California High Speed Rail Thread

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by HusBy

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

You've never been on HSR, at least not in Europe or China. HSR stations are mostly new builds, and not in city centers.

Originally Posted by HusBy

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.

You're claiming that some of the worst sprawl in America, with some of the lowest transit share in America "is already designed to be rail oriented". Bullshit. The IE is as rail oriented and urban as Oklahoma City or Amarillo.

The entire fate of HSR in America is reliant upon getting ridership in some of the most HSR-hostile geography in America, while the two CA cities with huge potential are decades away. They should have started at either end, and not in the middle.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

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".

The Central Valley stations will all have four tracks. Express trains will use the express tracks and not stop anywhere between San Jose and Burbank.

All express trains between SF and LA will have the following five stops:
1. SF
2. SFO
3. San Jose
4. Burbank Airport
5. DTLA

As has been known for 20 years, San Jose is the big winner in the CAHSR plan because it will be served by a)every express train and b)its travel time to LA will be 45 minutes faster than SF.

[edale]

Originally Posted by HusBy

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.

Don’t confuse high speed, intercity rail with urban rail transportation systems. Subways and light rail promote urbanism by encouraging transit oriented development. HSR functions more like an airport, with just 3 stops planned for the entire Bay Area and 2 in greater LA. There are roughly 1,500 flights between the Bay Area and greater LA each week! This is the market for HSR, not the paltry number of people who plan to begin or end their trip in the Central Valley. Sorry if that sounds dismissive, but it’s true. How many flights are there from LA to Fresno or Bakersfield to San Francisco?

HSR stations will absolutely benefit downtown San Francisco and Los Angeles. These places are already well connected to their respective regional transit networks, and are well suited for distributing visitors arriving at these stations without cars. The fact that rail terminals often serve city centers is a huge advantage for rail vs air travel. The benefits would be much more muted for places like Bakersfield and Fresno because those cities aren’t major O/D stops, and they are sprawly, auto oriented cities with poor transit. Those cities get to benefit by being able to tap into the fast connections to SF and LA. Drive 45 mins, leave your car at the surface lot, take HSR for 1.5 hours and arrive in the middle of Downtown San Francisco? Sounds like a great amenity for someone living in Fresno.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

They should have started at either end, and not in the middle.

Caltrain has been electrified using CAHSR funds. The underground Transbay Terminal aka Salesforce has been built.

So far, roughly $15 billion has been spent on CAHSR. The proposed tunnel between 4th & King and Transbay Terminal is estimated to cost $5-8 billion.

So if $15 billion had been spent at either end right now we'd have HSR tracks from Transbay to Gilroy and HSR from LA Union Station to Burbank Airport (okay, maybe Anaheim to Burbank Airport). Pretty much just the distance from San Jose to Gilroy to run high speed.

3 stops planned for the entire Bay Area and 2 in greater LA

Three - Phase 1 will terminate in Anaheim, not DTLA. https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/251118_HSR-Factsheet-LA-A-Stations-v6-508.pdf

It'll probably take 20 minutes for HSR to get from Anaheim to DTLA. It'll probably max out at 80-90mph but then have to approach LA Union Station pretty slowly.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You've never been on HSR, at least not in Europe or China. HSR stations are mostly new builds, and not in city centers.

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. I have not been to China, but in the case of Europe HSR are definitely NOT mostly new builds. With a couple exceptions I have observed on Google Maps and in my travels (e.g. Rotterdam, Berlin, Vienna Hauptbanhoff, Roma Tiburtina, and Napoli Afragola [which has almost no ridership]), the vast majority of European stations are still historic central stations, and oftentimes terminus stations. Paris Gare du Noord, Amsterdam Centraal, Frankfurt Hbf, Antwerp, Roma Termini, the central stations in Florence and Naples, Hanover, Hamburg, Madrid, and Lyon ALL all served by HSR in city center locations and often historic structures.

In many cases, these stations have seen significant retrofits over the course of time, and several others have been almost completely transformed into modern stations. For example London Waterloo, St. Pancras, and the new Munich Hbf.

And let's not forget about Stuttgart 21. This ambitious plan preserves the historic station building, while removing the terminus platforms and connecting train tracks (also a plan for urban infill) and turns it into a thru-station with underground platforms and connecting underground tunnels. Oh yeah, and the project is almost 10 years behind schedule and is potentially €10 billion over budget. So let's not try to pretend that the Europeans can't also botch a major infrastructure project.

And all the criticism that CHSR and Stuttgart 21 are getting is fair, and an opportunity to learn from our mistakes. But it is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

A true HSR network takes GENERATIONS to build. It also begins with systems that have flaws. Trains in Europe have been slowly improved over generations, and older train systems had to be retrofitted so that modern HSR lines could seamlessly operate their trains right into the historic central stations. The Chunnel train operated on slow-speed commuter rail lines into Waterloo station for over a decade before the tunnel was built into St. Pancras in 2012. And it is only because of the success and slow modernization of the existing system that created a need for suburban stations like Roma Tiburtina to relive pressure from the central station.

Originally Posted by edale

Don’t confuse high speed, intercity rail with urban rail transportation systems. Subways and light rail promote urbanism by encouraging transit oriented development. HSR functions more like an airport, with just 3 stops planned for the entire Bay Area and 2 in greater LA.

This is true, but also relates to what I was saying above. The success of the European system has come from using the existing urban, intercity (and sometimes historic intracity infrastructure) to get the high speed trains right into and out of the historic central stations. The high speed lines don't stop at every commuter station like the local trains do, but they absolutely travel along the same corridors in and out of cities like Rotterdam, Amsterdam, Rome, Frankfurt, or Paris. Retrofitting the commuter systems in LA and SF to be compatible with has always been an obvious benefit of California's project.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I'm sorry, but this is just not true. I have not been to China, but in the case of Europe HSR are definitely NOT mostly new builds. With a couple exceptions I have observed on Google Maps and in my travels (e.g. Rotterdam, Berlin, Vienna Hauptbanhoff, Roma Tiburtina, and Napoli Afragola [which has almost no ridership]), the vast majority of European stations are still historic central stations, and oftentimes terminus stations.

Those are legacy origin-destination stations, long preceding HSR. Not what we're talking about, and obviously this reinforces my point, which is that HSR is a replacement for air travel, and the intermediary geography is largely irrelevant.

New, intermediary HSR stations tend to be peripheral, and often in the middle of nowhere, bc they aren't important, and they certainly aren't intended on urban revitalization. They're usually political pork projects. The lines are built to connect two cities, in the shortest possible alignment, not to serve every population along the way.

Here's a typical German HSR new build, on the highway, next to nothing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montabaur_station

Some others:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allersberg_(Rothsee)_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinding_(Altm%C3%BChltal)_station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limburg_S%C3%BCd_station

France, Italy and Spain do the same thing. Chinese HSR is almost entirely new build.

[craigs]

Californian cities are not ancient like those in Europe and China. The Central Valley cities and towns are basically starter sets. It was a good idea for California voters to approve the route through the Central Valley cities. They are autocentric communities right now, but as the CAHSR haters have already noted, they are not especially populous. There is a good chance we can shape future development in those growing cities and towns around public transport, starting with the long-haul rail system. In any case, you can't win if you don't play.

[HusBy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You've never been on HSR, at least not in Europe or China. HSR stations are mostly new builds, and not in city centers.

Lol, you're right, I haven't been to China or been on german HSR, but I have ridden HSR in Japan and Europe - always from legacy central stations in the center of town (France, Switzerland, Italy, Tokyo, Kyoto), with the exception of the Oslo airport connector airport station.

[Busy Bee]

Notice how HS2 isn't being used as an example of a city bypassing HSR plan.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Those are legacy origin-destination stations, long preceding HSR. Not what we're talking about, and obviously this reinforces my point, which is that HSR is a replacement for air travel, and the intermediary geography is largely irrelevant.

I've honestly lost track of what point you are trying to make (other than you hate CHSR, that part is obvious). Are you saying that those German HSR stations in the middle of nowhere are a good thing or a bad thing?

And this does not obviously reinforce your point. Not in any way.

You seem to be trying to tell us that high speed rail networks can only be founded on gleaming new infrastructure on the outskirts of town, while pointing to a system that was largely founded on the principal of connecting to legacy central stations in the center of their towns. And a system dependent on the concept of slowly upgrading older train infrastructure and creating good connections to local/commuter lines at bustling central stations. You are asking us to forget about how that system came to be in the first place and only look at what they are building today.

This is absurd, because the lines that are now being built to connect two cities in the shortest possible alignment are UPGRADES to an existing system. You cannot simply ignore away the fact that the system was initially built by connecting into those existing origin-destination stations (you know, like LA Union Station). The initial high speed lines in Germany DID NOT skip every town along the way. I see that the Cologne–Frankfurt, while it line bypasses many smaller cities, also connects into and out of Cologne and Frankfurt along historic legacy rail corridors and includes capacity upgrades and things like grade separation and new junctions that also serve the local lines into smaller stations (like Wiesbaden). It's not like the smaller towns are just completely disconnected, there are slower-speed lines that often run right alongside segments of the newer HSR routes and increase ridership on the whole system. The new Stuttgart to Munich HSR line, which also includes fancy new highway-adjacent stations and a connection to the Stuttgart airport, will still stop in the center of both Ulm and Augsburg, each with a population of only about 150,000.

Part of the reason high speed trains work as a replacement for air travel is precisely BECAUSE the trains serve the city centers, eliminating the need to travel to and from an airport on the outskirts of town. In the case of the London to Paris, not having to travel through Heathrow and Charles de Gaulle is a big part of what makes its 2hr 22min travel time competitive with airlines. The London to Paris route also includes a stop in the center of Lille, a city with half the population of Bakersfield - they DID NOT simply skip past Lille or put a new station on the outskirts to take the most direct route to Paris. Connecting through Lille also created the junction to the high-speed line north into Amsterdam, which like the future connection to Las Vegas at Palmdale, would not have been as efficient of a three-way split had the route simply taken the most direct path to Paris.

[HusBy]

Originally Posted by mr1138

The London to Paris route also includes a stop in the center of Lille, a city with half the population of Bakersfield - they DID NOT simply skip past Lille or put a new station on the outskirts to take the most direct route to Paris. Connecting through Lille also created the junction to the high-speed line north into Amsterdam, which like the future connection to Las Vegas at Palmdale, would not have been as efficient of a three-way split had the route simply taken the most direct path to Paris.

Quite the contrary in Lille as you suggest, with HSR spurring the development of the "Eurolille" concept/district, a massive hub that spurred a huge area of urban redevelopment in Lille now linked to Paris, London, and Amsterdam by HSR. All in the center of city with 1/4 the population of Fresno.

As for using the lack of flights between Fresno/SF/LA as proof that nobody will take HSR there, you seem to missing the point that a huge number of people drive constantly between these places, and now they'll have the option of taking the train instead of driving, in an amount of time that will allow them to live in Fresno (or Baksersfield, et al) and now consider jobs in San Jose, SF, and LA. Airports and HSR land use and travel patterns are not an apples to apples comparison.

[HusBy]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Notice how HS2 isn't being used as an example of a city bypassing HSR plan.

Well it doesn't support the narrative, does it...

[ardecila]

I don't even know what y'all are arguing about. This is an academic debate, the choice of city center vs "beetfield" stations depends on the specifics of each case.

Where CAHSR is serving city centers, it's usually because those cities are pretty sparse and low density already. The gulch along the rail line thru Fresno was just a bunch of rusting warehouses and weed-choked lots. So why not run HSR through there, where the city can reap the benefits of the system?

In Texas, they took the opposite approach and planned for a Houston terminal not downtown, but off the Inner Loop. The last 5 miles into downtown just weren't cost effective, there wasn't space to build tracks without buying billions of dollars of land and kicking people out of homes.

[Busy Bee]

I don't think the issue here is whether a station is downtown or on the edge of the metro, or "beetfield", as much as it is some people preposterously advocating for a "system" that completely and wholly bypasses 300 miles of the state and everything that entails.

[Crawford]

My point is that the priorities are screwed up. Europe doesn't have great cities due to HSR, Europe has HSR due to great cities. HSR is a modern, practical alternative to air travel and CA should focus on HSR's fantastic utility, not other, peripheral public policy issues, regardless of merits. In a vacuum, CA can do whatever the hell they want, but CAHSR is going to be the ultimate test case for HSR in U.S.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My point is that the priorities are screwed up. Europe doesn't have great cities due to HSR, Europe has HSR due to great cities.

Japan built HSR 20 years after almost all of its cities were completely destroyed.

HSR is a modern, practical alternative to air travel

And driving.

but CAHSR is going to be the ultimate test case for HSR in U.S.

No, it's probably never going to be equaled because on the East Coast HSR represents only an incremental improvement over what already exists. The Midwest doesn't have a similar promise because there is only one major city and driving between the cities is usually really easy (no pinch points, almost no tolls, plenty of places to park for free when you get to the destination). Texas has two big cities but almost nothing in between them, so there is no opportunity for express/local like in California.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Crawford

My point is that the priorities are screwed up.

No, they are not. Without these priorities, there would never be CAHSR. The proposition would never have passed.

Europe doesn't have great cities due to HSR, Europe has HSR due to great cities.

California is not Europe. California is centuries younger. Those Central Valley cities that the usual outstate detractors deride as unpopulated and unworthy will become populated and worthy. It's better to start planning future growth around public transportation starting now.

[curt-pdx]

Anyway! Hope you all enjoyed Jason's video of the progress!

(and rehashing the same arguements and talking points that fill 200 pages of this thread)


Mateo also covers "the highway project" in the Fresno area if you want to see what is actually happening.

[sammyg]

Originally Posted by craigs

Those Central Valley cities that the usual outstate detractors deride as unpopulated and unworthy will become populated and worthy. It's better to start planning future growth around public transportation starting now.

Fresno is already about the size of Memphis, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, and Buffalo. People just don't realize how big it is because it's overshadowed by the major cities on the coast.

HSR from LA and SF to Fresno makes just as much sense as NYC to Buffalo or New Orleans to Memphis, and those aren't controversial at all.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by craigs

California is not Europe. California is centuries younger. Those Central Valley cities that the usual outstate detractors deride as unpopulated and unworthy will become populated and worthy. It's better to start planning future growth around public transportation starting now.

If the I-5 route is so much faster and so much cheaper, then there is nothing stopping CAHSR from building a second mainline along the originally proposed alignment. It's SO cheap, right?

But it would be absurd to spend $15~ billion dollars on 160~ miles of track that will save 15-20 minutes and not add any capacity because the two parallel mainlines would have to funnel into the two-track mountain tunnels at either end.

Originally Posted by sammyg

Fresno is already about the size of Memphis, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, and Buffalo. People just don't realize how big it is because it's overshadowed by the major cities on the coast.

Fresno's metro area is now bigger than Honolulu, and the much better-known Hawaiian capital now has a fully grade separated metro line.

Back in the 90s, there was a serious proposal for HSR between Atlanta and Chattanooga (pop. 550,000), and now any rail proposal between Nashville and Atlanta includes a stop in Chattanooga.