California High Speed Rail Thread

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

There no point in arguing. California HSR has become a religion for a lot of people. $105 billion (more than the market cap of the entire domestic air passenger market)? That's nothing, not when they can fawn over themselves and brag about their "accomplishment" and "leadership." It doesn't matter how overbudget the project is or how much it's deviated from what voters originally approved. There's a level of arrogance present in California politics that I feel they've inherited from the tech-bro world. By the time they start taking passengers we're going to have electric short-haul passengers planes and a majority of new cars sold will be electric.

Market caps mean nothing. If you're looking at the market cap of a company to determine how much the company is actually worth, then you've messed up.
They are literally just a measure of how investors feel about a business.
I mean even just words that come out of CEO's mouth can affect the market cap by million, tens of millions, etc.

" That's nothing, not when they can fawn over themselves and brag about their "accomplishment" and "leadership."
Projection - the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds

"By the time they start taking passengers we're going to have electric short-haul passengers planes and a majority of new cars sold will be electric" And that means what exactly? While I can't wait for Electric cars to dominate, they are still just cars. They still have the inherent limitations of that form of transportation. Same with planes.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

There no point in arguing. California HSR has become a religion for a lot of people. $105 billion (more than the market cap of the entire domestic air passenger market)? That's nothing, not when they can fawn over themselves and brag about their "accomplishment" and "leadership." It doesn't matter how overbudget the project is or how much it's deviated from what voters originally approved. There's a level of arrogance present in California politics that I feel they've inherited from the tech-bro world. By the time they start taking passengers we're going to have electric short-haul passengers planes and a majority of new cars sold will be electric.

The word "religion" clearly does not mean what you think it does, and what happens in California isn't your problem anyway.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by DePaul Bunyan

I think spending over $100 billion on a graft-laden vanity project of dubious economic benefit that was promised 10 years earlier at a third of the current price when the state has a homeless epidemic and acute affordable housing shortage (not to mention rolling blackouts) is immoral. $100 billion is enough for debt-free college and universal healthcare, and could go a long way to making more affordable housing.

Okay, let's start this.


"graft-laden vanity project" Already wrong. Even if the designers made their designs for "vanity", this still wouldn't be a vanity project. And even if it was, so what? So what if they are doing it for vanity? Good for them I guess, it will still achieve its goal and benefit the people of California so if they feel good about it then that's on them.

"dubious economic benefit" Please elaborate on how connecting the 2 biggest economic centers with fast, efficient, safe and easy to use trains in the richest state in the richest country on Earth wouldn't bring economic benefit. We can have a discussion on how much benefit, but there will be benefit.

"that was promised 10 years earlier at a third of the current price" A situation not in any way unique to this megaproject. It's quite common actually for projects of this size. Yes it is unfortunate that it has turned out this way, but that isn't an attack on the project. When it is done (and it will be done, whether you want it to or not), it will still achieve its goal.

" when the state has a homeless epidemic and acute affordable housing shortage (not to mention rolling blackouts) is immoral" None of that is in any way unique or special about California. And all of those are currently being worked on. You know humans have the capability to multitask right? That we as a group don't need to grind to a halt at every single problem that the collective might have?
The Governor is (I believe, those this will need confirmation) working on getting rid of exclusive singly family zoning. Which should help with both the affordable housing shortage and homeless epidemic as a result of more supply coming into the market. Is it a silver bullet? No, nothing is or ever will be. The State is trying lots of things, as are other cities, states, and countries. Again, this is in no way unique to California. And ofc the State is still working on the blackout problem, they always are. It's a problem made worse by the raging fires that California has too deal with due to its climate and location, and the long droughts.
But if I was to support your logic, why is California constantly fixing its roads? Why does it upgrade its ports? Why does it upgrade its airports? Why does it upgrade its Metro? After all it still has lots of homeless people so the state should grind to a halt and deal with that, despite the fact it can do both at once.

"$100 billion is enough for debt-free college and universal healthcare, and could go a long way to making more affordable housing" Pick 1. You seem to be overestimating just how far $100 billion can go for 40 million people, which California is approaching.
And even if that fixed those temporally (which is all it would do), what about after that? What about the next generation of college kids? Do they not also get debt-free college? Where you gonna get the money now? What happens when that $100 billion runs out for universal healthcare? Does everyone now get shafted after having it for so long?
These aren't just "money problems". You can't just throw money at them and expect them to disappear. That's just how you lose $100 billion dollars. There needs to be legal changes, such as banning exclusive single family zoning (which is already done in California I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.), and lots of other changes.


Now if you wanna actually get back to the project at hand and not try to attack problems in the state, we can do that.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by TWAK

Somebody doesn't like California.

Well one can still love this State, it’s microclimates, topography and bohemian vibe while also recognizing that aspects of it are a f’cking mess thanks to the bureaucrats.

Hopefully we can get HSR finished at some point because there are two economies in California; wealthy coastal and economically cash strapped interior (Valley).

I used to believe HSR would be the world’s largest commuter rail system and make the Central Valley the world’s largest bedroom community. I still believe that but with new remote work alternatives, it can help populate Central Valley communities with high income telecommuters (with less office attendance requirements). Time will tell but HSR is going forward, so we should all hope for a very successful project that spurs additional rail investment in California and the rest of the U.S.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Well one can still love this State, it’s microclimates, topography and bohemian vibe while also recognizing that aspects of it are a f’cking mess thanks to the bureaucrats.

Hopefully we can get HSR finished at some point because there are two economies in California; wealthy coastal and economically cash strapped interior (Valley).

I used to believe HSR would be the world’s largest commuter rail system and make the Central Valley the world’s largest bedroom community. I still believe that but with new remote work alternatives, it can help populate Central Valley communities with high income telecommuters (with less office attendance requirements). Time will tell but HSR is going forward, so we should all hope for a very successful project that spurs additional rail investment in California and the rest of the U.S.

I think the hybrid work plans (work from home X number of days, commute to the office Y number of days) will actually make it more feasible to live in the Central Valley/high desert cities and work to the coastal job centers.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by craigs

I think the hybrid work plans (work from home X number of days, commute to the office Y number of days) will actually make it more feasible to live in the Central Valley/high desert cities and work to the coastal job centers.

Definitely. Plus, rideshare means it'll be much easier to reach auto-centric job sites than was the case 10 years ago.

Also, there are significant improvements and expansions being made to both the Bay and LA transit systems that will make those cab rides, where necessary, very short.

[Crawford]

I'm still confused why they're building this in the Central Valley, with its ultra-sprawl, ag economy, miniscule transit orientation and hostility to walkable communities. CAHSR obviously makes sense only as a fast connection between the Bay Area and SoCal. The "in between" part is irrelevant in terms of ridership.

So they're gonna finish the middle part, ridership will be crap, and then they'll probably cancel further phases of the project, because people are shocked to discover there's zero demand for a bullet train between Fresno and Tulare?

It would be like canceling a NY-London flight route on the logic that Newfoundland doesn't generate much transatlantic traffic.

Last real bullet train I took was from Paris-Frankfurt in 2019. You'll be shocked to hear that there was minimal ridership in the sparse plains of Northern France. The ridership was basically from Paris, Frankfurt and Mannheim (a large German industrial city near Frankfurt).

[lrt's friend]

You have to start somewhere.

In the days before non-stop flights between New York and London, the airport at Gander Newfoundland was one of the busiest in the world. No, there wasn't much ridership generated by Gander (population 5,000) but it was a necessary stopping point. The central valley is a necessary route for HSR in California. A few stops in the central valley with cities much bigger than Gander make sense.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'm still confused why they're building this in the Central Valley,

You don't understand, why they're building a train line in the central valley, the area between San Fran and LA.
I mean, I suppose they could try the ocean.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by MAC123

You don't understand, why they're building a train line in the central valley, the area between San Fran and LA.
I mean, I suppose they could try the ocean.

The chosen route is roughly 50 miles longer than the shortest possible alignment. This added 15 minutes of travel time between NoCal and SoCal.

In exchange for these 15 minutes, Frenso and Bakersfield get downtown stations rather than remote park & rides.

But the much bigger issue is that the route deflection to Palmdale enables Las Vegas trains to enter LA Union Station. This gives much more justification to the enormous expense associated with construction of the 20~ mile tunnel between Palmdale and Burbank.

The alternative was a CAHSR 20~ mile tunnel between the SF Valley and Bakersfield and a second 20~ mile tunnel just for Las Vegas.

[Busy Bee]

I'm endlessly amazed at how so many fail to understand the smart and prudent strategy of constructing the Central Valley first. The money went the furthest in the CV, gives the public something tangible to be sold on for completing the system and demonstrates the ability for something the average layman can't visualize and have no experience with to be constructed. The CV IOS will restore peoples faith in the project and serve as a launch pad to accelarate the completion of the full system. Would people rather have had the limited funding go entirely to mountain crossings which would have been even easier fodder for skeptical naysayer criticisms as they would be something with virtially zero utility until build out and completely out of sight for Californians. People that wail and moan about starting in the CV, or even whether HSR should serve CV cities home to millions of Californians, either don't really understand this project or the purpose of any comprehensive HSR network. The point isn't just to jettison the elite from LA to SF, that's what the Hypeloop fantasy is trying to sell. CaHSR should be applauded at every turn for doing this right with the funding they have on hand. A project of this scale woyld be challenging enough even with a full funding commitment (i.e. HS2) let alone trying to incrementally bring to fruition such a project with tepid political leadership and anemic budgetary commitments. All while the public skeptism is being fueled by in many cases special interest agitators that know if this system proves wildly popular, its really a new era. And those that take the anti- stance and fuel faux controversies and imply corruption where there is nobe just to sell papers should be ashamed of themselves. I understand people find the price tag shocking but this state's economy is huge. California is rich. America writ large is rich by every definition. There is zero reason there should be this attitude out there that somehow this project is beyond our means or abilities. Every major project this country has ever attempted has been greeted by howls of doubt by those without vision. They say it's too ambitious, too expensive, impossible, unnecessary, the wrong this or the wrong that. Then when the people we have entrusted to plan the future accomplish "the impossible" most if not everyone will ask how we lived without it.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by MAC123

You don't understand, why they're building a train line in the central valley, the area between San Fran and LA.
I mean, I suppose they could try the ocean.

No, I don't understand why they started a train line in the least commercially viable portion, when completing the train line is 100% dependent on public support, which will only occur if the train line is successful (i.e. decent ridership).

They should have started in the Bay Area or SoCal, and moved from there. That would generate ridership, and support. Everyone knows when phase I opens, it will be viewed as a boondoggle, bc the ridership will be a joke. And the critics will have a point. Megabillions for a train line from nowhere to nowhere. The somewheres will have to wait for future phases. But how are you going to justify these future phases when what you've built to this point has near-zero demand?

To use an urban transit example, it would be like if they built the first phase of BART from Concord to Antioch. If they did that, the Bay Area probably wouldn't have BART today.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

first. The money went the furthest in the CV,

Just to be clear, the money goes the least in the CV, obviously.

The CV is completely irrelevant to the viability of CAHSR. The CV could be the Gobi Desert, and it wouldn't change things. CAHSR prospects are totally dependent on the Bay Area - SoCal travel market. That's it. CA messed up by promoting CAHSR as a kind of Great Society project, aiding the economically backward CV. So basically the same justification as any kind of public works project.

HSR is only successful in the context of attracting transit-oriented, vehicle-free (or vehicle light) users in dense, constrained environments, too far for local transit but too close for long distance planes. Trying to justify HSR as a make-work project, or a reducing inequality project, is totally misguided. HSR if it succeeds, should supercharge coastal CA, with minimal impact on CV.

[jmecklenborg]

^The public voted for high speed rail and they expect high speed rail. The sections near SF and LA won't be high speed rail.

Virtually all of the money on CAHSR will be spent in and near the terminal cities and in the big mountain tunnels. 90% of the money will be spent on 10% of the track distance.

The Central Valley doesn't have any need for tunnels, high viaducts, or complex urban construction.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^The public voted for high speed rail and they expect high speed rail. The sections near SF and LA won't be high speed rail.

Right, but that's where all the ridership is generated. The sections of Frankfurt-Paris HSR near either city aren't HSR either. You can't really build HSR through urban areas (at least not without astronomical costs). You typically use existing infrastructure.

If you built Frankfurt-Paris HSR by opening Phase I in the North France plains, it would have been a joke. Sure, it would be cheap and easy, but it would also be pointless.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Crawford

HSR is only successful in the context of attracting transit-oriented, vehicle-free (or vehicle light) users in dense, constrained environments, too far for local transit but too close for long distance planes. Trying to justify HSR as a make-work project, or a reducing inequality project, is totally misguided. HSR if it succeeds, should supercharge coastal CA, with minimal impact on CV.

That's so much wrong packed into one paragraph.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

The chosen route is roughly 50 miles longer than the shortest possible alignment. This added 15 minutes of travel time between NoCal and SoCal.

In exchange for these 15 minutes, Frenso and Bakersfield get downtown stations rather than remote park & rides.

But the much bigger issue is that the route deflection to Palmdale enables Las Vegas trains to enter LA Union Station. This gives much more justification to the enormous expense associated with construction of the 20~ mile tunnel between Palmdale and Burbank.

The alternative was a CAHSR 20~ mile tunnel between the SF Valley and Bakersfield and a second 20~ mile tunnel just for Las Vegas.

Ah I didn't know about that. Thought the dude was just asking why it was going through the central valley at all.

[edale]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

^The public voted for high speed rail and they expect high speed rail. The sections near SF and LA won't be high speed rail.

Virtually all of the money on CAHSR will be spent in and near the terminal cities and in the big mountain tunnels. 90% of the money will be spent on 10% of the track distance.

The Central Valley doesn't have any need for tunnels, high viaducts, or complex urban construction.

I think this is what's most concerning to me. People keep saying the CV is the easiest part of the route, which I certainly believe, as it's flat and sparsely populated. But even this 'easy' part of the route has been massively delayed and over-budget. The construction update videos are pathetic-- incredibly slow progress on relatively small projects, like rerouting country road crossings and what not. One can only imagine how painfully slow and expensive the mountain crossings, tunnels, and urban segments are going to be given this track record in the CV.

I'm a big supporter of having HSR in CA. As I've said here before, I think they made a huge mistake not paralleling the 5. The cost per mile of CA HSR is $154 million. 50 additional, unnecessary miles = $7.7 billion in additional cost to the project. It also meant that many more road, rail, and viaduct crossings had to be dealt with then would have been required following the 5's ROW.

[Busy Bee]

To the contrary.

The amount of construction is impressive by every metric. Forget the authorities progress videos, they suck. Check out Four Foot's drone updates to really appreciate the magnitude of the project. Also much of the cost overruns are due to some of the contractors purposefully and deceptively underbidding the package and then loading it down with changé orders once they get into it. Also don't underestimate a general learning curve on a project this massive, especially in N. America. Logistical conatraints in the form of land acquisition delays. And as with any engineering project of the scale, the authority tasked with carrying it out, in a good intentioned effort to be good stewards of public monies, tends to over rely on professional consultants to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. This is a major concern of every infrastructure investment in America and desperatly needs to be reigned in.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by edale

I think this is what's most concerning to me. People keep saying the CV is the easiest part of the route, which I certainly believe, as it's flat and sparsely populated. But even this 'easy' part of the route has been massively delayed and over-budget.

The land acquisition in the Central Valley is the most complicated area since, unlike most of the rest of the route, stuff actually grows there, meaning the land is in use and has value. They'll face similar problems between Gilroy and the Pacheco Pass Tunnel portal, but that's only about 30 miles. Sadly, they hesitated to use eminent domain, or else they could have cut 2~ years off the current phase.

I don't expect that the same problems will arise between Bakersfield and Palmdale because...nothing grows there.

Moreover, the rest of the route has already been determined and is already in public hands. About 110-120 miles of CAHSR will parallel or share existing commuter rail tracks. About 30-35 miles will be in bored tunnels.

So the precise route of 150 miles of the route has already been determined and they will only need to buy incidental pieces of land in future phases.