HSR just amend e d their agreement which will help the project to move forward with adjustments ti deadlines and advancing more funds ti help speed up land acquisitions.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/news/California-High-Speed-Rail-Authority-updates-federal-grant-pushes-back-construction-deadline--48303


----------



## Carolina Special

It seems to me the federal funding on the California HSR would have been better spent on Amtrak projects. For example, a daily Sunset Limited and/or Cardinal. Or the proposed New Orleans-Orlando train. Or even a revival of the Broadway Limited.

Certainly those could be achieved quicker, without the environmental issues or fights with the local California landowners. At this rate, it looks like it will take decades to get results in California, when we could have trains running elsewhere soon.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

I think high speed rail in California would be a better investment then spending money on long distance trains that are never going to go as fast anyway, not to sound like a mood killer here.


----------



## cirdan

Caesar La Rock said:


> I think high speed rail in California would be a better investment then spending money on long distance trains that are never going to go as fast anyway, not to sound like a mood killer here.


I don't think one should necessarily be at the expense of the other.


----------



## Steve4031

If the California hsr is completed, and successful other regions in the country will also build hsr. Same goes for the FEC project in Florida.

I


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

CAHSR has made some operating decisions that will have different affects on the system to be built. The latest decision affects platform and train lengths. Here's a link to an article about the program decisions.

http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/12271697/state-rail-authority-reduces-size-of-future-bullet-train-stations


----------



## leemell

Nothing too surprising here. I've been involved in a number of big projects and this kind to thing has happened to every one of them. Budget, time, risks, design all collide and trade-offs are made.


----------



## leemell

Here is a nice explanation and rebuttal to an LA Times article on this from the CAHSRBLOG:

The argument Vartabedian, Ibbs, and other critics are making is that shorter stations make it harder to operate a “double” train set, as systems like Japan’s Shinkansen often do. But you could just as easily operate two single-sets with shorter headways. That would maintain your capacity.

Here’s an example. Sometimes the Shinkansen operates a single trainset:





And sometimes it operates a double set:





(Both gifs come from this video.)

Many European systems commonly operate single sets, such as Eurostar, the TGV, the AVE, and so on. So the CHSRA isn’t doing anything significant here in terms of capacity. But the savings is significant and welcome.

The same is true of tunneling. Lowering the tunnel speed from 220 to 200 mph provides a big cost savings on the cost of tunneling, but at a minor time penalty – that will likely be made up by other time savings elsewhere, including going almost directly from Palmdale to Burbank under the mountains rather than going via Santa Clarita.

So the CHSRA’s decision is sensible, as is often the case. But HSR critics will find something to criticize no matter what they do.


----------



## Carolina Special

Yesterday's election results likely mean no more federal funding for the California HSR, based on the Republican platform. If it is to proceed, it will need to do so using state funding only.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Funny, I just read an article that said California High Speed Rail might benefit from Trump's plan to improve infrastructure. The platform means nothing. Trump is certainly not a party faithful Republican.


----------



## leemell

I agree, during the campaign Trump specifically mentioned High Speed Rail as a thing to do. There may be some hope.


----------



## chrsjrcj

I'll believe it when I see it. Not holding my breath. -_-


----------



## Bob Dylan

DOA!

Conservatives Hate California and the Rich Nimbys around the Bay Area don't want it either!


----------



## WoodyinNYC

leemell said:


> during the campaign Trump specifically mentioned High Speed Rail as a thing to do. There may be some hope.


I believe that Russia has big ambitions for HSR. So if Putin likes it … well, c'mon!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I believe that we have no idea what Trump plans to do, so don't do a victory dance, or commit sepuku, over the victory. Wait until he starts doing stuff to deduce how good a president he will be.


----------



## MattW

leemell said:


> Here is a nice explanation and rebuttal to an LA Times article on this from the CAHSRBLOG:
> 
> The argument Vartabedian, Ibbs, and other critics are making is that shorter stations make it harder to operate a “double” train set, as systems like Japan’s Shinkansen often do. But you could just as easily operate two single-sets with shorter headways. That would maintain your capacity.
> 
> Here’s an example. Sometimes the Shinkansen operates a single trainset:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sometimes it operates a double set:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Both gifs come from this video.)
> 
> Many European systems commonly operate single sets, such as Eurostar, the TGV, the AVE, and so on. So the CHSRA isn’t doing anything significant here in terms of capacity. But the savings is significant and welcome.
> 
> The same is true of tunneling. Lowering the tunnel speed from 220 to 200 mph provides a big cost savings on the cost of tunneling, but at a minor time penalty – that will likely be made up by other time savings elsewhere, including going almost directly from Palmdale to Burbank under the mountains rather than going via Santa Clarita.
> 
> So the CHSRA’s decision is sensible, as is often the case. But HSR critics will find something to criticize no matter what they do.


I would hope that even if platform length is limited to one trainset now, that provisions are kept to allow doubled trainsets later. I wouldn't imagine much would be required, just making sure there's enough space off each end of the platform kept clear to allow future extension.


----------



## west point

As well as leaving space for future platform extension provision must be made for utility connections. Duct work for each kind of utility is capped at the end of each platform. For drains they must be low enough for future extensions.


----------



## cirdan

MattW said:


> I would hope that even if platform length is limited to one trainset now, that provisions are kept to allow doubled trainsets later. I wouldn't imagine much would be required, just making sure there's enough space off each end of the platform kept clear to allow future extension.


Actually, platforms themselves are not that expensive to build. In Spain I was once at a station where the platforms were much longer than actually required, but the extra section was fenced off and there were no lights or seats. I've also seen something similar on the metro in Brussels.

Building something like a platform edge alongside an operational and heavily used main line track causes all sorts of extra costs due to the provisions for safe working that may require work to stop as trains pass or trains to be suspended as work proceeds. It may actualkly work out cheaper in the long run to just build for the maximum length, fence it off and forget all about it until such a time as you may need it..


----------



## Anthony V

After the HSR from LA to SF is built, and the San Joaquins are moved to it, the latter trains could be extended to LA, as they would now have an alternative to the congested Tehachapi Pass.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

Anthony V said:


> After the HSR from LA to SF is built, and the San Joaquins are moved to it, the latter trains could be extended to LA, as they would now have an alternative to the congested Tehachapi Pass.


The San Joaquin will be too slow for a dedicated high-speed rail line. It will utilize it on the segment as far south as Bakersfield for a period of time but once the line is completed from San Francisco to Los Angeles the San Joaquin will likely no longer use the line. In fact, it will actually likely be shortened to another stop, potentially Madera, where passengers could transfer to a high-speed train to reach Bakersfield and Los Angeles.


----------



## Paulus

Anthony V said:


> After the HSR from LA to SF is built, and the San Joaquins are moved to it, the latter trains could be extended to LA, as they would now have an alternative to the congested Tehachapi Pass.


In addition to the above post, the San Joaquins diesel locomotives will in no way be suitable for the extensive tunneling involved in the Bakersfield to LA section.


----------



## VentureForth

I know it's not HSR, but Dallas' DART Light Rail ridership was woefully underestimated and they are stuck with a max of three car units. I hate to see this sort of limitation in new designs.

FWIW, Leemill, the two gifs you show don't really tell the whole story. The unit in the top GIF is the Tokaido line, and it runs three different levels of express trains at nearly 20 minute headways with upwards around 1,000 people _per train_. EVERY Tokaido Shinkansen is 16 cars. It's always a single train. They do have the capacity to use double deckers on this train, but they've actually taken them _off _since the 100-series. The 2nd gif is the combination of two trains that go together for a while then go their separate ways. I can't remember which two, but they head out West towards Nagano or North. I think they are two 8-car trains.

Regardless, they shouldn't limit themselves to short stations. Plan for expansion.


----------



## Caesar La Rock

This is interesting.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/27/california-supreme-court-ruling-could-end-bullet-train-suits/


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

The Fresno Bee newspaper has an article interviewing the CAHSR chairman with an overview on the current status of the project.

http://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article175196711.html


----------



## jis

> A consortium led by German Rail (DB) has emerged as the frontrunner in a tender to select an “early train operator” for the California high-speed rail network.
> DB Engineering & Consulting USA, a consortium of DB International US, DB, Alternate Concepts, and HDR will be recommended to the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) board of directors for contract award on at their next meeting on October 19.


http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/db-recommended-for-caifornia-high-speed-early-operator-contract.html?channel=523


----------



## cirdan

Paulus said:


> Anthony V said:
> 
> 
> 
> After the HSR from LA to SF is built, and the San Joaquins are moved to it, the latter trains could be extended to LA, as they would now have an alternative to the congested Tehachapi Pass.
> 
> 
> 
> In addition to the above post, the San Joaquins diesel locomotives will in no way be suitable for the extensive tunneling involved in the Bakersfield to LA section.
Click to expand...

Surely this is the smallest of problems. If the present diesel locomotives are still active when the tunnel is completed they can easily be tranferred to another service.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

I doubt there will be any Chargers in service when such a tunnel is built; heck I doubt Ill be in service.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

https://twitter.com/darrenrovell/status/933153531825094656

Reminder why California needs this bad.


----------



## Anderson

The problem is that the LA area probably needs an insane amount of investment into its transit systems. What they have is nice, and the medium-term plans for more cross-connecting lines and the like are useful, but the area is so spread out that getting reasonable-frequency two-seat or three-seat rides between various locations is a very real problem (while having more than two transfers in a trip is going to weigh against using transit). The Bay Area is a bit better off (if only because development is awkwardly jammed into various corridors) but in the long run there's going to need to be much more expansion of the feeder networks in the LA area to really make CAHSR useful.


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> The problem is that the LA area probably needs an insane amount of investment into its transit systems. What they have is nice, and the medium-term plans for more cross-connecting lines and the like are useful, but the area is so spread out that getting reasonable-frequency two-seat or three-seat rides between various locations is a very real problem (while having more than two transfers in a trip is going to weigh against using transit). The Bay Area is a bit better off (if only because development is awkwardly jammed into various corridors) but in the long run there's going to need to be much more expansion of the feeder networks in the LA area to really make CAHSR useful.


I think the thinking is that if you put in fast and frequent high capacity corridors, that those corridors will atract development and high denisty residential and commercial developments will estbalish themsleves around the stations. Thus in addition to serving structures that are already there (which is very difficult iof they are spread out) you are also catalyzing future development which will be more transit frienldy.

You can observe in places as diverse as New Orleans or Houston how a lot of stuff is being built or refurbished near light rail stops but a couple of block further away all is much more static. If you project a continuation of this develoment into the future, the percentage of people served by light rail will grow organically, even if you don't add further lines. But the adding of lines becomes necessary as the existing corridors run out of usable plots.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Alternatively you can look at NJTs RiverLINE for proof that you need more than a rail line for TOD.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Green Maned Lion said:


> Alternatively you can look at NJTs RiverLINE for proof that you need more than a rail line for TOD.


What is it with the RiverLINE? From a comfortable distance to be fully ignorant, I assume that a line connecting one ghetto rust bucket (Trenton) to another ghetto rust bucket (Camden) lacks the usual compelling business case for a commuter line -- reasonable housing to plenty jobs. Is there more or less to the problem?

(Wildly off-topic. LOL. If the answer is provocative, the mods will need to move the discussion.)


----------



## jis

You got it. That is why I won't respond here




If you wish to get a perspective on it, send me a PM.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

It has 4 basic problems. The main one is that it is connecting Camden and Trenton, which are as you suggest, via the garden scape of such gems as Palmyra, Riverside, Willingboro, Burlington, and Bordentown (the only town I can think of on the line thats even remotely nice). Its second problem is that to use it to go to Philly, you have to get off the train in Camden at Walter Rand, or go way the heck out of your way heading to Trenton.

Its third problem is that the fare is so low, you can't argue the fare is too high, yet its farebox recovery is under 10%, which precludes any and all further investment in the thing.

Finally, service ends at 9:30, making it risky for commuting into New York City, and useless for excursions into NYC. It is so useless, though I live on the line- walking distance - I haven't rode it in years, and when I am heading into NYC, I park at Hamilton.

My point is that transit lines CAN produce TOD and urban revitalization. It has to be reasonably quick, frequent, properly priced, reliable, and operate a sufficiently appropriate number of hours. If you can justify the investment, it seems to help if it runs on steel rails. But it also has to go from a given place A to a given place B that has at some attraction on the line.

It doesn't work if you just connect one dead industrial city with another dead industrial city through a riverscape of superfund sites. (I live surrounded by one of them, which is how I got my house so cheap.)


----------



## cirdan

Green Maned Lion said:


> It has 4 basic problems. The main one is that it is connecting Camden and Trenton, which are as you suggest, via the garden scape of such gems as Palmyra, Riverside, Willingboro, Burlington, and Bordentown (the only town I can think of on the line thats even remotely nice). Its second problem is that to use it to go to Philly, you have to get off the train in Camden at Walter Rand, or go way the heck out of your way heading to Trenton.
> 
> Its third problem is that the fare is so low, you can't argue the fare is too high, yet its farebox recovery is under 10%, which precludes any and all further investment in the thing.
> 
> Finally, service ends at 9:30, making it risky for commuting into New York City, and useless for excursions into NYC. It is so useless, though I live on the line- walking distance - I haven't rode it in years, and when I am heading into NYC, I park at Hamilton.
> 
> My point is that transit lines CAN produce TOD and urban revitalization. It has to be reasonably quick, frequent, properly priced, reliable, and operate a sufficiently appropriate number of hours. If you can justify the investment, it seems to help if it runs on steel rails. But it also has to go from a given place A to a given place B that has at some attraction on the line.
> 
> It doesn't work if you just connect one dead industrial city with another dead industrial city through a riverscape of superfund sites. (I live surrounded by one of them, which is how I got my house so cheap.)


This

Also, it helps if you serve locations that produce high ridership.

One of the new lines in New Orleans serves the Superdome. The first line in Houston served a hosital complex and two major university sites.

Many light rail lines that are built on the cheap utilize abandoned railroads. Of course that's much cheaper than building from scratch. But typically they thus serve only the type of place that you would find along an abandoned railroad.

In other words, build on the cheap and you will get something cheap. Get some proper funding and build something proper and the results will show.


----------



## me_little_me

cirdan said:


> I think the thinking is that if you put in fast and frequent high capacity corridors, that those corridors will atract development and high denisty residential and commercial developments will estbalish themsleves around the stations. Thus in addition to serving structures that are already there (which is very difficult iof they are spread out) you are also catalyzing future development which will be more transit frienldy.


Government doesn't get it. You buy up the vacant land or buy options on it in secret around where you are going to put up the stations and pay for the transit with the profits when selling/leasing the land. Government announces where they are putting things then after everyone has bought up the land, they pay the inflated price for it. And if they do happen to own the land, the politicians make them change the location so their buddies make the profits. Brightline is probably buying the land nowaround their future stations on the way to Orlando or selling the information to local community insiders in exchange for certain rights, easements, or other considerations. [Cynicism off]


----------



## WoodyinNYC

me_little_me said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> the thinking is that if you put in fast and frequent high capacity corridors, [they] will attract ... high density residential and commercial developments ... around the stations. ... catalyzing future development which will be more transit friendly.
> 
> 
> 
> Government doesn't get it. You buy up the vacant land or buy options on it in secret around where you are going to put up the stations and pay for the transit with the profits when selling/leasing the land. Government announces where they are putting things then after everyone has bought up the land, they pay the inflated price for it. And if they do happen to own the land, the politicians make them change the location so their buddies make the profits. Brightline is probably buying the land now around their future stations on the way to Orlando or selling the information to local community insiders in exchange for certain rights, easements, or other considerations. [Cynicism off]
Click to expand...

[Cynicism on] Story is told that plans were released for a new airport NE of Austin. Soon after, due to the end of the Cold War, the Defense Dept offered the surplus Bergstrom Air Force Base to the city of Austin. It had long concrete runways, hangers and other facilities, everything but a new terminal building. All conveniently located SE of Austin. The talk was that a number of insiders took a big loss on land they'd acquired NE of the city. Just sayin'.


----------



## Bob Dylan

True story Woody! It was mostly Politicians and the Wealthy movers and shakers in Austin and Texas that took a bath on the rumoured Manor Location for the new Austin Airport.


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the LA area probably needs an insane amount of investment into its transit systems. What they have is nice, and the medium-term plans for more cross-connecting lines and the like are useful, but the area is so spread out that getting reasonable-frequency two-seat or three-seat rides between various locations is a very real problem (while having more than two transfers in a trip is going to weigh against using transit). The Bay Area is a bit better off (if only because development is awkwardly jammed into various corridors) but in the long run there's going to need to be much more expansion of the feeder networks in the LA area to really make CAHSR useful.
> 
> 
> 
> I think the thinking is that if you put in fast and frequent high capacity corridors, that those corridors will atract development and high denisty residential and commercial developments will estbalish themsleves around the stations. Thus in addition to serving structures that are already there (which is very difficult iof they are spread out) you are also catalyzing future development which will be more transit frienldy.
> 
> You can observe in places as diverse as New Orleans or Houston how a lot of stuff is being built or refurbished near light rail stops but a couple of block further away all is much more static. If you project a continuation of this develoment into the future, the percentage of people served by light rail will grow organically, even if you don't add further lines. But the adding of lines becomes necessary as the existing corridors run out of usable plots.
Click to expand...

That's generally the idea, and very often it works (look at the DC Metro or the Vancouver Skytrain for examples). In the LA area, however, no small part of the problem is that there's only so much you can really hope to condense into some of these areas...and then you get into "around your ASCII to get to your elbow" situations where you have two parallel lines but no way to get between them [1], at least for a long time [2]. There's also the fact that unlike DC and some other cities, there's not a single "easy" downtown area to point to in the LA area on the (relative) scale of some other cities.

[1] In most cases, a high-frequency bus option would probably be the shorter-term winner, but that's probably not a permanent solution in many cases.

[2] e.g. the Sepulveda Pass project presently does have a connection to LAX coming...in 2059.


----------



## frequentflyer

http://beta.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-crisis-20180121-story.html#nt=oft12aH-1gp2


----------



## leemell

Actual HSR test operations are closer than we think. On a just released schedule is shows the Authority in the next quarter will begin procurement of Track and System and Trainsets for initial engineering tests. First track installation in about 24 months. The first actual train on rail tests in about late 2022.


----------



## GBNorman

The New York Times "teed-off" Today with a "not exactly" optimistic article on the state of CAHSR. In fact, with its biggest proponent, Gov. Brown, not standing for election, his successor - even the Democrat Lt. Gov - could well "cut losses" and scuttle the entire project:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/us/california-high-speed-rail.html

Fair Use:



> Mr. Brown's enthusiastic backing has been crucial to the projects advances. Gavin Newsom, the Democratic lieutenant governor and the leading contender to succeed Mr. Brown, has offered conflicting views of the project over the years; he has at times come close to opposing it outright, though in this campaign he has said he supported it, while expressing concern about costs and engineering challenges. By contrast, his Republican opponent, John Cox, has pledged unequivocally to abandon the project if elected


----------



## seat38a

Like I said in another post, if worst comes to worst, they will probably finish up the central valley portion and it becomes a very expensive but dedicated passenger rail line for the San Joaquin.

https://www.fresnobee.com/latest-news/article213920609.html

I do agree with the article. Get the central valley part finished and run trains on it wether it be the San Joaquin or HSR. The red/purple line was once considered a boondoggle and stopped but after years of use, people feelings change and now construction has begun on the west side extension. Even if the state purchases more Chargers Siemens railcars a la Brightline instead of ICE 3/TGV would be an improvement.

I know its a long shot, but even if they can get one train over the tehachapi loop and into LAUS would probably build lots of political capital towards finishing up the entire line. Maybe even with the diesel, get one or two over the Altamont Pass.


----------



## Anderson

seat38a said:


> Like I said in another post, if worst comes to worst, they will probably finish up the central valley portion and it becomes a very expensive but dedicated passenger rail line for the San Joaquin.
> 
> https://www.fresnobee.com/latest-news/article213920609.html
> 
> I do agree with the article. Get the central valley part finished and run trains on it wether it be the San Joaquin or HSR. The red/purple line was once considered a boondoggle and stopped but after years of use, people feelings change and now construction has begun on the west side extension. Even if the state purchases more Chargers Siemens railcars a la Brightline instead of ICE 3/TGV would be an improvement.
> 
> I know its a long shot, but even if they can get one train over the tehachapi loop and into LAUS would probably build lots of political capital towards finishing up the entire line. Maybe even with the diesel, get one or two over the Altamont Pass.


Well, since the state is already about to wind up with a fleet of those anyway (thanks to the N-S contract being transferred) this would make a _lot_ of sense. As to getting over Tehachapi, I agree...but then again, Lancaster-Bakersfield (in a pinch, LA-Lancaster could have been covered by converting one of the nine Metrolink trains on the route...either the 1345 or the 1817 would work here; if you can patch through to Via Princessa, you go from 9x/day to 15x/day to pick from) should probably always have been the first segment since that's the "big hole" in the system.


----------



## slasher-fun

California Gov. Gavin Newsom abandoning plan for high-speed train from Los Angeles to San Francisco, says too costly (Associated Press).


----------



## keelhauled

slasher-fun said:


> California Gov. Gavin Newsom abandoning plan for high-speed train from Los Angeles to San Francisco, says too costly (Associated Press). ﻿


Article, albeit thin on details.  He said he plans to finish building the Central Valley segment that's under construction already.


----------



## neroden

He backtracked immediately, saying he was going to build the whole system, just getting the current segment done before starting the next part.

I'm pretty good at reading politics.  Despite all the shenanigans, Techachapi is going to get built, it's just delayed again (sigh).  The Second Transbay Tunnel is gonna get built.  Pacheco might never be built.


----------



## sttom

Anderson said:


> Well, since the state is already about to wind up with a fleet of those anyway (thanks to the N-S contract being transferred) this would make a _lot_ of sense. As to getting over Tehachapi, I agree...but then again, Lancaster-Bakersfield (in a pinch, LA-Lancaster could have been covered by converting one of the nine Metrolink trains on the route...either the 1345 or the 1817 would work here; if you can patch through to Via Princessa, you go from 9x/day to 15x/day to pick from) should probably always have been the first segment since that's the "big hole" in the system.


I also can't figure why they didn't get the bi-level version of the Siemens cars....



neroden said:


> He backtracked immediately, saying he was going to build the whole system, just getting the current segment done before starting the next part.
> 
> I'm pretty good at reading politics.  Despite all the shenanigans, Techachapi is going to get built, it's just delayed again (sigh).  The Second Transbay Tunnel is gonna get built.  Pacheco might never be built.


Some offense to Newsom, but he deserved to get skewered into a back track. His political career has kind of been played on easy mode. As a Californian, it was good to see someone getting held to account on this.


----------



## DSS&A

California sent letter to FRA about the project and it's funding on Monday. 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article227099229.html


----------



## GBNorman

So long as "the patient" remains on life support  Journal columnists still have to find ways, even in largely unrelated pieces, to "rub it in":

https://www.wsj.com/articles/california-has-become-the-far-left-coast-11551917067?shareToken=st8e2444546242410f9b24f5ef3933f369&amp;reflink=article_email_share

Fair Use:



> Take infrastructure. Rather than repair freeways or build new ones, Mr. Brown decided to construct the high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Vowing “hard decisions” and “tough calls,” however, his successor announced in February that “the project, as currently planned, would cost too much and take too long.” The train’s cost, at last estimate, was between $77 billion and $88 billion, four times the funds available. Incredibly, however, Mr. Newsom didn’t cancel the project. He merely postponed it indefinitely, except for the rump railroad between Merced and Bakersfield, for which not a single mile of track has been laid.  Or consider health care......It will be interesting to see which arrives first: the train or the government doctors.


----------



## neroden

Why are you quoting a dishonest right-wing scam rag?  I'm a *professional investor* and I stopped reading the WSJ ten years ago.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

GBNorman said:


> So long as "the patient" remains on life support Journal columnists still have to find ways, even in largely unrelated pieces, to "rub it in":


Blaming the Journal for "rubbing it in" while at the same time quoting their partisan propaganda _in your own post_ is a bit like blaming the dog after you tracked his dung all over the house.


----------



## PRR 60

Several posts were removed that only discussed the trustworthiness of the Wall Street Journal and had nothing to do with California High Speed Rail. Please take discussions like that to The Lounge.


----------



## Tokkyu40

To be clear, the current plan is to accelerate the construction of the line through the Valley, continue dither...I mean, planning the route from Bakersfield to Palmdale, and apparently wait for a magic transit fairy to drop money on his head before extending the line.
It's taking too long and costing too much, and his solution is to postpone further progress and wait for inflation to work it's magic.
So the next question is: who will build the first true HSR in America and demonstrate the value; Washington state, Colorado or Texas?


----------



## leemell

Actually the plan is as you stated, except all EIRs for the the entire Phase I are to be completed too, not just Bakersfield to Palmdale.


----------



## Anderson

When did Colorado get into the mix (above)? TX is my bet. I know about the zany WA plan, I know about plans in IL, but this is the first I'm hearing about CO...


----------



## Tokkyu40

Anderson said:


> When did Colorado get into the mix (above)? TX is my bet. I know about the zany WA plan, I know about plans in IL, but this is the first I'm hearing about CO...


Colorado has a number of proposals for upgrading transportation along the Front Range, but one of the more ambitious is HSR from Denver to Albuquerque.
This idea has been rattling around for about ten years. I hope they do something with it.
Cascadia HSR is a pretty good idea. Vancouver to Portland is a high traffic corridor with a lot of potential.


----------



## VentureForth

A lot longer than 10 years. 15 years ago when New Mexico was talking about buying the whole route to Trinidad from ABQ, they were talking about the NM Railrunner going all the way to Coloroado.


----------

