California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by orulz

Much as people have argued that the entry into the Bay Area should be via Altamont instead of Pacheco, the LVHSR should go via Mojave instead of Victorville so it provides a reasonable trip to the bay area, not just LA.

Oh well.

I agree that the plan for LV has always been a little mysterious. I think the I-15 route over toward Riverside has been avoided because it would likely require its own purpose-built tunnel to get to Victorville + the timeline for CAHSR Phase 2 is completely unknown.


Also, there has never been any description I'm aware of for a junction at Palmdale - would it be a wye to enable Las Vegas trains from the north? Who knows.

Also, I-15 makes a rather abrupt turn out in the middle of the desert which will force HSR to slow down should it be built parallel to the expressway. We might see a tunnel proposal out there in the middle of nowhere:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...4d-119.0187125

Also, the existing freight railroad goes through this canyon instead of along the flat land I-15 was built on:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ba...4d-119.0187125

[green_man]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Also, there has never been any description I'm aware of for a junction at Palmdale - would it be a wye to enable Las Vegas trains from the north? Who knows.

From the CA HSR Authority's website: https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Palmdale_Station.pdf

[aquablue]

CAHSR is such a mess. A disgraceful project. Why on earth are they building a train to nowhere? It's ridiculously stupid. This thing may never get finished, like the SAS in NYC.

Can you imagine a European line ending half done? That would be a national embarrassment there. But in America, it's not a big deal. Hardly anybody bats an eye because inter-city trains are treated like red headed step children.

[SFBruin]

If we treat them like red headed step children, then why are we spending 77 billion on this one?

Although, I will admit that that number is a little bit insane.

[aquablue]

We're not.. There is no funding in place after this first part.

[SFBruin]

Oh.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by aquablue

CAHSR is such a mess. A disgraceful project. Why on earth are they building a train to nowhere? It's ridiculously stupid. This thing may never get finished, like the SAS in NYC.

Can you imagine a European line ending half done? That would be a national embarrassment there. But in America, it's not a big deal. Hardly anybody bats an eye because inter-city trains are treated like red headed step children.

Hopefully, we are not embarking on another period in history when projects are started, a pile of money expended and then never completed. This is being backed by the government, not some private company that ran out of money, which we were seeing 100 years ago.

A Central valley line that does not feed into the major cities at either end will be a monument to bad planning and government incompetence, with a high probability of eventual abandonment.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by green_man

From the CA HSR Authority's website: https://hsr.ca.gov/docs/newsroom/maps/Palmdale_Station.pdf

Thanks - I had not seen that. The distance from LA to Las Vegas is about as far as from LA to the Pacheco Pass, so building across to Victorville and then parallel to I-15 to HSR specs will be about as expensive as what is currently under construction in the Central Valley, but minus the stations since there won't be any. It'll nevertheless be a $10+ billion project. But after the Burbank>Palmdale tunnel is finished, the hardest part will be finished.

[SFBruin]

Wow, Palmdale will be ground zero for High-Speed Rail connectivity if these lines get built.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

Wow, Palmdale will be ground zero for High-Speed Rail connectivity if these lines get built.

The weird thing to think about is if CAHSR is running a huge number of trains south through the Central Valley - like 12 per hour during rush hour - how a train leaving Las Vegas could be made to meet its allotted slot into the tunnel south of Palmdale. I assume that they would schedule all departures from Las Vegas 5~ minutes fast, and then slow the train as it approaches Palmdale if everything is going according to schedule. If there is a hiccup in the Central Valley, the Las Vegas train could proceed at full speed and take the schedule opening.

Also, I think they would have a station at Victorville, but that would be the only one between Palmdale and Las Vegas.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by aquablue

CAHSR is such a mess. A disgraceful project. Why on earth are they building a train to nowhere? It's ridiculously stupid. This thing may never get finished, like the SAS in NYC.

Can you imagine a European line ending half done? That would be a national embarrassment there. But in America, it's not a big deal. Hardly anybody bats an eye because inter-city trains are treated like red headed step children.

Yes. I can imagine that.

Plenty of European lines started out half done. HS1 between London and Paris, for example... once the Eurostar entered England, it limped along at pokey commuter train speeds to get into London-Waterloo from 1995 to 2009. Also, some European cities have their trains run slower once they enter city limits, sharing tracks with other lines and only being TRULY high speed once they're out in the open.

If you're comparing to Asian systems, you'd have an argument... as they generally built the entire track system for high speed end to end but even then, Tokyo limits speeds of the Shinkansen through the city for noise pollution and safety reasons (despite the tracks being dedicated HSR)

[LineDrive]

How the hell was this thing approved without assurance it could be financially fully supported? How hideous of a look for the state. The concept of a bullet train from SF to LA is appealing and potentially very useful but literally at this point the bare minimum should be done to make this project save face and then use the rest of the funds for the 4 MAJOR & 2 semi major projects LA area needs (Sylmar/Sepulveda/LAX HRT • Vermont HRT • Crenshaw North • Flower St Subway • Purple to SM • WSAB) and for the 3 projects that the SF Bay Area needs (2nd Transbay • San Jose Subway • 2nd SF BART Line)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Yes. I can imagine that.

Plenty of European lines started out half done. HS1 between London and Paris, for example... once the Eurostar entered England, it limped along at pokey commuter train speeds to get into London-Waterloo from 1995 to 2009. Also, some European cities have their trains run slower once they enter city limits, sharing tracks with other lines and only being TRULY high speed once they're out in the open.

At least you could ride a Eurostar train into Waterloo, and ride it all the way from London to Paris. That's not going to happen in California for a long time to come. They have not even decided how to build the line between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, and Amtrak California does not run a train between them. The EIS, the plan is out for public commit, which can change in the future, for the corridor between San Francisco and Gilroy. Another gap in planning exists between Gilroy and Madera. These gaps are in areas where significant amounts of tunneling will be required, and if they had the money and planning completed today, would take 10-15 years to complete the tunnels. But there is no money for the tunnels, so it will be a long time before you can ride a train from Los Angeles, via Bakersfield, Fresno, and San Jose, to San Francisco.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by LineDrive

[/I] and for the 3 projects that the SF Bay Area needs (2nd Transbay • San Jose Subway • 2nd SF BART Line)

As has been speculated elsewhere, Newsom's hesitation to proceed with the Pacheco Pass Tunnel funding might be table setting for the 4-track Transbay Tube, which would serve the long-planned Gerry St. BART subway on one level and a combination of CAHSR and east bay commuter rail on the other pair of tubes. With the 4th & King tunnel to Transbay, Transbay Terminal could be turned into a thru station and Caltrains could be combined with ACE and do one-seat rides across the Bay. It would also greatly increase the capacity of the 6-track Transbay Terminal by making it a station instead of a terminal.

As I have speculated elsewhere, the Pacheco Pass tunnel puts San Jose in a better position than SF in the CAHSR network. More trains + a much faster transit time to LA. No doubt SF interests HATE THIS and see the 4-track Transbay Tunnel as a way to bypass San Jose for a long, long time. Back in 2008 the Dumbarton Bridge was studied as CAHSR's bay crossing, but the Transbay Terminal now physically exists, which it didn't 10 years ago, and so the case for a new tube is much stronger since it has somewhere to go.

[urbanview]

France just green lighted 5 new TGV lines last year. But can America get even one? China's HSR network is like a subway map, it's that big. Spain seems to have a line going to all their cities. It's still building like 8 lines even though they had economic problems. Spain isn't even as dense as California as well.

Oh, and if you're not going to do trains well, at least do roads well. Roads are falling apart in many big cities in this country. They are in terrible shape. DC roads surfaces can look like a third world country in some areas. So can NYC's. Midtown roads are often bad.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by urbanview

France just green lighted 5 new TGV lines last year. But can America get even one? China's HSR network is like a subway map, it's that big. Spain seems to have a line going to all their cities. It's still building like 8 lines even though they had economic problems. Spain isn't even as dense as California as well.

Oh, and if you're not going to do trains well, at least do roads well. Roads are falling apart in many big cities in this country. They are in terrible shape. DC roads surfaces can look like a third world country in some areas. So can NYC's. Midtown roads are often bad.

France also has almost 70 million people or so in an area roughly the size of Texas.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

France also has almost 70 million people or so in an area roughly the size of Texas.

That's fairly low density. Most of France is pretty empty for Western European standards.

New Jersey, much of which is empty or low density sprawl, has more than 4x the density.

But density isn't really the issue. It's whether you have specific corridors with a market for HSR.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's fairly low density. Most of France is pretty empty for Western European standards.

New Jersey, much of which is empty or low density sprawl, has more than 4x the density.

But density isn't really the issue. It's whether you have specific corridors with a market for HSR.

It could be low density outside of cities which would make HSR construction easier if that is the case. I am not familiar with France other than I simply checked those numbers. Cities in Europe seem more compact than American ones though, and again, that is based from my research and not experience.

There seems a bigger demand would be in order for Western Europe having 400 million people in area much smaller the country of the US and therefore are not comparable in making a case for HSR in the US and neither is China.

[aquablue]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE#/m...SpeedSpain.svg

This is all in a country less dense than California, all 8+ lines of it. This is necessary to show people who think the USA is not dense enough to have any HSR at all. Yes, it's perfectly suitable in specific locations.

Also, look how behind USA is compared to Spain's development. They have 8 lines under construction right now.

[aquablue]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

It could be low density outside of cities which would make HSR construction easier if that is the case. I am not familiar with France other than I simply checked those numbers. Cities in Europe seem more compact than American ones though, and again, that is based from my research and not experience.

There seems a bigger demand would be in order for Western Europe having 400 million people in area much smaller the country of the US and therefore are not comparable in making a case for HSR in the US and neither is China.

Why compare W. Europe to USA? You should be comparing certain areas/states of the USA to specific countries in Europe, that's a more fair comparison. USA will never be like Europe, it's HSR routes will be probably limited to 3 or 4 places and that's it. The overall demand in Europe will always be far greater for rail because of what you said (population), but that doesn't mean that rail can't work in specific places in America and run profitably .