I thought this was interesting, and I felt it was an even-handed/objective report.
• Video Link

It was a relatively fair report, but the European consultant was just plain wrong in his assertion that the project should have started and the ends and moved toward the Central Valley.

First of all, the project *has* begun at the north end, with the electrification of the Caltrain operation between San Francisco and San Jose.

Second, the only places where the trains will operate at their maximum speed will be the mostly u/c 150~ miles in the Central Valley and a short stretch of about 20 miles between Tehachapi and Palmdale.

To begin construction of a "high speed rail line" in San Francisco or in Los Angeles with no place to run the trains faster than 125mph would have soured the public. In fact, there would have been no reason to buy high speed trains.

I think it's true that having a grade-separated rail line down the CV will be an asset for CA.

Yeah, aside from the electrification of the peninsula, had they "started at the ends" likely the only thing they'd currently have to show for it - and use as a promotion of the project to the general public - is a stalled basin tunnel construction. Talk about handing "tunnel to nowhere" propaganda to the dipshit naysayer crowd.

The starter HSR segment ought to have 100% on-time operation, meaning any missed connections in Merced to ACE and San Joaquins will be the fault of the connecting services.


https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...720&fit=bounds

Link to a hi-res PDF: http://calurbanist.com/wp-content/up...orcal_rail.pdf

Dang, they left out SMART and the possible Napa/Solano line.
https://imengine.prod.srp.navigaclou...=72&width=1024
https://www.northbaybusinessjournal....on/?artslide=2

^this one is huge

There is also a study to extend commuter rail north to Chico.

https://www.chicoer.com/2023/02/18/p...mmuter-trains/

I did not know about this...:tup:
Here's a better look @ Napa and Solano:
https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.town...size=697%2C500
Source

Interesting...it appears that the CAHSR tunnels will be roughly the same diameter as the u/c HS2 tunnels in England. However, because HS2 will operate narrower and shorter trains that comply with England's much tighter loading gauge, their trains will be able to operate significantly faster:
https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...720&fit=bounds

More:
https://hosting.photobucket.com/imag...720&fit=bounds

My guess is that the 225mph speed thrown around regarding CAHSR is similar to the strategy for HS2 - it's a higher speed that allows behind-schedule trains to catch up.

I would expect CAHSR to operate in the drag zones of the CV at or about the global HSR speed standard of 300kmh or just under 190mph. I've read that 200+ really starts to push the juice suckage through the roof and its deemed more energy efficient to operate normal revenue service sub-200mph. Even the Chinese are realizing this. Of course since the project has a design speed of 220mph, it still allows higher speeds to catch up with timetables.

This article argues that high speed rail is roughly 10X more energy efficient than passenger jets:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/fast-train...st#toggle-gdpr

High service operating speeds have little to do with the dimensions of the train, but the track geometry, electrical supply and signalling systems.

HS2 will use two rolling stocks; a captive (continental HSR) 400m stock that is limited to HS2, and compatible stock (able to run on conventional lines) and 200m long. As is common across the UK railway industry, the compatible stock will operate in pairs (i.e. 200m+200m) at peak.

You're missing the relatively minor electric usage point I'm trying to make. Every highly detailed HSR article I've ever read usually mentions that revenue speeds above 200mph taxes the traction power system inna way that usually lowers the overall efficiency. Revenue operation in the range of 175-185 mph is ideal for power draw in a way that 200+ is not.

California High Speed Rail Authority has published new rendered animations of high speed rail trains entering and leaving an upgraded LA Union Station:https://twitter.com/i/status/1671025448669839364

LAUS needs a huge glass train shed that encapsulates all these platforms. It needs a singular architectural statement. This just looks like a collection of platforms leaving passengers baking in the sun.

I thought that was the plan all along. Look at the previous renders for this project.

Besides the station itself tho, the area around it is pathetic. It should look like the rest of DTLA

Maybe the point of that video was to show how the trains would run? I hope so.

Because I remember THIS:
• Video Link

We damn well better be getting that ^
Have you seen the timeline and cost of the LinkUS project alone?

That looks much better.

We already knew how the hsr trains would operate in and out of LAUS though. Then what's the point of that latest animation?

I don't know, but CaHSRA didn't exactly publicize the video. They just dropped the video into their Box account, and somebody noticed. It may be related to the presentation Metro will be giving at the CaHSRA board meeting next week, in which they will attempt to explain how this project (Link US) has doubled in price.

DOWNTOWN FRESNO HIGH-SPEED RAIL STATION PROJECT GETS $20M INFUSION

The Business Journal
June 28, 2023

"The Federal Railroad Administration and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) announced Wednesday that $20 million from the Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) program will benefit the Fresno High-Speed Rail Station Historic Depot Renovation and Plaza Activation Project.

The project will restore the historic passenger rail depot building in Fresno, near Chinatown and the site of the future high-speed rail station. The project will create a functioning park and plazas as spaces for early site activation efforts. The project will also integrate zero-emissions vehicle infrastructure into historically disadvantaged communities, according to a news release.

“The Federal Railroad Administration congratulates the California High-Speed Rail Authority on their latest $20 million RAISE grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation, building on previous federal investments that will help deliver high-speed rail in America and provide people with an alternative to crowded highways and airports,” said FRA Deputy Administrator Jennifer Mitchell. “President Biden’s Investing in America agenda is transforming our country for the better, and it’s going to keep making unprecedented investments to advance the 21st-century rail that Americans need and deserve..."

https://thebusinessjournal.com/downt...-20m-infusion/

When is the work on Union Station in LA going to start to make the High Speed Rail modifications?

I bet this project would be at least 8 years ahead of its current schedule had all those lawsuits against it not been filed.

I don't think 8 years is the number but it definitely didn't help. The primary reason more robust progress hasn't been made is California's tepid commitment and lack of aggressive construction, but this is because they don't have the dedicated funding to go all in so they are trying to do what they can with what they have through the bond and grant $ and use the construction they do have as promotional propaganda and the IOS to leverage public support which will force the hand of reluctant Cal pols. If the federal government was a real and significant funding partner the story would be completely different. It's likely the mountain crossings, knowing they could take upwards of a decade to complete, would be under construction so they will be ready to connect the IOS to the bay and basin in short succession. That is what you would expect to be happening with a real state/federal commitment to the project.

Those lawsuits were killer...and then the people that don't like CAHSR used that to take shots at the project. Maybe not 8 years but for sure a few.

And the photos:

The completed overcrossing at McCombs Road in Kern County. Image: CAHSRA
https://lede-admin.cal.streetsblog.o...ng?w=1080&q=75

Cedar Viaduct across SR 99, "the southern gateway into Fresno." Image: CAHSRA
https://lede-admin.cal.streetsblog.o...8-PM.png?w=710

The Elkhorn overcrossing in Fresno County, completed in June. Photo: CAHSRA
https://lede-admin.cal.streetsblog.o...8-AM.png?w=710

https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/07/...iece-completed

Drove under the Cedar Viaduct twice in the last month and will do so again in a couple weeks. Looks good and hopefully the pace picks up

Much of this is in Kevin McCarthy’s district, who would rather see the people building this project sitting at home, unemployed, instead of building modern, efficient, infrastructure.

The man is just a terrible human being for a number of reasons. I refuse to say his name around the house.

Could the California High-Speed Rail be completed in the next 5 years?

Travis Schlepp / KTLA

Posted: Aug 17, 2023 / 10:39 AM PDT


California High-Speed Rail, the most ambitious public transportation project in the state’s history, is still miles away from being completed, despite decades of discussion and nearly ten years of construction.

Progress has kicked up in recent years as environmental hurdles were cleared, and the High-Speed Rail Authority hopes to have the Central Valley segment, which will connect Merced to Bakersfield, completed by 2030 (give or take).

But what would it take to get the entire project — Bay Area to Los Angeles — completed even sooner? Maybe as soon as 2028, in time for the Olympics?

That’s what industry experts and activists met to discuss Wednesday evening during an online forum hosted by Streetsblog, an urban planning news and information website that focuses on transit and public safety.

Dusk side view of a high-speed train. (California High-Speed Rail Authority)
While it might sound like a pipe dream, those in attendance for Wednesday’s roundtable discussion argue it could be done, albeit with a massive amount of cooperation and significant buy-in from the federal government.

Roger Rudick, editor at Streetsblog San Francisco and the moderator for the panel, argued that there is a long history of major public projects being conceived, planned and completed within much smaller timeframes.

“In 1962, President Kennedy said, ‘We will go to the moon before the decade is out.’ Six years later, humans traveled to the moon, and a year after that they walked on the moon,” Rudick said in his opening remarks. “The Transcontinental Railroad was built in six years. And they started construction during the Civil War. I would say that’s a pretty big socio-economic challenge for starting a big project.”

Rudick added that China was able to complete 25,000 miles of rail in the last 15 years, so there is plenty of precedent for one of the world’s superpowers to build a comparatively minuscule amount of rail in a similar timeframe.

So what’s standing in the way?

Boris Lipkin is the Northern California Regional Director of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. Appointed to the position by former California Governor Jerry Brown, and re-appointed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, he oversees the project between San Francisco and Merced County.

Lipkin says there’s a lot to juggle with such a massive undertaking, including working with municipalities, utility companies and environmental requirements.

He says the Authority faces hundreds and sometimes thousands of different “veto points” during construction, including blackout windows for construction, third parties being affected by the construction, and even competition with Burlington Northern Santa Fe – the nation’s largest freight rail company – which has the ability to pause construction during some of the busiest shipping months.

“There’s permitting, and other things that all kind of add up to the narrowing of construction windows of when you can actually do work,” Lipkin said, adding that the Authority is also trying to build while maintaining California’s “values,” including protecting prior rights and endangered species.

He says almost all of the major environmental reviews have been completed, with the sole outlier being the segment between Palmdale and Burbank, and the Authority plans to have that completed by the end of the year.

In the meantime, construction is being done in the segments of the massive project that have already been approved. Meaningful progress has been made when dealing with the rail’s right-of-way and important infrastructure projects, including bridges and overpasses, have been completed throughout the Central Valley in preparation for the line’s eventual opening.

So the project is moving along, albeit at its own pace.

Major challenges are still on the horizon, including boring out tunnels for the rail, which, when completed, will be the longest rail tunnels in the U.S. The equipment needed for that crucial part of the rail system has a long lead time, Lipkin said.

But the Authority has also said that the enormous amount of work needed to get it done in an abbreviated window could be a bigger load than California’s various construction companies could handle.

“So we’re talking about some pretty big, big numbers,” Lipkin said. “It’s a question of, ‘Can that level of construction happen in that kind of timeframe?'”

Essentially, even if the project was fully funded, would there be enough labor to do it?

Carter Lavin, a transportation activist and political organizer, countered that that’s simply not a good enough reason to stick with the slower timeline.

“Labor shortages are a very common thing that happen across the board in every sector,” Lavin said. “There are people in other parts of the United States who would absolutely love to come to California and do the work.”

Ultimately, though, Lipkin says it’s not a matter of will standing in the way of an early completion point, but rather, a lack of funding – an issue that has plagued the project since its inception.

Both Lipkin and the transit advocates who gathered to discuss an accelerated timeline concluded that an early completion would require the federal government to step in and help cover a significant portion of the bill.

“Out of the funding that we have so far, about 85% of that has come from the State of California, and 15% has come from the federal government,” Lipkin said. “When we did the highway system over thirty, forty years of highway construction, those ratios were reversed. So the federal government was 80 to 90% and state governments supported it with about 10% of the needed funding.”

California is doing its best to cover the costs, and Lipkin believes the project can be completed with the state footing the majority of the bill, but if Californians want the High-Speed Rail completed sooner, the federal government would have to chip in significantly more.

In agreement, Lavin argued that California’s economy and taxes contribute so much to the federal government, and in response, Washington should make the project a priority, especially as the current administration stares down the barrel of a climate emergency.

“The number one source of carbon emissions in California is cars,” Lavin said. “So when we’re connecting tens of millions of people with high-speed rail, when we’re connecting the 6.5 million people who live in the Central Valley with a high-speed rail, this will offset so much, this will get so many cars off the road.”

Making rail a priority is a challenge that the Authority says starts with changing mindsets.

“The differences between us and Europe, or Asia in this regard, is that, in many ways, high-speed rail projects are sort of the largest projects that governments usually undertake,” Lipkin said. “And in other parts of the world, that becomes sort of these national priorities in a way that I don’t think we’ve penetrated yet.”

One reason that other nations prioritize rail – tradition.

“In many cases in Europe, certainly there is a deep tradition of passenger rail ridership,” said Eric Eidlin, Station Planning Manager for the City of San Jose and an educator at San Jose State University. “There was always this sense that, you know, riding the train is a really important way to connect places and to get around.”

Eidlin added that completion of the expansive project should be treated with more urgency due to the implications of a possible “climate apocalypse,” with record-breaking temperatures across the globe driven by climate change.

“This project will take a long time to build, so the payoff will be in the long-term, but I do think we do need to be thinking on that time horizon, you know, it’s not just about the greenhouse gas emissions in 5, 10 years, but in 30 years, and how are we setting ourselves up for the future long-term?”

In addition to any carbon-reducing benefits, Lavin urged those who were looking to become more informed about the High-Speed Rail project to think of it as more than just a transportation undertaking.

“I think most Californians can barely afford rent, I think most Californians are worried about putting food on the table, most Californians are struggling. And I think an important part is the high-speed rail is going to help them,” Lavin said. “When we talk about job access … having a hard time affording rent, frankly speaking, the high-speed rail project is, in a sense, one of California’s biggest bit of affordable housing infrastructures going on.”

He urged listeners and supporters of the project who want to see it be completed sooner to call their local representatives, Gov. Newsom’s office, and any of the candidates for the upcoming California Senate election and urge them to support the project and advocate for additional federal funding.

Lipkin said support for the High-Speed Rail project has only grown since it was first approved by voters in 2008. In a recent poll by UC Berkeley, support for the project was about 20 percentage points higher than the percentage of people who were against it.

“I think California is pretty united in wanting to see this project happen,” Lipkin said, acknowledging that questions remain about how fast it can be completed. “The support is there, and we were very lucky to have that, because there’s no way to move something like this forward without very, very strong support. And we certainly have that across the board.”

The longer the project takes to complete, the more expensive it will become, experts say, and whether or not the project has the support of everyone in the state, it’s officially reached the “point of no return,” Lipkin said.

The California High-Speed Rail is coming, if not in five years, then a few years later. It’s up to its supporters to make an accelerated timeline a reality.

Link

I wonder why the federal govt isn't stepping in to fund this and get it built faster.

They will. It's obviously very politically contentious and prone to criticism but the current administration and USDOT obviously believes in it. I would expect a juicy federal grant third quarter 2024 and another within the first 1-2 years of a hopefully second Biden term.

That one party that doesn't like transit or government projects (unless it's in their district or a state they like) are apt at blocking things.
No doubt McCarthy will support projects all the way up to his district line, which is also the county-line, and then block it from going into LA. He's loving the fact that his farmers get all these new overcrossings and upgrades to more than just HSR, like utilities and roads.

The highway system crossed dozens of states, providing benefits across the country. This is located in a single state. That makes it a harder sell from funding perspective. It’s why military contractors spread out facilities in all states, makes it hard to cut funding.

It technically will with the desert express or whatever the new name is, and Texas is possibly looking at federal funding through Amtrak with their HSR.
California projects basically have a higher hill to climb both figuratively and literally, just look at how other forumers are unreceptive to CAHSR and the opposite for THSR.

Take a close look at those recent photos, do you see any railriad tracks, track side signals, or new ballast in them? We're still years away before any trains run on these non-existent tracks. By the time they lay any tracks, all that pretty white concrete will be spoiled with graffiti.

I looked at the pics from SF to SJ and there are tracks, but...told y'all. You guys said it wouldn't even get started or passed and yet here we are, transitioning to "never get finished". Wait for it to get finished.
Other states have it out for CAHSR, but you don't see that with other possible HSR systems.

Right but considering California is the most prosperous state and therefore the one that contributes the most to the economy of the US, there should be proportional federal funding in return for such an important infrastructure project. When you consider so many other countries less advanced than the US have multiple high speed rail lines, you’d think they would want to make this project a priority and a catalyst for more HSR lines around the country in the future.

I think some of it really just boils down to it being a thing California is doing...everybody seems to go bonkers for us lol. Most posters seemed generally excited or happy for Texas getting some HSR chatter...CA? Furious.
Full disclosure: I also think it's cool Texas might get HSR and funding from Amtrak, but I will tell them "it's never going to get built!" if this CA bashing continues. The CA system is also a proof of concept for the rest of the country, although it would be a bit cheaper to build in the flattest parts of the country (like it is for the CV). The article from Busy Bee does a good job in explaining WHY things aren't getting built at a China's pace, but I don't know if that will placate the out-of-state posters.

Yeah, I'm not sure what the mindset is. Haters gonna hate I guess.

My guess is perhaps they are salty their region is not getting HSR first, or that if CAHSR "fails", then the funding for their next in line project will go away. The reality is we should be building multiple HSR lines simultaneously across the country. The Northeast Corridor, the Midwest, the PNW, Texas, and maybe the Southeast. And if you really wanted to prioritize lines, it'd probably be the NEC and then CA/LV as far as highest projected ridership as well as existing urban rail connections in the main connecting metros (aside from Vegas). Why NEC HSR is not as far along, especially given its already an existing line and the lowest hanging HSR fruit, I have no clue, but not our problem.

Certainly, the fact that it is in California impacts national perception. That is obvious to anyone following how it is reported.

However, if you look at a project like Chicago-St. Louis HSR (only up to 110mph), it cost the federal government $1.6 billion to create the 300 mile trip. It also crosses two different states, which matters. Illinois kicked in $200m, so this project was around the 80/20 ratio people are referencing.

Meanwhile, Merced to Bakersfield is expect to cost $35 billion for a 170 mile trip. 80% of that would be $28 billion from the feds.

You could build 17 different Chicago-St. Louis corridors (twice the distance) for the cost of one Merced-Bakersfield. If you think that building multiple lines simultaneously around the country is the right move, than I don't see how you could justify giving $28 billion to a single project in California. Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Chicago could probably be built for far less and would connect three states and span 400+ miles.

Everyone already knows it's going to be years before trains are running. That's always been the plan, and the system is currently under construction, with a long way to go. How could anyone think otherwise? Who is saying otherwise?

In case you are confused, here is the definition of the word "construction":

Wow, it's almost like something that is under construction, is by definition, unfinished. The tracks come later, obviously.

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. I'm not saying that we should split up the pie more evenly. I'm saying there should be pies for everyone. The federal govt should be funding all of these projects, not just one, regardless of which one is cheaper. The country is long overdue in modernizing its long distance rail infrastructure in favor of pushing polluting freeways and highways. Why the CAHSR costs co much more than the Chicago-St Louis one, I don't know. It would be great if it could be built more cheaply but I'm sure there is a reason, if not multiple reasons.

Electricron, the brain genius:

Hundreds of miles of fields that are at risk of flooding? NO BUILD HUNDREDS OF MILES OF EMBANKMENT. ONLY BUILD TRACKS

River/road/highway/rail that needs to be crossed? NO BUILD BRIDGE NO BUILD PERGOLA NO BUILD TRENCH NO BUILD TUNNEL. BUILD TRACKS

Land that needs to be acquired? NO BUY! BUILD TRACKS

Lawsuits that need to be dealt with? NO LAWYER BUILD TRACKS

Not enough funding for everything yet? USE MAGIC CRYSTAL BALL BUILD TRACKS YESTERDAY


lol

Never gonna get built! Too slow! Too expensive!
*sorry, had to do it and hmm...it felt kinda good to say that, maybe that's why people from out-of-state do it to California projects? For real though that's great for Missouri and Illinois.
Things just cost more in higher-income states, from land acquisition to labor and ect. The CHI-STL HSR project is similar to the electrification of Caltrain and honestly all of our legacy rail should be electrified across the country.
It would be great to have true HSR across the country but it's way more expensive to build actual HSR.

Per Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...igh-Speed_Rail
The 2023 Project Update Report notes that permanent funding programs do not exist for high-speed rail, either nationally or in California. Current CAHSR funding for the project is estimated at $25 billion. Of this, California has contributed about 85% ($21.5 billion, assuming cap-and-trade stays at current levels through 2030), and the federal government has contributed about 15% (roughly $3.5 billion). The 2022 Business Plan indicated additional federal funds would be needed to complete the Merced-to-Bakersfield segment, and set a target of $8 billion to be awarded from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law for the project. If that target is achieved, about $33 billion would be directed to the project (about 65% state, 35% federal in total). Future state or federal funds of about $2 billion would address the full P65 cost estimate. However, there is no state funding assured after 2030, so ongoing funding will be a critical issue which will have to be addressed.

More than likely, the Californian Legislature will extend cap and trade taxation and therefore funding. So I would not worry about the extra $2 Billion.
To date, the Feds have contributed $3.5 Billion and by 2020 California will contribute $21.5 Billion. They want an additional $8 Billion from the Feds/ Some math - $33 Billion - $8 Billion = $25 Billion. $25 Billion - $21.5 Billion = $3.5 Billion. And California would still be $3 Billion short.

So, since last year, California wants $8 Billion more from the Feds while contributing up to 2030 and extra $1.5 Billion.

Of course that 15% Federal contribution looks short today, but at the time it was made and promised, before costs doubled, the was a health 30% contribution. Now Californai wants Federal taxpayers to pay for their mismanagement and cost over runs. That does not seem fair to rest of the country. Even Honolulu had to pay for its cost overruns itself. Why should California be treated any different?