To be fair, they are inherently linked and should be designed as part of a comprehensive network.

Yes

One is a north-south state project under construction, the other is an east-west private pipe dream not under construction. Even if the pipe dream had been realized, they were never planned to intersect or connect at any point.

And that's why they have separate threads. They are separate and distinct.

Not accurate. Both Xpresswest and the CAHSRA always assumed that once the basin tunnels connected Palmdale with LAUS the [Desertxpress/Xpresswest/Virgin] train would connect LAUS with Las Vegas using CAHSR rails at least to Palmdale. So while not being a comprehensive network operated by the same entity they clearly would intersect and interact with each other.

Incorrect

http://zocalo-on.kcrw.com/wp-content...9472291880.jpg

The state has an estimated $7 billion surplus in 2020. As a percentage this is low single-digits, but it is nevertheless a gigantic sum as compared to any other state.

What's so ridiculous, looking back on 50+ years of transit and passenger rail policy in the United States, is that we were throwing big money at rail back in the 1970s, when interest rates were sky-high, but we've been preposterously conservative in the 2020s, despite historically low interest rates.

I know who to blame... The name starts with Rep and ends in ublicans.

That is comical. I guess time will tell at this point. I guess republicans are responsible for all of the regulatory red tape, insane labor union laws, etc. that made this project estimated at 20b USD to balloon to 100b USD.

Republican State: Alabama rebuilds downtown freeway for 700 million dollars.

Democrat State: NYC estimates a rebuild of I-81 costs triple that. Simply tearing it down and building a grid is over 1 and half billion dollars.

But lets pretend it is all republicans fault. Nothing good in this country will come until democrats have complete control like they did under Obama's first term.

Here we go again...

Stop using the examples of unrelated projects when this thread is clearly about CHSR and broadly USHSR. Yeah the GOP is just clamoring like they cant contain themselves to start HSR and the only reason they arent is because labor is just too expensive. Nothing ideological. Nothing political. They just want to develop mobility infrastructure that is independent of the auto or the fossil fuel industry in a "fiscally conservative" way.

Sure.

You are conflating two issues.

You painted a broad generalization about republicans being obstructionist to California which is a joke. I provided an example as to why that is not true. My argument may not be apples to apples but your argument is no better making sweeping generalizations with nothing to back it up.

What have the democrats done other than draw a map? Have they opened HSR? They can't even get an existing rail line from St. Louis to Chicago to 100MPH. It is evident these people(I am referring to CAHSR authority) are so full of it they have no clue what to do.

Sitting and blaming Republicans and then making strawman arguments when called out won't help mass transit or HSR in this country.

The CAHSR program is unfunded because you cannot and will not get Republicans to fund HSR. That's the Democrats fault? I kind of feel like that's as simple as it gets.

Alabama is flat and empty and the land costs like 5 cents per square mile. Comparing it to developed areas like CA or NYC is dumb.

Except I didn't compare it to NYC, I compared it to Syracuse. The scope of the project and the geography are more similar in this instance than different. Also, NYSDOT is proposing the rebuild alternative as a four lane facility whereas the AlDOT project was a 8-10 lane and still a quarter of the price.

Furthermore, Alabama is hardly "flat and empty." In terms of being flat, it ranks 27 in the flattest states and NY is only 10 states behind it in 37.

Here is the stretch of I-81 in Syracuse: https://www.google.com/maps/@43.0402....146046,15.17z

AlDOTs build: https://abc3340.com/news/local/ribbo...own-birmingham

So my point is there are cost differences and each project can be argued to be an apples to oranges comparison. But relating this to CAHSR, suggesting republicans are the sole cause to this project being hindered is just malarkey.

The Democrats have been so willing to fund it. That is why when Obama was in office for the first term he could have done virtually anything he wanted, and this project that already had funds allocated it to it, a plan laid out by President Obama to establish a national HSR network, still wasn't enough to make CAHSR a reality.

Trump's proposal to roll back certain regulations will do more to help this project than anything the Democrats have done. There are tons of mass transit projects around the country that have bipartisan support. I would agree in principle that Democrats are more friendly to HSR than Republicans but I still stand by my statement that your statement Republicans are to blame is non-sense.

Jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja!

Was it Democrats who proposed cutting Amtrak’s funding by nearly 1/4 or was it Mafia Don’s regime?

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2019/03/...ransit-amtrak/

Ah well that proves it. You heard it here first folks. The reason HSR hasn't become a reality in California is because of republicans and that is proved simply by the fact they proposed cutting Amtrak funds. :rolleyes:

But by all means keep dodging my points so you head is comfortably buried in the sand.

It was also Republicans like Jeff Denham who threw up one procedural roadblock after another.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...entral-valley/

I guess I would just ask that if President Obama hadnot lost Congress in 2010, what reason do you have to believe they would not have continued to pass HSR funding for the next 6 years???

Which party has proposed budgets that have cut both funding for transit and intercity passenger rail over the past decade and which party has advocated for investing in sustainable transportation? The answer is not difficult.

This thread has no subject any more. Now we're conflating the private and failed Las Vegas-to-Nowhere high speed rail with CAHSR (they have separate threads for a reason that some here apparently refuse to consider), and the usual partisans are busy posting about national partisan politics.

Mods should just shut this sad thread down.

Hit the road

My point was you are wrong in saying Republicans are to blame for HSR being delayed(perhaps indefinitely) in California. I disagree with you. I've made my points so I guess we will see when inevitably the next Democrat becomes president and presumably has a Democratic majority house and senate. But, IMO, to assume Rep. are to blame for this fiasco just shows people wanting to blame anyone but themselves.

PS, I want this project to be a reality. I am however not happy with the costs as other countries have shown it can be done for much cheaper with same quality. We should have Japan build our system, IMO.

The LV HSR rail would prove ultimately to be of great significance in a truly regional HSR network. Imagine people claiming the entire interstate system is irrelevant to I-40 which is a major part of it. It all works together. We need the LV HSR but as proposed this is sure to fail and ultimately hurt HSR as a whole because of the way it has marketed to the public and their opinion that is sure to become once they see this fail. Who in their right mind that lives in SoCal would take HSR to Vegas from Victorville after having driven for hours!? Now if it were from Union station then I agree.

Also this project needs to be concurrent to a widening of I-15 to 6-8 lanes. That should be something Caltrans is doing. Then build the HDC(WITH THE FUCKING FREEWAY) and include HSR. Then have private interest tunnel through the Cajon pass and Antelope Valley. This would serve commuter and regional traffic. Could all be done concurrently. Would be a mix of private and public funds.

I am pro-rail as anyone on here but the federal government should be investing very little into HSR. VERY few routes make sense. I think BOSWASH and California do make the most sense but California is probably making this harder and more expensive than it needs to be. The fact is this, HSR in California will replace plane rides with train rides. Basically the citizens of California(and there is a want for everyone else to pitch in more) are subsidizing the travels of middle to upper-class people who are making a statement by taking the train or cutting some time off their business commute.

Even if Dems do control everything in a year, I don't want them to commit any funding to HSR. Let me give that cash to cities.

The issue of how to connect HSR in cities like Houston and Dallas to their existing transit lines is something I have been wondering about but you make a good point that a large, arguably majority, of commuters will be middle-middle upper class so their trips will likely originate by car regardless just as they do for planes.

Keeping in mind what makes sense, all one has to do is study the results Amtrak gets with Acela. While many advocacy pundits look at miles traveled, the realistic pundits look at elapse times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela_Express
NY to DC averages 2.75 hours elapse time over 225 miles achieves 75% market share
NY to Boston averages 3.5 hours elapse time over 231 miles achieves 54% market share.
The market share being limited to just trains and planes, completely ignoring buses and private vehicles.
It was not the additional 6 miles that lowers the NY to Boston market share 21% lower than the NY to DC market share, it was the additional 45 minutes of elapse time.
Which reinforces the idea that trains are really competitive with routes of less than 3 hours.

Anther consideration to account for is how congested the highways are. In the higher density areas of the NEC and California, the attractiveness of trains are much higher than in the less dense areas found in the rest of the country for travel of less than 3 hours.

The ridership from Merced to Bakersfield is going to be abysmal.

It looks like they want to get real HSR trains for this segment instead of using diesel or electric commuter trains that could eventually be shifted to Caltrains or and eletrified LA metrorail. It actually makes a lot of sense to build shops only for HSR trains and get experience maintaining them and operating them instead of having a phase-out and phase-in of HSR at some future point.

Also, no doubt they will have all trains run local, so a trip from Bakersfield to Merced will involve no less than 3 full stops, which will add about 15 minutes to the trip. I also wonder if they'll operate HSR trains but not regularly run them at top speed in order to minimize wear.

I also would like to see an estimate for Merced to Sacramento, which has always been listed as Phase 2. The distance is roughly 120 miles. Assuming Trump is given the boot in November, the funding situation will be much different 12 months from now, and the line to Sacramento could be built quickly and possibly open at the same time as the initial operating segment between Merced and Bakerfield, and well before completion of the Pacheco Pass Tunnel.

The project needs wins. I think Bakersfield to Sacramento is a much bigger operation that proponents can point to than Bakersfield to Merced, and it'll likely cost less than the 13-mile Pacheco Pass Tunnel.

Real suggestion...

The authority ought to look into purchasing second hand high speed trainsets from Eurostar and give them a rehab. The first generation Alstom locomotives and trailers are being removed from service as the new Siemens built Eurostar 2 equipment comes online. Seems like a sensible frugal idea to me and leave procurement of new purpose built trainsets for the future when they are actually needed.

https://static.lpnt.fr/images/2010/1...41_660x281.jpg
_

https://sf.curbed.com/2020/2/19/2114...rain%20to%20SF

Just keep building with whatever money can be scraped together. Eventually I believe the value of this project will be recognized as air travel becomes nastier and more brutish and less efficient, and the available airport gates/runways will become ever more clogged with transcontinental and transoceanic flights.

I think most of them are getting scrapped but I'm not certain.

Sacramento to Bakersfield is better, but I still don't see a ton of demand for that route. I get that they are building the least expensive portion first... but I fear that people will look at it as a "proof of concept". This segment will not be successful, and could further jeopardize the remainder of the project.

In my opinion, the most valuable piece of the entire HSR project, for the California economy as a whole, is the connection of SF to Sac via HSR. SF is unsustainable right now from a housing perspective, and this would open up a huge area of sleeper communities... not to mention the boost it could provide Sac. The SF economy is huge to California, and the housing is more dire than Southern California. Make SF to Sac the proof of concept, then start expanding the network out.

Haven't we gone over this already? The idea of this being used as a commuter train is very slim. VERY slim.

Why? Whenever I travel overseas, HSR is used as a combo commuter and intercity rail.

The fare prices between the two types of passenger train services are different because of the different government subsidies. Just as an example, let’s assume you are commuting to New York City from New Haven.
Per https://www.wanderu.com/en-us/train/...s-ny/new-york/
And https://www.rome2rio.com/s/New-York/New-Haven

Amtrak Acela fare $85
Amtrak Amfleet fare $35
Metro North fare $17
Bus $9
Who with any logic would pay over $800 a week, or over $3,000 a month to commute by an Acela train when they can do so for over $150 a week or over $600 a month - 5 times cheaper?

^ Point taken, thanks. I'm just struggling to see the cost/benefit for us in CA in having this high speed line between LA/SF. Improved commuter rail seems like it would provide much better ROI. If a situation could exist where we leverage this new HSR to get improved commuter rail, that would seemingly make it more worth our while. You could have "Local" and "Express" lines.

And yet 100 mile HSR commutes are a thing in Europe and Japan, and a good chunk of every HSR operator's revenue relies on commuter traffic. The typical profile isn't a daily commuter, but someone who goes in 2-3x per week. And with Bay Area home prices being what they are, I can see a ton of folks putting up with a 2-3x weekly 1.5 hr commute from Fresno at $400 a week. If CalHSR isn't actively planning on targeting this market, their business planners should be fired....

Doesn't the MARC penn line operate at high speed? Couldn't discounted commuter high speed rail and express intercity rail share the same infrastructure like on the NEC? Sure acela is expensive, but MARC is fairly cheap and operates at 125 mph. SEPTA just purchased new engines that also are built to operate at 125 mph. Maybe the fact that the California HSR will be 2 tracks kind of restricts this, but I'll still ask the question.

Yes, I think that is part of the projected ridership. I also anticipate many similar commuters from Bakersfield to Burbank and LA.

The high-speed rail naysayers who question who will ride from LA - SF ignore all of these intermediate passengers.

My fear is that the initial line will have terrible ridership, and could potentially torpedo the project as a whole. At which point, we wasted a colossal amount of taxpayer money, and provided a case study against HSR in the USA.

This was my thinking as well. Why not start with the commuter traffic in Northern and Southern California, and then connect the lines together? I just worry we are squandering a huge opportunity here.

Yes, MARC trains between Baltimore and DC fares are around $7. Amtrak Amfleet fares around $20, Amtrak Acela fares around $50.
The MARC train elapse time is around 56 minutes, Acela is around 35 minutes, between Baltimore and DC.
Is 20 minutes time savings worth over $40 each way?

Daily commuters want realible, predictable schedules more than additional speed. It is the less than twice daily travelers on business that want the higher speeds. That’s why Acela trains turn a profit, they charge higher fares than what the highly subsidized commuter trains charge.

If and when completed, CA HSR and CalTrain will share the same tracks on the Peninsula (at least until sanity eventually intervenes) so what are you saying? This unfortunate decision was forced in the HSR project by Peninsula cities who tried to use legal challenges to the installation of dedicated HSR tracks to block the project (because they don't want high speed trains passing through their pristine towns). Didn't quite work: They'll still get the trains but HSR will be slowed by not having dedicated tracks.

I believe that was the plan, but then outraged suburbanites in Atherton and Palo Alto freaked out about closing off roads that cross the tracks and the reps from those areas forced CAHSR to start construction elsewhere.

This same story plays out across California continuously. We can't get out of our own way. It's for reasons like this that we end up with HSR between Merced and Bakersfield. It would be kind of amusing, if it wasn't costing all of us taxpayers billions of dollars. :brickwall:

Stop using logic in determining where HSR should get built first.

(Well said btw)

Personally, I think that they should begin by connecting one of the ends with a nearby city in the Central Valley, e.g. SF to Madera.

This would provide a novel service and work as a proof of concept for the entire system.

Both ends require massive, expensive tunneling. I don't think they had enough money to do it.

I think they started in the CV for 2 reasons:

1. It's flat and they could build a lot of track miles for the least money;

2. They were hoping to tamp down the Republican opposition by giving their constituents the first service and a chance to see how nice it could be to be able to zip up and down the CV in minutes.