California High Speed Rail Thread

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

My guess is because Phase II is many years after Phase I?

And Apple Valley to Palmdale was already in the planning stages, it was talked about on page 211 (High Desert Corridor): https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=180558&page=211

Ah ok thanks for the link! I must've missed that conversation. Looks like they do anticipate most of the ridership to be generated from folks coming from Rancho Cucamonga (4.6 million) vs Palmdale (1.1 million).

If we consider that Brightline West is already under construction, and if the goal is for a one seat ride from Union Station to Las Vegas, it does seem like the quickest and easiest path to completing this objective would be to electrify the Metrolink San Bernardino Line and interline it with Brightline West. Especially since we don't know how long it'll take to build the CAHSR LA to Palmdale segment, which is occurring after the Merced to SJ segment anyway.

[bzcat]

Originally Posted by homebucket

^



Why not connect it to Phase II of CAHSR (the LA to SD route) since it'll be swinging through ONT? The additional track connecting from the Rancho Cucamonga Brightline West station to wherever the CAHSR ONT station will be shouldn't be more than 4-6 miles in length, far shorter than this proposed 54 mile route. Or really, the most simple solution, interline Brightline with the existing Metrolink San Bernardino Line, if the ultimate goal is to provide direct service between Union Station and Las Vegas.

That may still happen in the future but you have to start somewhere.

Here are the facts:

1. CAHSR has approved EIR now from Palmdale to Union Station. Construction on this segment will start relatively soon (land acquisition right now). There is no EIR from Union Station to San Diego (only preliminary analysis) and no construction will start at least for another 10-15 years. The run-thru tracks at Union Station have to be in place first anyway and that project is taking forever to start construction.

2. High Desert Corridor is starting EIR stage so it will be ready for construction by the time CAHSR is building the Palmdale to LA segment so timing wise, it will happen way sooner than hypothetic Rancho Cucamonga to Ontario connection.

3. High Desert Corridor has some funding from the cancelled highway project.

4. Metrolink has refused to even consider simple electrification (they are pursing hydrogen toy train idea) so interlining with San Bernardino line is a pipedream. The only interlining opportunity in the near future is with CAHSR via Palmdale.

5. Metrolink will need to be dragged kicking and screaming into electrification once CAHSR does its EIR for the LA to SD segment. And it is no guarantee that it will select the alignment that goes to Ontario. If Metrolink won't electrify, maybe CAHSR will opt to build its own tracks like it is doing from Palmdale to Burbank.

[TowerDude]

I think CAHSR should be the one operating on the High Desert Corridor not Brightline West.

Or at the very least there should be an overlap on service with CAHSR trains terminating at Victor Valley and Brightline trains terminating at Palmdale.

The eventual system should be that all high speed train trips to Vegas from San Diego would go through Rancho Cucamonga, and all others would go through LA Union Station to Rancho and on to Vegas ... while all trips from Northern and Central California to Las Vegas would use the High Desert Corridor connector.

I also still think Amtrak should be beefing up their own LA to Vegas routes.

[Busy Bee]

Well unless Biden gets a big funding check out before leaving office you can add at least 4 more years to this timeline.

[MAC123]

Expect zero federal funding for at least half a decade, besides what's left from the previous administration if that's not immediately cut.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by TowerDude

while all trips from Northern and Central California to Las Vegas would use the High Desert Corridor connector.

Yeah, this. The High Desert connector is to link the Bay Area and Sac with Vegas, without entering the LA basin.

Connecting CA cities to each other is obviously a higher priority than connecting to a city in Nevada, which is why High Desert wasn't included in the Prop 1A system. The original plan was also to build High Desert as a combined freeway and HSR line, but everyone knows the freeway would just become a sprawl monster.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Well unless Biden gets a big funding check out before leaving office you can add at least 4 more years to this timeline.

Yup, which adds to the flames for "it won't get built!" folks...like, maybe it could if funding isn't cut every other 4 to 8 years? The good thing is at least Brightline will be built to the Nevada border, but it is gonna have to stop since it can't enter CA.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Yup, which adds to the flames for "it won't get built!" folks...like, maybe it could if funding isn't cut every other 4 to 8 years? The good thing is at least Brightline will be built to the Nevada border, but it is gonna have to stop since it can't enter CA.

I don't think that's true. Brightline will build from Vegas to Victorville/Apple Valley using the $6.5B in Federal, CA state, and private funds, starting in spring 2025.

The extension to Rancho will take longer and is currently unfunded.

https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/news/...california-by-2028-olympics/75435315007/

[hughfb3]

All of the literature for the past few years says it will be built to Rancho in one phase. Initially XpressWest who was planning this project for almost 20 years was going to have it terminate in Victor Valley, but they couldn’t find the financing as no one would fund a train terminating, even temporarily in Victor Valley. After Brightline obtained this project from XpressWest that’s when the Rancho plan came and the project was then deemed palatable to investors. It’s Rancho or bust for this one.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by ardecila

I don't think that's true. Brightline will build from Vegas to Victorville/Apple Valley using the $6.5B in Federal, CA state, and private funds, starting in spring 2025.

The extension to Rancho will take longer and is currently unfunded.

https://www.vvdailypress.com/story/news/...california-by-2028-olympics/75435315007/

That's my hope, but I do not trust the administration with their track record () of blocking/defunding/stalling California rail.

[202_Cyclist]

Rabid fascist animal.

https://bsky.app/profile/parismarx.com/post/3lc7h6vtjns27

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

Rabid fascist animal.

https://bsky.app/profile/parismarx.com/post/3lc7h6vtjns27

Meanwhile, the project was denied additional state funding during years of gigantic budget surpluses because of Newsom's ambitions.

[Phoenix22]

this will be done in 2100, ridiculous California

[numble]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Meanwhile, the project was denied additional state funding during years of gigantic budget surpluses because of Newsom's ambitions.

No member of the legislature proposed any budget amendments to provide additional funding to CA HSR during the surplus years, and it was not in the Assembly or Senate's budget proposals on how to spend the surplus, although they released $4 billion in bond funding for the project during those years.

The project receives about $900m every year from the state from cap-and-trade auction revenue. There is kind of an implicit deal that they will keep that level of funding in perpetuity if HSR does not try to take from other parts of the budget. For example, HSR never applies for funding under the various state grant programs that were created following the gas tax and car registration inflation-adjusted hikes from SB1, while that money has gone to fund lots of transit capital projects for the urban transit agencies in the state.

There is always a risk that revisiting state funding for HSR could lead to less state funding for HSR, as urban transit agencies could be interested in the HSR's cap-and-trade revenue to fund their shortfalls.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by numble

No member of the legislature proposed any budget amendments to provide additional funding to CA HSR during the surplus years, and it was not in the Assembly or Senate's budget proposals on how to spend the surplus, although they released $4 billion in bond funding for the project during those years.

The project receives about $900m every year from the state from cap-and-trade auction revenue. There is kind of an implicit deal that they will keep that level of funding in perpetuity if HSR does not try to take from other parts of the budget. For example, HSR never applies for funding under the various state grant programs that were created following the gas tax and car registration inflation-adjusted hikes from SB1, while that money has gone to fund lots of transit capital projects for the urban transit agencies in the state.

There is always a risk that revisiting state funding for HSR could lead to less state funding for HSR, as urban transit agencies could be interested in the HSR's cap-and-trade revenue to fund their shortfalls.

All of this is true, but I think jmecklenborg's implication was that if Newsom really wanted to push the project forward, he would have proposed additional money for it in his budget during the few years where there were $50B-$100B surpluses. Yes, the legislature needs to pass a budget, and maybe there would have been resistance, but it was clearly not something he cared much about.

Democrats have had super majorities in both chambers and the governor's mansion for many years and this project has not made much progress. While it's disappointing to see Elon Musk coming after the project (again), I think jmecklenborg's point is that when it comes down to it, California Democrats only have themselves to blame for the lack of progress.

[Busy Bee]

In defense of California's lack of a robust funding commitment, this HSR program, being the first of its kind in the nation and seemingly the model to hold up for similar transformative corridor aspirations around the US, is exactly the kind of infrastructure paradigm shift the federal government should be funding with a 90/10 split. I firmly believe had it been pitched in another more confident and optimistic era (1950s-1970s) this would have already been a done deal.

[Crawford]

IMO it makes sense to hunker down for four painful years, hope you-know-who is too distracted by other shiny things to bother with attacks on high profile transit initiatives, and hope 2028 gifts us a pro-transit POTUS like Whitmer, Shapiro, Newsom or Buttigieg.

The "good" thing is that we're likely to enter peak chaos, and CAHSR likely won't be in the national spotlight.

I've been criticized on this thread for my views, but I'm still extremely worried about Phase I. I have a hard time believing it will have decent ridership, even though I believe the full buildout would be very successful. If Phase I disappoints under a right-wing Washington, there would be blowback.

[Bonsai Tree]

Do you mean the IOS? Yeah I fully believe it will be a resounding failure. Phase 1 will be successful imo (full build out SF to LA/Anaheim).

American High Speed Rail will be most competitive against flying. The US isn't Europe. Most people like driving and are ok with it for long distances. Flying has become a huge pain in the a**. I can easily see people choosing to take the train over flying. Is there big flight demand between Merced and Bakersfield? No.

Ridership will not be where people want it to be- nor nearly enough to justify the cost. I'm just hoping the "wow" factor of the whole experience will be enough to convince politicians to continue it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

In defense of California's lack of a robust funding commitment, this HSR program, being the first of its kind in the nation and seemingly the model to hold up for similar transformative corridor aspirations around the US, is exactly the kind of infrastructure paradigm shift the federal government should be funding with a 90/10 split. I firmly believe had it been pitched in another more confident and optimistic era (1950s-1970s) this would have already been a done deal.

Maybe, maybe not?
Do you know what Ike had to do to get funding for his National Defense and Interstate Highway System?
The Congress demanded a dedicated tax.
1932
A temporary 1-cent-a-gallon federal tax is imposed. It is not dedicated to building roads but rather to deficit reduction in the midst of the Great Depression. It is scheduled to expire in 1934.
1933
Congress votes to extend the tax and increase the rate to 1.5 cents a gallon.
1934
When Prohibition ends (so the feds can again tax booze), the gas tax falls back to 1 cent a gallon, where it stays until 1940.
1940
In anticipation of World War II, the tax rate is hiked to 1.5 cents a gallon through June 1945. Later, it is made permanent at that level.
1951
To help pay for the Korean War, Congress boosts the gas tax to 2 cents a gallon.
1956
Congress creates the Highway Trust Fund, increases the federal gas tax to 3 cents a gallon and dedicates 100% of the revenue to the Trust Fund to help pay for the interstate highway system.
1959
Congress pushes the tax to 4 cents a gallon.
1983
Lawmakers add a nickel a gallon, setting the rate at 9 cents a gallon, with 1 cent dedicated to mass transit projects.
1990
An additional 5 cents a gallon is added, bringing the tax to 14 cents a gallon. Half of the increase is dedicated to highways, the other 2.5 cents aimed at deficit reduction (the same goal as the original tax in 1932).
1993
Congress adds 4.3 cents a gallon to the gasoline tax, with the added revenue dedicated to deficit reduction. With the addition of the 0.1-cent-a-gallon levy to fund the leaking underground storage tank trust fund the federal tax rose to 18.4 cents a gallon. That’s where it stands today. Since 1997, the full federal gasoline tax has gone to the Highway Trust Fund.

Not one penny of Federal gas taxes were dedicated to highways until 1956, at 3 cents per gallon, all dedicated to the Highway Trust Fund. The gas tax before was at 2 cents per gallon, which was supposedly paying for the Korean War even though the armistice was signed in 1953.
The 1990 gas tax rise was a significant issue during the 1990 Presidential election, GHWB "Read my lips, no new taxes". Clinton won on GHWB breaking a promise to not raise taxes. 3 years later, Clinton raised the gas taxes again being hypercritical doing the same thing.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that Highway Trust Fund tax revenue will total $43 billion in fiscal year 2023. Revenue from the federal excise tax on gasoline ($25.0 billion) and diesel fuel ($10.8 billion) accounts for 83 percent of the total. The remaining trust fund tax revenue comes from a sales tax on tractors and heavy trucks, an excise tax on tires for heavy vehicles, and an annual use tax on those vehicles. In addition to dedicated tax revenue, the trust fund receives a small amount of interest on trust fund reserves.
Before 2008, highway tax revenue dedicated to the trust fund was sufficient to pay for outlays from the fund, but that has not been true in recent years. Since 2008, Congress has transferred general revenues to the fund on numerous occasions including $118 billion in the Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act of 2021.
Those transfers will enable the trust fund to meet spending obligations through 2027, but projected shortfalls will appear again by the end of 2028. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, by 2033, outlays from the Highway Trust Fund will exceed trust fund reserves by a cumulative $181 billion for the highway account and by $60 billion for the mass transit account, even if expiring trust funds taxes are extended (CBO 2023).

A reckoning is coming soon, not enouogh money for highways of trains. Where oh where will the money come from?

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO If Phase I disappoints under a right-wing Washington, there would be blowback.

I disagree. This will succeed or fail based upon decisions made in the California Capitol to include whether to proceed with phase II.