California High Speed Rail Thread

[mr1138]

What really is remarkable is that this project has been on almost the same timeline as Denver's doomed FasTracks project, and if you took a soundbite from either side of this debate without context, you could literally swap it in from one transit project to the other.

"I'd be shocked if we don't all know that there is not enough money to finish FasTracks. And I think we need to stop even indicating that that's a possibility. We'll never build FasTracks. Shocker, right?” [said O’Keefe]

“This is a promise that we made to the voters. So I think that's not something we take lightly,” Little said. “I was part of a bill a few years ago to provide funding for FasTracks, and I'm very proud of that. So, I reject the idea and would like to dig in a little bit more about where he's coming from and why he actually said that.”

“It was promised. It was promised to me. I voted for it. I voted for it in 2004. I'm as mad as they are,” he said. “But it doesn't change the fact that we don't have enough money to build it. That's just a fact. And so, what we need to stop doing as an agency or a transit community is pretending like somehow there's a magic point when all these assets are built. We have a budget problem at RTD right now that exists even without FasTrack.”

The dollar values under discussion are orders of magnitude different ($5-$10 billion for Denver's commuter rail versus the $135 billion estimate for CHSR), but it's shocking how similar the conversation is. Turns out, you can't actually build the things that were promised when the cost has escalated or you otherwise just don't have the money. Shocking, I know - you can't pay contractors with IOUs.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by HusBy

The I-5 route is absolutely not sensible. It still would have major hurdles acquiring the land, would have added topography to contend with, and wouldn't serve anyone except for the metros at the end.

CAHSR should have no purpose but to connect LA to SF (or SoCal to Bay Area). It was supposed to compete with flights. It was not supposed to revitalize Bakersfield or wherever. Ludicrous mission creep and I'm not aware of any HSR built like this. Frankfurt-Cologne connects Frankfurt to Cologne, period. The Germans, French and Spanish build lines where the cities along the route are marginalized, by design. Few stops, and not integrated with smaller cities and existing infrastructure.

When this first phase opens, ridership is gonna be s---, and this will energize all the naysayers. It will be initially used as a train fan theme park ride, with heavier ridership on weekends. Not great when you're asking taxpayers for $100 billion or whatever and claiming it will cut plane/car trips.

[Busy Bee]

SF to LA is nearly 4 times the distance than is Frankfurt to Cologne. Hardly comparable Crawford.

If Frankfurt to Cologne was 640 km without serving a single intermediate city, well, that would never happen and you know that.

[38 Geary]

Having HSR go through smaller cities and towns is not unusual. The Japanese Shinkansen has many stations in smaller cities and towns, often served by local trains that stop at every station vs more regional train types with less stops (Kodama vs Hikari vs Nozomi).

It's not either/or, but rather, both. Likewise, CAHSR will feature both express, regional, and local service patterns once fully operational.

I'm of the opinion that the Central Valley alignment is superior to the 5, but I would say, out of the Phase 1 stations, only Fresno and Bakersfield are really needed. I don't think Madera or Kings/Tulare add much value. Moving to Phase 2, I think Stockton, Modesto, Merced, and Palmdale make a lot of sense.

Again, having intermediate stops in between major population centers... is not a foreign concept. Or maybe it is? Ie the Japan example

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

SF to LA is nearly 4 times the distance than is Frankfurt to Cologne. Hardly comparable Crawford.

If Frankfurt to Cologne was 640 km without serving a single intermediate city, well, that would never happen and you know that.

I used that example bc I've ridden it countless times, but distance makes no difference. Look at long-distance runs like Frankfurt-Hamburg or any of the Paris TGV runs. Frankfurt-Hamburg is prolly 1/3 underground and is just rammed through the hills.

It's not about serving intermediate cities, it's about focusing on the origin/destination cities. This is a battle with air routes. If there's a sizable city directly on the route, sure, but those are ancillary, regardless of distance, and usually served by some new build station in a cornfield (i.e. the route is the focus). They don't divert lines to serve intermediary cities.

[jmecklenborg]

I'm not sure why we have to go over this over and over again...the u/c Central Valley route added almost no expense or travel time to the more direct LA>SF route.

Why?

Because ALMOST ALL OF THE MONEY will be spent on the big tunnels and LA/SF approaches. The added cost to serve the Central Valley cities is like $5 billion in a $100 billion project. The added mileage adds 15 minutes to the express train travel time between DTLA>DTSF.

The problem is that Crawford and many others hold the Central Valley in high contempt. We've all been witness to the way that stereotypical California snobs look down at everyone who doesn't live on the coast. I mean, those people actually have to work.

[Busy Bee]

It's very important to mention that the CHSR business plan has a significant percentage of scheduled trains between SF and LA running nonstop (w/ SJ stop). This, in effect, does result in a direct route that bypasses small, less important population centers as you advocate, except it does it much more efficiently by using the same fixed plant that beneficially does serve those same smaller population centers. And any arguments against "the dog leg" and all that crap is a red herring as the CV alignment barely adds the amount of additional route miles that negatively affects the end-to-end time. Plus the safest and best tunnel route through the mountains has always been basin to Palmdale anyway.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The problem is that Crawford and many others hold the Central Valley in high contempt. We've all been witness to the way that stereotypical California snobs look down at everyone who doesn't live on the coast. I mean, those people actually have to work.

To be fair, I believe most Californians on this forum are actually in favor of the Central Valley alignment. The only ones that favor the 5 alignment aren't actually from here (Crawford and edale).

[38 Geary]

According to Google, here are some of the benefits of having HSR stations in smaller towns. And indeed there have been multiple scientific papers published that show the economic benefits of doing so.

The Shinkansen (bullet train) network in Japan includes stations in smaller towns for a combination of political, economic, and logistical reasons, despite some stations having low ridership. These stations often serve as crucial regional hubs that foster economic development in smaller cities and towns, encouraging tourism and local business growth.

Key reasons for Shinkansen stations in smaller towns include:
- Political Compromise (Seiji-sen): Local leaders lobby intensely for Shinkansen stops to ensure their communities are not left behind as major cities thrive. These stations, sometimes called "political lines" (seiji-sen), are often built as part of regional economic revitalization strategies, ensuring that rural areas receive, or maintain, access to modern infrastructure.
- Regional Revitalization: Even in areas with low ridership, such as Okutsugaru-Imabetsu, stations are built with the hope of boosting economic growth and preventing further rural depopulation.
- Logistical Utility: Sometimes, stations in smaller towns or areas are necessary for operational reasons, such as proximity to infrastructure-heavy projects like the Seikan Tunnel.
- Decentralization of Population: The high-speed rail allows residents to live further from major city centers while still commuting for work or school. This has helped spread population density beyond the immediate Tokyo or Osaka metropolitan areas.
- Future-Proofing: Some, though not all, of these stations are built with the long-term vision of future network expansion, acting as placeholders for projected growth

During the massive expansion of the NYC subway system in the early 20th century, the city intentionally built stations in undeveloped or sparsely populated areas, such as parts of Queens and the Bronx. This strategy, known as building "for the future" or "transit-oriented development," was designed to spur development and populate new areas, turning farmland or industrial zones into residential neighborhoods serviced by rapid transit. Now, I'm not saying Fresno and Bakersfield are going to turn into Queens or the Bronx, but I think you need to view this HSR as an investment towards future growth, hopefully one that entails more urbanization and economic vitality in the Central Valley.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

CAHSR should have no purpose but to connect LA to SF (or SoCal to Bay Area).

No. We voted to construct the alignment currently under construction. You have repeatedly misstated that CAHSR was never intended to serve the cities of the Central Valley, and many of us have repeatedly put that to bed. Perhaps you can learn this time around?

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I'm not sure why we have to go over this over and over again...the u/c Central Valley route added almost no expense or travel time to the more direct LA>SF route.

Why?

Because ALMOST ALL OF THE MONEY will be spent on the big tunnels and LA/SF approaches. The added cost to serve the Central Valley cities is like $5 billion in a $100 billion project. The added mileage adds 15 minutes to the express train travel time between DTLA>DTSF.

The problem is that Crawford and many others hold the Central Valley in high contempt. We've all been witness to the way that stereotypical California snobs look down at everyone who doesn't live on the coast. I mean, those people actually have to work.

Proposition 1A passed with 53% of the statewide vote. If the Central Valley had been cut out of the CAHSR proposal altogether, it would have never passed. As for your prattle about "stereotypical California snobs," take your right-wing culture war shit to the Current Events section and leave it out of this thread in the Transportation section.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

It's very important to mention that the CHSR business plan has a significant percentage of scheduled trains between SF and LA running nonstop (w/ SJ stop). This, in effect, does result in a direct route that bypasses small, less important population centers as you advocate, except it does it much more efficiently by using the same fixed plant that beneficially does serve those same smaller population centers. And any arguments against "the dog leg" and all that crap is a red herring as the CV alignment barely adds the amount of additional route miles that negatively affects the end-to-end time. Plus the safest and best tunnel route through the mountains has always been basin to Palmdale anyway.

Here's a good explanation I saw from Reddit:

It was not financially viable to tunnel HSR through Tejon Pass (following I-5) from Grapevine to Santa Clarita. So the only financially viable way to exit the Central Valley towards LA is through Tehachapi Pass along CA-58. To get from I-5 to Tehachapi basically has you go through Bakersfield anyway. So Bakersfield is basically already a mandatory stop.

So now the only decision is how to get from Pacheco Pass to Tehachapi Pass, do you go from Los Banos down I-5 to about Exit 257 and then turn east to Bakersfield (bypassing Fresno), or do you go straight east from Los Banos to CA-99, and roughly follow CA-99 so you can hit Fresno (and for local trains, also Madera and Hanford/Visalia) before reaching Bakersfield.

There is basically no notable time difference from Los Banos to Tehachapi Pass via I-5 or CA-99, but the latter has a lot more potential for ridership, especially as people get priced out of the Bay Area and SoCal but don’t want to leave California. CA-99 routing buys you political support from the Central Valley politicians in areas that get stations, but slightly complicates construction. Not that much more than I-5 would have, as most of California’s problems building anything are endless lawsuits, NIMBYs, fake environmentalists looking for settlements, unions trying to extract construction concessions aka pork barrel handouts using environmental review laws like CEQA, lack of consistent funding, and a general lack of state capacity in favor of vastly less efficient consultants, etc.

Nearly all of these would still apply equally to I-5 versus CA-99 routing, so we’d be in basically the same position either way, but with an even less useful IOS if they had followed I-5.

https://www.reddit.com/r/cahsr/comments/1mco2qe/why_didnt_they_follow_i5_but_with_spur_routes/

[edale]

Originally Posted by homebucket

To be fair, I believe most Californians on this forum are actually in favor of the Central Valley alignment. The only ones that favor the 5 alignment aren't actually from here (Crawford and edale).

I've lived in California for almost 15 years. Guess I can't share my opinion because I'm not actually from here, though. Guess you're a nativist? How long does someone have to live in California to offer an opinion?

The communities in the CV have fought CAHSR every step along the way. They've sued countless times and have driven up land acquistion costs many times over what was originally budgeted. My argument for using the 5 alignment isn't that it's just more direct, but that you could use existing state owned ROW for large portions of the route. That would have greatly reduced costs and time delays for land acquisition (and delays = more costs). It would have required way fewer grade separation projects. Basically every rural 2 lane road that CAHSR passes is being grade separated. Look at any of the construction update videos for evidence of this. We're talking about roads that maybe see a couple dozen vehicles a day in the middle of freaking nowhere that are getting underpasses or bridges built. There's way less need to do that following the 5 alignment because, shocker, construction of the 5 already addressed many of those conflicts.

It's no surprise that Brightline West is using the I-15 ROW to connect Southern California with Vegas. We'll see how that project turns out, but I'm more optimistic about taking HSR to Vegas than San Francisco in my lifetime (I'm in my 30s).

CAHSR's focus should have always been connecting the two massive population and economic centers of the state- SF Bay Area and Greater LA. The CV would still have benefitted immensely by having high speed rail follow the 5. People in Fresno and Wasco and wherever else would still be within an hour from a station where they could then arrive in SF or LA within a couple hours. That's literally the same model of transportation that airports use. You drive to the airport, leave your car there (or take an uber or transit), and then you get to your destination. You don't need the airport to be next door to your house, or in your city's downtown, to benefit from the access that having that airport provides. HSR competes with air travel.

In trying to do everything- i.e. serve every little town in the CV- we might very well end up doing nothing. Call me crazy, but I don't love that tradeoff.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by edale

I've lived in California for almost 15 years. Guess I can't share my opinion because I'm not actually from here, though. Guess you're a nativist? How long does someone have to live in California to offer an opinion?

Oh, come down off that cross. Somebody needs the wood.

The communities in the CV have fought CAHSR every step along the way. They've sued countless times and have driven up land acquistion costs many times over what was originally budgeted.

The owners of the commercial ranches and industrial farms along the 5 would have done the same thing.

My argument for using the 5 alignment isn't that it's just more direct

Not from the Tehachapi Pass it wouldn't. The above-posted explanation addresses this specifically.

CAHSR's focus should have always been connecting the two massive population and economic centers of the state- SF Bay Area and Greater LA.

I maintain that the voters would never have approved of CAHSR if it neglected the Central Valley cities.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by edale

I've lived in California for almost 15 years. Guess I can't share my opinion because I'm not actually from here, though. Guess you're a nativist? How long does someone have to live in California to offer an opinion?

You're obv free to offer an opinion, but in the 15 years you've been here, it's pretty clear you still haven't formulated a well informed one.

Originally Posted by edale

My argument for using the 5 alignment isn't that it's just more direct, but that you could use existing state owned ROW for large portions of the route. That would have greatly reduced costs and time delays for land acquisition (and delays = more costs). It would have required way fewer grade separation projects. Basically every rural 2 lane road that CAHSR passes is being grade separated. Look at any of the construction update videos for evidence of this. We're talking about roads that maybe see a couple dozen vehicles a day in the middle of freaking nowhere that are getting underpasses or bridges built. There's way less need to do that following the 5 alignment because, shocker, construction of the 5 already addressed many of those conflicts.

This isn't actually true. See above regarding the HSR tunnel through the Tejon Pass/Grapevine from Santa Clarita vs the Palmdale/Tehachapi alignment. It's also untrue that a 5 alignment would be easier to construct. Land acquisition still would've been necessary to some degree, and it's not as flat or straight as the armchair experts on the internet would like you to believe. The terrain is more significant than anything the IOS actually under construction is dealing with. Take a drive on the 5 vs the 99 for yourself sometime and see the difference. The 5 has a lot more rolling hills, and as mentioned earlier, the Grapevine. The area around 99 is much flatter and level.

Originally Posted by edale

CAHSR's focus should have always been connecting the two massive population and economic centers of the state- SF Bay Area and Greater LA.

The current alignment still does that, and there will be express trains, as there are in many other HSR examples throughout the world.

Originally Posted by edale

In trying to do everything- i.e. serve every little town in the CV- we might very well end up doing nothing. Call me crazy, but I don't love that tradeoff.

It does not try to serve every little town in the CV. That's a factually incorrect misrepresentation. The Fresno MSA is over 1 million people. There are stops in smaller towns Madera and Kings/Tulare that I think aren't as necessary, but again they can be skipped by taking the express trains. Other than that, they are not serving "every little town in the CV".

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The problem is that Crawford and many others hold the Central Valley in high contempt. We've all been witness to the way that stereotypical California snobs look down at everyone who doesn't live on the coast. I mean, those people actually have to work.

Yes, that's clearly it. Anyone who doesn't think the only U.S. HSR should be serving transit meccas like Tulare and Madera holds the Central Valley in "high contempt".

After all, Delta and American and United regularly land their planes in every burg along the way. Only costs a few billion more. Those coastal elitists need to stop in Moose Jaw and Medicine Hat, where people actually work.

And those idiots in France and Germany connecting cities like Paris and Frankfurt. What were they thinking? No one is riding that. Who uses transit in Paris?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

You don't need the airport to be next door to your house, or in your city's downtown, to benefit from the access that having that airport provides. HSR competes with air travel.

Thank you. This is how HSR works, everywhere. It's a replacement for air travel. It's point-to-point high-capacity service, like any major long haul air route.

When you look at Acela, which is sorta HSR, all the improvements have come at the expense of air travel. And all the traffic is basically generated by NYC as origin or destination, and trips going north to one city and south to two. Almost every rider has NYC as origin or destination. And not coincidentally, air traffic from NYC to DC and Boston has plummeted.

If CAHSR works, it will be due to LA-SF (or at least Bay Area) traffic. This should be the overriding focus. Take those air flights out of service.

And yeah, even if you support the alignment, and the CV service, it seems extremely risky to focus the first 30 years of this project on the portion that is ultimately meaningless to long-term success, but is absolutely critical to the project being successfully completed.

[edale]

Originally Posted by homebucket

You're obv free to offer an opinion, but in the 15 years you've been here, it's pretty clear you still haven't formulated a well informed one.

Thanks for proving yourself to be an asshole. This is straight up Trumpian, and I could very easily turn this same logic back at you, but I won't because I'm not an asshole.

Originally Posted by homebucket

It's also untrue that a 5 alignment would be easier to construct. Land acquisition still would've been necessary to some degree, and it's not as flat or straight as the armchair experts on the internet would like you to believe.

The terrain is more significant than anything the IOS actually under construction is dealing with. Take a drive on the 5 vs the 99 for yourself sometime and see the difference. The 5 has a lot more rolling hills, and as mentioned earlier, the Grapevine. The area around 99 is much flatter and level.

It does not try to serve every little town in the CV. That's a factually incorrect misrepresentation. The Fresno MSA is over 1 million people. There are stops in smaller towns Madera and Kings/Tulare that I think aren't as necessary, but again they can be skipped by taking the express trains. Other than that, they are not serving "every little town in the CV".

No shit, Sherlock. I said there would be considerably LESS land acquisition required following the 5's alignment, and that is true. Cal Trans owns much of the land that could've been used for the route. I said nothing about the flatness or straightness of the land, but having driven the 5 and 99 many, many times, I don't think the physical conditions on the 5 alignment are anymore challenging than the eastern route. That said, the issues that have presented themselves in the selected route aren't due to geography, but rather due to that portion of the CV being much more densely populated. You know, the same reason you support having the train route through there in the first place. The more urbanized the area is, the more conflicts there will be with other infrastructure. That's the biggest issue with using the eastern CV instead of following the 5.

I also find it interesting how the population of the CV is touted as one that shouldn't be overlooked, but using this route totally ignores the multiple population centers that exist WEST of the 5 alignment. People in (or going to) places like San Luis Obisbo, Santa Barbara, or the Salinas Valley won't be driving over to the eastern Central Valley to use HSR. They might have made that trip to a route that followed the 5, though.

[HusBy]

Originally Posted by edale

Thanks for proving yourself to be an asshole. This is straight up Trumpian, and I could very easily turn this same logic back at you, but I won't because I'm not an asshole.



No shit, Sherlock. I said there would be considerably LESS land acquisition required following the 5's alignment, and that is true. Cal Trans owns much of the land that could've been used for the route. I said nothing about the flatness or straightness of the land, but having driven the 5 and 99 many, many times, I don't think the physical conditions on the 5 alignment are anymore challenging than the eastern route. That said, the issues that have presented themselves in the selected route aren't due to geography, but rather due to that portion of the CV being much more densely populated. You know, the same reason you support having the train route through there in the first place. The more urbanized the area is, the more conflicts there will be with other infrastructure. That's the biggest issue with using the eastern CV instead of following the 5.

I also find it interesting how the population of the CV is touted as one that shouldn't be overlooked, but using this route totally ignores the multiple population centers that exist WEST of the 5 alignment. People in (or going to) places like San Luis Obisbo, Santa Barbara, or the Salinas Valley won't be driving over to the eastern Central Valley to use HSR. They might have made that trip to a route that followed the 5, though.

The Central Coast has a population of a few hundred thousand, the Central Valley (from Madera south) is 2+ million, they don't compare. As for driving to a remote station, the point of rail is that it takes you to the center of town, it promotes urbanism.

[Crawford]

"Promotes urbanism." Yet more mission creep. Promoting urbanism in some of American's worst sprawl. If this fails, it will be due to this kind of crap.

[HusBy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

"Promotes urbanism." Yet more mission creep. Promoting urbanism in some of American's worst sprawl. If this fails, it will be due to this kind of crap.

It will fail because of inconsistent funding and constant political and legal headwinds.

Also, rail promoting urbanism isn't mission creep. It's just good planning. There's a reason HSR stations are always in city centers.

Also, all of the central valley cities large and small have intact urban centers from the pre interstate era. They are already designed to be rail oriented.