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

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

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.

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.

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

Oh.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 .

It still is only 310 vs 255/sq mile (california).

On another note:

Shame they went with non-grade separation from San Francisca to San Jose, pretty disappointing. I have no seen a high speed rail system anywhere where they have road barriers, but they could exist somewhere in the world. The cost of a tunnel would have been too much, understandable. I would have preferred them take a more direct route to LA, but politics I suppose made it so. What can you do.

Caltrain corridor remaining grade separation costs are in the neighborhood of $10B. Nobody has interest in spending that kind of money yet.

Ahem...a rural grade crossing on a TGV line in France:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12NugxhmiEE


https://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j...ps6apqa9p7.png

Complains about comparing Europe to USA then proceeds to compare Europe to the USA. My point of my post is that they are NOT comparable! I made a comparison to show how ridiculous it is. Furthermore, people per square mile tells nothing. Once again, we are talking about a country of 70 million people in an area the size of Texas. Compare that to the US which is more fair. You are comparing a country to a state. I am stating that is NOT!!! a valid comparison. I don't know how to make myself more clear.

I am not taking a stance for or against HSR with that statement. I support HSR in general. But simply saying France approved x amount of HSR lines and why can't we doesn't make much of a case-- especially all things considered.

I think we should. All train crossings should be grade separated, IMO.

The still in progress lowering of ambition on the Peninsula is very discouraging. The authority should have steamrolled the opposition and pursued the initial plan of a fully grade separated four-track embankment or cut, that is how you build true hsr. That is what we deserved. What is being pursued now may very well haunt high speed rail AND Caltrain for 50 years.

Tens of billions to save 20 minutes at most.

20 minutes is a big deal especially when you have transfers. 20 minutes a week adds up to 100 a work week and that is just one way. Even if it were just 5-10 minutes that still is a lot of time. Over a year it can add up to hours and hours and if you factor transfers into that... forget about it.

What are you talking about. I compared France to Cali, not Europe to USA. It's perfectly reasonable comparison when we are talking about building a high speed railway line. I throw out all the HSR-poor trash areas in the country -- i.e, most of it (flyover country, and all that), and focus on the crème de la crème where Rail works --> the dense coasts. Very comparable to European countries in major qualities. Oh, and US states are compared with European countries all the time in many areas if you weren't aware...."not a valid comparison" smh, eh, no.

You can compare Cali with France or Spain, no problem. Both are political entities, massive economic powers, of similar size and density, population and both have HSR potential. Nothing wrong with the comparison. Trying to compare France to the USA, now that's ridiculous when you are trying to assess the potential for HSR. Obviously in that case the US looks terrible and only suitable for aircraft. Thats what the oil industry pandering right wing though would like to promote, the idea that the US is too low-density for HSR to be profitable by always making these ridiculous country-country comparisons. It's all very convenient when the average joe schmoe reads that USA is basically too big and spread out to have HSR. It fits their narrative and has the required effect. Of course they are clueless and have no real understanding that there are specific regions that could do HSR very well.

Again, why hasn't California or the NEC built even one line yet, when places that have similar characteristics in economy or density like Spain, Netherlands, Korea and, etc are light years ahead of the only Superpower in the world, building HSR by the bucket loads and embracing the mode (since it's so much more comfortable than driving or flying)? It's just because the oil addicted suburban right wing have hoodwinked the country into thinking European trains are boondoggles, or even, socialist and only cars and planes (oil modes) are the American way. Viva the Highway, isn't driving for hours behind some truck fun, woo! They have accomplished their mission in making sure Americans didn't know what they were missing.

Density tells nothing? Ok, show me where on earth a HSR has been built in a low density political entity? If density tells nothing like you say... Density is very important. Take a transportation geography class.

LOL! You can't steamroll anything now a days, especially not a path of GREEN. Those wealthy NIMBY's rule the roost, this isn't China. We don't have the national's people congress giving orders here -- > "build 100 miles of grade separated caltran track by 12th December or else..."

Also, face it dude, you're a NIMBY if you had a house there. Say goodbye to your property prices when a 125 mph ROARING train passes by with an ever so cute little horn (hah). That's no sweet sound, mind. Fancy having to keep your windows closed all day? Fancy worrying that your yard time is going to suck?

I just love adorable YIMBY idealists spouting off when other people's house values are going to hell and little cute kiddies are being harmed by noise pollution. I'd like to see how they react when their own houses are being affected.. I doubt it would be pretty. 1/3 of your kids inheritance just .. poof!


If bumbling California ever builds anything here, they will surely live to regret their decision I suppose. But the decision was inevitable. The rich rule America, and if that was a poor neighborhood and if that were a BLACK neighborhood, there would be no f##'in around, that thing would be done done done in no time flat if the cash was there.. It's a kleptocracy fellows, a racist kleptocracy. The rich rule, the poor (and minorities) drool.

Aw, you found one place out of what, thousands of miles? Booyah! But those are very rare sadly and don't paint the true picture of French or European railways. Sorry to shatter your narrative ;)

FYI! I never saw one on my way from Paris to Marseilles - Nice. Neither on my way from Rome to beautiful old Firenze (a town that is far above anything I've seen on the North American Continent). Neither on my way from Paris to London via Lille.

Let's cut to the meat here fellows: American railways are donkey and cart compared to European ones, with their willingness to invest in the best mode of travel rather than oil-only modes. European cultural superiority has reared its ugly head and the jokes on us.

Of course we know most of the US couldn't profitably do HSR, but in those places that could, they dropped the ball and went for the oil polluting, CO2 belching, NOx spewing, Cock Brothers special. A paltry effort was put into trains. The adorable Acela, that's runs on Victorian tracks and is built like a panzer on wheels. The horrible, bumpy Brightline which toots it's horn every 20 seconds, enough to give you hearing problems.
I could go on.

They chose the same bad decision that that old bag Maggy Thatcher did, with her train phobia. Britain didn't bother building any LGV's, but that doesn't mean they were right! Should have followed the sensible frenchies instead. Better food, better iron horses.

Now, for guns. Europe does that better too. They have laws where you can't carry a machine gun in your pants into a Walmart, smh. Oh, Europeans are still free, just as free as Americans btw.

I'd like for the CAHSR haters to state what, exactly, they demand. Because somehow an express run from LA to SF that is 5-10 minutes slower than the currently unknown transit time is a huge problem.

Where speed really matters isn't so much the transit time as the fact that at some point higher speed enables the same train and crew to make more trips on a shift. Ridership experiences a boost when service is more frequent throughout the day and when there is an earlier first train and a later final train, even if those trains appear to be "mostly empty".

If the crew is paid at a constant hourly or per-day rate, then a railroad gets more trips out of the crew for the same dollar amount. The wear to a trainset is a bit more complicated -- how much more wear does a HSR trainset experience on a run that averages 170mph versus 190mph?

Just curious, you think a poor white neighborhood would have a vastly higher chance of stopping something like this than a poor black neighborhood? If so, why?


Also, you seem off the hinges. Do you even know what a machine gun is? It's a fully automatic gun. Those aren't allowed to be carried openly or concealed anywhere in America. I think you *think* you know a lot more than you actually know.

I guess I would fall into that catagory.

I want this to not double in price from the 2008 estimates.

I don't want the state to use tax dollars for a project that will impact very little people, and people that most likely have money compared to the average resident.

That's pretty much it. I don't know the exacts on time tables or anything, I am sure it could be better or worse, whatever. My main issue is with the insane cost increases and the fact that the taxpayers are paying for a project most will never use, most can't afford, and otherwise will not impact them in anyway(it won't take cars off the road, only take seats away from planes).

Perhaps I should have worded my post better. People per square mile doesn't tell the whole story, but you are correct about density being meaningful. You are still being quite disingenuous about conveniently brushing off France being a country and not a state part of a country(two different political types) and having nearly twice as many people as the most populated state in an area much smaller than the U.S.

You compare countries to countries, not states. And quite with the hyperbole. I've said many times I support HSR in the USA. Many users on this forum seem to read only what they want to see and don't thoroughly read the entire post.

I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm well aware of the GDP comparisons. Simply saying they have x amount of people per square mile doesn't tell the whole story when their cities are much more dense and the people in that same land area averaged out tells little of the whole story. It is a cheap point and not one worth taken seriously in a real debate about making the case for HSR here.

Regardless of agreeing with whether countries or states should be compared, even if France were a state in a country like that of the U.S. it still would hardly be an apples to apples comparison. Comparing France to California is just stupid no matter which way you put it.

Except that no.
It's not a high speed line but a regular speed line.
TGV trains can run on regular lines (to reach many destinations outside the high speed lines), they are not restricted to high speed tracks unlike the Japanese Shinkansen.

Infact if TGV trains were restricted to high speed tracks, they could not begin their journey in Central Paris railway terminals (they are not on high-speed tracks, the high speed lines begin about a dozen of miles away, except for Montparnasse).

It's true to say that there are no crossing on high speed lines.

https://arbel.ch/wp-content/uploads/...LM3small-c.jpg
_

There are crossings in the Midwest and Rural Northeast that are 110mph but these are through small towns and back country roads. Even the ones that are 125mph in the UK are in Rural areas. The fastest built up speeds are usually capped at 60-80mph.

I was waiting for someone to notice the lack of barrier fencing and the visibly slower speed in the video.

Somehow, to all of the CAHSR haters, the TGV is "real" HSR, despite its many slow sections, grade crossings, and its slow approach to Paris, but CAHSR won't be "real" HSR despite its full grade separation and relatively speedy 110mph approaches to LA and SF. CAHSR is also paying for dozens of freight rail grade separations, so there are significant safety and speed advantages for freight.

If any area of CAHSR could get away with a few grade crossings, it would be the approach to Sacramento. Each and every railroad grade crossing is horrifically expensive, so if things get tight for Phase 2, we might see a compromise or two in that area.

Speaking of planes, nobody seems to care about the runaway costs of the F-35 program. The Tea Party is never anywhere to be seen with military costs.

Probably because the funding the military and keeping us safe is a tad higher on the priority scale than HSR.

"Living in a cave with no electricity would keep us safer by not having to supply power, preventing thousands and thousands of deaths"

There is no logic in those sorts of arguments and you assume that a) car accident deaths will be prevented by the millions with HSR and b) insinuate that we would be a safer society with HSR being chosen over the military in an ultimatum.

Next.

No one is suggesting we should not spend money on defense to keep our country safe and prepared in case of conflict, but your comment reads like someone who has absolutely no idea just how perverse the American military industrial complex really is. A budget larger than all other countries combined. That should be disgusting to all Americans, not something to be proud of or make excuses for. There is no fatter pig at the trough than the American defense contractor.

Lol. I am proud of our military and would be more than happy increasing its budget.

Okay pal.

Fixed.

Homeless vets might think otherwise.

Building out the ENTIRE HSR in California would probably prevent 1 car accident a year. Its replacing air travel, not cars.

Not true. Many of the high-speed rail trips will be itineraries such as LA - Bakersfield or Fresno - San Jose, replacing auto trips.

There are approximately 35,000 auto fatalities in the United States each year. In addition to the human tragedy, there was one study that estimated that vehicle crashes cost our economy nearly one trillion dollars annually. The cost of accidents avoided by passenger rail replacing vehicle trips is a tangible and significant benefit.

That's one of the great advantages rail has over planes - one train can serve multiple journeys - it covers the LA-SF, LA-Bakersfield, LA-Fresno, SF-Bakersfield, and SF-Fresno all at once.

And these are pretty decent-sized cities. The Fresno area has about the same population as Albuquerque, Buffalo, Memphis, and Oklahoma City.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_statistical_area