California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

That said he still would have had despicable creatures like Walker and Scott making political hay out of rejecting federal investment in rail on purely ideological grounds

Don't forget Kasich. He returned the $450 million awarded to Ohio for cross-state passenger rail service. The "3-C's" service was going to connect Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland (a combined population of about 8 million in 250 miles) with 110mph diesels similar to what operates in Michigan. They were going to double track all single-track sections, purchase five trains, and operate five trains per day per direction. In short, a totally sensible plan that was going to cost a hair over $1 billion to implement and $20 million per year to subsidize in a state of 12 million residents.


Kasich cancelled the whole thing the instant he took office in 2011. Most of that $450 million grant was redirected to California, but now Trump is trying to yank that same money back and direct it to...the wall? That is unlikely to happen, but we just sit here decade after decade as informed U.S. citizens watching the fossil fuel industry endlessly harass public transportation and intercity rail, and politicians winning cheap points with all of the people out there who don't read.

Back to what is actually being built in California -- back when Prop A was on the ballot, I never saw a proposal floated that would have built a double-track HSR line parallel to I-5 and then a conventional electric railway with slower speeds and some grade crossings in the Central Valley. It seems like a new double-track electric railway in the Central Valley compatible with the SF and LA approaches but with much less grade separation and slower speeds near the stations would have been a worthwhile project.

[jmecklenborg]

California will enjoy a gigantic budget surplus this year -- over $20 billion. That on top of a $9 billion surplus in 2018.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/ente...509-story.html

So the idea that there isn't enough money to proceed with the HSR project as planned is comical.

At this rate the state could pay cash for the HSR project -- even the doomsday $100 billion scenarios -- in just five years. Now I'm not advocating that -- these things are always financed with bonds, of course -- but let's get some perspective.

[Sun Belt]

We're rich!

Wonder where that money will end up. It's a mystery.

[Busy Bee]

Things that make you go hmmm.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

We're rich!

Wonder where that money will end up. It's a mystery.

From what I have read, much will go to shore up state & municipal pension funds, to subsidize Medi-Cal, and to subsidize health insurance premiums for the middle class. Additionally, a ton will be locked in a rainy day fund.

With all of those issues shored up, hopefully in 2020 Gov. Newsom will direct money to big infrastructure projects like HSR. And it's likely that Trump will be shown the door in 2020, meaning that a Democrat President will pick up where Obama left off with support for CAHSR.

Where is California's windfall coming from? A lot of it is coming from capital gains, since California taxes capital gains as ordinary income, and California has a ton of wealthy citizens. Some other states do that as well, like Ohio, but Great Lakes and Midwestern trust funders tend to move places like...California.

By contrast, Tennessee has never had an income tax and will eliminate its 6% capital gains tax, known colloquially as the "Hall Tax", by 2021. This is a huge giveaway to the wealthy, since the working class rarely experiences a capital gain. This loss in revenue is being covered by -- you guessed it -- raising the sales tax. And typical of "low tax" states, Tennessee's sales tax taxes food, which "high tax" states often do not. "Low Tax" is simply a euphemism for pushing tax collections in a regressive direction.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Things that make you go hmmm.

But Faux 'News' says California is a socialist disaster on par with Venezuela...

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

But Faux 'News' says California is a socialist disaster on par with Venezuela...

The other thing Fox News doesn't ever recognize is that some states handle local tasks at the state level that others push state issues down to localities. So "low tax" states not only structure things more regressively, they push things like schools and police completely down on localities.

Maryland funds local public transportation in Baltimore City along with the DC suburbs that extend into Maryland. Most states do not do this and so subsidies are paid by cities or counties.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The other thing Fox News doesn't ever recognize is that some states handle local tasks at the state level that others push state issues down to localities. So "low tax" states not only structure things more regressively, they push things like schools and police completely down on localities.

Maryland funds local public transportation in Baltimore City along with the DC suburbs that extend into Maryland. Most states do not do this and so subsidies are paid by cities or counties.

Eh. Most Americans don't even understand the different levels of government. They see government=Washington. This is probably one reason Democrats are doing good, people don't realize some things could(read:should) be done at the state or local level.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Eh. Most Americans don't even understand the different levels of government. They see government=Washington. This is probably one reason Democrats are doing good, people don't realize some things could(read:should) be done at the state or local level.

Simplistic state-to-state comparisons and simplistic city-to-city comparisons in different states are messy because state laws, especially with regards to municipal taxation, vary wildly from one to the next.

It's also very difficult for states to collaborate on cross-state projects, plus weird border disputes have worked to the detriment of poorer states. For example, the supreme court ruled that nearly the entirely of the Ohio River is in Kentucky; therefore Kentucky is required to maintain the majority of its cross-state bridges with Indiana and Ohio, and it is required to pay the majority of the cost for new bridges.


Germaine to CAHSR, an LA>Las Vegas HSR line would only have 15~ miles in Nevada, but the line would primarily benefit Las Vegas, not Los Angeles. Any attempt to split the cost of construction in California would spend years in the courts.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Simplistic state-to-state comparisons and simplistic city-to-city comparisons in different states are messy because state laws, especially with regards to municipal taxation, vary wildly from one to the next.

It's also very difficult for states to collaborate on cross-state projects, plus weird border disputes have worked to the detriment of poorer states. For example, the supreme court ruled that nearly the entirely of the Ohio River is in Kentucky; therefore Kentucky is required to maintain the majority of its cross-state bridges with Indiana and Ohio, and it is required to pay the majority of the cost for new bridges.


Germaine to CAHSR, an LA>Las Vegas HSR line would only have 15~ miles in Nevada, but the line would primarily benefit Las Vegas, not Los Angeles. Any attempt to split the cost of construction in California would spend years in the courts.

In the particular case of HSR in California, just not having a spur to LV would end any worry or extra time spent dealing with two states. However, I get your overall point, but most things do not cross borders like transportation does.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

In the particular case of HSR in California, just not having a spur to LV would end any worry or extra time spent dealing with two states. However, I get your overall point, but most things do not cross borders like transportation does.

The federal government usually gets involved in one way or another when transportation projects crosses state borders. It is only a political problem when the states are funding the projects without federal involvement. But as soon as private enterprise is funding and operating the transportation project, it is no longer a problem for the states to solve with one another.
For example, almost all of the original bridges crossing the Mississippi River prior to the Federal Highway Trust Fund were privately funded, either by railroads themselves or by state government's selling bonds to fund which were eventually paid by users with tolls. Almost all the Mississippi River bridges except those in Minnesota crossed state borders.

The LV to LA HSR train will have to cross a state border. Virgin (Brightline or XpressWest) is a private company. Nevada taxpayers are not going to have to spend much in California, likewise California taxpayers are not going to have to spend much in Nevada. But do not be surprised by Virgin asking for tax abatements in both states for stations and maintenance shops within both respective states.

[TWAK]

I was under the impression that the Newsome govt would go over the plan again and "fix" it. Like it or not it passed a vote so we should get 9 billion of construction, but 9 billion now is what...worth a few miles? We should have HSR around the entire country IMO, or at least electrify the system nationally. Clearly plenty of the opposition is from people who don't live here, which is fine, I get it. People aren't gonna support something that they can't see or use.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

In the particular case of HSR in California, just not having a spur to LV would end any worry or extra time spent dealing with two states. However, I get your overall point, but most things do not cross borders like transportation does.

I don't anticipate that the LV thing is really going to happen.

The right way to do this is to create a 3-state agency to handle a triangle of HSR between LA/SD, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

A line between Phoenix and Las Vegas could use the Phoenix-SoCal tracks past the Calfornia border, then travel due north parallel to US 95. Such an alignment would avoid having to cross the Colorado River at the Hoover Dam or any of the difficult spots to the south.

Much of the construction would be through a landscape like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0974...7i16384!8i8192

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I don't anticipate that the LV thing is really going to happen.

The right way to do this is to create a 3-state agency to handle a triangle of HSR between LA/SD, Las Vegas, and Phoenix.

A line between Phoenix and Las Vegas could use the Phoenix-SoCal tracks past the Calfornia border, then travel due north parallel to US 95. Such an alignment would avoid having to cross the Colorado River at the Hoover Dam or any of the difficult spots to the south.

Much of the construction would be through a landscape like this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0974...7i16384!8i8192

Yes, much of the landscape is rural and desert, so construction costs should be lower. But where will the builders/contractors live during construction? How much will that add to the costs to build?

I keep repeating that HSR has a two to three hour sweet spot. Amtrak’s Acela Service between NY and DC takes 3 hours 10 minutes on average (225 rail miles), and NY to Boston takes 3 hours 50 minutes on average. It falls just short of that sweet spot, which is why Amtrak is willing to spend $Billions for a relatively small 10 minutes of time savings.
LA to LV by driving distance is 263 miles. LA to Victorville is 82 miles, Victorville to LV is 188 miles - yes the sum of the legs do not add up to the total.
For a train to make the LA-LV trip in 2 hours, it would have to average 132.5 mph.
For a train to make the LA-LV trip in 3 hours, it would have to average 88.3 mph.

LV to Phoenix driving distance is 297 miles.
For a train to make the trip in 2 hours, it would have to average 148.5 mph
For a train to make the trip in 3 hours, it would have to average 99 mph
LA to Phoenix driving distance is 373 miles.
For a train to make the trip in 2 hours, it would have to average 186.5 mph
For a train to make the trip in 3 hours, it would have to average 124.3 mph

Keep in mind that Acela trains between NY to DC average around 70 mph. Trains to LV will have the advantage of no stations between Victorville and Las Vegas, and could reach maximum speeds for about 188 miles, a fairly long time for HSR trains. So they should have higher average speeds than what Acela achieves on the NEC with even slower trains.

But I still do not see LA to Phoenix passengers choosing HSR over a jet plane in the numbers required to make it worthwhile.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

From what I have read, much will go to shore up state & municipal pension funds, to subsidize Medi-Cal, and to subsidize health insurance premiums for the middle class. Additionally, a ton will be locked in a rainy day fund.

With all of those issues shored up, hopefully in 2020 Gov. Newsom will direct money to big infrastructure projects like HSR. And it's likely that Trump will be shown the door in 2020, meaning that a Democrat President will pick up where Obama left off with support for CAHSR.

Where is California's windfall coming from? A lot of it is coming from capital gains, since California taxes capital gains as ordinary income, and California has a ton of wealthy citizens. Some other states do that as well, like Ohio, but Great Lakes and Midwestern trust funders tend to move places like...California.

By contrast, Tennessee has never had an income tax and will eliminate its 6% capital gains tax, known colloquially as the "Hall Tax", by 2021. This is a huge giveaway to the wealthy, since the working class rarely experiences a capital gain. This loss in revenue is being covered by -- you guessed it -- raising the sales tax. And typical of "low tax" states, Tennessee's sales tax taxes food, which "high tax" states often do not. "Low Tax" is simply a euphemism for pushing tax collections in a regressive direction.

What he said.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

A line between Phoenix and Las Vegas could use the Phoenix-SoCal tracks past the Calfornia border, then travel due north parallel to US 95. Such an alignment would avoid having to cross the Colorado River at the Hoover Dam or any of the difficult spots to the south.

I don't know if such an alignment will be viable for LA-Vegas.
~270 miles by car vs. ~450 miles by train. Driving would be faster in most cases.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

But I still do not see LA to Phoenix passengers choosing HSR over a jet plane in the numbers required to make it worthwhile.

Well CAHSR Phase 2 is the preparation for HSR to Phoenix. It will be 110mph fully grade separated operation between LA Union and San Diego via a wildly circuitous route to Riverside. The goal of this project is not to link San Diego with NoCal but rather to create very high quality regional/commuter rail and set the stage for HSR trains to and from Phoenix from both Los Angeles and San Diego.

It's going to be about a 2hr 30 minute ride from LA Union or DT SD to Phoenix but obviously much shorter from the Inland Empire, which has a population of 4+ million. My guess is that there would be a station at Palm Springs and maybe one in the west suburbs of Phoenix aside from their downtown.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's going to be about a 2hr 30 minute ride from LA Union or DT SD to Phoenix but obviously much shorter from the Inland Empire, which has a population of 4+ million. My guess is that there would be a station at Palm Springs and maybe one in the west suburbs of Phoenix aside from their downtown.

That would actually be pretty dope. I could see lots of people taking the train from LA to Phoenix, given that the demographics of the two metros are similar (lots of young people, I would imagine) and the terrain probably allows for a reasonably direct route.

It all depends on the price of a ticket.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

and the terrain probably allows for a reasonably direct route.

From what I can tell from Google Earth (I have never been to Arizona) it does not appear that there will need to be any tunnels or major bridges between Palm Springs and the edge of Phoenix. That is a distance of about 250 miles of high speed operation, so about 1 hour, 15 minutes of travel time. It's unclear how complicated things will be between Riverside and Palm Springs (again, I've never been to that area).

Unfortunately the freight railroad approach to Phoenix's downtown station has a ton of freight sidings, so getting HSR into downtown Phoenix with a fully grade-separated ROW will be very expensive. It'll probably be cheaper to buy out some of the businesses and pay to move them elsewhere in the metro than to build miles and miles of viaduct or trench for HSR. This would be needed even for 110mph like the planned blended service approaching LA and SF.

Not counting the CAHSR Phase 2 construction to the Inland Empire from both LA and San Diego, a new railroad between that point and the edge of Phoenix, including trains and a maintenance facility, will probably cost at least $20 billion. But there shouldn't be any of the big unknowns that haunt CAHSR like the Pacheco Pass Tunnel, Grapevine vs. Palm Springs alignment, I-5 versus Central Valley, etc.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

From what I can tell from Google Earth (I have never been to Arizona) it does not appear that there will need to be any tunnels or major bridges between Palm Springs and the edge of Phoenix. That is a distance of about 250 miles of high speed operation, so about 1 hour, 15 minutes of travel time. It's unclear how complicated things will be between Riverside and Palm Springs (again, I've never been to that area).

Unfortunately the freight railroad approach to Phoenix's downtown station has a ton of freight sidings, so getting HSR into downtown Phoenix with a fully grade-separated ROW will be very expensive. It'll probably be cheaper to buy out some of the businesses and pay to move them elsewhere in the metro than to build miles and miles of viaduct or trench for HSR. This would be needed even for 110mph like the planned blended service approaching LA and SF.

Not counting the CAHSR Phase 2 construction to the Inland Empire from both LA and San Diego, a new railroad between that point and the edge of Phoenix, including trains and a maintenance facility, will probably cost at least $20 billion. But there shouldn't be any of the big unknowns that haunt CAHSR like the Pacheco Pass Tunnel, Grapevine vs. Palm Springs alignment, I-5 versus Central Valley, etc.

Very true from Palm Springs to Phoenix, but when will CHSR build its lines from LA to SD? This HSR corridor is even more handicapped with the non-existent for decades section of CHSR as the HSR corridor to LV! And there is still the gap over significant grades between Palm Springs and San Bernardino, which will probably cost as much to build as between Palm Springs and Phoenix. Additionally, land values within the LA basin is amongst the highest in the nation.

It’s 313 driving miles between Palm Springs and Phoenix, 54 driving miles between San Bernardino and Palm Springs, and 60 driving miles between LA and San Bernardino. The total distance is around 427 miles following I-10.