California High Speed Rail is getting scaled back

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Actually no. No system, except probably China, built their system 100% from the ground up. Even the latest TGV running in Morocco uses a combination of upgraded lines with it. If you read the history of KTX train in South Korea, they ran into money issues as well and had to cut back phase 1 to half its length and then upgrade the existing tracks. France's TGV and LGV speed were incrementally increased over time. 
I think if there is money, the line should be built to Stockton and then use regular rail all the way Emeryville / San Jose and Sacramento. LGV Atlantique was just recently extended and before then, it was not uncommon for diesel locos to pull the TGV trains further down the conventional line. Get it up and running ASAP and getting people on the trains is what will change peoples minds.
If they can get Bakersfield to Emeryville in 2.5 to 3 hours using HSR + Conventional, then I think they may have a temporary solution until funding for tunneling comes though. Stockton to Sacramento is currently little over 1 hour but if combined with HSR could just make it in little over 2 hours from Bakersfield.
The real roadblock in the USA to the incremental approach is that the existing railroad infrastructure is largely privately owned. You really won't get UP to agree to anything above 90 or to the frequency you'd need. So the USA largely is stuck with an all or mediocre approach.
The state of California should have purchased a controlling stake in Union Pacific when the stock market crashed in 2009. They should have kept the company running normally, and simply adjusted the attitude towards passenger rail.

But evil socialism!
 
Honestly, with prices like that, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a serious proposal to do something aggressive with the Capitol Corridor route (or the San Jose-Merced bit) and pay for it with major developments along the line.  I don't think it is hard to envision getting a serious "refugee" flow there.
I am actually working on a thing about improving rail travel in California in general, but if the reaction on Reddit is anything to go by, any improvement to the Capitol Corridor is met with "why improve it, it's adequate." Granted I was also talking for a Bay Area wide CalTrain system, but any improvement to rail is going to be confronted by "why, we have an ok system". People here tend to forget that Amtrak primarily isn't meant to be a half commuter system. So advocating for something more, you need to convince people why it's necessary. Or Reddit could just be a bit of a cesspool. 
 
The state of California should have purchased a controlling stake in Union Pacific when the stock market crashed in 2009. They should have kept the company running normally, and simply adjusted the attitude towards passenger rail.
But evil socialism!
The UP would still have been a really expensive acquisition in 2009 (supposedly about 80 billion then) The missed opportunity for California was when the SP offered to sell out to CA for 2 billion in the early 90s.
 
&

HSR is still being fought tooth and nail by the landed gentry and by special interest groups that are well connected with deep pockets.  Right now CA is forced to work under an extraordinarily adversarial federal government that was not envisioned when this project was being planned and promoted.  This means reduced funding, more bureaucratic setbacks, and fewer options for resolving disputes and shortfalls.  In that context it's reasonable to pump the breaks now in order to keep things moving at a slower speed while you try to rework the process so it can hopefully survive long enough for prospects to improve further down the line.  For now the anti-rail side has largely won the current battle but the war itself is not yet over.  The real question is whether HSR can survive whatever 2020 brings.
No, the Progressive , and Democratic voting NIMBYs in NoCal and SoCal  are the reason this project will not be built..........Oh, the irony or hypocrisy. 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What specifically in the "Adversarial federal government" is being touted as why this project is being culled?

If there is a true will, California has the means without disturbing the Feds to bring this to fruition.  I mean, didn't they talk about having an economy so strong they could secede from the US and be one of the strongest economies in the world?
 
No, the Progressive , and Democratic voting NIMBYs in NoCal and SoCal  are the reason this project will not be built..........Oh, the irony or hypocrisy. 
I've seen nothing to substantiate or corroborate your strictly partisan claims.

What specifically in the "Adversarial federal government" is being touted as why this project is being culled?
There is no one single reason this project is being scaled back.  Originally much of the funding for HSR was expected to come from emissions taxes and credit licensing.  If there was a national or regional carbon market to join or coordinate with this may have panned out.  Unfortunately with an indifferent anti-science hand slapping EPA, a hyper-partisan mob logic Justice Department, and a slew of pro-business judges being nominated and appointed at the federal level these types of green economy revenue streams are losing their fundamental viability.  Regressive changes in federal tax law are another previously unexpected factor that is likely to curtail donor state infrastructure projects now and in the future.

If there is a true will, California has the means without disturbing the Feds to bring this to fruition.  I mean, didn't they talk about having an economy so strong they could secede from the US and be one of the strongest economies in the world?
You seem to be confusing California with Texas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like i've said it in the past, the only way to get money for anything is to combine it with something for cars out here. The whole Pacheco Pass tunnels need to be a car/rail tunnel to make it work. CAHSR has a better chance of getting money for it if they combine the two rail tunnels with car tunnels. Currently CA-133 is a slow winding road to get from Silicon Valley to San Joaquin Valley. Say charge a toll for cars to use it or something along that line to get the tunnels built. We have A LOT of cars and people and that can be leveraged if done correctly. Tolling what already exists is a taboo but new stuff is wide open.
This is something Metro has figured out well in LA County. Every transit taxes that have passed have included road money. Widening of the 405 cost 2 billion and did absolutely nothing to relieve traffic but thats the cost to get rail.
Tehachapi tunnels? Not sure if it would be advantagous for BNSF and UP to be allowed access to them. Not sure if a car tunnel would bring in enough revenue.
CA-133 is not the connecting route that anyone uses. Most folks driving from Silicon Valley to San Joaquin Valley take US101 (65 mph speed limit) south to Gilroy, then CA-152 (10 miles @ 50 mph, remainder @ 65 mph) to San Joaquin Valley. The 50 mph section is two lanes, with a passing lane on the one hill. The other roads are two (or more) lanes in each direction.

Max speed limit anywhere in California is 70 mph (only on some interstate highway sections). While other states in the west have long sections of 75 mph, and even 80 mph in some states (like Utah).
 
Both California and Texas have citizens who want to secede from the Union.  That is not being disputed and nearly every state has at least some people like that.  The primary difference is that Texas has a GOVERNMENT that actively PROMOTES the idea that ACTUAL secession is GENUINELY possible.  That myth is a bald faced lie.  This debate was put to rest generations ago.  Not even Texas can secede and even if we could we would simply be swallowed up by Mexico.  Which just goes to show how incredibly stupid this debate has become.  Please find another talking point that does not insult our intelligence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think secession would be the smartest move on their part (and opinion polling shows heavy opposition, to be fair).  However, I do think there's a plausible scenario where if California voted to leave (a big, implausible-at-present "if"), the Federal government would say "Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you".  NB that if California seceded tomorrow and the seats weren't redistributed until after the 2021 census (I think that would be a practical requirement), the GOP would get back control of the House.  I cannot see a Republican President going to war to stop that.

In theory, there was nothing stopping Lincoln from deciding to do the same in 1861.  Politically it would have been a disaster (if nothing else, keeping the capitol in DC wouldn't have been practical), but he could have thrown up his hands and said that preserving the Union against a group of states that wanted out that badly wasn't worth the price.  Obviously, he didn't do that.
 
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-bullet-train-explanation-20190215-story.html

The only thing that has actually changed, is that Newsom is being honest about the financial situation of the project. As clarified, he is focusing the cash in hand on finishing up the IOS which there is money for instead of blowing hot air about tunnels that can't be built with the current financial situation.  So we may get the electrification and actual HSR trains running on the IOS.
 
Electrification of the IOS (as things stand) is a pointless and expensive boondoggle.  Not that the overall system shouldn't be electrified, but if you intend to use electrification there either you're going to need to do a "toaster pop" at the north end (probably adding 15-20 minutes back in since Amtrak can't figure out how to do locomotive swaps in a reliably timely manner), have a diesel at one end and an electric locomotive at the other (so now you're spending an extra umpteen million dollars on locomotives), or spring for dual-modes (cheaper but still expensive and has its own drawbacks).
 
There are these things called Class 800s in the UK
emoji57.png


BTW just came across this:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-bullet-train-explanation-20190215-story.html
It wasn't the media. I watched the state of the state live and I thought he was canceling as well. Lots of people who watched it thought it was getting canned.
 
Like i've said it in the past, the only way to get money for anything is to combine it with something for cars out here. The whole Pacheco Pass tunnels need to be a car/rail tunnel to make it work. CAHSR has a better chance of getting money for it if they combine the two rail tunnels with car tunnels. Currently CA-133 is a slow winding road to get from Silicon Valley to San Joaquin Valley. Say charge a toll for cars to use it or something along that line to get the tunnels built. We have A LOT of cars and people and that can be leveraged if done correctly. Tolling what already exists is a taboo but new stuff is wide open.

This is something Metro has figured out well in LA County. Every transit taxes that have passed have included road money. Widening of the 405 cost 2 billion and did absolutely nothing to relieve traffic but thats the cost to get rail.

Tehachapi tunnels? Not sure if it would be advantagous for BNSF and UP to be allowed access to them. Not sure if a car tunnel would bring in enough revenue.
Putting money into highway funding would be putting good money after bad. Maybe having a secondary corridor for UP next to/on a similar corridor would make some sense. But highways induce demand and any added capacity of interstating 133 would get eaten up fairly quickly or never be beyond what is currently needed. Also, I don't put it past the Bay Area/NorCal doing Pacheco Pass with a local bond measure. The second Transbay tube and subsequent electrification will happen that way eventually. Nor Cal residents are a bit more transit friendly than SoCal. You didn't need to promise us more highways when BART was built, at least beyond what was planned. 
 
Actually., the Central Valley 119 miles has been extended by 52 miles to 171 miles from Bakersfield to Merced.  Here is what he said:  http://www.capradio.org/articles/2019/02/14/no-gavin-newsom-didnt-just-kill-californias-high-speed-rail-project/?fbclid=IwAR0YaIt6zhr-I3P2uGCzr7MJsn6LxY1DB70vS8UbAMQuIqtq7O_QM2iO1-0
I'm wondering if it would be better to just make phase 1 all the way to Sacramento. Merced to Sacramento is currently Phase 2. Right now, Bakersfield to Sacramento is about 5.5 hours on the San Joaquin and 1.5 hours from Sacramento to Emeryville on the Capitol Corridor. If the travel time to Sacramento is halved, and then use the train on upgraded tracks between Sacramento to Emeryville. The State already maintains that stretch of track and plans to upgrade its speed anyways in the future. In terms of distance, it's the the most direct way, but might be the easiest way. So say someone can get from Bakersfield to Emeryville in 3+ hours and maybe even get to SF directly if the second trans bay tube opens. This roundabout would still be faster and probably up and running quicker than the current plans.
 
Putting money into highway funding would be putting good money after bad. Maybe having a secondary corridor for UP next to/on a similar corridor would make some sense. But highways induce demand and any added capacity of interstating 133 would get eaten up fairly quickly or never be beyond what is currently needed. Also, I don't put it past the Bay Area/NorCal doing Pacheco Pass with a local bond measure. The second Transbay tube and subsequent electrification will happen that way eventually. Nor Cal residents are a bit more transit friendly than SoCal. You didn't need to promise us more highways when BART was built, at least beyond what was planned. 
Politics isn't always about what makes sense, its about what you can give and take AKA "compromise" to accomplish the bigger picture. Even the gas tax increase with a super majority in the legislature involved a crap load of side deals to get it passed. It's no coincidence that ever since the moratorium on earmarks, nothing gets done.
 
Politics isn't always about what makes sense, its about what you can give and take AKA "compromise" to accomplish the bigger picture. Even the gas tax increase with a super majority in the legislature involved a crap load of side deals to get it passed. It's no coincidence that ever since the moratorium on earmarks, nothing gets done.
Pork projects are more about greed and re-election prospects than it is about "not making sense". $1 million for a library in Coalinga does nothing for me, but it's at least marginally helpful to someone even if it's a re-election ploy. A new highway would defeat the point of building rail. Not to mention a toll road generally can't use Federal funding to build toll roads cause that would make people drive less. As a rail line and high speed line could at least attract private money that would get around Congress and their stupidity. 
 
There's an interesting reason to finish Merced-Bakersfield first; it's where *all* the opposition is.  Popular support for the rest of the route is massive.  The NIMBY supply is much smaller.

This is another delay, but I expect the Tehachapi tunnel to be built next (despite all chattering to the contrary).  There are a lot of interests which want that.
 
There's an interesting reason to finish Merced-Bakersfield first; it's where *all* the opposition is.  Popular support for the rest of the route is massive.  The NIMBY supply is much smaller.

This is another delay, but I expect the Tehachapi tunnel to be built next (despite all chattering to the contrary).  There are a lot of interests which want that.
I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or sincere. If that was true then construction would have started in San Fran or SoCal already.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t know if you are being sarcastic or sincere. If that was true then construction would have started in San Fran or SoCal already.
Well, in a sense Caltrain electrification is part of this project in at least some form, so that's there.  On the LA end, there's been some study work on the Burbank-to-Palmdale segment, but that's also cost-heavy and engineering-heavy.  Burbank to Union Station could be done, but I think the work there would have relatively little independent utility until you start ramping up frequencies.

Edit: And, of course, there's the fact that the federal money landed where it did...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There's an interesting reason to finish Merced-Bakersfield first; it's where *all* the opposition is.  Popular support for the rest of the route is massive.  The NIMBY supply is much smaller.
 
This is another delay, but I expect the Tehachapi tunnel to be built next (despite all chattering to the contrary).  There are a lot of interests which want that.
Most people will tell you it's the other way around. While there's popular support in those cities, there's also much more money and many more pain points. So while the NIMBY supply may be smaller, they are better armed and financed. Caltrain faced several lawsuits over their electrification program, one was just over the cutting of a single tree.
 
Back
Top