The moon race was also over-budget. After the first step on the gray dust on live tv, nobody gave a shit. HSR will be exactly the same.

Well that's not included in the Environmental Impact Report :sly:
They at first said it wouldn't get approved, then it wouldn't get built, now it's wont get finished/overbudget. They have fire till the project is complete, and then they will probably complain after till they ride the darn thing.

Well we sure need to start a project soon after voting for it, since support will peel each year construction hasn't started.
A state where everything is more expensive and people get angry that it's gonna cost more? Maybe if it was fully federal....but it aint. What's being built right now, is some of the cheapest stuff in the state.

CAHSR Phase 1 overlaps LOSSAN from LA Union to Anaheim. The existing plan will quadruple track, electrify, and fully grade separate the 25~ mile distance between those points.

From the end of planned electrification in Anaheim to DT San Diego is about 90 miles. It would cost north of $5 billion to build a Del Mar Tunnel and electrify the line, piggy-backed on CAHSR Phase 1. They could probably turn the 15~ miles of track past Camp Pendleton into high speed operation without any exotic high-cost construction.

Realistically you'd also need to build an tunnel under San Clemente, since that's the only way you could double track the entire line. CAHSR said it'd be necessary to get the required levels of service out of the corridor when they were scoping out possible Phase II routes.

I've often questioned CAHSR's decision to route the southern Phase II on a dedicated line east of the coastal range. Due to the shorter distance, track sharing through LOSSAN would have virtually the same travel times (~1 hour). San Diego is already committed to double tracking everything south of Pendleton. San Clemente already supports a tunnel, the current tracks cut their city in two. CAHSR could have an extension to SD for only the cost of an ~5-8 mile tunnel and 90 miles of electrification, and it would be regionally popular through a good section of the corridor.

They could avoid tunnel construction by removing a lane from each side of I-5 and building the rail corridor down the middle.

Well the Inland Empire area served by CAHSR Phase 2 probably has far more people than the areas between Anaheim and Camp Pendleton, plus Phase 2 is the setup for HSR to Phoenix.

Also the relatively slow transit time between San Diego and Los Angeles - even for an express train with no local stops, means they probably found HSR to NoCal from San Diego to be uncompetitive with flying. There is also the issue with staging a large number of trains at the end of the line - there is tons of space in Anaheim near the stadium but not near downtown San Diego. Yes, that same problem will exist if HSR is built between San Diego and Phoenix, but imagine ALL of the trains from NoCal and Phoenix trying to find a place to park near San Diego.

Flying from San Diego to San Francisco is only like 15 minutes longer than from LAX, but by train it will be at least an hour longer.

A quick google search uncovered this tasty detail:
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-...419-story.html

Apparently CAHSR did want to reach San Diego via this line in 2001, and the concept for a 5+ mile tunnel was proposed to avoid double-tracking the beach.

I think the big question would be if they want to:
a)completely remove the existing tracks, meaning freight has to go through a new tunnel, meaning they need to use electric freight locomotives and possibly build a much larger bore to accommodate double stacks
b)move freight to the tunnel but leave the existing tracks for tourist excursion trains
c)replace the existing freight tracks with a tourist-oriented light railway


If they are also going to build the planned Del Mar tunnel in San Diego, that means the argument for forcing freight to use electric locomotives improves, but they're still stuck with the double-stacking issue.

It's possible that they could build one normal bore and one larger bore tunnel and dictate that all freight needs to use the larger bore.

I didn't think double stack containers are run on LOSSAN south of Anaheim. I know auto transporters are from the San Diego port though which are about as tall but you could push that business to Long Beach I think.

You're comparing the first humans going to the moon to building an HSR which has been built all over the world for 50 years by now?

:haha:

Don't over think it buddy.

SD is already looking at building a replacement union station just outside of downtown, next to the airport. It would have more than enough capacity.

https://i.imgur.com/i935yK8.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/z1Pp9vv.jpg

As ever though, we'll have to see how funding works out.

Everything you mention is true, but ihmo irrelevant.

A track to Phoenix is really off scope for this project. We are struggling just to fund Phase I. Getting anything from Phase II at all is looking pretty unlikely rn. imo we should abandon any talk of Arizona, and focus on maximizing the possibility Phase II gets build at all.

The current Phase II route is near double the length of LOSSAN, so the travel times come out to a wash. Either way it's going to take a little over an hour between SD and LA. It's unlikely that anyone is going to ride all the way from SD to SF anyway, the value is connecting LA to SD and the potential riders in between.

The IE is politically conservative, and you're building outside of existing ROW which means mass land appropriations. They will fight tooth and nail against running an HSR line through their area, just like the central valley did, which will add years and billions to the cost of the line.

So the choice is between building on extremely expensive new ROW that's regionally unpopular, or existing ROW that already has a level of community support for upgrades. The latter is so, so much more likely to actually get built, even in a positive funding environment. imo the relatively small increase in potential riders doesn't justify the addition challenges for an already challenging project.

San Diego population was estimated in 2019 to be 3,338,330, ranking #17 with an increase of 7.85% since 2010.
The Inland Empire population was estimated in 2019 to be 4,650,631, ranking #13 with an increase of 19,08% since 2010.
Not only is the Inland Empire larger, it is also growing faster.

Amtrak runs 12 round trips Surfliner trains between LA and SD, Amtrak runs 2 round trip Sunset Limited trains between SB and LA 3 times each week, and 2 round trip trains between Riverside and LA 7 days a week.

So, in a period of just one week, LA to SD is serviced by 84 trains vs 20 LA to the IE. I suggest there are valid reasons for Phase 2 to be routed via the IE.

Additionally, the elapse time for the Surfliner trains between LA and SD is 2 hours and 45 minutes, a time less than the 3 hour sweet spot where trains should gain higher market share than planes - as is. There are further improvements in the plans between LA and Anaheim that should reduce the elapse time some more. There are no direct train services between SD and the IE today, maybe there should be with the completion of Phase 2.

LA to IE is already serviced by hundreds of Metrolink trains per week.

Routing Phase II along Camp Pendleton basically means faster service between LA/Anaheim (pop 12 million) and San Diego (pop 3 million).

Routing Phase II via the IE basically means duplication of service between LA (pop 9 million) and IE (pop 4 million), introduction of service between IE (pop 4 million) and San Diego (pop 3 million), and somewhat faster service between LA (pop 9 million) and San Diego (pop 3 million).

I think that you can debate which alignment is better, but if I were in charge of it (I am not), I would probably try to link the two largest employment centers (downtown LA and downtown SD) with the fastest possible service, and leave commutes between IE and San Diego to have a transfer at LA Union Station.

All very, very true. I can see the logic of the IE route, and if funding/politics I probably would make the decision CAHSR did (well, if I really had my way we would build on both routes, and add a new transbay tube to link SF an Sacramento. My dream CAHSR map is a massive figure 8 that connects all of CA's major cities)

But, bluntly, I don't think Phase II in its current for will ever be constructed. The money and political will simply aren't there, even if a Biden infrastructure plan goes through. So for rather selfish reasons I would like to see HSR come to San Diego, and LOSSAN seems like the best bet by far. The ROW is there, there's public support for improvements, and the corridor is already extremely popular with commuters. A ~1 hour travel time won't just compete with air travel, it would be faster than diving in daytime traffic. A service like that would immediately popular and well used.

I understand why so many want higher speed trains on LOSSAN between LA and SD. Much of the line is single track, although there are consistent efforts to double track it. But to really run both slow speed local trains and high speed regional trains on the same corridor, it needs to be quad track like in the UK. I believe the powers to be at CHSR realized this as well, which is why they wished to build an entirely new dedicated HSR line via the IE so as to avoid quad tracking an existing line. Just discussing double tracking some are discussing expensive tunnels, imagine the costs of quad track tunnels.

LA to SD is 120 miles. The existing Surfliners take 2.75 hours to travel that distance averaging 43.6 mph. Metrolink and Coaster trains on this corridor average even slower speeds.
How fast is fast enough. How long should the trip be to be effective?
2 hours = average 60 mph
1.5 hours = average 80 mph
1 hour = average 120 mph
0.5 hour = average 240 mph
Keep in mind that the faster the average speed needs to be; the fewer station stops the trains can make, and the higher the fares will be.
Then consider that on a good day you can drive it in 1 hour and 48 minutes per Google for just the price of gas - assuming you already have a car in your driveway.

I strongly believe people should look at HSR projects with 3 fare prices in mind.
The cheapest being an all stop local bus or train service with monthly passes with steep subsidies
The medium fares for slow regional and long distance trains with smaller subsidies
The most expensive HSR and airline fares with zero subsidies

There are potential passengers in every fare category. Those wishing to pay the highest fares want and expect as fast service over distances as airlines. The 3 hour elapse time rule I keep repeating over and over again. LA to SD is already less than 3 hours, maximizing its' average speed is not going to increase its' market share as fare prices climb respectfully. In the LA to SD market, planners should be looking at maximizing riders balancing fares and speeds. I do not think a 200 mph train speed is needed to maximize ridership.

Uh the need especially at Del Mar is that the existing ROW is crumbling onto the beach. A tunnel under the town is going to have to happen in any event. Double tracking it isn't going to add that much to the overall cost.

Biden is trying to give $80 billion to Amtrak. Here is what Amtrak sez it can do with that sum:
http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/u...-Statement.pdf

We see no Pacheco Pass Tunnel or new CAHSR connection between Bakersfield and Los Angeles. We do see "enhancement" of the LOSSAN corridor.

Looks like they're keeping CASHR out of this bill to reduce controversy but will return to the matter with the rumored follow-up bill.

Keep in mind that improvements to LOSSAN *are* improvements to CAHSR Phase 1 near Los Angeles. We might see this bill help fund LA Union Station improvements and grade separations/electrification that will be shared by CAHSR.

Those were my thoughts as well.

I'm not sure that CAHSR isn't going to be in the bill just on the basis of Amtrak not talking about it.

There's $80 billion for "passenger and freight trains" per the WSJ. I haven't seen a further breakdown on the $80 billion but the Secretary of Transportation is an HSR advocate so I'd bet there's something in there for HSR and if so Madam Speaker Pelosi and the rest of the CA Congressional delegation will make sure CA gets its share.

The map you linked shows "new service" in the Central Valley and one assumes that's the HSR segment under construction. But it also shows "enhanced service" over the entire LA to SF route beyond the "new service". It also shows "new service" between LA and Las Vegas, presumably the privately funded HSR (I'm not sure where this is at on the road to getting built) that would link to the CAHSR project.

No telling what the enhancements envisioned by Amtrak might be but, as you say, they are likely to all be helpful to CAHSR to varying degrees.

As to a later bill, they were saying they planned to pass one of the two big bills by the reconciliation process and hoped to get some Republican votes for the other. I've lost track, I think, but I had thought it was the second bill that would go "reconciliation" and they thought they could get some Republicans on board for "infrastructure". But that was before they put a lot of stuff in the first bill that raises eyebrows calling it "infrastructure". I mean $400 billion for home care of seniors might very well be very helpful to me someday (sooner than I'd like to hope) but is it "infrastructure"?

The Senate has two opportunities to pass through the reconciliation process. They used one for the 1.9T Covid Stimulus Bill a couple weeks ago. Thats the direct checks amongst many other things designed to assist affected business and to generally rejuvenate a badly damaged economy. They are hoping to be able to pass the first infrastructure bill with R support, since it should ideally be bipartisan, but most signs just point to the GOP likely roadblocking, pardon the pun, as usual because thats what they always do and they don't actually know how to legislate and because they've convinced themselves that the white foxnews grievance crowd is still more interested in irrationally opposing Biden and "sticking it to the libs" than seeing their water lines or streets in their neighborhood rebuilt... because communism... and abortion or something. So this leaves the Democrats with a tough choice because they feel convicted to also pass HR-1, which is the federal voting access reforms in response to the GOP's state level attempts at trying to secure future power by making it harder for people likely to vote against them and for progress to have their vote count or vote at all because they know they're going to start loosing seats if the popular vote is allowed to stand i.e.Georgia.

China High Speed Rail YouTube video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=belm4kDAHgM

HR-1 can't go through reconciliation. That would require getting rid of the filibuster (or getting 60 votes, which not gonna happen), in which case the infrastructure bill could be passed through normal proceedings. So either way, infrastructure will only require a simple majority in the senate.

You're correct. SR-1 (HR-1) cannot use budget reconciliation to pass with a simple majority. I stand corrected. Infrastructure, immigration, voting reform... regardless the real rot at the core of the dysfunction is the manipulation of the filibuster to block legislation from even coming up for a vote and requiring the 60 vote threshold. That is a perversion of the democratic process. Filibuster reform must happen because this country just cannot be governed like this anymore. I'll refrain from elaborating about who I think bears the brunt of the blame, but I think it's self evident to anyone paying attention for the last 15 years.

It's worth noting one of the faster growing parts of IE is south riverside county, specifically Murrieta and Temecula, and plenty of those residents have jobs in San Diego County.

Some articles I've seen word it as if this is only phase one as a larger overall infrastructure initiative. Lots of articles placed the total cost of Biden's infrastructure spending from 3-4 trillion with some broader estimates 2-4 trillion. I was surprised to see it "only" 2.1 trillion. I bet we see more proposals but hopefully we can just get this one passed as there is no guarantee the dems will hold both house and senate. If they loose even one you can pretty much kiss any infrastructure package goodbye.

The republicans have shown time and time again they love talking about building roads and infrastructure but when it comes time to find a way to pay they drop the subject entirely and nothing happens. Rinse and repeat for decades. Even though I am not thrilled with the anti-highway stance by Biden's administration I am happy they have a REAL proposal for infrastructure overhaul now we just need to get it passed.

^So are they proposing to rebuild the station below grade? This article is pretty vague.

This station location is terrible for TOD because it's in direct alignment with the SFO runway, meaning they probably can't build anything over 100 feet tall.

Extending BART to Broadway and building the HSR station there would allow for a hi-rise TOD. Keep in mind that this station is going to have better transit and HSR access than virtually anywhere else outside of a downtown anywhere in the United States. The potential for a monster TOD is being wasted at Milbrae.

100% agree on all parts

I don't exactly get what Millbrae is actually complaining about in the first place.

Burlingame would mount an armed resistance at the mere mention of anything over 40 feet, so I'm a little skeptical of a high rise district at Broadway.

Is it time to start talking about how BART to San Mateo is actually needed and likely to be inevitable once Caltrain and HSR are in operation?

I would hope CHSR or the state can stop this sort of thing, because there's gonna be other places with the same idea....and they know how much a tunnel would increase costs. Is this going to actually block the ROW? Since caltrain is already there and they are supposed to be sharing tracks with CHSR.

I'm assuming they are talking about both the HSR and Caltrain tracks being submerged.

There are six grade crossings in a half-mile stretch in San Mateo. That really seems like the spot where a tunnel or elevated section needs to happen. An underground Caltrains station would be a lot more expensive than elevated. No doubt people would go berserk at the very notion of a half-mile long viaduct, even though the tracks rise onto a berm nearby and cross another half dozen local streets.

As I believe I mentioned on this thread earlier, a huge amount of study has gone into the gate closings on the peninsula. They are designing scheduling scenarios where passing trains meet the critical intersections at the same time so that two trains only cause one gate closing. With so many grade crossings in a short distance in San Mateo there is no way to accomplish this meaning some gates will be going up and down 20+ times per hour during peak operation.

All the city has to do is message it as a traffic improvement and the people will cheer. The ROW through downtown San Mateo mostly faces alleys and the backs of buildings anyway.

Caltrain/HSR will get its separation and drivers get no gates.

As someone who has never lived in the area that appears redundant to me under current circumstances, but if a place like San Mateo decides to (gasp!) upzone then there might be a capacity need.

It seems to me that digging a 3-4 mile tunnel between a point southeast of the Milbrae Station and near the Hayward Park Caltrains station for HSR and Caltrains express trains could negate the need to grade separate the current tracks in San Mateo. They'd be left as-is for the local stops and freight.

The tunnel would negate the need for HSR express trains to stop at Milbrae since the existing tracks would behave like a passing siding for local Caltrains, and so trains could be cued into Transbay this way rather than forcing all trains to stop. In short, if an inbound local misses its schedule slot it would just dwell before rejoining the mainline.

The other issue is that the need to transfer to BART to get to SFO is obnoxious. If we're really throwing money around, it seems like HSR/Caltrains Express could me made to stop under the SFO terminal and therefore bypass the BART transfer.

Actually guys I wasn't suggesting it follow the Caltrain/HSR row into San Mateo. I would have the extension follow Caltrain to the Burlingame station and then dive and turn underground under Lorton Ave and then jogging over to El Camino Real in the vicinity of Peninsula Ave. The extension would run under ECR using bored tunnel or cut/cover and terminate either at Route 92 or continuing to the San Mateo fairgrounds property with a yard facility. You want to talk about redevelopment opportunities... that area around the Event Center and Hillsdale Caltrain would absolutely explode. You could probably build 30,000 units in that CA-92/ECR/Caltrain quadrant there. A huge cost... yes... A huger payoff... yesser.

For me it seems like future Caltrain is going to suffer from capacity issues. Without a 4 track peninsula mainline, you are going to have packed trains before you even reach San Mateo northbound.

There is much lower hanging fruit for continued Caltrain capacity expansion like moving to 8 car trains by purchasing more cars and modestly extending some platforms.

It doesn't make much sense to me to expand BART as long as there is no movement by the peninsula cities to upzone property within walking distance of the stations. The Caltrains stations themselves should see their parking lots replaced by garages topped by hi-rise residential.

The state is gradually turning the screws on cities that don't meet their housing targets and that's probably going to increase. Ultimately I expect the most resistant cities will eventually rezone low intensity commercial parcels near Caltrain to work towards those goals and head off further state intervention, lawsuits, and use of SB35. A few cities might jump at the chance for a high rise district but I'd best the majority will try to cram whatever they need into midrises hidden best they can.

This recent interview with the current head of CAHSR only has 250 views. Meanwhile, Elon Musk can speculate about rescuing soccer teams from caves and get millions of views.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0afgE1j60U

The interview offers some interesting insights in the second half, especially regarding the decision to start construction in the Central Valley. Specifically, he says that the CAHSR authority decided back in 2009 or 2010 to begin construction in the Central Valley in large part to create work in the part of the state that had experienced the most unemployment during the 2008-09 economic collapse.

He also remarks that while the CAHSR authority has the cash on hand to make Bakersfield > Merced operational, it will not have the funding to build the Pacheco Pass Tunnel and connection to San Jose without federal funds.

It is great to have a president committed to investing in modern, efficient, and sustainable infrastructure.

Biden restores $929 million for California high-speed rail withheld by Trump

By Derek Francis, David Shepardson, Kanishka Singh
June 11, 2021
Reuters

"The Biden administration late on Thursday restored a $929 million grant for California’s high-speed rail that former President Donald Trump revoked in 2019.

The parties, which also include the California High-Speed Rail Authority and the U.S. Transportation Department, agreed to restore the grant within three days, according to the settlement agreement here.

Talks began in March, around two months after Biden became president, to settle a suit filed in 2019 after Trump had pulled funding for a high-speed train project in the state hobbled by extensive delays and rising costs. Trump had repeatedly clashed as president with California on a number of fronts..."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN2DN0DY

I concur.

shoo-fly
 

Are trains now using the downtown shoo-fly?

That's because he's wisely avoiding the unforced error (see what I did there?) of giving the Repubs a sound bite about throwing good money after bad on what they decided years ago was going to be a "boondoggle" no matter how actually untethered from reality, scoring fake political points and fomenting ginned up outrage. If you think that Joe Biden's USDOT isn't going to figure out a way to get significant funding to California HSR you cray-cray.

California has committed so far the Proposition 1A $10 Billion in bonds into CHSR, plus 25% of the Cap and Trade taxes collected every year totaling $800 Million.
The US has committed so are $3.5 Billion into CHSR.

In 2009, one year after the passage of Proposition 1A, the Authority received $2.5 billion in funds made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).
In 2010, $929 million in additional funding was authorized though a Fiscal Year (FY10) Transportation, Housing and Urban Development grant.
In 2014, the Legislature appropriated 25 percent of the annual proceeds from the Cap-and-Trade Program to support the development and construction of the system, providing an ongoing revenue stream
In 2017, the Legislature extended the Cap-and-Trade Program through 2030
The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million.

Some math follows
25% of $534 Million = $133.5 Million.
2030 - 2014 = 16 years
2020 - 2014 = 6 years
6 x 133.5 Million = $801 Million
16 x 133.5 Million = $2.1 Billion (projecting the same average of 6 years over 16 years, it could sum up to a higher or lower number)

Will California give up ownership and control of the CHSR program at the point the US government commits more cash than it? For example, if Biden gives CHSR more than $12 Billion?

Project costs for just Phase 1 completion is approaching $80 Billion.
More math
80 Billion - 12.1 Billion - 3.5 Billion = 64.4 Billion shortage.

Your math is wrong. Pretty sure you confused what CAHSR actually receives on average from the cap-and-trade program (the 25% of cap-and-trade funding that CAHSR gets each year has averaged $534 million) with what the total cap-and-trade program receives.

Here are the quarterly auction revenue figures:
https://lao.ca.gov/Blog/Media/Image/1025
https://lao.ca.gov/Blog/Media/Image/1898

There was $916 million in revenue in just the most recent quarter. Far higher than your estimate of $534 million average for the whole year.
https://lao.ca.gov/LAOEconTax/Article/Detail/659

CAHSR reports they have received $3.7 billion in cap-and-trade funding up to February 2021, far higher than your estimate of $801 million.
https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/upload...iness_Plan.pdf
They estimate receiving $500-$700 million per year from cap-and-trade funds, far higher than your estimate of $133.5 million.

I used for my sources of data, which didn't include all the recent data from 2020 and 2021. So sorry.
https://www.kqed.org/science/1965124...educed-revenue
But I would like to point out that revenue chart in your reply excludes very, very poor data from 2016 and 2017, starting in 2018 >> just ignore the bad data to make your averages look better. :runaway:

I posted 2 charts which includes all the data from February 2015, including the quarters in 2016-2017. The only averages I mentioned is your $534 million average, by the way.

The $534 million average is from a 2020 report from California's Legislative Analyst Office and does not include quarters after May 2020, it includes the "poor data" from 2016 and 2017:
https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/4252
Your KQED source does not indicate there was $534 million average annual revenue--even in 2016 the annual revenue was over $800 million (above your $534 million average) and in 2017, the annual revenue was over $1.9 billion--this is based on the KQED chart, which comes from the same source, the LAO:
https://ww2.kqed.org/app/uploads/sit...t-12.53-PM.jpg

Thanks for finding my source, and confirming I did not invent numbers out of thin air. You should also see this quote from the same report.
"The Cap-and-Trade Program annual auction revenues have averaged $534 million since 2015‑16, with a low of $221 million and a high of $787 million."
The numbers derived from math are correctly calculated from the data provided in that same report.

As with any forward looking data, higher highs and lower lows than what occurred in the past can occur in the future, that is why I averaged the data in the first place. :shrug:
If I had desired to twist the data making the revenues from cap and trade smaller, I could have just used the lower number, and likewise the opposite way as well. But I did not twist the data because I averaged them.

Which data set is more correct, what an independent study reported to the legislature or what the government department reported? I have not the slightest idea, just wanted to add there must be reasons why the legislature wanted an independent report.