California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

My most controversial take is that it would be better for the citizenry and the nation if several east coast states were combined together. NY/NJ/PA/DE should be one state.

The way we arrived at the 50 states is very random, with each new group of states being politically motivated. We attempted to invade and take over Canada 1812-14 and lost. We never attempted it again because all of those new northern states would have meant free states greatly outnumbered slave states. As a mirror, the United States had the option to annex Cuba in the mid-1800s but didn't because the entry of a new slave state would have upset the balance.

The current calls to make DC a state are all motivated by the Democrat party and its belief that they'd pick up two senators for the next 100 years. Be careful what you wish for - as hard as it might be to imagine today, an era of DC being a Republican lock might be just 15 years away. I am regularly startled when I think back to how different the electoral map was just 20 years ago, let alone the 1980s.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The current calls to make DC a state are all motivated by the Democrat party and its belief that they'd pick up two senators for the next 100 years. Be careful what you wish for - as hard as it might be to imagine today, an era of DC being a Republican lock might be just 15 years away.

You're right that is hard to imagine - like impossibly hard. I see absolutely no indication of such a shift and I think its more likely the GOP won't even be a thing in 15 years. Not sure what political winds you are listing to. As for the motivation behind the DC statehood movement, I sort of resent your position that it is nothing more than a Democratic motivated push to more safely hold the majority in Congress. In case you didn't know, the DC statehood push has been around for decades and it strains credulity it was always about national Democratic politics, especially considering the Democrats held strong majorities for decades without the "need" for DC statehood. The primary motivation has always been about fair representation and representation that can actually vote, you know, like Wyoming. My position is they should stop framing it as "statehood" and just frame it as right and fair representation. No need to eff up the national flag, no need to rename anything. The District of Columbia would still be the District of Columbia outside of the small designated federal zone, it would just have a seat in the House and 2 seats in the Senate. Then when every American has the same democratic representation, let the political chips fall where they may.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

You're right that is hard to imagine - like impossibly hard. I see absolutely no indication of such a shift and I think its more likely the GOP won't even be a thing in 15 years. Not sure what political winds you are listing to. As for the motivation behind the DC statehood movement, I sort of resent your position that it is nothing more than a Democratic motivated push to more safely hold the majority in Congress. In case you didn't know, the DC statehood push has been around for decades and it strains credulity it was always about national Democratic politics, especially considering the Democrats held strong majorities for decades without the "need" for DC statehood. The primary motivation has always been about fair representation and representation that can actually vote, you know, like Wyoming. My position is they should stop framing it as "statehood" and just frame it as right and fair representation. No need to eff up the national flag, no need to rename anything. The District of Columbia would still be the District of Columbia outside of the small designated federal zone, it would just have a seat in the House and 2 seats in the Senate. Then when every American has the same democratic representation, let the political chips fall where they may.

Politics aside, there is still the issue of Constitutional law at state.
Article 1 Section 8 defines the "Powers of Congress". The clause establishing the District of Columbia falls under the "Powers of Congress". So obviously, Congress could change its powers when it decides to do so.
When was the last time you saw Congress surrender a Constitutional power?

Like what happen to the section of the District south of the Potomac, the land was surrendered back to Virginia, therefore most likely the section of the District north of the Potomac would probably be surrendered back to Maryland. At least Maryland would have a very strong claim for it.

The Constitution also states what is required to add a new State.
Article 4 - The States ; Section 3 - New States
"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

Can the northern section of the District be made into a new State or would it return back to Maryland? Maryland gave up that territory to make the District, not to make a new State 200 plus years later. It would make an interesting constitutional case in the Supreme Court.

Which bring up the possibilities about breaking states up into 2, 3, or more states. How many States do you know desire giving up tax revenues?

Anything is possible, and given the right circumstances anything can be probable. But I do not ever see the circumstances where States will be willing to give up tax revenues and surrendering territory to another State.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

You're right that is hard to imagine - like impossibly hard. I see absolutely no indication of such a shift and I think its more likely the GOP won't even be a thing in 15 years. Not sure what political winds you are listing to. As for the motivation behind the DC statehood movement, I sort of resent your position that it is nothing more than a Democratic motivated push to more safely hold the majority in Congress. In case you didn't know, the DC statehood push has been around for decades and it strains credulity it was always about national Democratic politics, especially considering the Democrats held strong majorities for decades without the "need" for DC statehood. The primary motivation has always been about fair representation and representation that can actually vote, you know, like Wyoming. My position is they should stop framing it as "statehood" and just frame it as right and fair representation. No need to eff up the national flag, no need to rename anything. The District of Columbia would still be the District of Columbia outside of the small designated federal zone, it would just have a seat in the House and 2 seats in the Senate. Then when every American has the same democratic representation, let the political chips fall where they may.

If it was just about representation, then they'd be content with asking to be annexed by Virginia or Maryland.

I'm not an expert on Puerto Rico but it has 2X the population of Hawaii and is half the distance from the mainland, which is enough for me to take any wish of theirs for statehood seriously, but we hardly ever hear from them.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

If it was just about representation, then they'd be content with asking to be annexed by Virginia or Maryland.

I'm not an expert on Puerto Rico but it has 2X the population of Hawaii and is half the distance from the mainland, which is enough for me to take any wish of theirs for statehood seriously, but we hardly ever hear from them.

We're not talking about Puerto Rico. I'm sure there is a statehood constituency there but I'd also imagine one for independence as well. Not sure what that has to do with DC. Also, as far as the notion that if their motivations were anything other than representation and not how its currently framed as a D power grab of some sort, and if so they should just merge with Maryland or Virginia is really lacking. You seem to be saying they are (as a voting block) so craven in their motivations they wouldn't be bothered at all about essentially dissolving historical municipal identity for temporal political power that, as you say, may shift in the future where it wouldn't even matter (still unsure what possible future would transform DC residents into Republicans, but whatever). It's not totally unlike a notion that in an attempt to consolidate and coordinate trade and economic power, France , Germany, Italy, Belgium wouldn't just form a economic union but would completely dissolve national identity. That makes no sense. DC residents aren't Marylanders (or whatever they're called) or Virginians, and they wouldn't want to absolve their District identity just to help the Democratic Party. A hollow insinuation if I've ever read one.

This conversation has absolutely nothing to do with California HSR.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

DC residents aren't Marylanders (or whatever they're called) or Virginians, and they wouldn't want to absolve their District identity just to help the Democratic Party.

DC residents don't even have a nickname. It's overwhelmingly a bunch of transplants. Almost nobody has "deep roots" in DC. It seems like a place where the D party could reward people from elsewhere in the country with a seat in the U.S. Senate. Like when Hillary Clinton migrated to New York, but every time.

Agreed that the varying state and district borders complicate long-distance rail projects. If the Ohio bullet train had happened back in the 1980s, we would be living in a different country from an intercity rail perspective. Sure, a few other mid-sized states had multiple cities within them (Missouri and Tennessee and Texas, for example) but most don't, and so we would have seen new interstate compacts or federal legislation to ease the construction of new passenger rail lines.

I'm not sure that CAHSR will work to that same end since the state is so different from the east and Midwest that I'm not sure that it will work as a proof-of-concept in the same way that Ohio would have.

I should start an Ohio bullet train thread at some point. It would have been a really, really big deal. It seemed to have had some push from the Japanese, who were heavily invested in the state in the 1970s and 1980s, since the push disappeared with Japan's economic might in the early 1990s.

[edale]

Getting back to CHSR, the more project update videos I watch, the more I am absolutely convinced we messed up royally by not following the I-5 corridor. While a lot of us (myself included) often think of the Central Valley as being desolate, it's actually quite developed from an infrastructure perspective. This means there are TONS of tiny roads that probably carry maybe a couple dozen cars a day that have to be bridged, tunneled, or otherwise rerouted. Add in the myriad of crossings in the towns and cities the HSR will be going through, and it's clear to see why this project is taking forever.

The Central Valley residents would still have been served by an I-5 route. Someone in Fresno or Visalia or Bakersfield could drive/take a bus/get dropped off at the station closest to where they live-- no more than an hour for most-- and have direct, quick service to SF and LA. We'd shave off at least 40 miles, which would be a significant savings, and we'd have so much less work to do for infrastructure relocation, as the 5 largely already dealt with those issues.

Connecting Bakersfield to Fresno...who the hell cares about or wants that? You get off the train in Frenso for whatever reason, and how are you going to get around? There aren't transit systems in place like there are in LA and SF. Making the eastern side of the CV be the focus of CHSR was a massive error, and one that might prove fatal for this project. I'm not convinced we're going to see full completion of the LA to SF line in the next 40 years. By 2060 maybe we'll all have flying cars by then lol.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

DC residents don't even have a nickname. It's overwhelmingly a bunch of transplants. Almost nobody has "deep roots" in DC. It seems like a place where the D party could reward people from elsewhere in the country with a seat in the U.S. Senate. Like when Hillary Clinton migrated to New York, but every time.
[/URL]

Laughably wrong. Yeah maybe a good chunk of federal workers or the lobby orbit but i think a couple hundred thousand African Americans would disagree that they aren't native District residents. Where are you getting your information? And fortheloveofgod why would you bring Hillary Clinton into this?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

Getting back to CHSR, the more project update videos I watch, the more I am absolutely convinced we messed up royally by not following the I-5 corridor.

Building through the Central Valley cities that developed around the UP mainline is costing perhaps $2 billion more than building parallel to I-5, which is is a rounding error on the overall cost of the network. The added 35~ miles (much of that the deflection to Palmdale via Tehachapi) will add at most 15 minutes to the overall express transit time. They still could nix Palmdale and reach the San Fernando Valley via the I-5 Grapevine route, which is a bit shorter and less expensive, but would cut out Las Vegas.

Even if they had built along I-5, they still wouldn't have the money with the current allocation to dig the Pacheco Pass tunnel or Grapevine tunnel or Alameda tunnel (or whatever route variation) if they had kept costs a little lower in the Central Valley. Plus, if they were working on the I-5 route right now, we'd have people complaining that they aren't properly serving the central valley cities.

[Busy Bee]

^ Fast forward 20 years and I could see a scenario where constructing the Grapvine approach as well, providing a second basin entry/exit bypassing Palmdale, is at least discussed as a possibilty to add system flexibilty and performance. Though I've always heard there are major seismic concerns for the Grapevine route and that contributed to it not being chosen.

[Will O' Wisp]

Wow, sorry I didn't mean to start a massive political debate...

The idea of combining several NE states into one is utterly impossible politically, obviously, but I have wondered if it would be possible to have them act more like a single state organizationally when it comes to transit. The Port Authority seems like an attempt to do this, but it doesn't function as well as it could. Having the commissioners appointed by the NY/NJ governors was a mistake in hindsight, it makes the Port Authority into nothing more than an arm of the governors (leads to a lot of corruption too).

Bringing this back to HSR, it would be an interesting idea to create a multi-state organization in the South or Midwest, with its leaders directly elected by the citizens of each state, dedicated to building HSR lines. That would still be hard to do, but at least it would be feasible

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Building through the Central Valley cities that developed around the UP mainline is costing perhaps $2 billion more than building parallel to I-5, which is is a rounding error on the overall cost of the network. The added 35~ miles (much of that the deflection to Palmdale via Tehachapi) will add at most 15 minutes to the overall express transit time. They still could nix Palmdale and reach the San Fernando Valley via the I-5 Grapevine route, which is a bit shorter and less expensive, but would cut out Las Vegas.

Even if they had built along I-5, they still wouldn't have the money with the current allocation to dig the Pacheco Pass tunnel or Grapevine tunnel or Alameda tunnel (or whatever route variation) if they had kept costs a little lower in the Central Valley. Plus, if they were working on the I-5 route right now, we'd have people complaining that they aren't properly serving the central valley cities.

It depends if routing the line through the less populated 5 route would have lead to less legal/political resistance in the central valley. If it would have, that calculus might win out. But given the great deal of resistance TXHSR is still facing even though it doesn't pass though any developed areas, my thoughts are that it wouldn't have made an appreciable difference, and would have lead to less ridership in the end.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Grapvine

It has always looked to me like the potential Grapevine route is much more complicated than what is currently planned. So at least as complicated as the Burbank>Palmdale Tunnel plus the Tehachipi Pass combined.

A "base" Grapevine tunnel would be in excess of 30 miles long, so much longer than what is currently planned for Burbank>Palmdale. It's also possible that the much greater length of operation at medium speeds would make the total Los Angeles to Bakersfield time almost the same despite the shorter distance.

What is currently planned is a 40-mile stretch between LA Union and Palmdale operating at roughly 120-150mph. The trains would then achieve top speed for approximately 40 miles before slowing somewhat for the Tehachapi Pass.

By contrast, Grapevine would mean 120-150mph for 80 miles between LA Union and the north side of the mountain range at Grapevine.

Creating a second entrance into Los Angeles via Grapevine wouldn't make much sense if the stretch between Burbank and LA Union remains the currently-planned 3 tracks. They'd exaggerate the problem that is already going to exist with Metrorail trains slotting into the HSR approach.

If they create a totally separate southern terminus with no connection to Union Station that means there would have to be a totally separate staging/turnaround facility. The lines in the SF valley all point toward Burbank, so getting from Slymar south to, say, LAX would require rebuilding the 405 with a pair of HSR tracks in the center.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

A "base" Grapevine tunnel would be in excess of 30 miles long, so much longer than what is currently planned for Burbank>Palmdale. It's also possible that the much greater length of operation at medium speeds would make the total Los Angeles to Bakersfield time almost the same despite the shorter distance.

What is currently planned is a 40-mile stretch between LA Union and Palmdale operating at roughly 120-150mph. The trains would then achieve top speed for approximately 40 miles before slowing somewhat for the Tehachapi Pass.

By contrast, Grapevine would mean 120-150mph for 80 miles between LA Union and the north side of the mountain range at Grapevine.

I just wanted to add why the maximum speeds of HSR trains slow down as much as they do in mountainous areas. While curvature of the track contribute some, most of the slower speeds is because of the grade changes, specifically heading downhill.
Think about tractor trailers speeds in mountainous areas, they slow down because of a lack of power going uphill, but they also slow down downhill because of the limitation of brakes. HSR trains have plenty of power to go faster uphill, but have the same limitation of the brakes going downhill as trucks.
Whereas the Palmdale routing adds miles to the HSR corridor than the Grapevine, it has far less miles of steeper grades than the Grapevine route.
Hence why there is practically even elapse times between both routes, and why sometimes the longer route can be faster than the shorter route.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

I just wanted to add why the maximum speeds of HSR trains slow down as much as they do in mountainous areas. While curvature of the track contribute some, most of the slower speeds is because of the grade changes, specifically heading downhill.

There are also speed limitations in tunnels, even level ones, for a variety of reasons (the new maglev in Japan will go full-blast in its tunnels, but I'm not sure what the difference is). Obviously, the new base tunnels in Switzerland and Austria will have multiple trains in them at the same time headed in the same direction. But that situation is to be avoided if possible. The Pacheco Pass Tunnel is being designed to be just short enough be roughly the space between two trains traveling in the same direction, meaning a following train will have space to stop before entering the tunnel in the event of a problem.

Maybe there is a way to build 2-3 long tunnels over Grapevine instead of a single monster base tunnel. It would take years of study to determine the best strategy. I suspect that CASHR went with Palmdale because they were more confident in the geologic conditions in that area, in addition to the Las Vegas connection.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

There are also speed limitations in tunnels, even level ones, for a variety of reasons (the new maglev in Japan will go full-blast in its tunnels, but I'm not sure what the difference is). Obviously, the new base tunnels in Switzerland and Austria will have multiple trains in them at the same time headed in the same direction. But that situation is to be avoided if possible. The Pacheco Pass Tunnel is being designed to be just short enough be roughly the space between two trains traveling in the same direction, meaning a following train will have space to stop before entering the tunnel in the event of a problem.

Maybe there is a way to build 2-3 long tunnels over Grapevine instead of a single monster base tunnel. It would take years of study to determine the best strategy. I suspect that CASHR went with Palmdale because they were more confident in the geologic conditions in that area, in addition to the Las Vegas connection.

Level tunnels can have speed restrictions for HSR trains, which can be minimized with tunnel designs, like how much larger the tunnel bore is per specific train clearance plates. You can not reduce the amount of grade changes by design choices alone, Mother Nature created the different grades, but designers can reduce the % of grade slopes by maximizing the horizontal distance traveled per vertical distance.
There are many places on our planet where trains go their fastest within tunnels.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Maybe there is a way to build 2-3 long tunnels over Grapevine instead of a single monster base tunnel. It would take years of study to determine the best strategy. I suspect that CASHR went with Palmdale because they were more confident in the geologic conditions in that area, in addition to the Las Vegas connection.

I know people have an issue with the price, and that's probably the most expensive option there is. They definitely chose Tehachapi for the cost, engineering, and there's more population centers along that route. There's rail ROW as well.
Y'all like maps?

source

[LAsam]

^Who's taking bets on whether we can board a high speed train from LA in 2033? I'll take the over, please.

[Busy Bee]

I think there's reason to be skeptical, but i also think there is equal reason to be optimistic. There is a very real possibility that the tunnelling from Palmdale to Sylmar will actually proceed sooner and be accomplished faster than many have assumed. In the history of tunneling it's not uncommon for completion dates to be moved significantly forward due to cooperative geology and a TBM performing flawlessly. Personally, I'm confident these target dates will be very close.