California High Speed Rail Thread

[Busy Bee]

There was also significant, or at least more, fault concerns with the Grapevine crossing.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by ardecila

If this isn't fair to SoCal, then throw in electrification on the Metrolink Ventura County line which will also be overlaid with HSR between Burbank and LA Union Station.

Isn't HSR expected to run for a couple miles in the same ROW as the Antelope Valley Line until just north of Burbank Blvd., at which point the Ventura Line currently then starts sharing the tracks southward?

Originally Posted by FromSD

The diversion to the Antelope Valley, on the other hand, makes much less sense. To capture about 300,000 people in Palmdale and Lancaster, the train goes way out of its way.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't that route chosen because of the difficulties in routing CAHSR through the Grapevine? Wikipedia says the Tejon Pass is 4,160 ft. above sea level, which is a massive gain in a relatively short span coming from the north. Also, apparently that area marks the intersection of the two largest seismic faults in California, the San Andreas and Garlock fault systems.

[FromSD]

I can't speak directly to the relative earthquake fault risks for the Grapevine route versus the Antelope Valley route. I imagine there are risks with either route. The original 1999 report on California high speed rail had recommended the Grapevine alignment out of Los Angeles. According to a NY Times article from last October, the decision to go with the Palmdale/Lancaster route came when the northern LA County Supervisor, Mike Antonovich. got a member of the rail authority board, Jerry Epstein, to lobby other board members to adopt the longer, more expensive Antelope Valley route. Epstein wanted the LA County Board of Supervisors to renew his Marina del Rey leases for another 40 years, and Antonovich was his chance to make sure that happened. Antonovich denies a quid pro quo (Marina del Rey leases in return for high speed rail for his constituents in Palmdale and Lancaster), but stranger things have happened. According to the NY Times article, the Antelope Valley alignment added 41 miles to the route and increased costs by 16%, not a trivial sum for a project whose cost estimates now approach $130 billion.

To be fair, the NY Times article, which casts California HSR in a pretty negative light, was written by Ralph Vartabedian, who has a long career with the LA Times writing similarly negative articles about the project.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/u...sultPosition=1

On the argument that the Antelope Valley route provided a better LA connection for the Las Vegas Brightline service: maybe, but I would argue that a taxpayer-funded project like California HSR shouldn't take on additional costs and risks to accommodate a privately-owned enterprise like Brightline West, especially since it's only in the last year or so that high speed rail to Las Vegas seemed to have a real chance of happening.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by FromSD

I can't speak directly to the relative earthquake fault risks for the Grapevine route versus the Antelope Valley route. I imagine there are risks with either route. The original 1999 report on California high speed rail had recommended the Grapevine alignment out of Los Angeles. According to a NY Times article from last October, the decision to go with the Palmdale/Lancaster route came when the northern LA County Supervisor, Mike Antonovich. got a member of the rail authority board, Jerry Epstein, to lobby other board members to adopt the longer, more expensive Antelope Valley route. Epstein wanted the LA County Board of Supervisors to renew his Marina del Rey leases for another 40 years, and Antonovich was his chance to make sure that happened. Antonovich denies a quid pro quo (Marina del Rey leases in return for high speed rail for his constituents in Palmdale and Lancaster), but stranger things have happened. According to the NY Times article, the Antelope Valley alignment added 41 miles to the route and increased costs by 16%, not a trivial sum for a project whose cost estimates now approach $130 billion.

To be fair, the NY Times article, which casts California HSR in a pretty negative light, was written by Ralph Vartabedian, who has a long career with the LA Times writing similarly negative articles about the project.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/u...sultPosition=1

On the argument that the Antelope Valley route provided a better LA connection for the Las Vegas Brightline service: maybe, but I would argue that a taxpayer-funded project like California HSR shouldn't take on additional costs and risks to accommodate a privately-owned enterprise like Brightline West, especially since it's only in the last year or so that high speed rail to Las Vegas seemed to have a real chance of happening.

In that case, it's unfortunate that a Republican politician forced an expensive and unnecessary Antelope Valley route. I never liked Antonovich, and now there's even more reason to dislike him.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by FromSD

On the argument that the Antelope Valley route provided a better LA connection for the Las Vegas Brightline service: maybe, but I would argue that a taxpayer-funded project like California HSR shouldn't take on additional costs and risks to accommodate a privately-owned enterprise like Brightline West, especially since it's only in the last year or so that high speed rail to Las Vegas seemed to have a real chance of happening.

In the United States, there is a long history of railroads paying to run their trains on another railroad's tracks. This is going to be a significant source of long-term income for CAHSR that will offset the very high cost of constructing a high-speed entrance into Los Angeles. Brightline gets a better service than they could have ever built themselves and CAHSR earns mailbox money. The phrase is a cliche but this is the definition of a win-win.

[edale]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

This is where Las Vegas rail is going to connect. The Las Vegas rail service will be a paying tenant as the user of a tunnel owned by CAHSR.

If the tunnel to Bakersfield had been built along the I-5 Grapevine route, there would have to be two 20-30 mile tunnels to establish high speed service to both corridors.

I've seen this claimed a few times, but I thought Brightline was going to terminate in Rancho Cucamonga, not Palmdale/Lancaster?

[Busy Bee]

I understand it that Brightline - or whatever tge service will be called as well as whether or not it will even remain a separate entity from CHSR - will establish the Rancho Cucamonga as the terminal but will also be built to Palmdale when the CHSR mountain tunnel comes online. This would allow a LAUS-LV train and an Rancho Cucamonga-LV which would be more convenient for inland residents.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

And I think that would be an improvement. The 'major' towns/cities of the Central Valley would still have access to the HSR. They'd have to drive 30 mins to an hour to reach a station, but how is that any different than people driving to an airport? They would still be getting a huge amenity by having easy, fast access to SF and LA (eventually Sac and SD, too), even if the train didn't pass through the center of town. The whole point of HSR should be connecting the Bay Area to SoCal as fast and easily as possible. When you have mission creep, such as serving every cow town in the CV, the project suffers, as we've seen. Land acquisition and road and utility relocation in the CV has been a HUGE waste of time, money, and resources. These issues would have been much, much simpler had the I-5 alignment been selected. Because these issues were dealt with when the 5 was constructed!

Oh well, that ship sailed long ago. It is what it is at this point. Looking forward to seeing bullet trains connect Madera and Bakersfield in 2030!

This x1000.

CAHSR should have been designed as a SF-LA bullet train, with no other competing objectives. To this point, it's much more of a make-work project for areas like Bakersfield than anything having to do with mobility.

The "but the direct, cheaper route doesn't serve downtown Bakersfield therefore people won't ride it" is bizarre. There isn't going to be much Central Valley ridership. And if there were, it wouldn't be harder to access via the direct route. It isn't like most LA residents live walking distance to Union Station, so why would we have such standards in the Central Valley?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

I understand it that Brightline - or whatever tge service will be called as well as whether or not it will even remain a separate entity from CHSR - will establish the Rancho Cucamonga as the terminal but will also be built to Palmdale when the CHSR mountain tunnel comes online. This would allow a LAUS-LV train and an Rancho Cucamonga-LV which would be more convenient for inland residents.

The Brightline trains will almost certainly terminate in Anaheim along with CAHSR Phase 1. This means the Las Vegas trains will be accessible in Burbank, LA Union Station, and Anaheim.

The Metrolink tracks between LA Union and San Bernardino won't be upgraded until CAHSR Phase 2, which can't happen until Phase 1 is operational, but I'd bet that that terminus will be extended eastward toward San Bernardino or Riverside rather than duplicate LA Union Station.

[Busy Bee]

Makes sense.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Makes sense.

...it's not particularly useful to look this far forward, but because the Brightline trains inevitably won't match the CASHR trains, they'll have to have different maintenance facilities in Anaheim.

If there had been a public partnership between Nevada and California, the whole thing could have been coordinated from the beginning, and construction could have been phased so as to keep engineers, consultants, and work crews consistently employed.

Part of the problem with a joint agency would have been the fact that most of the route would be in California, with only about 50 miles of track in Nevada.

LA>Phoenix is closer to 50/50, but still roughly 3/5 in California, and even more if the San Diego part of the Phase 2 plan is considered.

The Interstate Highways blew past this problem since the federal highway trust fund paid for 95% of construction across the barren government-owned lands in the West.

[Busy Bee]

If I was a betting man I'd wager there is about a 90% chance that both services wind up with a Siemens Velaro varient - especially with the DB operator concession - and if so there is the possibility that maintenance could be shared and CaHSR equipment could be run on the LV line if it came to that.

[homebucket]

Foster + Partners and Arup collaborate on California High-Speed Rail’s first four Central Valley stations
3rd April 2023

The Central Valley stations will become the grand entrances to America’s first high-speed rail segment – marking a major milestone for sustainable, decarbonized transportation for all Californians.

California High-Speed Rail (CA HSR) has selected the joint venture of Foster + Partners and Arup to design the Merced, Fresno, Kings/Tulare, and Bakersfield stations that will serve high-speed rail passengers on the initial 171-mile segment. Foster + Partners and Arup are collaborating on planning, architecture, and engineering for the four new stations that will serve as models of design for stations planned along the entire 500-mile Los Angeles/Anaheim to San Francisco system.

The team is utilizing its local knowledge combined with its global high-speed rail station experience while adapting a systemwide kit of parts previously created by Foster + Partners to design the four Central Valley stations. The joint venture will be providing management and design services as part of the first Notice to Proceed (NTP 1) to complete the design development and configuration footprint for each station site with an option to progress to the second Notice to Proceed (NTP 2), which will include final design, construction ready documents, construction, and commissioning support. The duration for NTP 1 is estimated to be 30 months.

The joint venture is set to exceed the Authority’s Small Business participation goals by engaging a team of diverse, local experts and subcontractors throughout all essential parts of the design development for the new stations.

Stefan Behling, Head of Studio, Foster + Partners, said: “California High-Speed Rail is a truly pioneering project which has the potential to shape the future of sustainable travel in California and across America. After delivering our systemwide vision plan, we are now delighted to be working with Arup on detailed designs for the network’s first four stations.”

John Eddy, Principal, Arup, noted: “Once complete, this segment of high-speed rail will provide much-needed linkages between the diverse communities that comprise California’s Central Valley. We’re thrilled to utilize our global expertise in high-speed rail design to support the California High-Speed Rail Authority. We look forward to collaborating with Foster + Partners and our subconsultants on this landmark investment in sustainable transportation.”

California High-Speed Rail is under construction in the Central Valley today with a goal of having the first operable line slated to be complete between 2030 -2033.

https://www.fosterandpartners.com/ne..._campaign=CHSR

[homebucket]

And the images:





https://www.fosterandpartners.com/ne..._campaign=CHSR

[homebucket]

Great choice for architecture firm.

Foster + Partners has experience building HSR stations as well as other large scale transportation developments.

[N830MH]

Originally Posted by homebucket

https://www.fosterandpartners.com/ne..._campaign=CHSR

Great article!! Thank you for sharing this. Hope they complete for the next 7 years to ten years from now. Getting ready!!

[markb1]

Originally Posted by edale

I've seen this claimed a few times, but I thought Brightline was going to terminate in Rancho Cucamonga, not Palmdale/Lancaster?

It's apparently LA Metro and Caltrans that will connect Palmdale to Victorville:

https://www.metro.net/projects/high-desert-corridor/

[Crawford]

Very cool to have Foster & Partners working on the Central Valley stations. Will be awesome, iconic architecture. Though I hope the canopies will offer shade, not like that initial rendering. CV sun is intense.

I just wish they'd be working on the stations that matter. These stations are completely irrelevant to CAHSR's success. I still cannot believe that the U.S., the globe's laggard on HSR, has decided to test HSR by running service to Merced, Fresno, Tulare, and Bakersfield, which is some of the most hostile HSR geography in the U.S. It would be like first testing a national Netherlands-level bike mobility project in exurban Phoenix, or first testing a national blizzard warning system in Miami. We have to pray that CA voters ignore the initial near-zero ridership, and push this through to completion, where high ridership is quite likely.

The first TGV line in France was Paris to Lyon. Biggest city to second biggest city. Most transit-oriented city to second most transit oriented city. TGV is the global HSR gold standard.

[Busy Bee]

^^^

...has decided to test HSR by running service to Merced, Fresno, Tulare, and Bakersfield, which is some of the most hostile HSR geography in the U.S

I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean hostile as in geography/climate or hostile as in unlikely to produce much ridership between CV city pairs? How is the CV IOS hostile geography? It's flat as a pancake.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

^^^

I don't know what you mean by this. Do you mean hostile as in geography/climate or hostile as in unlikely to produce much ridership between CV city pairs? How is the CV hostile geography? It's flat as a pancake.

Hostile as in unlikely to provide ridership.

The CV has some of the lowest transit ridership and highest vehicle ownership in the U.S., which is saying something. It's extremely sprawly, with extremely weak urban cores. Very little walkability, bikeability, or transit orientation. Very little downtown-to-downtown modal demand. So all of the necessary ingredients for HSR are missing.

It's like planning a subway line in NYC by testing it in Alabama, and then concluding the subway won't generate ridership. It's insanity. CA just needs to push this through, bc there will be an avalanche of right-wing rhetoric once this opens. "See America isn't like Europe, dummies! Tulare has no train demand. We like our trucks. We're nothing like Paris or Frankfurt. Ha!"

I bet you the overwhelming source of ridership during the first phase will be train buffs. I'd definitely ride it. It will be busiest on weekends and holidays. But as a functional tool, no way.