California High Speed Rail Thread

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by LAsam

^Who's taking bets on whether we can board a high speed train from LA in 2033? I'll take the over, please.

I think part of it is the EIR, and after that clears the dates can change. They will be testing trains starting in 2023 for the "2025" areas, but I'm sure if LA wanted to it could be done faster.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by TWAK

I know people have an issue with the price, and that's probably the most expensive option there is. They definitely chose Tehachapi for the cost, engineering, and there's more population centers along that route. There's rail ROW as well.
Y'all like maps?

source

I reread Prop 1 from 2008 to see of the authority has the authority to build sections of Phase 2 before the completion of Phase 1. I'm not a lawyer and in my opinion you'd need a lawyer to decipher this. I'm leaning toward a NO.

2704.04. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature by enacting this
chapter and of the people of California by approving the bond
measure pursuant to this chapter to initiate the construction of a
high-speed train system that connects the San Francisco Transbay
Terminal to Los Angeles Union Station and Anaheim, and links the
state's major population centers, including Sacramento, the San
Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland
Empire, Orange County, and San Diego consistent with the authority's
certified environmental impact reports of November 2005 and July 9,
2008.
(b) (1) Net proceeds received from the sale of nine billion
dollars ($9,000,000,000) principal amount of bonds authorized
pursuant to this chapter, upon appropriation by the Legislature in
the annual Budget Act, shall be used for (A) planning and engineering
for the high-speed train system and (B) capital costs, as described
in subdivision (c).
(2) As adopted by the authority in May 2007, Phase 1 of the
high-speed train project is the corridor of the high-speed train
system between San Francisco Transbay Terminal and Los Angeles Union
Station and Anaheim.
(3) Upon a finding by the authority that expenditure of bond
proceeds for capital costs in corridors other than the corridor
described in paragraph (2) would advance the construction of the
system, would be consistent with the criteria described in
subdivision (f) of Section 2704.08, and would not have an adverse
impact on the construction of Phase 1 of the high-speed train
project, the authority may request funding for capital costs, and the
Legislature may appropriate funds described in paragraph (1) in the
annual Budget Act, to be expended for any of the following high-speed
train corridors:
(A) Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno.
(B) San Francisco Transbay Terminal to San Jose to Fresno.
(C) Oakland to San Jose.
(D) Fresno to Bakersfield to Palmdale to Los Angeles Union
Station.
(E) Los Angeles Union Station to Riverside to San Diego.
(F) Los Angeles Union Station to Anaheim to Irvine.
(G) Merced to Stockton to Oakland and San Francisco via the
Altamont Corridor.
(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the authority's
determination and selection of the alignment from the Central Valley
to the San Francisco Bay Area and its certification of the
environmental impact report.


To me, completion of the line between Bakersfield and Sacramento would be relatively inexpensive and a big political win. I think the workaround would be to have ACE or the Capitol Corridor build the line between Sacramento and Merced. California keeps posting gigantic surpluses. A fraction of any of these annual surpluses could fund the extension to Sacramento, which would involve zero tunnels or other unpredictable elements.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

I reread Prop 1 from 2008 to see of the authority has the authority to build sections of Phase 2 before the completion of Phase 1. I'm not a lawyer and in my opinion you'd need a lawyer to decipher this. I'm leaning toward a NO.

To me, completion of the line between Bakersfield and Sacramento would be relatively inexpensive and a big political win. I think the workaround would be to have ACE or the Capitol Corridor build the line between Sacramento and Merced. California keeps posting gigantic surpluses. A fraction of any of these annual surpluses could fund the extension to Sacramento, which would involve zero tunnels or other unpredictable elements.

CHSR has its own plans and order when everything should be done. Sorry your ideas do not match theirs, and frankly do not match mine either.

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by TWAK

I know people have an issue with the price, and that's probably the most expensive option there is. They definitely chose Tehachapi for the cost, engineering, and there's more population centers along that route. There's rail ROW as well.
Y'all like maps?

Honestly sticking to existing rail ROWs has likely increased cost. The freight railroads have insisted on 100' of separation, meaning huge swaths of land need to be bought up even through the middle of Fresno. When the HSR has to cross over the existing railroad, they have to build enormous "pergola" structures that are 3x-4x the size of comparable structures on European systems.

They'd be better off just carving their own path across the Central Valley (to be fair, they have done this in certain sections).

[edale]

Originally Posted by LAsam

^Who's taking bets on whether we can board a high speed train from LA in 2033? I'll take the over, please.

I'd even take the over on 2040!

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by ardecila

Honestly sticking to existing rail ROWs has likely increased cost. The freight railroads have insisted on 100' of separation, meaning huge swaths of land need to be bought up even through the middle of Fresno. When the HSR has to cross over the existing railroad, they have to build enormous "pergola" structures that are 3x-4x the size of comparable structures on European systems.

They'd be better off just carving their own path across the Central Valley (to be fair, they have done this in certain sections).

Ardecila, they probably still would have had to cross over the freight railroads at several spots even if they didn't have these segments on parallel routing. We know the crossings would be aerial structures in the CV due to the water table. The biggest question is whether a different routing would enable crossing at a more perpendicular angle negating the need for these enormous pergola structures. I personally have my doubts that any radically different routing that makes for simpler and cheaper crossings would have been possible or beneficial in any other way and may have in fact cost more due to other land requirements. I feel pretty confident the experts chose a pretty good right of way.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Y'all like maps?

Yes, I love maps, and this one in particular shows how inept CHSR is. I wish to point out specifically the gap between Bakersfield and CP4, and the gap between Merced and Madera CP1. Note that the EIS study has been completed for these gaps, yet no construction contract has been issued, and that no construction is presently underway in both gaps. The IOS is supposedly to run trains between Bakersfield and Merced using tracks laid in these two gaps, yet no construction is underway yet. There is no way they can finishing building tracks in these gaps at the same times as they finish building CP1 thru CP4, without delaying the existing construction projects. There is no way they can run trains to Bakersfield and Merced without finishing these gaps they have not even started on.

Huh

Over promising and under delivering seems too common in California nowadays.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by electricron

Yes, I love maps, and this one in particular shows how inept CHSR is. I wish to point out specifically the gap between Bakersfield and CP4, and the gap between Merced and Madera CP1. Note that the EIS study has been completed for these gaps, yet no construction contract has been issued, and that no construction is presently underway in both gaps. The IOS is supposedly to run trains between Bakersfield and Merced using tracks laid in these two gaps, yet no construction is underway yet. There is no way they can finishing building tracks in these gaps at the same times as they finish building CP1 thru CP4, without delaying the existing construction projects. There is no way they can run trains to Bakersfield and Merced without finishing these gaps they have not even started on.

Huh

Over promising and under delivering seems too common in California nowadays.

An ongoing construction project is incomplete?

Wow, very insightful.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by tech12

An ongoing construction project is incomplete?
Wow, very insightful.

I thought I made it clear they had not even started construction on the IOS gaps; into Merced and into Bakersfield; so for all practical purposes it is not an ongoing construction yet.
I keep reading here that they will start and finish testing the IOS by 2023 when these gaps in the corridor have not started construction and the trainsets have not been ordered as of November 2021. How is that even possible? Take that for some insightful (deer in headlights) news! You are welcome.

[ssiguy]

I think California HSR is the best thing that has ever happened to rail in the US!

It is the poster child of how NOT to build HSR so the rest of the US can learn from it's stellar ineptitudes and not make the same mistakes.

[Busy Bee]

Honestly when this thing is up and running all this hate over what was constructed first is going to sound so stupid.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Honestly when this thing is up and running all this hate over what was constructed first is going to sound so stupid.

When we're all in nursing homes or dead?

[Busy Bee]

^ Exhibit A

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[SFBruin]

If they can convincingly secure funding for the first phase and build it to a high standard (travel time of 3 hr 30 min or less), then I think that it will be a good thing.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

If they can convincingly secure funding for the first phase and build it to a high standard (travel time of 3 hr 30 min or less), then I think that it will be a good thing.

That is one huge IF.
CHSR authority was tasked to make HSR in California a reality, both politically and financially. You are waiting on Phase 1 results, I am waiting on IOS results, the scaled down Phase 1. The score so far, zero out of two.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by MF DOOM

The money is not the problem. California essentially has infinite money now that 99% of all human communication runs through it. It's the cowardly politicians who are afraid of teensiest bit of criticism even though the critics will be a tiny minority once it's actually built.

Money is the problem and the CHSRA has mismanaged this project and over promised most every step of the way. Politicians lack spines, that has been true since the dawn of time. Politicians watch polls and know that the (tax paying) public are growing weary over the lack of progress and the lack of private investment, while projected cost estimates have risen.

The need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the passage of the infrastructure bill by Congress, presents California rail advocates and politicians with an opportunity to put this project back on track. But the CHSR Authority doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that money and political support alone will be enough.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Money is the problem

Prop 1a in 2008 authorized the state to sell bonds in a fixed dollar amount - about one-third of what was estimated to be needed at the time to build Phase 1. Post-2008 inflation has more than doubled the cost of finishing Phase 1.

Federal dollars were always going to be needed to achieve an IOS, let alone complete Phase 1, even before the inflation. Some federal money came to the authority thanks to the Obama-era stimulus (plus stimulus sent to Ohio and Wisconsin that was rejected by Tea Party governors and redirected to California) and state cap & trade.

You guys are falling for the Tea Party's trap. Over and over again, they starve in-progress rail and transit projects then gloat to their followers that "government is incompetent". If Hillary Clinton had won in 2016, there would have been no Elaine Chow and her Caltrain stunt, and CAHSR almost certainly would have received a significant infusion of federal cash.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Prop 1a in 2008 authorized the state to sell bonds in a fixed dollar amount - about one-third of what was estimated to be needed at the time to build Phase 1. Post-2008 inflation has more than doubled the cost of finishing Phase 1.

Federal dollars were always going to be needed to achieve an IOS, let alone complete Phase 1, even before the inflation. Some federal money came to the authority thanks to the Obama-era stimulus (plus stimulus sent to Ohio and Wisconsin that was rejected by Tea Party governors and redirected to California) and state cap & trade.

Let's do the math of your reply, so everyone can see what happens when a project is underfunded.
Prop 1a in 2008 at that time pays 33% of Phase 1
Inflation since then has more than doubled the cost of Phase 1
Therefore Prop 1a actually only pays 16% of Phase 1.

Where did CHSR think the other 67%, now 84%, was going to come from?
How many transit projects in the last 50 years, in both Democrat and Republican Administrations and Congress, has Uncle Sam paid 70%, 80%, 90%, or 100% of a transit project? ZERO!

CHSR has been so underfunded by the State of California they are hard presses to fund just the IOS, about half the route of Phase 1.

Even NY and NJ will have to fund 50% of the new Gateway tunnels under the Hudson River. Why did CHSR think they could get away with less?

The Honolulu Rail project is now estimated to cost far more than $10 Billion, yet Uncle Sam is only contributing less than $2 Billion, less than 20%. Most transit agencies expect to receive 50% at most from Uncle Sam, but not CHSR.

Stop kidding yourself, Republicans at the Federal level have not underfunded CHSR, Democrat Administrations and Congress have, in addition to the Democrat Administrations and Legislatures in California.

Note, I am not suggesting many Republicans have ever supported the CHSR politically or financially, I am suggesting that Democrats have supported CHSR politically, although always in an underfunded state - i.e. not fully financed.

Which is worse, not promising a pie in the sky project or promising an unfinished and unusable pie in the sky project?

[202_Cyclist]

electricron:

Stop kidding yourself, Republicans at the Federal level have not underfunded CHSR, Democrat Administrations and Congress have, in addition to the Democrat Administrations and Legislatures in California.

Jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja! Surely you are joking. The Trump mafia regime pulled nearly $1B of funding for high-speed rail from California.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/trans...-rail-project/

Trump and Republicans in Congress also tried to cut funding for Amtrak.

"The proposal would cut Amtrak funds in fiscal 2021 by more than 50% over 2020 levels. It could cut funds to the congested northeast corridor from $700 million to $325 million and cut long-distance train funds from $1.3 billion to $611 million, then phase out support for Amtrak’s long-distance trains."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN20429Q