# California High Speed Rail is getting scaled back



## sttom (Feb 12, 2019)

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article226151030.html?fbclid=IwAR16TUAWK_VDsn1VC65bgTfYGzkJFmu7tGJ_nFLVR6BBiGxPYyeEp7X14vU


----------



## frequentflyer (Feb 12, 2019)

Merced to Bakersville. HSR to nowhere............At least the San Joaqins will be faster.


----------



## sttom (Feb 12, 2019)

They really should have done Tehachapi Pass first. This is what we get when you consult politicians instead of transit planners.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Feb 12, 2019)

Isn’t what we really need a high speed connection from Bakersville to LA?  That would connect the Bay Area and LA right? 

That seems to be the logical first step to me.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 12, 2019)

I lost a reply on this to a computer restart.  Sigh.

Basically:
(1) The project was a disaster area from start to finish.  There were a number of onerous requirements in the initial specification that were non-starters (most notably, the 30-minute San Francisco-San Jose runtime demand, as well as the 2:40 San Francisco to Los Angeles demand).  Looking at HSR operations elsewhere, many of these items weren't even necessary (an end-to-end time of three or three and a half hours would likely have been sufficient and would have allowed more engineering flexibility).  Being saddled with this nonsense meant that they were stuck with vexatious lawsuits that dragged on for years.

It was also mis-sold (in terms of price) from the start, probably to shuffle that initiative through.  In a sense, the project was probably in permanent trouble from when that initial cost estimate jump occurred.  Clearly some folks thought they could simply channel Robert Moses' ghost and get a lot more money for it that way.

(2) Setting aside most of the initial mangling of the project, they picked a dubious first segment.  I get it, the valley is the cheapest area to start.  Lancaster/Palmdale (where SCRRA ownership ends) to Bakersfield (where existing San Joaquin service starts) is the hole that needed filling.  You could spec that section of track to enable higher speeds later and then work on the other "hole" between the Valley and San Jose and go from there (bearing in mind that you'd be supporting 6-7 existing trains plus some additional frequencies that you'd probably want/need to lay on as a result).  Instead, the new routing is both mostly redundant with existing tracks (but doesn't totally take the existing trains off of them) and doesn't really add anything new in terms of service.

(3) All of the issues with the project don't avoid the fact that California is going to have to spend a LOT of money on transportation infrastructure regardless.  New airport runways aren't cheap, most of the highways in the major cities have filled out their physical capacity, etc.  Oh, and that's all happening as the Highway Trust Fund is in long-term trouble because of (in particular) mounting vehicle fuel efficiency.

(4) I find a deep irony in this coming out about three days after the Green New Deal announcement was dropped.  Not that I haven't found that to be an aggravation from my end as well, but this borders on farce.


----------



## leemell (Feb 12, 2019)

sttom said:


> They really should have done Tehachapi Pass first. This is what we get when you consult politicians instead of transit planners.


No, they consulted with engineers.  This is the best way to construct a major project.  Iron out problems with the easiest first.


----------



## seat38a (Feb 12, 2019)

Spreading little bit all over the place is a big problem. I do agree, with the Newsome that they need to finish the current central valley section COMPLETELY and then focus on tunneling through Pacheco Pass. Personally, I think they should build it all the way to Stockton where the split to Oakland / Sacramento happens and then improve the existing line to the Bay Area.

ICE, TGV, KTX and other system do the same, build out the core line, upgrade existing line and then build out the rest in phases. In France on our way to Switzerland, we left Gare de Lyon on conventional tracks then got onto LGV Sud and back onto conventional tracks near Dijon before getting back on the LGV.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Feb 12, 2019)

My fear is that they'll finish the Central Valley, and never do the end pieces.

In hindsight, it might have been a better idea to build Bakersfield to Los Angeles first. I would think it would certainly have more utility as a stand alone project as opposed to Bakersfield to Merced where rail service already exists.


----------



## sttom (Feb 12, 2019)

crescent-zephyr said:


> Isn’t what we really need a high speed connection from Bakersville to LA?  That would connect the Bay Area and LA right?
> 
> That seems to be the logical first step to me.


It was but it was probably "deemed to cost to much" and would be visible for Brown to get glamour shots and for people to see it getting built. 



Anderson said:


> (1) The project was a disaster area from start to finish.  There were a number of onerous requirements in the initial specification that were non-starters (most notably, the 30-minute San Francisco-San Jose runtime demand, as well as the 2:40 San Francisco to Los Angeles demand).  Looking at HSR operations elsewhere, many of these items weren't even necessary (an end-to-end time of three or three and a half hours would likely have been sufficient and would have allowed more engineering flexibility).  Being saddled with this nonsense meant that they were stuck with vexatious lawsuits that dragged on for years.
> 
> It was also mis-sold (in terms of price) from the start, probably to shuffle that initiative through.  In a sense, the project was probably in permanent trouble from when that initial cost estimate jump occurred.  Clearly some folks thought they could simply channel Robert Moses' ghost and get a lot more money for it that way.
> 
> (3) All of the issues with the project don't avoid the fact that California is going to have to spend a LOT of money on transportation infrastructure regardless.  New airport runways aren't cheap, most of the highways in the major cities have filled out their physical capacity, etc.  Oh, and that's all happening as the Highway Trust Fund is in long-term trouble because of (in particular) mounting vehicle fuel efficiency.


It was also sold as being a commuter service when high speed trains aren't built for that. 

And the highway trust fund is going to run dry by the end of 2021.



leemell said:


> No, they consulted with engineers.  This is the best way to construct a major project.  Iron out problems with the easiest first.


And now we are getting stuck with $9 billion in debt and a useless line. They still should have pushed through the Tehachapi Pass and given us the capacity to travel between Northern and Southern California.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 12, 2019)

That sort of line can carry commuter services.  Nothing, conceptually, was stopping the service from running a Japanese-style Nozomi/Hikari/Kodama model with perhaps 2-4 Kodamas/hour.  That would equal all but the most aggressive commuter schedules in most areas.  No, it wouldn't have the stop density (you'd probably need to handle _that_ with some paralell/semi-parallel conventional tracks or quad-tracking in the denser areas), but using the service to establish major new suburban developments in the Central Valley that could vent folks from the (seriously overloaded) Bay Area is hardly an illogical or improbable use of the service, especially given the housing situation in the Bay Area (i.e. forking over $1000/month for a bullet train commuter pass isn't even an illogical decision compared to housing prices (e.g. a house in Sacramento will tend to run about $325,000 where one in San Francisco will tend to run about $1,600,000; the difference in the _mortgage_ on that is about $5000/month, to say nothing of property taxes, which effectively add another $1300/month to the difference).

Honestly, with prices like that, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a serious proposal to do something aggressive with the Capitol Corridor route (or the San Jose-Merced bit) and pay for it with major developments along the line.  I don't think it is hard to envision getting a serious "refugee" flow there.


----------



## jamess (Feb 13, 2019)

Fake news. The governor said the same thing that has been said for years. The focus is on finishing the IOS and finding money for the rest of phase 1. Phase 2 (Sacramento and San Diego) sort of went away 5 years ago. Nothing has changed.

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article226153610.html#storylink=mainstage_card2


----------



## Anderson (Feb 13, 2019)

I'm not seeing any clear commitment in there to get even to San Jose.  A San Jose-Bakersfield system (with trains almost obviously carrying onwards to either San Francisco or Oakland) would at least be _something_.  Not that knocking 30-45 minutes off of the existing run is nothing, but it seems pretty clear that there isn't even the stomach to sort out funding for one of those chunks of the project.


----------



## cirdan (Feb 13, 2019)

seat38a said:


> ICE, TGV, KTX and other system do the same, build out the core line, upgrade existing line and then build out the rest in phases. In France on our way to Switzerland, we left Gare de Lyon on conventional tracks then got onto LGV Sud and back onto conventional tracks near Dijon before getting back on the LGV.


The problem with that comparison is that there is a perfectly good line between Dijon and the Rhine-Rhone TGV segment that has been invested in over the years, is double track, electrified and is cleared for 100mph operation. It's not perfect of course, but it does the job pretty well.

Tehachapi on the other hand is owned by a railroad that doesn't like passenger trains, and even if that were to miraculously change, the route has serious constraints that would need big dollars to put right. And if you're going to spend those big dollars, isn't it better to spend them on proper HSR?


----------



## jis (Feb 13, 2019)

A slightly more nuanced take on it:

https://www.kron4.com/news/california/gov-newsom-says-hes-committed-to-rail-line/1777033385


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 13, 2019)

Here's what's getting lost in this, California is still committed to the entire project as the long term vision. What they are doing is now concentrating all the funds and effort on the initial segment, with environmental study efforts now only focused on the Merced to SF segment. The idea is this more concentrated focus should allow for better cost control and delivery. This should have been done a long time ago, project management resources where just getting spread too thin, especially in a state that has no pre-existing experience with a railroad project of that scale. So they're basically breaking things up into more phases is what's happening here.


----------



## Blackwolf (Feb 13, 2019)

bretton88 said:


> especially in a state that has no pre-existing experience with a project of that scale.


That's not really true.  California has a great amount of experience as a State with huge infrastructure projects.  One could even argue that it is one of the most experienced public organizations in the United States.  As an example, the California State Water Project is an incredibly complex and extremely expensive entirely State-owned public works system that actually embarrassed the US Federal Government to a degree, mainly because it was implied that the Feds were the only ones who could design, build and operate something so huge... California simply replied with a "hold my beer" kind of response and made it happen.  The SWP makes the CAHSR project pale in comparison.

In regards to the HSR project, it was a political football from the inception even back in the 1970's.  The opposing side is entrenched and radical about wanting nothing to do with it, and they've been very well funded.  And the Phase 1 portion is right smack in the middle of the geographical epicenter for the opposition; the major voices and political movers there are the large land owners: corporate agriculture, the petroleum industry and shipping.  The have nothing to gain from HSR, and have something to loose in a tiny portion of their land and perhaps some profit with a flashy new transportation option that will pull dollars and people out of the highway and airport sectors.


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 13, 2019)

Blackwolf said:


> That's not really true.  California has a great amount of experience as a State with huge infrastructure projects.  One could even argue that it is one of the most experienced public organizations in the United States.  As an example, the California State Water Project is an incredibly complex and extremely expensive entirely State-owned public works system that actually embarrassed the US Federal Government to a degree, mainly because it was implied that the Feds were the only ones who could design, build and operate something so huge... California simply replied with a "hold my beer" kind of response and made it happen.  The SWP makes the CAHSR project pale in comparison.
> 
> In regards to the HSR project, it was a political football from the inception even back in the 1970's.  The opposing side is entrenched and radical about wanting nothing to do with it, and they've been very well funded.  And the Phase 1 portion is right smack in the middle of the geographical epicenter for the opposition; the major voices and political movers there are the large land owners: corporate agriculture, the petroleum industry and shipping.  The have nothing to gain from HSR, and have something to loose in a tiny portion of their land and perhaps some profit with a flashy new transportation option that will pull dollars and people out of the highway and airport sectors.


Yes, my parents and grandparents actually oversaw many of those projects, there's an extensive history of massive non railroad projects in that state. I should have said Railroad projects (and have edited appropriately). I'm not sure that the contractors California brought in (who where the usual suspects) helped that cause.


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 13, 2019)

https://www.midwesthsr.org/yes-lets-get-real-california-high-speed-rail
That's a pretty good take on what's really happening with this project.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 13, 2019)

The main problem is still that it _won't_ "demonstrate HSR in a US context" because unless they're going to do something wacky like grab gas turbine locomotives, you're either going to have a bullet train running in the (relative) middle of nowhere with forced connections to other trains to get out of the valley or you're going to be accomplishing something that's restricted to 125 MPH, which (I hate to break it to folks) is basically on par with Washington-New York operationally.  The only "bonus" is arguably _more_ 125 MPH running...but I'm not even sure that gets your average speed up over 90 MPH.

What I need to think the project is going to happen is a hard commitment to either Tehachapi, Pacheco, or another link to either metro area.  Both are needed in the long run, but either works to get things rolling.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 13, 2019)

Wow.  They're literally going to spend BILLIONS to connect a town of 90,000 to a city with 900,000. 

Just wow.


----------



## leemell (Feb 13, 2019)

VentureForth said:


> Wow.  They're literally going to spend BILLIONS to connect a town of 90,000 to a city with 900,000.
> 
> Just wow.


Not really.  It will connect a city with 500,000+ (Fresno) with a ctiy of about 400,000 (Bakersfield).


----------



## seat38a (Feb 13, 2019)

Like i've said it in the past, the only way to get money for anything is to combine it with something for cars out here. The whole Pacheco Pass tunnels need to be a car/rail tunnel to make it work. CAHSR has a better chance of getting money for it if they combine the two rail tunnels with car tunnels. Currently CA-133 is a slow winding road to get from Silicon Valley to San Joaquin Valley. Say charge a toll for cars to use it or something along that line to get the tunnels built. We have A LOT of cars and people and that can be leveraged if done correctly. Tolling what already exists is a taboo but new stuff is wide open.

This is something Metro has figured out well in LA County. Every transit taxes that have passed have included road money. Widening of the 405 cost 2 billion and did absolutely nothing to relieve traffic but thats the cost to get rail.

Tehachapi tunnels? Not sure if it would be advantagous for BNSF and UP to be allowed access to them. Not sure if a car tunnel would bring in enough revenue.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 13, 2019)

frequentflyer said:


> Merced to Bakersville. HSR to nowhere............


&



VentureForth said:


> Wow.  They're literally going to spend BILLIONS to connect a town of 90,000 to a city with 900,000. Just wow.


HSR is still being fought tooth and nail by the landed gentry and by special interest groups that are well connected with deep pockets.  Right now CA is forced to work under an extraordinarily adversarial federal government that was not envisioned when this project was being planned and promoted.  This means reduced funding, more bureaucratic setbacks, and fewer options for resolving disputes and shortfalls.  In that context it's reasonable to pump the breaks now in order to keep things moving at a slower speed while you try to rework the process so it can hopefully survive long enough for prospects to improve further down the line.  For now the anti-rail side has largely won the current battle but the war itself is not yet over.  The real question is whether HSR can survive whatever 2020 brings.


----------



## seat38a (Feb 13, 2019)

cirdan said:


> And if you're going to spend those big dollars, isn't it better to spend them on proper HSR?


Actually no. No system, except probably China, built their system 100% from the ground up. Even the latest TGV running in Morocco uses a combination of upgraded lines with it. If you read the history of KTX train in South Korea, they ran into money issues as well and had to cut back phase 1 to half its length and then upgrade the existing tracks. France's TGV and LGV speed were incrementally increased over time. 

I think if there is money, the line should be built to Stockton and then use regular rail all the way Emeryville / San Jose and Sacramento. LGV Atlantique was just recently extended and before then, it was not uncommon for diesel locos to pull the TGV trains further down the conventional line. Get it up and running ASAP and getting people on the trains is what will change peoples minds.

If they can get Bakersfield to Emeryville in 2.5 to 3 hours using HSR + Conventional, then I think they may have a temporary solution until funding for tunneling comes though. Stockton to Sacramento is currently little over 1 hour but if combined with HSR could just make it in little over 2 hours from Bakersfield.


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 13, 2019)

seat38a said:


> Actually no. No system, except probably China, built their system 100% from the ground up. Even the latest TGV running in Morocco uses a combination of upgraded lines with it. If you read the history of KTX train in South Korea, they ran into money issues as well and had to cut back phase 1 to half its length and then upgrade the existing tracks. France's TGV and LGV speed were incrementally increased over time.
> I think if there is money, the line should be built to Stockton and then use regular rail all the way Emeryville / San Jose and Sacramento. LGV Atlantique was just recently extended and before then, it was not uncommon for diesel locos to pull the TGV trains further down the conventional line. Get it up and running ASAP and getting people on the trains is what will change peoples minds.
> If they can get Bakersfield to Emeryville in 2.5 to 3 hours using HSR + Conventional, then I think they may have a temporary solution until funding for tunneling comes though. Stockton to Sacramento is currently little over 1 hour but if combined with HSR could just make it in little over 2 hours from Bakersfield.


The real roadblock in the USA to the incremental approach is that the existing railroad infrastructure is largely privately owned. You really won't get UP to agree to anything above 90 or to the frequency you'd need. So the USA largely is stuck with an all or mediocre approach.


----------



## jamess (Feb 13, 2019)

bretton88 said:


> seat38a said:
> 
> 
> > Actually no. No system, except probably China, built their system 100% from the ground up. Even the latest TGV running in Morocco uses a combination of upgraded lines with it. If you read the history of KTX train in South Korea, they ran into money issues as well and had to cut back phase 1 to half its length and then upgrade the existing tracks. France's TGV and LGV speed were incrementally increased over time.
> ...


The state of California should have purchased a controlling stake in Union Pacific when the stock market crashed in 2009. They should have kept the company running normally, and simply adjusted the attitude towards passenger rail.

But evil socialism!


----------



## sttom (Feb 13, 2019)

Anderson said:


> Honestly, with prices like that, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a serious proposal to do something aggressive with the Capitol Corridor route (or the San Jose-Merced bit) and pay for it with major developments along the line.  I don't think it is hard to envision getting a serious "refugee" flow there.


I am actually working on a thing about improving rail travel in California in general, but if the reaction on Reddit is anything to go by, any improvement to the Capitol Corridor is met with "why improve it, it's adequate." Granted I was also talking for a Bay Area wide CalTrain system, but any improvement to rail is going to be confronted by "why, we have an ok system". People here tend to forget that Amtrak primarily isn't meant to be a half commuter system. So advocating for something more, you need to convince people why it's necessary. Or Reddit could just be a bit of a cesspool.


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 13, 2019)

jamess said:


> The state of California should have purchased a controlling stake in Union Pacific when the stock market crashed in 2009. They should have kept the company running normally, and simply adjusted the attitude towards passenger rail.
> But evil socialism!


The UP would still have been a really expensive acquisition in 2009 (supposedly about 80 billion then) The missed opportunity for California was when the SP offered to sell out to CA for 2 billion in the early 90s.


----------



## frequentflyer (Feb 14, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> &
> 
> HSR is still being fought tooth and nail by the landed gentry and by special interest groups that are well connected with deep pockets.  Right now CA is forced to work under an extraordinarily adversarial federal government that was not envisioned when this project was being planned and promoted.  This means reduced funding, more bureaucratic setbacks, and fewer options for resolving disputes and shortfalls.  In that context it's reasonable to pump the breaks now in order to keep things moving at a slower speed while you try to rework the process so it can hopefully survive long enough for prospects to improve further down the line.  For now the anti-rail side has largely won the current battle but the war itself is not yet over.  The real question is whether HSR can survive whatever 2020 brings.


No, the Progressive , and Democratic voting NIMBYs in NoCal and SoCal  are the reason this project will not be built..........Oh, the irony or hypocrisy.


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 14, 2019)

What specifically in the "Adversarial federal government" is being touted as why this project is being culled?

If there is a true will, California has the means without disturbing the Feds to bring this to fruition.  I mean, didn't they talk about having an economy so strong they could secede from the US and be one of the strongest economies in the world?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 14, 2019)

frequentflyer said:


> No, the Progressive , and Democratic voting NIMBYs in NoCal and SoCal  are the reason this project will not be built..........Oh, the irony or hypocrisy.


I've seen nothing to substantiate or corroborate your strictly partisan claims.



VentureForth said:


> What specifically in the "Adversarial federal government" is being touted as why this project is being culled?


There is no one single reason this project is being scaled back.  Originally much of the funding for HSR was expected to come from emissions taxes and credit licensing.  If there was a national or regional carbon market to join or coordinate with this may have panned out.  Unfortunately with an indifferent anti-science hand slapping EPA, a hyper-partisan mob logic Justice Department, and a slew of pro-business judges being nominated and appointed at the federal level these types of green economy revenue streams are losing their fundamental viability.  Regressive changes in federal tax law are another previously unexpected factor that is likely to curtail donor state infrastructure projects now and in the future.



VentureForth said:


> If there is a true will, California has the means without disturbing the Feds to bring this to fruition.  I mean, didn't they talk about having an economy so strong they could secede from the US and be one of the strongest economies in the world?


You seem to be confusing California with Texas.


----------



## chakk (Feb 14, 2019)

seat38a said:


> Like i've said it in the past, the only way to get money for anything is to combine it with something for cars out here. The whole Pacheco Pass tunnels need to be a car/rail tunnel to make it work. CAHSR has a better chance of getting money for it if they combine the two rail tunnels with car tunnels. Currently CA-133 is a slow winding road to get from Silicon Valley to San Joaquin Valley. Say charge a toll for cars to use it or something along that line to get the tunnels built. We have A LOT of cars and people and that can be leveraged if done correctly. Tolling what already exists is a taboo but new stuff is wide open.
> This is something Metro has figured out well in LA County. Every transit taxes that have passed have included road money. Widening of the 405 cost 2 billion and did absolutely nothing to relieve traffic but thats the cost to get rail.
> Tehachapi tunnels? Not sure if it would be advantagous for BNSF and UP to be allowed access to them. Not sure if a car tunnel would bring in enough revenue.


CA-133 is not the connecting route that anyone uses. Most folks driving from Silicon Valley to San Joaquin Valley take US101 (65 mph speed limit) south to Gilroy, then CA-152 (10 miles @ 50 mph, remainder @ 65 mph) to San Joaquin Valley. The 50 mph section is two lanes, with a passing lane on the one hill. The other roads are two (or more) lanes in each direction.

Max speed limit anywhere in California is 70 mph (only on some interstate highway sections). While other states in the west have long sections of 75 mph, and even 80 mph in some states (like Utah).


----------



## VentureForth (Feb 14, 2019)

Devil's Advocate said:


> You seem to be confusing California with Texas.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/calexit-plan-to-divorce-california-from-us-is-getting-a-second-chance.html


----------



## jis (Feb 14, 2019)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/high-speed-rail-could-still-230251676.html


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 14, 2019)

VentureForth said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/24/calexit-plan-to-divorce-california-from-us-is-getting-a-second-chance.html


Both California and Texas have _citizens_ who want to secede from the Union.  That is not being disputed and nearly every state has at least some people like that.  The primary difference is that Texas has a GOVERNMENT that actively PROMOTES the idea that ACTUAL secession is GENUINELY possible.  That myth is a bald faced lie.  This debate was put to rest generations ago.  Not even Texas can secede and even if we could we would simply be swallowed up by Mexico.  Which just goes to show how incredibly stupid this debate has become.  Please find another talking point that does not insult our intelligence.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 15, 2019)

I don't think secession would be the smartest move on their part (and opinion polling shows heavy opposition, to be fair).  However, I _do_ think there's a plausible scenario where _if_ California voted to leave (a big, implausible-at-present "if"), the Federal government would say "Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you".  NB that if California seceded tomorrow and the seats weren't redistributed until after the 2021 census (I think that would be a practical requirement), the GOP would get back control of the House.  I cannot see a Republican President going to war to stop _that_.

In theory, there was nothing stopping Lincoln from deciding to do the same in 1861.  Politically it would have been a disaster (if nothing else, keeping the capitol in DC wouldn't have been practical), but he could have thrown up his hands and said that preserving the Union against a group of states that wanted out _that_ badly wasn't worth the price.  Obviously, he didn't do that.


----------



## seat38a (Feb 15, 2019)

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-bullet-train-explanation-20190215-story.html

The only thing that has actually changed, is that Newsom is being honest about the financial situation of the project. As clarified, he is focusing the cash in hand on finishing up the IOS which there is money for instead of blowing hot air about tunnels that can't be built with the current financial situation.  So we may get the electrification and actual HSR trains running on the IOS.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 15, 2019)

Electrification of the IOS (as things stand) is a pointless and expensive boondoggle.  Not that the overall system shouldn't be electrified, but if you intend to use electrification there either you're going to need to do a "toaster pop" at the north end (probably adding 15-20 minutes back in since Amtrak can't figure out how to do locomotive swaps in a reliably timely manner), have a diesel at one end and an electric locomotive at the other (so now you're spending an extra umpteen million dollars on locomotives), or spring for dual-modes (cheaper but still expensive and has its own drawbacks).


----------



## jis (Feb 15, 2019)

There are these things called Class 800s in the UK [emoji57]

BTW just came across this:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-bullet-train-explanation-20190215-story.html


----------



## JRR (Feb 15, 2019)

jis said:


> There are these things called Class 800s in the UK [emoji57]
> BTW just came across this:
> 
> https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-bullet-train-explanation-20190215-story.html


I know you think you understand what you thought I said, but I am not sure that you realize that I did not mean what you heard.


----------



## seat38a (Feb 15, 2019)

jis said:


> There are these things called Class 800s in the UK
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It wasn't the media. I watched the state of the state live and I thought he was canceling as well. Lots of people who watched it thought it was getting canned.


----------



## leemell (Feb 15, 2019)

Actually., the Central Valley 119 miles has been extended by 52 miles to 171 miles from Bakersfield to Merced.  Here is what he said:  http://www.capradio.org/articles/2019/02/14/no-gavin-newsom-didnt-just-kill-californias-high-speed-rail-project/?fbclid=IwAR0YaIt6zhr-I3P2uGCzr7MJsn6LxY1DB70vS8UbAMQuIqtq7O_QM2iO1-0


----------



## sttom (Feb 15, 2019)

seat38a said:


> Like i've said it in the past, the only way to get money for anything is to combine it with something for cars out here. The whole Pacheco Pass tunnels need to be a car/rail tunnel to make it work. CAHSR has a better chance of getting money for it if they combine the two rail tunnels with car tunnels. Currently CA-133 is a slow winding road to get from Silicon Valley to San Joaquin Valley. Say charge a toll for cars to use it or something along that line to get the tunnels built. We have A LOT of cars and people and that can be leveraged if done correctly. Tolling what already exists is a taboo but new stuff is wide open.
> 
> This is something Metro has figured out well in LA County. Every transit taxes that have passed have included road money. Widening of the 405 cost 2 billion and did absolutely nothing to relieve traffic but thats the cost to get rail.
> 
> Tehachapi tunnels? Not sure if it would be advantagous for BNSF and UP to be allowed access to them. Not sure if a car tunnel would bring in enough revenue.


Putting money into highway funding would be putting good money after bad. Maybe having a secondary corridor for UP next to/on a similar corridor would make some sense. But highways induce demand and any added capacity of interstating 133 would get eaten up fairly quickly or never be beyond what is currently needed. Also, I don't put it past the Bay Area/NorCal doing Pacheco Pass with a local bond measure. The second Transbay tube and subsequent electrification will happen that way eventually. Nor Cal residents are a bit more transit friendly than SoCal. You didn't need to promise us more highways when BART was built, at least beyond what was planned.


----------



## seat38a (Feb 15, 2019)

leemell said:


> Actually., the Central Valley 119 miles has been extended by 52 miles to 171 miles from Bakersfield to Merced.  Here is what he said:  http://www.capradio.org/articles/2019/02/14/no-gavin-newsom-didnt-just-kill-californias-high-speed-rail-project/?fbclid=IwAR0YaIt6zhr-I3P2uGCzr7MJsn6LxY1DB70vS8UbAMQuIqtq7O_QM2iO1-0


I'm wondering if it would be better to just make phase 1 all the way to Sacramento. Merced to Sacramento is currently Phase 2. Right now, Bakersfield to Sacramento is about 5.5 hours on the San Joaquin and 1.5 hours from Sacramento to Emeryville on the Capitol Corridor. If the travel time to Sacramento is halved, and then use the train on upgraded tracks between Sacramento to Emeryville. The State already maintains that stretch of track and plans to upgrade its speed anyways in the future. In terms of distance, it's the the most direct way, but might be the easiest way. So say someone can get from Bakersfield to Emeryville in 3+ hours and maybe even get to SF directly if the second trans bay tube opens. This roundabout would still be faster and probably up and running quicker than the current plans.


----------



## seat38a (Feb 15, 2019)

sttom said:


> Putting money into highway funding would be putting good money after bad. Maybe having a secondary corridor for UP next to/on a similar corridor would make some sense. But highways induce demand and any added capacity of interstating 133 would get eaten up fairly quickly or never be beyond what is currently needed. Also, I don't put it past the Bay Area/NorCal doing Pacheco Pass with a local bond measure. The second Transbay tube and subsequent electrification will happen that way eventually. Nor Cal residents are a bit more transit friendly than SoCal. You didn't need to promise us more highways when BART was built, at least beyond what was planned.


Politics isn't always about what makes sense, its about what you can give and take AKA "compromise" to accomplish the bigger picture. Even the gas tax increase with a super majority in the legislature involved a crap load of side deals to get it passed. It's no coincidence that ever since the moratorium on earmarks, nothing gets done.


----------



## sttom (Feb 15, 2019)

seat38a said:


> Politics isn't always about what makes sense, its about what you can give and take AKA "compromise" to accomplish the bigger picture. Even the gas tax increase with a super majority in the legislature involved a crap load of side deals to get it passed. It's no coincidence that ever since the moratorium on earmarks, nothing gets done.


Pork projects are more about greed and re-election prospects than it is about "not making sense". $1 million for a library in Coalinga does nothing for me, but it's at least marginally helpful to someone even if it's a re-election ploy. A new highway would defeat the point of building rail. Not to mention a toll road generally can't use Federal funding to build toll roads cause that would make people drive less. As a rail line and high speed line could at least attract private money that would get around Congress and their stupidity.


----------



## neroden (Feb 15, 2019)

There's an interesting reason to finish Merced-Bakersfield first; it's where *all* the opposition is.  Popular support for the rest of the route is massive.  The NIMBY supply is much smaller.

This is another delay, but I expect the Tehachapi tunnel to be built next (despite all chattering to the contrary).  There are a lot of interests which want that.


----------



## frequentflyer (Feb 16, 2019)

neroden said:


> There's an interesting reason to finish Merced-Bakersfield first; it's where *all* the opposition is.  Popular support for the rest of the route is massive.  The NIMBY supply is much smaller.
> 
> This is another delay, but I expect the Tehachapi tunnel to be built next (despite all chattering to the contrary).  There are a lot of interests which want that.


I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or sincere. If that was true then construction would have started in San Fran or SoCal already.


----------



## Anderson (Feb 16, 2019)

frequentflyer said:


> I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or sincere. If that was true then construction would have started in San Fran or SoCal already.


Well, in a sense Caltrain electrification _is_ part of this project in at least some form, so that's there.  On the LA end, there's been some study work on the Burbank-to-Palmdale segment, but that's also cost-heavy and engineering-heavy.  Burbank to Union Station _could_ be done, but I think the work there would have relatively little independent utility until you start ramping up frequencies.

Edit: And, of course, there's the fact that the federal money landed where it did...


----------



## bretton88 (Feb 16, 2019)

neroden said:


> There's an interesting reason to finish Merced-Bakersfield first; it's where *all* the opposition is.  Popular support for the rest of the route is massive.  The NIMBY supply is much smaller.
> 
> This is another delay, but I expect the Tehachapi tunnel to be built next (despite all chattering to the contrary).  There are a lot of interests which want that.


Most people will tell you it's the other way around. While there's popular support in those cities, there's also much more money and many more pain points. So while the NIMBY supply may be smaller, they are better armed and financed. Caltrain faced several lawsuits over their electrification program, one was just over the cutting of a single tree.


----------



## jis (Feb 16, 2019)

It would be interesting to see whether there is a lawsuit over cutting of a single branch of a root of a tree in digging a tunnel. I wouldn't put it past the list of possibilities given some the crap that we saw thrown at Brightline, even when they were already running trains on a right of way.


----------



## jis (Feb 17, 2019)

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2019/02/13/editorial-california-high-speed-rail-is-still-on/


----------



## Anderson (Feb 17, 2019)

jis said:


> It would be interesting to see whether there is a lawsuit over cutting of a single branch of a root of a tree in digging a tunnel. I wouldn't put it past the list of possibilities given some the crap that we saw thrown at Brightline, even when they were already running trains on a right of way.


I _really_ wish there were an anti-NIMBY equivalent of the anti-SLAPP rules various jurisdictions have (i.e. a vexatious/frivilous case results in either having to pay opposing counsel's costs and/or sanctions against the plaintiff and their counsel).


----------



## seat38a (Feb 18, 2019)

Why can't this project do what the French did for many of their latest LGV construction such as the LGV SEA. Build it and for 40-50 years they charge a toll to use the rails. In theory if they builder opened up the tracks to multiple train operators and auction off slots. Even the 25N HSR project in Belgium is doing the same thing.


----------



## daybeers (Feb 20, 2019)

So does anyone actually know what's going to happen with this severely mismanaged project?


----------



## Anderson (Feb 20, 2019)

frequentflyer said:


> I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or sincere. If that was true then construction would have started in San Fran or SoCal already.


Well, in a sense Caltrain electrification _is_ part of this project in at least some form, so that's there.  On the LA end, there's been some study work on the Burbank-to-Palmdale segment, but that's also cost-heavy and engineering-heavy.  Burbank to Union Station _could_ be done, but I think the work there would have relatively little independent utility until you start ramping up through frequencies.

As to the current situation with the project...I think it's now going into the hands of the lawyers.


----------



## GBNorman (Feb 20, 2019)

CBS Radio News is reporting as I write that the Trump administration will seek to "claw back" Federal funds that have been appropriated and even spent on CAHSR.

It is speculated that this action is "retribution" against CA for being one of the States seeking to enjoin the Administration from their "National Emergency" spending.

Here's more from Bloomberg:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-02-19/u-s-cancels-929-million-for-california-high-speed-rail-project


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 20, 2019)

GBNorman said:


> CBS Radio News is reporting as I write that the Trump administration will seek to "claw back" Federal funds that have been appropriated and even spent on CAHSR.
> 
> It is speculated that this action is "retribution" against CA for being one of the States seeking to enjoin the Administration from their "National Emergency" spending.
> 
> ...


So classy and mature. :angry:


----------



## Bob Dylan (Feb 20, 2019)

I'm gonna take my ball and go home cause yall are treating me so unfair!"

Wah!!!!


----------



## me_little_me (Feb 21, 2019)

Bob Dylan said:


> I'm gonna take my ball and go home cause yall are treating me so unfair!"
> 
> Wah!!!!


This is nothing new in politics. I remember back hen Kennedy was president. He closed the Brooklyn Navy Yard and expanded the Boston Navy Yard to do Brooklyn's work when he could have closed Boston and used the extra capacity of Brooklyn to do Boston's work without any big expenditures.

When Nixon took over, he closed the Boston Navy Yard.

Tit for tat. That's what happens when the money is not yours but you can spend it as you like. You reward your friends (or buy new ones) and punish your enemies.


----------



## neroden (Feb 23, 2019)

California has stated that they're not giving any of the money back, that they're in compliance with the federal rules, and that they're going to sue the FRA for illegally attempting to take the money back.

I'm pretty sure (a) this drags on until Trump is thrown out of office (probably in 2020), and (b) California keeps all the money.


----------



## keelhauled (May 16, 2019)

The FRA has confirmed that it has terminated $928.6 million in federal funding, which will now be made available to other rail projects. California says it will go to court to attempt to overturn the decision. The agency is also considering ways to retrieve $2.5 billion that it has already provided to CA, and which the state has already spent.


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 16, 2019)

keelhauled said:


> The FRA has confirmed that it has terminated $928.6 million in federal funding, which will now be made available to other rail projects. California says it will go to court to attempt to overturn the decision. The agency is also considering ways to retrieve $2.5 billion that it has already provided to CA, and which the state has already spent.


AKA " Indian Giver!"


----------



## cirdan (May 17, 2019)

keelhauled said:


> The FRA has confirmed that it has terminated $928.6 million in federal funding, which *will now be made available to other rail projects*. California says it will go to court to attempt to overturn the decision. The agency is also considering ways to retrieve $2.5 billion that it has already provided to CA, and which the state has already spent.



It would be interesting to know what other rail projects out there would be eligible for this money. Maybe if this whole affair kick starts a new swathe of rail construction projects, high-speed or otherwise, it wouldn't be all bad.


----------



## Ziv (May 17, 2019)

How much would it cost to install a catenary system from DC to Richmond? I imagine there would be a need to build an additional track for much of the route, so it is probably a pipe dream. 
What part of Amtrak system would benefit the most/deliver the most improved trip times from $900Mn or less? I haven't a clue, but I wouldn't compete with the existing efforts in CA, TX or FL, so either enhance DC-NY or CHI-CIN or CHI-STL?


----------



## Blackwolf (May 17, 2019)

Since this is going to court, the withdrawn money isn't going to be awarded anywhere else any time soon. They'll have to sideline it until a long-drawn-out legal challenge is processed. And I'm rather confident that the FRA is going to be compelled to re-award it to CA.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 17, 2019)

cirdan said:


> It would be interesting to know what other rail projects out there would be eligible for this money. Maybe if this whole affair kick starts a new swathe of rail construction projects, high-speed or otherwise, it wouldn't be all bad.



As already mentioned this money will probably be locked in a protracted court battle while the original value is slowly eroded by inflation. There is no plausible situation in which the FRA didn't already know this when they chose to recall it.


----------



## Ziv (May 18, 2019)

I asked earlier how much it would cost to electrify the DC to Richmond route, and found some older info (from 2006) about how much it would cost to add another track from DC to Richmond, plus how much it would cost to electrify said track. The VA Dept of Rail estimated that building the third track from DC to Richmond would cost approximately $684Mn (plus utility work), and electrifying/building the catenary system would cost an additional $953Mn. These costs were estimates from 2006 and the expected inflation rate of the cost is 3.12% ( which makes the $684Mn a cool $1Bn in todays money) and the cost of the DC Long Bridge is not included. The study suggests that there is sufficient room in the existing right of way for the majority of the route, and that less than 1 acre of land would need to be purchased.
I apologize for the older doc if there is a newer one in circulation. But if the CA $900Mn doesn't end up in litigation purgatory, it would be almost enough to build the third track to Richmond, if the Feds and Virginia could find funds to cover the catenary system. That is a rather big "if"... 
But it would be cool to have a 125 mph (maybe 160 mph for part of it?) option for most of the route from Richmond to DC. Stretch a few of the soon to be new Acela II routes all the way to Richmond! That's the ticket. A pipe dream?

http://www.dc2rvarail.com/files/321...to_Richmond_Third_Track_Feasibility_Study.pdf


----------

