13 ms·
High-speed rail board completes environmental clearance in northern California
- Ava433 4y ago
- insane_dreamer 4y agoProgress!! So at this rate we should have LA->SF HSR in ... 2385
- Drblessing 4y ago2385! You're crazy, no sooner than 2500.
- insane_dreamer 4y agoI consider myself an optimist
- fasteddie31003 4y agoI'm actually a big fan of high speed rail in America for routes that make sense, but this project is going to be such an embarrassment for rail in America that it's going to hurt future projects.
- sky_rw 4y agoGoing to be? It isn't already?
- pstuart 4y agoI'm a fan as well but the money would have been better spent on upgrading the existing lines so passenger traffic could be a first class citizen of the rails.
- inferiorhuman 4y agoThat's already happening. Caltrain's finished electrifying their route and is currently conducting clearance testing of the electric rolling stock. Electric revenue service is expected is by Autumn 2024. The other big upgrade Caltrain got out of HSR is that a number (all?) of the at-grade crossings were removed. That's a huge win.
- trthomps 4y agoThe next major investment is the capital corridor route needs to be purchased by the state and then electrified between San Jose and Sacramento via Oakland. That would give CAHSR a route to run on between SF and SAC once there's a second transbay tube with standard gauge tracks.
- pstuart 4y agoOk, that's a start. But my point is that US rail treats passenger traffic as a second class citizen and it doesn't have to be that way. Mandating Positive Train Control and adding in track to allow better multiplexing of traffic could be done for a fraction of the HSR budget. I think this should be done at a national level (nationalize the rail lines and invest in infrastructure to better utilize a very constrained resource). Yeah, crazy talk.
- jeffbee 4y agoThe route makes fine sense. It passes through every significant city in the state and travels between the principal urban areas in a time competitive with air travel. If it did not serve Fresno, Bakersfield, etc then it does not accomplish the decarbonization goals of the project.
- kortilla 4y agoIt doesn’t actually go into any of the cities though does it?
- jeffbee 4y agoDo you mean in the sense that they are still working on it? The route goes straight through downtown Fresno, Bakersfield, and Madera (to the extent that "downtown Madera" exists). The people who quibble over the alignment want it to go straight down I-5, bypassing millions of people but only shortening the route by about 50 miles.
- andbberger 4y agothe main problem with the alignment is palmdale/pacheco, which are going to cripple the project operationally and add a lot of unnecessary travel time. running through the downtown's is comparatively less of a shitshow (still a giant shitshow though). nobody runs HSR at full speed through downtowns.
- trthomps 4y agoIt was the right choice in the end though IMO, it avoids an even harder to pass set of mountains and serves yet another high population town (175k people) and provides a potential transfer station for getting to Las Vegas bypassing LA for people in Northern California once Brightline West comes down I-15, only needing to build a branch line between Palmdale and Victorville.
- andbberger 4y ago
- chabons 4y agoI don't have a ton of familiarity with the project or the region, but the section of rail in the linked article certainly looks like it makes sense to me. A high-speed connection including the airport and downtowns of the two major metros seems like a decent project.
- chrisseaton 4y agoWhy would you connect the two airports if the point is supposed to be that you don’t have to use the airports?
- insane_dreamer 4y agobecause people flying into SJ from elsewhere (therefore not taking the train) can take the HSR to get into SF instead of driving (and vice-versa)
- khuey 4y agoBecause the train stops other places too, and it allows the train to replace both SF/LA flights as well one leg of a Fresno -> SFO -> somewhere else flight.
- alex_young 4y agoLet’s say you want to provide an alternative to flying between some major airports. Wouldn’t you want it connected to them so people arriving on one end had a really convenient way to just get on the alternative system?
- richwater 4y agoWhy would be provide an alternate to a clearly superior technology?
- chrisseaton 4y ago> Let’s say you want to provide an alternative to flying between some major airports. This seems like first-order analysis: people fly between SFO and LA so let's build a railway between them. Second-order analysis: people actually want to go from downtown SF to downtown LA, so build a railway between those places directly.
- zbrozek 4y agoCalifornia only knows how to increase red tape and hurdles to construction. I voted against the project because I thought it would be excessively slow and costly to complete as a result of the regulatory landscape. It's a fine concept. Under different law it would be a great project.
- pkulak 4y agoWho cares if it’s slow and costly though? If that’s what it takes, so be it. Every high speed rail in history has come in way over budget, and when it’s done no one remembers that, they just just love taking the new, fast train.
- bitlax 4y agoopportunity cost
- marincounty 4y ago
- inferiorhuman 4y agoEvery high speed rail in history has come in way over budget I'm gonna have to go digging through some stuff to see if I can find a source but I'm pretty sure that's not the case (even if you ignore authoritarian style countries like China). California government is fairly dysfunctional and that makes things more expensive, and I say this as a proponent of CAHSR. The biggest problem with CAHSR though is that the rich suburban fucks (especially on the SF peninsula) are trying to kill HSR with death from a thousand paper cuts^W^W lawsuits. That's how you get things like cities (coughathertoncoughbelmontcough) wanting underground sections built on someone else's dime. They'll cite things like noise while ignoring that a.) electric trains are quieter than diesels and b.) grade separation eliminates the need to sound the horn. It's a really nasty self-fulfilling prophecy.
- antognini 4y agoA relevant comparison here is with Spain. California is currently projected to spend around $110 billion for about 500 miles of track. By contrast Spain built out a network of 2000 miles of rail for about $70 billion. Other European countries have similar costs. California is the outlier.
- bushbaba 4y agoCEQA is one of the most NIMBY anti development laws ever enacted. It really should be repealed
- MarkSweep 4y agoSeriously. There are 150 pages in the report: https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Final_EIRS_FJ_V1-23_CH_3.15_Aesthetics_Visual_Quality.pdf https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Final_EIRS_FJ_... This is just a news train running on an existing rail line.
- riazrizvi 4y agoHopefully this stretch will relieve congestion on the 101 on the Peninsula.
- wbl 4y agoThat would be what Caltrain electrification and better ops and planning should do. The peninsula has the problem of the commerical spaces being away from the line.
- panick21_ 4y agoWhat you need is not commercial, but mid-to-high density mixed use areas.
- anamax 4y agoWhy will this have more impact than CalTrain? Before you say "fewer stops" (or its equivalent), remember that if you don't stop someplace, someone who wants to get to/from that place has to find an alternative, and that alternative may well involve 101.
- m463 4y agoI think covid has helped more than anything else (and there is still congestion)
- panick21_ 4y agoRemoving congestion is best done by trying to make people live closer to where they work.
- reillyse 4y agoGreat! I’ve driven the I5 so many times and I’m so sick of it. I’d love for a viable alternative and going from downtown LA to San Francisco on a train sounds like a dream.
- dumpsterlid 4y agoDense US metro areas are desperately in need of better mass transit, the quality of life increase would be substantial for tons of people.
- olivermarks 4y agoThe crime on bay area transit is rapidly getting worse. This is a huge issue to overcome regardless of how fast or slow the train is going https://www.ktvu.com/news/bart-passenger-nearly-raped-physically-attacked-during-daytime-commute-to-work https://www.ktvu.com/news/bart-passenger-nearly-raped-physic...
- dumpsterlid 4y agoOk, so public transit is one of the public spaces that the collapse of the US social safety net and absurdly violent socio-economic inequality comes to light in. If you think that is an argument against public transit you don't even remotely understand the problem.
- olivermarks 4y agoArguing for or against public transit is irrelevant if using it is unsafe because of lack of law enforcement that will prevent criminals who chose not to abide by laws harming travelers. The 'US social safety net' has little to do with this - violent, opportunistic thugs use public transport to bring huge quantities of drugs into SF every day using BART, while terrorizing passengers largely with impunity. This may seem like hyperbole but a quick look at local news will confirm this.
- 4y ago
- carbonguy 4y agoI gotta say, it's hard to know how much of a hurdle has been cleared here when this project seems to be absolutely nothing but hurdles to clear. Normally I would guess that getting this report approved would be a big deal in that construction could finally really get going, but then I read this: > The Board’s certification of the San Francisco to San Jose Final EIR/EIS and approval of its project section will move the project section closer to being “shovel ready” when funding for final design, pre-construction and construction becomes available. "Closer" to being "shovel ready" when "funding for final design... becomes available" is not a series of words that gives me confidence that meaningful progress has been made. However, I grant that I am no expert in the art of parsing press releases about big infrastructure projects. Anybody out there with meaningful understanding of what this announcement might mean in practical terms?
- insane_dreamer 4y agothat's referring specifically to the SF->SJ section; building of the HSR is apparently already underway in the central valley: https://www.buildhsr.com/ https://www.buildhsr.com/
- jonny_eh 4y agoGetting to SF is rather critical to the success of the project though.
- WillPostForFood 4y agoIt has to get to SF and LA to be a success. A Fresno->SF express train would be a massive boondoggle.
- RosanaAnaDana 4y agoWhat you don't want to go to Fresno?
- lokar 4y agoA SF->Fresno->LA train will be a boondoggle. They should have used the existing right of way on I5, no stops between SJ and LA.
- skybrian 4y agoPossibly of interest: How NEPA Works https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/how-nepa-works https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/how-nepa-works As I understand it (and all I know is what I read there), completing an environmental impact statement means that environmental impacts have been considered and documented in a way that is hopefully secure against lawsuits claiming that an environmental impact review hasn't been done. (But you never know what people will sue about.) It doesn't mean anything in particular has been done to protect the environmental or any plans were changed. It's just... documentation, that's hopefully adequate. Compare with the laundry list that the FAA required SpaceX to do to get a launch license in Texas. This random stuff, hopefully that benefits the environment, that the FDA wants so that they don't have to write an environmental impact statement. (Which could take years.)
- ag56 4y agoIf he decision to kick off this project took a bill in the California legislature, then why didn’t they save tens of billions by tacking on a “CEQA does not apply to HSR” sentence to the end?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- iscrewyou 4y agohttps://hsr.ca.gov/programs/environmental-planning/project-section-environmental-documents-tier-2/san-francisco-to-san-jose-project-section-draft-environmental-impact-report-environmental-impact-statement/ https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/environmental-planning/project-s... You cannot forego federal regulations by making a California specific bill in the California legislature.
- simonsarris 4y agoHonestly this is the weirdest infrastructure project in the world. Reminder that the initial plan was 130 miles of track laid by 2018. They are at 0.0 miles. The initial intended section they planned to finish wasn't even touching SF or LA, its in between with two fairly small cities (Merced to Bakersfield, populations 84K and 380K). Is it even needed, for all this money? High speed rail between SF and LA would be neat for a bunch of upper-middle class people, but I would think > 90% of inhabitants would be better served simply by having better intra-metro-area rail. In other words it seems like LA would be better served by spending the billions on strong hub and spoke public transport in the ~20-40 mile area around LA far more than it needs a faster way to get to San Francisco. But I'm far away on the outside looking in, maybe there's something crushlingly obvious to locals that I'm not seeing for why this is actually a great idea.
- ggm 4y agoI believe almost all long distance high speed train proposals are based on land banking for future value increase, and nonsense like that. The actual social benefit agenda is secondary to an investment model which sees speculative rise in land and property value along the route at strategic locations with a very long tail, and the local and state tax outcomes which follow motivate agreements by authorities. Instance in point: Brisbane Cross River rail. The economic impact statement is spectacular for land, rent, rate and building income. Same for intercity rail Sydney Brisbane Melbourne. For Brisbane, a state minister lost her job over a house purchase near a significant rail development (rightly or wrongly) but it's even explicit in economic modelling: they bank the future economic impact.
- lightedman 4y agoIf you've ever driven the I-5 Corridor, it isn't exactly always an easy thing. To be able to do LA-SF without the possibility of a road accident causing you a multiple-hour delay is a huge benefit. Intra-state would be even better. Link the entire West coast with high-speed passenger rail.
- barbacoa 4y agoWest coast is no where near dense enough to support mass transit rail system. You would have to get in your car, drive to a central rail station, park in a massive parking garage, ride the train to your destination, then rent a car when you get there. At that point you basically have slower and far more expensive version of an airport. Many east coast cities have the advantage of being planned out before cars so they are structured for high urban density. It is different in cities like LA or SF where it's all about urban sprawl.
- dekhn 4y agoLike a few other people in this post, I generally support the idea but find the implementation details and the political climate to be iminicable to rapid progress, which, given the extraordinary cost associated with the project, makes one truly wonder if it will ever be completed. I'm also curious what it will look like in detail for the HSR to share the Caltrain corridor. I live about 1 mile away and every night, I can hear the existing diesel (which are transitioning to electric https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification/electric-trains https://www.caltrain.com/projects/electrification/electric-t...) Caltrains lumbering along once the freeway noise quiets down. It's not the engines so much as the horns- the horns are very loud and some drivers hold them down for long periods. There are several areas along the way where people are regularly hit by the train (there are level crossings https://www.caltrain.com/projects/grade-crossing-improvement-project-2021 https://www.caltrain.com/projects/grade-crossing-improvement...). i struggle to imagine precisely how Caltrain will share this with a high speed rail service, even with fixing all the remaining level crossings. There isn't room to add more track. The one time I saw really quick construction was after a truck burned in the Macarthur Maze and caused a section of overpass to collapse. The contractor for that one managed to expedite the process... significantly https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-MAZE-ING-His-reputation-on-the-line-2592154.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/A-MAZE-ING-His-reputa...
- tomByrer 4y agoI live in Kansas City, full of rail lines in many directions. Lived near rail lines most my time here. I think horns are sometimes used to warn homeless around corners.
- foolfoolz 4y agothe proposal is to use electric trains on caltrain tracks. they allegedly will run at 110mph which i bet is loud, roughly 40mph more than caltrain today. the horns are getting better with grade separation and stations that don’t have crossings. they are very loud. you can hear them all the time. HSR will add 4 more trains per hour, which means a lot more train horns. hopefully more grade separation is done by then. i can’t imagine any city surviving without it. there was a study done by caltrain about this and some crossings are blocked 20% of the time during peak hours today - and they want to increase train count by like 30%
- bickfordb 4y agoIt's crazy how we've rationalized the environmental clearance for a modern electric train dwarfs equivalent trips in lead based fueled jets.
- Ekaros 4y agoIs there jet engines using leaded fuels? I thought it was about internal combustion engines?
- slapshot 4y agoCommercial jets in the US run on Jet-A, which is lead-free and kerosene-like. Adding 737 flights will not add any lead. You are thinking 100LL ("low lead") Avgas, which is gasoline-like and used for small propeller planes (think San Carlos airport, not SFO). It's a general aviation problem, not a commercial aviation problem. *(edited to swap San Carlos, not San Mateo)
- bambam24 4y ago
- hedora 4y agoWhen they built the San Jose stadium (in a wetlands reclamation area), they ignored their environmental mitigation plan starting on day one. I know bicyclists that were severely injured as a result (they set up unsafe and illegal temporary bike lanes instead of using the ones in their plan, then neglected them). This was reported to the appropriate local authorities, but they said no one actually had the authority to enforce the environmental plans. I assume high speed rail will proceed in the same way, and these decade long delays will be completely pointless in the end. The pointless paper shuffling and corruption in this state never cease to amaze me.
- justinzollars 4y agoThe West is in terminal decline, especially Democrat states. Since the California High Speed Rail project was passed and funded, California has completed just over 30 miles. China on the other hand, has build over 12,000 miles of fully connected High Speed Rail in the same period of time. I've ridden on it, and it's wonderful. China's network has a top speed that far surpasses California's plan. Additionally, Red states have completed high speed rail projects, notably Florida's SunRail project, though the top speed of their projects are still lower than China's system. I'm not sure California will ever finish this project, I support high speed rail; but the corruption of our state is incredible. We should fire the State of California, join the Belt and Road initiative and hire the Chinese to complete the project.
- Bud 4y agoSunRail has an average speed of 31 mph. This is less than BART (35 mph). Tell me more jokes about how red states are superior? And tell me again about how this is high-speed rail? It also has a ridership that's a small fraction of BART. Would it be too much to ask for you to get a grasp of basic facts before bashing California for its efforts? California did better with the system it built half a century ago than Florida did in 2017. P.S. The word is "Democratic".
- justinzollars 4y agoI’m sorry I live in California Brightline is the name of the line. The point is Florida could build it California can’t, even in 20 years time we won’t have it. And in regards to efforts, it seems a money laundering operation more than a construction project.
- Bud 4y agoPure guessing and speculation. You have no idea what California will manage and what it won't. As for Brightline, that's another joke argument: it's privately run! It's not public at all! So it cannot possibly prove anything about what "Florida" can build. Right? So what's your point? Right now, it runs between Miami and West Palm Beach, btw. That's it. So climate change will wipe that out soon anyway, along with most of Miami. Postscript: it's also not "high-speed" rail. At all. It fails to meet even "the lowest high-speed rail standard set by the International Union of Railways" as of now, which is 200kph. It's about the speed of car travel.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mcoliver 4y agoWho is this train for? If I'm in business and need to fly between la and sf it's a $100 non stop 1 hour flight. Or $50 in gas (and wear and tear). If I'm not well off (or have a family) I'm probably driving because once I get there I still need a car (because la has terrible public transportation and car rentals are pretty expensive these days. ) And it's not bad. 6 hours or so. What they should have done was spend the money to invest in robust and extensive fast public transportation in Los Angeles that would immediately benefit millions of people every single day. As it stands it takes 45 minutes on the metro from Santa Monica to downtown (~10 miles) because they designed it with one rail each direction. So it has to hit every stop (no express lane). It's the same as sitting in traffic. If you are not directly along the metro lines in LA and headed to a place that's also on the lines ( and the entire westside is a desert) you are driving. I would love to take the train from la to San Diego. But it would take me an hour to drive to the train station (over an hour on the bus) and then a 2 hour train ride which still costs $40. What's the point? I see the same for this high speed rail. Who are the customers and how can anyone justify the cost?
- kidme5 4y agoMaybe they can do both (high speed rail and better metro transportation)
- runarberg 4y agoAnd indeed they are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R#Measure_M https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_R#Measure_M
- jeandejean 4y agoNobody said that's the miracle solution to bring public transportation for all, that's a key step to it though. Public transports in California cities need to be built too! Keeping on doubling down for cars/flights will surely never bring any sustainable and environmental solution.
- subroutine 4y ago
- mulmen 4y agoLots of negativity in this thread. Typical of large infrastructure projects. But other than the US Military this is the best way for the government to provide jobs. Lots of them. And it turns out this project is more than HSR. It’s an entire modernization project. And it’s working! We need more big infrastructure projects. Lots more. Every dollar spent is an investment in the future. This seems to be a more positive take: https://youtu.be/rcjr4jbGuJg https://youtu.be/rcjr4jbGuJg
- kortilla 4y ago> Lots of negativity in this thread. Typical of large infrastructure projects. This isn’t a large infrastructure project. It’s a small project with the price tag of a large one and the timeline that people could start and retire careers on. A train project like this in China would have taken 2 years and would have been about 1/10th of the cost. It would have the been the same in the US 90 years ago. If you want examples of large infrastructure projects, look to FDR’s Dams.
- mulmen 4y agoThere’s nothing small about the California HSR project. I’m not persuaded by “we should be more like China”. The grass is always greener. They have problems with their rail system that make California HSR look like a Disneyland attraction.
- jmyeet 4y agoI've been following this project off and on. There are various Youtube videos about it. Lots has been written. It's interesting because it's really a failure on almost every level but most especially political. Some examples: - Proposal 1A, the voter amendment that was passed to build the project, specified the speed of 220mph. This was really a mistake. It's greatly added to the cost; - California's notorious environment impact review for a project of this scale require about the same planning, time and budget as the JWST. This is only a slight exaggeration. This article refers to the northern section (SF to the Central Valley). The southern section (Central Valley to LA) is, I believe, still in review. California has started to rollback some of these onerous review processes (eg CEQA) as its become apparent they're largely weaponized by NIMBYs to delay or derail (pun intended) pretty much anything; - They're still securing land parcels through the Central Valley. Why this wasn't a textbook case for eminent domain for farmland (which is usally WAY cheaper than any kind of residential, industrial or commercial land) is beyond me. I'm sure there's a reason but it seems crazy; - Counties along the route have managed to extract concessions for not blocking the project that greatly add to cost and travel time. For example, instead of running down the I5 through the west side of the Central Valley, it runs through regaional towns like Bakersfield on the east side. This is greater tack length ()ie more cost and overall travel time) and more stops (ie even more travel time); - The Sacramento spur originally had a plan where I believe it went through Oakland rather than along the Caltrain line. IIRC this was overruled for political reasons; - LA is huge. Acquiring land for this is going to be a massive and expensive undertaking. So I'm a fan of a robust public transit infrastructure but the likely $100b+ price tag for this just seems insane to me. I actually think it probably would've been better to build a LA to Las Vegas line first. There is a ton of demand for this. Yes you have to cross some mountains (but less than the HSR does) but you're also dealing with desert on the Nevada side, so acquiring land gets a whole lot less problematic. It's also shorter. The Brightline West route from LA to Las Vegas seems like it's going ahead. But it has different design constraints (eg 180mp speed vs 220). You should really design all these systems with the same design constraints and the same rolling stock. Whenever I see projects like the HSR and even the NY 2nd Ave Subway with their truly massive price tags for very little my mind always goes to Crossrail in the UK. It might've been late but really not that much and to me it seems to be a stunning success. To build that much new tunnel under london (which is essentially a ruin/graveyard with 2000+ years of accumulation) is, to me, an astounding feat. The comparison to China is always made. Well, that's central planning for you. It may have its benefits but it also has its costs.
- chiph 4y agoI can't help but compare California HSR with Brightline in Florida. There are indeed major differences between the two - Brightline is not high-speed, for one (top speed is 79 mph). And California's route will be 4 times the length (~210 miles long vs ~800 miles). And California has much more track being run elevated (Brightline has had several automobile fatalities from drivers going around the crossing gates) But .. Brightline started construction in 2014 with the Fort Lauderdale station, and is now in operation from Miami to West Palm Beach (Orlando is projected to be added by the end of 2022). Brightline is also double-tracking the route so their trains don't get diverted onto passing sidings. California HSR hasn't run a single train yet.
- justinc-md 4y agoThe top speed to Orlando will be 125mph.
- zie 4y ago> California HSR hasn't run a single train yet. They haven't even figured out how to lay a single piece of track yet either.
- ac29 4y agoBrightline is run on nearly 100% pre-existing tracks though right? CA HSR is 100% new build.
- chiph 4y agoAbout half-ish is new track. There was an existing single track owned by the Florida East Coast Railway used by freight trains, and they are adding a second track (double-tracking). But to be fair, they already owned the right of way from when it was previously double-tracked in the 1920's, so adding the second track hasn't been hugely expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_East_Coast_Railway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_East_Coast_Railway
- runarberg 4y agoNit: CAHSR is not quite 100% new track. The alignment between Anaheim and Burbank is the same as the Metrolink’s and between Gilroy and San Fransisco is the same as Caltrain’s. Both need(ed) major improvements, but so did Brightline’s. I’m not saying though that both projects are comparable (they are not. CAHSR is several factors more ambitious), this was merely a nitpick.
- cco 4y agoOnce again, I'm confused that an intercity, high speed train has _four_ stops within 48 miles. That's a subway, not a high speed train.
- runarberg 4y agoIt is actually more like a suburban express rail then a subway. But this is justifiable because the Bay Area is densely populated with a large international airport, so trips will be generated from multiple locations. To clarify, these stops are: 1. Downtown San Francisco, which is a future station that will probably open later then this section. 2. SOMA, the only for sure stop in San Francisco proper when the line opens. 3. SFO airport. Makes sense because the airport will generate lots of trips. 4. San José, the largest city in the Bay Area with many connections to other public transit options. But you can expect express trains to actually skip SOMA and SFO (and possibly even San José).
- cco 4y agoOh, maybe I misunderstood, but I thought this was a part of the SF to LA high speed rail initiative? Definitely understand downtown SF, SFO, and San Jose, but SOMA? Why? One time when I was riding CalTrain from SF to Palo Alto I was timing each stop and it was just so frustrating how many stops, especially shared with BART (!), there were for what is supposed to be an intercity express rail line.
- runarberg 4y agoNo you are right, this is actually both caltrain and the high speed rail. These two will interline in the bay area starting in Gilroy (which also has a station, making the station count 5 actually). SOMA is the current terminus of Caltrain. There are plans to connect to the downtown transbay transit center (I refuse to call it Salesforce transit center) but there are no estimates to when the downtown extension (DTX) will be completed to allow that. CAHSR actually finishes before DTX (which is a real possibility) then SOMA will be the terminus of CAHSR as well until the DTX finishes. However I wouldn’t be surprised if SOMA will be skipped by all but hyper-local trains ones DTX is ready.
- truffdog 4y agoThe worst thing about this process is that no one can even figure out how to stop it. The joy of ballot measures.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoSweet we could have a rail by 2095
- pengaru 4y agoHaving ridden the California Zephyr between Chicago and Sacramento multiple times already this year I'm extremely annoyed with the lack of HSR in the USA. Really looking forward to California getting some HSR established within the state. Hopefully the rest of the country gets on board before I die. It's really wonderful to travel cross-country by rail with your bicycle in tow. I made the trip from CA to IL for ~$160 in coach and was able to pedal literally out the doors of Union Station in downtown Chicago to the West burbs in day. If it didn't take ~2.1 days to make the trip I'd do it far more often to visit friends/family. And we'd be able to meet somewhere in the middle like CO with our mountain bikes in tow on the regular. As-is the trip wastes far too much time in transit for them to meet me, and it's too costly/ridiculous emissions-wise for most of them to fly to CO (or CA) for a weekend - nevermind the nuisance of bringing a mtb on a plane. Bringing the mtb onto the Zephyr was as easy as checking a bag, fully assembled, zero preparation necessary. It just needs to go 300+MPH and this would be magical.
- ipnon 4y agoI share the same pipe dream. The Zephyr is a second class passenger service on old freight lines. They won’t be able to retrofit high speed rail on them, Amtrak spent enormous sums for the Acela and it only beats the Northeast Regional by 25 minutes between NYC and DC over a three and a half hour trip. The political gridlock to extend such a design across the Great Plains and through the Rockies pains me to imagine.
- Gibbon1 4y agoLast time I tried guessing the cost of a high speed rail line from Denver to Chicago it seemed fairly cheap because it's 1200 miles of flat and undeveloped land. I think probably $100 billion.
- lotharcable 4y agoThere isn't many people in the USA that love the idea of driving their car to ride a train so that they can then rent a car to get where they are going. Rails work very well in situations were you have high density living areas connected to high density working areas and everybody needs to get from the same point A to the same point B very often. There is only a few places in the USA were such situations exist and they generally already have railways for people to use. There was once a time were the USA had useful network of trains that people could actually use to get where they wanted to go, but the Federal government flushed that down the toilet in the first half of the 20th century in the name of "improving efficiency". Pretty much every town, big or small, in the USA that was started before train going through the heart of it. If it didn't have a way to get there by rail there was no real point in building it. But that hasn't been true for a long long time. The idea being that large numbers of privately owned railways with small depots all over the place wasteful use of resources. It was much better to regulate and consolidate to remove the redundancies. They used to be proud about all the different depots and stops that were being destroyed and railway spurs that were being shutdown because they thought that it would reduce costs and economize the railway network. The end result of all of this was the Interstate highway system. Rail isn't going to come back.
- rahimnathwani 4y agoWhich will happen first? A) 500 miles of high speed rail in California, or B) Keen Technologies creates AGI
- kylehotchkiss 4y agoOr C) electric car adoption allows average speed or highways to increase to 150mph
- rahimnathwani 4y agoICE can already power cars that travel 150mph. But cars are small and currently need human drivers. Perhaps self-driving buses going that speed would help.
- Animats 4y agoThe SF peninsula line now has to eliminate all grade crossings for high speed rail to run above 70MPH. That's the big job. Which means re-doing most of the line, right after electrification is completed. I think the high speed rail system should have bypassed San Francisco and gone through Oakland to Sacramento. Just build a BART station with a cross-platform transfer between high-speed rail and BART. No ticket barriers. High speed rail would include a BART ticket, and anyone who gets on high speed rail without a ticket gets dumped in Fresno, which should discourage free ride attempts. SF still plans to tunnel over to connect Caltrain and high speed rail to the "Salesforce Transit Center". But by the time that's needed, downtown SF will have finished moving eastward to the existing train station. Look where the new construction is.
- danbmil99 4y agoThis really is the train to nowhere