California High Speed Rail Thread

[Sun Belt]

Newsome: spoke the truth today. It's a ridiculously expensive boondoggle that nobody would ever pay for to use.

Spend that money within our cities!

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ITB495

If this high speed rail project doesn't connect to either San Francisco or Los Angeles and becomes a train to nowhere, it will epitomize the remarkable decline of the United States. And, really, nothing short of that.

Many other countries around the globe, even some deemed "developing," are building or expanding high speed rail systems. And, we, the United States of America, supposedly the grandest, wealthiest and most powerful of all, can't manage to build a single, new high speed rail line. Frankly, I'm appalled and disgusted. The whole world is watching.

Wait, how does a California problem represent the entire United States? The government of Alabama had nothing to do with the issues California was having with this thing.

[ITB495]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Newsome: spoke the truth today. It's a ridiculously expensive boondoggle that nobody would ever pay for to use.

Sadly, almost every new public-financed project infrastructure in the United States, aside from roads and bridges, is nowadays deemed a boondoogle. Boston's Big Dig, for example. It's a simple-minded mindset that neglects to look forward 50 years or more. In 2069, California won't be the same state it is today.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Spend that money within our cities!

May I ask how so?

[ITB495]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Wait, how does a California problem represent the entire United States? The government of Alabama had nothing to do with the issues California was having with this thing.

Because California high speed was supposed to be the forerunner of a high speed rail system in the United States. And let's not forget the billions forked over by the federal government to build it.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ITB495

Because California high speed was supposed to be the forerunner of a high speed rail system in the United States. And let's not forget the billions forked over by the federal government to build it.

True. But I think it just shows the negatives of California though. It does hurt HSR across the nation now(which I predicted, btw), as politicians can always point to this and say SEE! But at the end of the day, other places may do this and do it right, regardless of what California did.

[SLO]

Seems like the only way this thing worked was big cities first. LA-SD, LA to Vegas, SF-Sacramento, LA-SF. I have a feeling LA-Vegas would be profitable

[Will O' Wisp]

I'm honestly not surprised by this at all. Back in 2008 California voters agreed to put down $10 billion dollars of a $70+ billion dollar HSR system, then expected the rest to just show up. No public works project since the interstate highway system has gotten that level of matching funds. But if you'd flat out told voters that they'd need to pay for most or all of the full price tag Prop 1A wouldn't have passed

This doesn't really prove much, other than perhaps that voters love to support infrastructure/services but hate it when you raise taxes to fund them. American voters in particular have a tenancy to do this. Hardly a revelation, any politician could've told you that in 1808 much less 2008. The only real difference between California and the more conservative states is that Californians keep taxes the same while expecting services to get better, and conservative states cut taxes while expecting services not to get worse.

Newsom's less than full throated support of the project is just him reading the political winds. There isn't the political will to write CAHSR a blank check. But the final word hasn't been spoken on this, support for HSR is extremely high in the bay area and politicians are extremely adverse to looking like they can't follow through on things. Phase II extensions to Sacramento and San Diego are pretty well of the table at this point, but a connection to SF isn't out of the question yet.

Shame about how this will throw a blanket on HSR projects in the rest of the US, even though CAHSR's issues have nothing to do with the technology itself. But lets be honest, HSR wasn't really going anywhere fast in the US beforehand so this is just a return to the norm.

Oh, and since people keep bringing up Texas HSR know that although it avoids some of CAHSR's problems the ones it does face are just as big. Funding is in a lot of ways even more tenuous than CAHSR's, major infrastructure projects have usually lost money historically and investors know this. That's why they're almost always funded by governments, even if this process is less efficient, since governments generally have no expectations of profit. And freedom loving Texas is going to have to wrestle with the concept of giving a private company eminent domain rights, and if forcing property owners to surrender their homes in the name of economic development is really any different if it's to a faceless corporation instead of a faceless government agency.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ITB495

If this high speed rail project doesn't connect to either San Francisco or Los Angeles and becomes a train to nowhere, it will epitomize the remarkable decline of the United States. And, really, nothing short of that.

This is likely just a political stunt to scuttle the Pacheco Pass/San Jose route and re-study and fund an approach to San Francisco via the Altamont Pass.

As I observed and posted here many moons ago, the "problem" with the Pacheco Pass route was that San Jose was going to enjoy much better service than San Francisco. 12 trains per hour per direction in San Jose as compared to just 4 for San Francisco.

I'd look for an alternative to the Dumbarton Bridge alignment and instead something that follows 580 and reaches the Transbay Terminal under the bay from the east.

An approach to the terminal from the opposite direction would enable the following:

1. Piggy-back second BART bay crossing with HSR
2. Keep Caltrain out of Transbay, meaning HSR gets all six platforms
3. Room for tail tracks where the tunnel south to 4th & King is planned
4. Alternatively, build said tunnel and operate Transbay as a thru-station, with HSR trains turned on non-revenue track at what is now 4th & King + Caltrains terminates somewhere in the East Bay

[ardecila]

I never got the criticism for Pacheco. Why should San Jose and the majority of Silicon Valley not enjoy access to the HSR system as California's biggest economic engine? The VTA light rail system is surprisingly extensive and BART is coming, so HSR in San Jose would have fairly strong local transit feeding it.

I get how Altamont might be easier to construct with more gentle terrain, but if SJ (and assorted Silicon Valley suburbs) were not part of the Bay Area and stood on their own there would be no excuse for bypassing it.

The real issue for me at least was the weird detour to Palmdale, an obvious 35-mile detour kludge to serve a small city at the expense of the state's city dwellers. A Palmdale detour was only somewhat justifiable because it sets the stage for a Las Vegas connection, but I'd rather see that happen at Cajon Pass.

[chrisvfr800i]

I hereby suggest moving this discussion to "Far Fetched Civil Projects."

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by ITB495

May I ask how so?

I would rather see $100 billion spent on local rail projects within our severely congested cities.

[Car(e)-Free LA]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I never got the criticism for Pacheco. Why should San Jose and the majority of Silicon Valley not enjoy access to the HSR system as California's biggest economic engine? The VTA light rail system is surprisingly extensive and BART is coming, so HSR in San Jose would have fairly strong local transit feeding it.

I get how Altamont might be easier to construct with more gentle terrain, but if SJ (and assorted Silicon Valley suburbs) were not part of the Bay Area and stood on their own there would be no excuse for bypassing it.

But Livermore, Freemont and Redwood City can serve the area just as well, plus they add in better access to Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. DTSJ isn't a big enough node on its own to warrant a HSR diversion. Besides, Altamont allows for 120 MPH regional rail from Stockton/Modesto-Tracy-Livermore/Pleasanton-Fremont-RWC/DTSJ, which arguably brings more benefits to the area than not having to take BART to Freemont HSR.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I never got the criticism for Pacheco. Why should San Jose and the majority of Silicon Valley not enjoy access to the HSR system as California's biggest economic engine? The VTA light rail system is surprisingly extensive and BART is coming, so HSR in San Jose would have fairly strong local transit feeding it.

I get how Altamont might be easier to construct with more gentle terrain, but if SJ (and assorted Silicon Valley suburbs) were not part of the Bay Area and stood on their own there would be no excuse for bypassing it.

The real issue for me at least was the weird detour to Palmdale, an obvious 35-mile detour kludge to serve a small city at the expense of the state's city dwellers. A Palmdale detour was only somewhat justifiable because it sets the stage for a Las Vegas connection, but I'd rather see that happen at Cajon Pass.

We might see a complete reversal to the original Schwarzernegger-era plan, sans the Central Valley, which is already set-in-stone.

We also might see the HSR approach to SF built parallel to the 101 instead of the blended Caltrains service.

If you want to go full-on conspiracy theory, the current plan is definitely feasible, but it's almost as-if it was designed by LA interests who wanted HSR to LA first by making the SF service level poor. Then SF interests retaliated with the horse-spooking BS north of Burbank to force most of 20 miles between the airport and Palmdale underground.

[jamesinclair]

Lots of words wasted on fake news.

Anyone who has actually been following the project knows that nothing has changed

He simply reiterated what the last business plan said. Focus on finishing the IOS, look for fed funding for the rest

[mt_climber13]

Originally Posted by chrisvfr800i

I hereby suggest moving this discussion to "Far Fetched Civil Projects."

Why? It’s still being built. Did you not read the articles? People are way overblowing this. I haven’t seen this many drama queens since Ru Paul Drag Race All Stars.

[jtown,man]

The average person will support transportation if they think one, or a combination of the following things(in no particular order):

1. The transporation plan will reduce traffic
2. The plan will significally reduce pollution
3. The plan will be met with strong budget constraints and oversight
4. The plan will be used by their friends/co workers
5. The plan will actually either aid their commute by them using it or reducing traffic or simply giving them an option they didn't have before
6. The plan will help the poor move around quicker and cheaper
7. The plan will encourage economic growth
8. The plan will be a significant time saver

1. CHSR will not do this. Its competition was with planes, not cars.
2. CHSR would meet this to some extent.
3. CHSR did not and has shown it cannot be done responsibly.
4. CHSR has not shown that this would be true, even if this is rather vague on my part, which I admit.
5. CHSR would not help anyones commute to work. No one would use this for that purpose.
6. CHSR does not meet these criteria at all. Poor people don't travel city to city often and if they do it will be by car or bus.
7. CHSR could do this, but I think its impacts would be so dissipated that it could be overlooked. Compare this to say the local economic impact of a LR line, its much harder for the taxpayer to grasp at its value. 40 million people in a large state or say 4 million in a large city, which one do you think would be easier to show the economic growth brought on by a transport project? Which would you think would actually impact someone's life more as for an economic impact?
8. Barely.

Note, this is obviously my opinion and I based it on what I personally think, and what I think the average voter thinks.

[ozone]

The concept was flawed from the beginning. They basically ignored the actual travel patterns in favor of an influencer-driven model to connect LA to Silicon Valley. The distance and physical barriers to make that happen escalated the costs beyond it's justification. Opinions which are only given to bolster one's political/worldview aren't worth reading. IMO a better plan would be to first create two HSR lines, one connecting San Diego, Orange County and Los Angeles in the south, and the other connecting Sacramento, San Francisco and San Jose in the north.

[sammyg]

Is there any reason the high-speed trains couldn't switch onto the regular passenger tracks at Merced to go to Sacramento and Oakland at standard speeds? There are over 3 million people living between Merced and Bakersfield, increased speed to get them to major cities is still a major accomplishment.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by sammyg

Is there any reason the high-speed trains couldn't switch onto the regular passenger tracks at Merced to go to Sacramento and Oakland at standard speeds? There are over 3 million people living between Merced and Bakersfield, increased speed to get them to major cities is still a major accomplishment.

They could operate standard diesel passenger trains on the HSR tracks.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

They could operate standard diesel passenger trains on the HSR tracks.

What about Acela-level speeds?