California High Speed Rail Thread

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Millbrae is directly adjacent to SFO. You know that right?

No, the Millbrae Station is not located directly at the SFO terminals. You have to transfer using BART to get to the airport. The transfer has not always been using BART trains, just in the recent past the transfer involved buses.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millbrae_station
On February 11, 2019, SFO–Millbrae line service resumed on weekdays and Sundays. The station continues to be served by the Richmond line on weekdays, with the Antioch line (formerly the Pittsburg/Bay Point line) serving both SFIA and Millbrae on weeknights and Saturdays. On February 10, 2020, the SFO–Millbrae line began running during all operating hours, with the Antioch line operating only to SFIA. SFO–Millbrae service ended on August 2, 2021; it was replaced by an extension of the Richmond line to SFIA weekdays and Saturdays, and an extension of the Antioch line to Millbrae evenings and Sundays.

The services have been changing so much lately, it is difficult to suggest how BART plans to run the BART trains year by year.

Never-the-less, Caltrain trains do not and have never directly service the airport.

[Busy Bee]

Man, are you familiar with the expression splitting hairs ?

The station where high speed trains will stop is literally right next door to the second most important airport in California. Now you're moving the goalpost to whether or not they will stop feet from a terminal gate.

I should remind you this was your original comment:

The main reason being that CHSR trains will not stop at stations at or near major airports.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This is an incomplete sentence, so your specific intent is unclear, but I will attempt to address it.

Yes, you got me there, I clearly didn’t finish my thought. You did a good job addressing it though.

By not ‘putting all of our eggs in one basket’, I meant HSR can be one element of a much larger transportation network to link the State. For instance the electrification of existing rail corridors as you mentioned as well as improvements to bay ferries. Solano Transit has run shuttle busses between Downtown Sacramento and the ferry terminal in Vallejo for years.

Even beyond those things, I would like to see the State invest heavily in local transit. But I’ll leave that for another thread.

Originally Posted by TWAK

Sacramento should at least be cheaper since the conditions are the same as most of the central valley route.

Personally I would be happy with improved travel times on the Capital Corridor. I’m not sure whether that will include eventual electrification and some sort of tilt technology that might be able to increase speeds from Benicia to Emeryville. To be honest, I’m not certain that the tilt technology has ever ironed out the issues of motion sickness..? But that can be a very relaxing and scenic trip between Sacramento and the Bay, especially during the Spring and Autumn.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Jmeck, I usually find myself agreeing with everything you say, but I have to disagree with you on this. I see no hint and no reason to suggest they will suddenly pursue a lower speed spec for the Sac and SD legs, especially after the public and media undoubtedly become mesmerized by the speed and "futureness" of the IOS. I have 100% confidence the system will be completed as planned with the phase 2 not being treated as a less-than afterthought in any way.

That's true - I could see Modesto/Stockton/Sacramento people getting upset if they're told that they're getting HSR in name only. That said, TGV trains in France regularly run at relatively low speeds on local branches.

Per the official conceptual map [https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/upload...acramento.pdf], CAHSR plans downtown stations in Modesto and Sacramento, but the line will deviate from the UP mainline for much of the route between those points, with Stockton's station on the eastern periphery of that city.

I think a big dilemma in nocal is the competing push to electrify ACE between several of the same cities where CAHSR is planned, but it won't be possible to opearte CAHSR full-blast at 220mph unless the ACE trains themselves have HSR specs, or the new rail corridor is built with 3 or 4 tracks throughout to allow the HSR trains to pass the commuter trains.

Also, my guess is that after a full build-out, they'll want to run any LA-bound train that originates in Sacramento as an express south of Merced. This creates a tough situation because getting through the wye without tapping the brakes will require a perfect sync with southbound trains leaving San Jose.

[nito]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The combined length of the two major CAHSR tunnels will total roughly 30 miles, so a similar length.

The approach tunnel to Transbay Terminal will be about 2 miles long but will a project of similar complexity to any in London.

Newsom kept his job so my thought is that he and the legislature could easily fund this project without bringing out the HSR boo-birds. Same with construction of HSR between San Jose and Gilroy - it could be used by electrified Caltrains right away.

I was under the impression, and I’m happy to be corrected on this, that the major tunnelling projects for CAHSR don’t form part of the IOS, and that these will form part of future phases. Looking at the IOS section, there is minimal tunnelling and that perhaps 90-95% of the route from Merced to Bakersfield runs at surface with a few elevated sections and a scattering of short tunnels. The comparison of HS2 Phase I with its extensive tunnelling and intensive city interventions was with the IOS.

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

It is curious that the English-speaking world sucks at high speed rail.

Among the UK, US, Canada, Australia, and NZ, the UK's rail sucks the least. However, when one considers that England has the same population density as the Japanese Island of Honshu, and –were it an independent state– would be the second densest country in Europe (nearly tied with the Netherlands, twice as dense as Germany and Italy, 3 times as dense as France, and 5 fucking times as dense as Spain), and fifth-densest in the world, then its lack of high speed rail is glaring.

If i had to guess an explanation, i think English common law must have something to do with it

I don’t think it has anything to do with the legal code, various countries simply developed in different ways. England/the UK doesn’t have an extensive HSR network, but speed is one variable in providing a competent intercity service; frequency and accessibility are other variables, especially in compact countries with dispersed population centres. British intercity networks relative to international networks operate at far higher frequencies which erodes the speed advantage going someway to explaining why the British intercity rail network moves more people than the HSR and non-HSR networks of either France or Germany.

HS2 exists as a project because the existing main lines are literally full. Building a new line to 21st century high-speed standards obviously made sense. I think that the allure of high-speed trains however does obscure the actual goals of improving intercity travel, or travel in general. Spain is a classic example of this in the intercity context.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Personally I would be happy with improved travel times on the Capital Corridor. I’m not sure whether that will include eventual electrification and some sort of tilt technology that might be able to increase speeds from Benicia to Emeryville. To be honest, I’m not certain that the tilt technology has ever ironed out the issues of motion sickness..? But that can be a very relaxing and scenic trip between Sacramento and the Bay, especially during the Spring and Autumn.

There are plans now for electrification and separating freight from the line and I-80 would be the perfect HSR route. I think regional authorities might settle with electrification instead of HSR, though, since the current route to SF is the same as driving. As for slower speeds with the route to Sac...maybe when it goes through Elk Grove? Seems to me like residents would do lawsuits

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I would be happy with improved travel times on the Capital Corridor. I’m not sure whether that will include eventual electrification and some sort of tilt technology that might be able to increase speeds from Benicia to Emeryville. To be honest, I’m not certain that the tilt technology has ever ironed out the issues of motion sickness..? But that can be a very relaxing and scenic trip between Sacramento and the Bay, especially during the Spring and Autumn.

I feel like they need to build tunnels between Richmond and Fairfield/Vacaville (always get them mixed up).

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by nito

The comparison of HS2 Phase I with its extensive tunnelling and intensive city interventions was with the IOS.

There are no tunnels of any kind on the IOS. This project - like any undertaken by any of the 50 states - exists in a political/administrative environment that doesn't exist in England or anywhere else. The existence or absence of tunnels is an incidental detail.

It's basically impossible for a state or any individual U.S. city to do anything unusual, even if they have the cash on hand, because everything is dependent upon the federal matches. To go at it alone - without the free federal money - is just plain bad business.

Before the federal government started its grants and matching after WWII, states and cities did embark on ambitious infrastructure projects - the cross-state canals in New York and Ohio are obvious examples from the 1800s and several states built toll expressways in the years before the Interstate Highway Act - the first being the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Several states/cities coordinated to build tollways that linked to form a continuous roadway - the Chicago Skyway linked directly to the Indiana Turnpike which linked directly to the Ohio Turnpike which linked to the Pennsylvania.

It was actually easier to do this stuff in the past because various DOT's weren't sitting around waiting for the federal grant cycle. CAHSR is stuck waiting and waiting on Federal $$$.

[curt-pdx]

More goodness from John at The Four Foot - a drone flyover of CP1:

• Video Link

My thanks to him for his impressive commitment of time to keep us informed. There will be two more drone flyover videos of the other construction packages coming soon.

[Busy Bee]

He does amazing work and should be on the payroll of CHSRA. My only gripe is that he doesn't release them all at once, the waiting is agony.

[nito]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

There are no tunnels of any kind on the IOS. This project - like any undertaken by any of the 50 states - exists in a political/administrative environment that doesn't exist in England or anywhere else. The existence or absence of tunnels is an incidental detail.

It's basically impossible for a state or any individual U.S. city to do anything unusual, even if they have the cash on hand, because everything is dependent upon the federal matches. To go at it alone - without the free federal money - is just plain bad business.

Before the federal government started its grants and matching after WWII, states and cities did embark on ambitious infrastructure projects - the cross-state canals in New York and Ohio are obvious examples from the 1800s and several states built toll expressways in the years before the Interstate Highway Act - the first being the Pennsylvania Turnpike. Several states/cities coordinated to build tollways that linked to form a continuous roadway - the Chicago Skyway linked directly to the Indiana Turnpike which linked directly to the Ohio Turnpike which linked to the Pennsylvania.

It was actually easier to do this stuff in the past because various DOT's weren't sitting around waiting for the federal grant cycle. CAHSR is stuck waiting and waiting on Federal $$$.

I think what I was trying to get at was that the level of engineering complexity for the IOS is lower than that for Phase I of HS2 (with extensive tunnelling, city centre interventions, etc…), yet the construction timeframe for the IOS is longer.

Things aren’t exactly done rapid in the UK compared to other countries either. In the UK it is a constant battle with the Treasury to get transit projects done. The other day the Public Accounts Committee produced their outlook on HS2 which was positive. They did have concerns over Euston where there is an ongoing debate/dithering as to whether the HS2 station is built in a cheaper ten platform single phase or more expensive eleven platform two phase project. Thankfully Old Oak Common can be a temporary terminus if Euston is delayed, but the project ploughs on.

[Busy Bee]

^It's so nice to see the political dithering about how a station is most economically constructed and not whether trains are a socialist plot to steal your freedoms.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by nito

I think what I was trying to get at was that the level of engineering complexity for the IOS is lower than that for Phase I of HS2 (with extensive tunnelling, city centre interventions, etc…), yet the construction timeframe for the IOS is longer.

The timeframe is longer because even if the Pacheco Pass and Palmdale-Burbank tunnels are fully funded in 2022 (which there is no reason to believe that they will), it'll be 2032 before revenue trains are running through either of them. No, they aren't close to as big as the new and u/c base tunnels in Switzerland and Austria, but they're each still very large projects.

If, instead, CAHSR had built the LA and SF approaches first, plus the two major tunnels, then the IOS would be the missing link, and there would have been tremendous pressure to build it as quickly as possible.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The timeframe is longer because even if the Pacheco Pass and Palmdale-Burbank tunnels are fully funded in 2022 (which there is no reason to believe that they will), it'll be 2032 before revenue trains are running through either of them. No, they aren't close to as big as the new and u/c base tunnels in Switzerland and Austria, but they're each still very large projects.

If, instead, CAHSR had built the LA and SF approaches first, plus the two major tunnels, then the IOS would be the missing link, and there would have been tremendous pressure to build it as quickly as possible.

I sort of agree, but no quite entirely.
HSR 1 starting building the tunnel under the Channel first because that is what takes the longest time to build.
Forget the politics behind the project and just look at it as an engineering/construction problem. The first things they should have built is the sections that take the longest to do, and that is the tunnels through the mountains. Apparently that will be the last things they will build for Phase 1. The IOS completely avoids the mountain passes and tunnels. Wrong!

It is going to take them 10 years and more to build the IOS as is, it will take them longer to build the tunnels through the mountain passes, it does not require a genius to understand that. So if the IOS enters service as promised in 2029, when do you think the tunnels will enter service, 2049?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

It is going to take them 10 years and more to build the IOS as is, it will take them longer to build the tunnels through the mountain passes, it does not require a genius to understand that. So if the IOS enters service as promised in 2029, when do you think the tunnels will enter service, 2049?

This isn't a good comparison because having two independent systems, one in northern california and the other in southern california, even for a few years, would mean there would need to be two entirely duplicative maintenance facilities. The rolling stock would be worn down to carry very few passenger and would be worn down unevenly given the different character of the two unconnected sections. Also, the cities situated on the "interior" side of either tunnel are very small - specifically, Palmdale (150,000) and Madera (65,000).

And the exact same forces that are acting to obstruct CAHSR's big tunnels would have acted to obstruct the Central Valley. Up in Seattle, the first streetcar segment opened in 2007 and the second, unconnected segment opened in 2016. Here we are in 2021 and various forces have acted to thwart construction of the critical center section. It's now hoped that it will open in 2025 - almost 20 years after the first section opened in South Lake Union.

The United States military equipment procurement process sees major programs yanked all of the time. For example, there are only three Sea Wolf class submarines and only three Zumwalt class destroyers. We aren't in a time of war so there are no sunk ships to replace and there is no specific date by which we absolutely, must have this railroad complete and running.

Also, part of the motivation for our big military programs is selling the equipment to allies. We have sold many fighter jets to Israel and others, and we are now under contract to allow Australia to build eight nuclear-powered attack submarines based on our Virginia class.

CAHSR is the very beginning of the United States reviving its once-huge passenger railroad equipment industry, but we need a lot more going on nationwide before we have enough domestic business for General Electric or another manufacturer to start designing U.S.-made equipment.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This isn't a good comparison because having two independent systems, one in northern california and the other in southern california, even for a few years, would mean there would need to be two entirely duplicative maintenance facilities.
And the exact same forces that are acting to obstruct CAHSR's big tunnels would have acted to obstruct the Central Valley.

I thought I suggested removing politics from the scenario, take a look at it from an engineering and constructor point of view. So you immediately fire back with political arguments; DOD, Northern vs Southern California, Inner city vs rural, or in other words; political game-man-ship. Booooooooo!

If it is going to take CHSR 15-25 years to build these tunnel sections, and just 10-15 years years to the sections in the Valley, let's get a 10 years head start building the tunnel sections first, then 10-15 years later start building in the Valley. The entire project could be completed in 20-25 years, not the 30-45 years as they are progressing presently. The tunnel sections completing about the same time as the Metros and Valley sections - or at least a few years of each other - not the decades apart.

From an engineering and constructor point of view, finishing all the sections at about the same time means you do not have to build two maintenance facilities you fear. But it does take commitment to actually build and finance all of it.

As for the political activities thwarting construction of the critical center section, they have not stopped one inch of it yet. Landowners expect fair and just compensation for the land being taken from them, and of course lawsuits have had to run their course seeking what is fair and just. But that happens on every transportation or utility project using eminent domain to buy the property. And I also disagree on what are the critical center sections, it is not the Valley sections but the mountain pass sections that are the most critical because they will take both the longest time and the most money to build.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

If, instead, CAHSR had built the LA and SF approaches first, plus the two major tunnels, then the IOS would be the missing link, and there would have been tremendous pressure to build it as quickly as possible.

I would argue the exact opposite. Politically, the region most opposed to CAHSR is the central valley. Legally, the majority of the eminent domain issues are in the central valley. With the approaches done, LA and SF might start to feel like they'd done their part and stop pushing as hard (not to mention, there would only be enough money to do one approach, and the fight over which would be distracting). I feel like the most likely outcome would be the approaches would get done and the rest would easily fade into the ether (or really, only the SF approach would get done)

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

I would argue the exact opposite. Politically, the region most opposed to CAHSR is the central valley. Legally, the majority of the eminent domain issues are in the central valley. With the approaches done, LA and SF might start to feel like they'd done their part and stop pushing as hard (not to mention, there would only be enough money to do one approach, and the fight over which would be distracting). I feel like the most likely outcome would be the approaches would get done and the rest would easily fade into the ether (or really, only the SF approach would get done)

Correct, Prop 1A provided enough money to build, in 2008 dollars, SF to Madera or LA (Anaheim) to Palmdale. It didn't provide enough to build both.

We'd be in a different situation if Clinton had won in late 2015 rather than Trump, since Elaine Chow harassed Caltrain and CAHSR from the moment she was appointed head of the FTA.

However, it needs to be pointed out that the Central Valley section is almost comically cheap to build as compared to every other section of the project, so it's tough to imagine that cost alone would keep it from being built.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by electricron

I thought I suggested removing politics from the scenario, take a look at it from an engineering and constructor point of view. So you immediately fire back with political arguments; DOD, Northern vs Southern California, Inner city vs rural, or in other words; political game-man-ship. Booooooooo!

This project is a piece of cake from an engineering point of view, given that the United States has led the planet in military aviation, navy, space, computers - everything with the exception of high speed trains - for the past 70 years. Hell, we have the greatest freight railroad network on the planet and nearly 100% of its equipment is manufactured domestically.

The United States is, by far, the wealthiest country in the world. The S&P is worth 10X in 2021 as compared to 1991, when the Soviet Union collapsed. California alone has the cash on hand to build this thing, even without the help of the federal government.

So why aren't we farther along? Politics.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This isn't a good comparison because having two independent systems, one in northern california and the other in southern california, even for a few years, would mean there would need to be two entirely duplicative maintenance facilities. The rolling stock would be worn down to carry very few passenger and would be worn down unevenly given the different character of the two unconnected sections. Also, the cities situated on the "interior" side of either tunnel are very small - specifically, Palmdale (150,000) and Madera (65,000).

A minor point, but there are over 400,000 people in the Antelope Valley area, where Palmdale is located.