6 ms·

I'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

I'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 ago
Going to be? It isn't already?
pstuart 4y ago
I'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 ago
  That'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 ago
    The 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 ago
    Ok, 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 ago
The 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 ago
  It doesn’t actually go into any of the cities though does it?
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Do 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 ago
      the 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 ago
        It 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Why 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 ago
    because 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 ago
    Because 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 ago
    Let’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 ago
      Why 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 ago
California 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 ago
  Who 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 ago
    opportunity cost
  - marincounty 4y ago
  - inferiorhuman 4y ago
    Every 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 ago
      A 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.

I'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 ago

Going to be? It isn't already?

pstuart 4y ago

I'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 ago
That'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 ago
  The 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 ago
  Ok, 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 ago

The 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 ago
It doesn’t actually go into any of the cities though does it?
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Do 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 ago
    the 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 ago
      It 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 ago

I 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 ago
Why 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 ago
  because 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 ago
  Because 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 ago
  Let’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 ago
    Why 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 ago

California 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 ago
Who 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 ago
  opportunity cost
- marincounty 4y ago
- inferiorhuman 4y ago
  Every 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 ago
    A 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.