California High Speed Rail Thread

[202_Cyclist]

Of possible interest-- the Eno Foundation is holding a webinar tomorrow about the decision to scale back California's high-speed rail construction.

Rapid-Response Webinar: What Went Wrong with California High-Speed Rail?
https://www.enotrans.org/events/rapi...68ae-357757909

[CastleScott]

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.

I think this plan is the best-go for the shorter more doable approach..

[electricron]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

I think this plan is the best-go for the shorter more doable approach..

Yes, it would have been. But those locations are not where CHSR decided to build their first HSR tracks.

Most contractors, both public and private, start building what takes the longest to finish first. For CHSR,that would be the tunnels in the mountain passes. Yet CHSR decided to do them last.
Now we will have over $10 billion spent building a grade separated double track railroad corridor in the Valley, probably using for the near future the same rolling stock going at slightly higher max speeds that they do now. There are already two railroad corridors paralleling this brand new one.
If they had started building the tunnels first through let’s say the Grapevine, the existing Amtrak California trains could breach the Bakersfield to LA gap through these brand new tunnels. Now we have new tracks where they are not immediately useful instead.

It took WDOT two to three years to tunnel 2 miles under the Alaska Way Viaduct, how long do you think it would take CHSR to build at least one 20 mile tunnel? FYI, It took Switzerland 16 years to build a new 35 mile long tunnel recently.
Therefore, it should be safe to assume proceeding at 2 miles of tunneling per year. Yes, it will probably take 10 years to dig the new tunnels under and through the Grapevine. Why wait to do it last? It should have been done first!

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by electricron

Yes, it would have been. But those locations are not where CHSR decided to build their first HSR tracks.

Most contractors, both public and private, start building what takes the longest to finish first. For CHSR,that would be the tunnels in the mountain passes. Yet CHSR decided to do them last.
Now we will have over $10 billion spent building a grade separated double track railroad corridor in the Valley, probably using for the near future the same rolling stock going at slightly higher max speeds that they do now. There are already two railroad corridors paralleling this brand new one.
If they had started building the tunnels first through let’s say the Grapevine, the existing Amtrak California trains could breach the Bakersfield to LA gap through these brand new tunnels. Now we have new tracks where they are not immediately useful instead.

It took WDOT two to three years to tunnel 2 miles under the Alaska Way Viaduct, how long do you think it would take CHSR to build at least one 20 mile tunnel? FYI, It took Switzerland 16 years to build a new 35 mile long tunnel recently.
Therefore, it should be safe to assume proceeding at 2 miles of tunneling per year. Yes, it will probably take 10 years to dig the new tunnels under and through the Grapevine. Why wait to do it last? It should have been done first!

Yes, the incompetence on this project has been obvious from the start. The reason they didn't start with the tunnels is because there was never enough money to build anything more than a small fraction of this design. The goal was to use a "foot in the door" approach hoping to later use the sunk cost fallacy to goad the citizens of California into shelling out more and more money for completion. This strategy wouldn't have worked if tunneling had started first because there would be virtually no visible progress so it would be impossible to show the people of California that they were actually getting something for their money.

[Sun Belt]

^Exactly. They're currently building HSR in the most rural, flattest and generally the easiest place to construct it.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

^Exactly. They're currently building HSR in the most rural, flattest and generally the easiest place to construct it.

The whole problem with starting in the cities and moving outward is that there would have been intense pressure to dilute design speed in order to maximize track length from a particular bond issue.

The language of Prop 1A dictated a specific travel speed from LA to SF for this reason -- to prevent a lesser railway from being built.

The central valley is the only area where the trains will actually travel at 200+mph, except for a brief run west of the Pacheco Pass Tunnel.

If the Pacheco Pass alignment is dropped in favor of a return to Altamont, then there will be more 200mph operation in the Valley north to the point where the line enters the hills somewhere near I-580, but still no speeds above 125mph approaching the East Bay or approaching Los Angeles.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by 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

Absolutely, starting it between Fresno and Bakersfield or whatever was a terrible idea.

If you are thinking about just the cheapest portion first, part of the reason that is the cheapest is it will be the least used segment.

The whole project was ill conceived.

[Obadno]

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.

No it would mean California embarked on a ridiculous and unnecessary project that fell on its face.

The fact is 95% of the USA has no need or desire for a high speed rail system.

What this shows, if anything, is that the USA is so massive and rich it can have independent states embark on wild and ambitious rail projects that would bankrupt other nations, but we can play with them with little concern for it being a problem for the country overall.

If this project and failure occurred in Norway, there would be major fiscal and political consequences, in the USA its a funny joke

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

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.

Get real. There's no room along the 101 unless they remove freeway lanes or build 40 miles of elevated structure over the median. And you thought the Caltrain corridor had legal opposition, hoo boy. 280 has a little more breathing room (would only require 10 miles of elevated structure before entering open space in the foothills) but the alignment is too curvy to actually let out the throttle on high speed rail, and you'd still need to use the Caltrain corridor north of San Bruno in any case. There are only two semi-reasonable ways to bring HSR to SF: the Caltrain corridor or the East Bay with a new Transbay tunnel. Caltrain had the advantage of being a popular commuter corridor already, so any money spent on infrastructure there would count for double.

Also, if you look at HSR overseas it often uses legacy rail corridors through urban areas, because there's no other place to put it without insanely long tunnels. The big time savings comes from barreling through the countryside at 220mph.

[Illithid Dude]

Honestly, some private company should just build between LA and San Diego. Imagine the use that would get, with thirty minute end to end times.

[plutonicpanda]

Excellent news! Now we need to work to ensure the Valley portion is canceled as well. This project was awful from the beginning in every way.

If anyone knows me, they'll know I truly support rail and access to alternative transportation. Likewise, I do support an HSR connection between SF and LA. I even advocate for MagLev between LA and SD. But we need to reform the way we build infrastructure by finding ways to cut red tape where it isn't needed and other ways to reduce costs so we aren't paying 10x what other countries are for the same of type of infrastructure.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Honestly, some private company should just build between LA and San Diego. Imagine the use that would get, with thirty minute end to end times.

They would need to work with state DOT to make it happen. If a massive viaduct were built along I-5 containing six tolled lanes from DTLA to Irvine and HSR to SD, I suspect it would make a full return on the cost much sooner than one might think.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

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

Hang on a minute, you are starting to make sense; be careful.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Obadno

If you are thinking about just the cheapest portion first, part of the reason that is the cheapest is it will be the least used segment.

The Central Valley is to be the most-used section.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

Honestly, some private company should just build between LA and San Diego. Imagine the use that would get, with thirty minute end to end times.

You get about 18 miles of high speed travel parallel to I-5 along the Camp Pendleton beachfront. Other than that you're rebuilding the Metrorail corridors in LA, which is part of CAHSR Phase 1, and then somehow widening the freight corridor from Camp Pendleton down to San Diego, which will mean taking some of the most expensive real estate in the United States to widen that ROW to 100 feet and built a miles-long concrete barrier wall between the existing fright tracks and HSR.

Or you could dig a 40~ mile tunnel under LA and Orange County and then a 25~ mile tunnel from Camp Pendleton down to San Diego, which is more than the total amount of tunneling currently planned for the LA>SF run.

So at least $50 billion to build a straight-shot LA>SD high speed rail line.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The Central Valley is to be the most-used section.

Not on its own. That is only contingent on the other sections being built.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

Not on its own. That is only contingent on the other sections being built.

Oh please.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The Central Valley is to be the most-used section.

Only wen considering pass through traffic between the Bay Area and L.A Which wasn't going to happen for many many years.

Traffic on phase 1 from Bakersfield to Merced was going to be nothing

[bobdreamz]

I heard the news about the cancellation of this project while listening to a conservative talk radio show last night and they were just gloating over the failure of this project. They seemed overjoyed about it saying that the liberal / communist agenda is failing even in the 5th. largest economy in the world.

My heart sank hearing this news. It's a one-two punch for me because first we here in Florida lost our chance to build HSR but then I had high hopes for CA and thought that if any state can pull this off it would be CA.
They would be the role model for future HSR projects across the nation and now this.
This is just so damn depressing.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Only wen considering pass through traffic between the Bay Area and L.A Which wasn't going to happen for many many years.

Traffic on phase 1 from Bakersfield to Merced was going to be nothing

Yeah, everybody knows that.

The interstate highways were generally built in the open countryside first, with the city sections taking longer to build, and many gaps for 15+ years.

Guess we should have just given up since there were service gaps that took awhile to fill.