4 ms·

> For example, as I understand it, the line in LA makes a weird circuitous out of the way bend to service a suburb of LA which adds significant transit time for

> For example, as I understand it, the line in LA makes a weird circuitous out of the way bend to service a suburb of LA which adds significant transit time for very few people vs keeping a straighter route and connecting that suburb with light rail / subway / buses. Unless the routing has recently changed radically, this isn’t really true (or, rather there is a very good reason for the chosen route north of LA). One of the most expensive aspects of rail projects is right of way acquisition, and the plan is/was to use the existing Metrolink ROW through LA to Antelope Valley. Another expensive aspect is crossing mountains. From Antelope Valley, the line will cross the Tehachapi pass, which is the only really practical place to cross the mountains separating the LA basin from the Central Valley (without a 35 mile / 50 km tunnel through bedrock and a major fault line). At this point I’m in favor cancelling the whole HSR project at this point, but the LA-Bakersfield routing isn’t really a valid criticism of the project. Reusing Caltrain ROW for the Bay Area segment was a smart move, for the same reason. A new ROW through the peninsula would have taken a century to acquire. Mandating 220 mph speeds, vs say 160, has exploded project costs. If advocates were willing to settle for 110 mph in LA and SFBA and 160 mph though the Central Valley we would likely already have an operating train, and for only the the original projected cost.

vlovich123 4y ago
Governments have very strong eminent domain powers. There’s a political cost but operationally it shouldn’t take long to acquire the land. Just expensive. But the cost will remain the same and acquiring it early is smarter. But yes. Generally I listed those as secondary criticisms and they may not be shared by everyone. The core problem though, and I hope we agree strongly here, is that they’ve spent a shit ton of money on the easiest parts of the project vs getting things operationally as fast as possible and also focusing on completing the most difficult parts first.
- labcomputer 4y ago
  > Governments have very strong eminent domain powers. There’s a political cost but operationally it shouldn’t take long to acquire the land. Just expensive. Well... not in California, apparently. Caltrans recently abandoned the I-710 to I-210 connector in LA, after 50 years of trying to finish acquiring the land. Some people just don't want to sell for any price. Maybe it's the house they grew up in or maybe it's ideological. If choosing a more direct route delays the project for 50 years, that's effectively the same thing as blocking it. That's why I say they made the right call on re-using Caltrain and Metrolink for the Peninsula and LA, respectively. > The core problem though, and I hope we agree strongly here, is that they’ve spent a shit ton of money on the easiest parts of the project vs getting things operationally as fast as possible and also focusing on completing the most difficult parts first. I agree that is an important problem, but not the core problem. The core problem, as I see it, is that purists demanded a 220 mph system from the start, and that caused a cascade of decisions that delayed operations. If CAHSR could be built with a max speed of 160 mph instead of 220 mph, almost all of the land acquisition in the Central Valley goes away. If 110 mph were acceptable in urban areas (including cities in the Central Valley), most of the grade separation work goes away. If even lower speeds were acceptable in mountain sections, CAHSR could have used the sinuous ACE commuter rail line through the Altimont pass. Do that, and all the challenges and costs of building across the Pacheco pass go away (there's a reason no railroad tried to build that route in the 1800's). The only new thing you need to build in that scenario is a new route through the Tehachapi pass. Sure, it doubles travel time, but the first trains would be running already.
Fatnino 4y ago
Why does the line have to come up the peninsula anyway? It should have always gone up the east bay and then crossed over to sf on a bridge or tunnel.

vlovich123 4y ago

Governments have very strong eminent domain powers. There’s a political cost but operationally it shouldn’t take long to acquire the land. Just expensive. But the cost will remain the same and acquiring it early is smarter. But yes. Generally I listed those as secondary criticisms and they may not be shared by everyone. The core problem though, and I hope we agree strongly here, is that they’ve spent a shit ton of money on the easiest parts of the project vs getting things operationally as fast as possible and also focusing on completing the most difficult parts first.

labcomputer 4y ago
> Governments have very strong eminent domain powers. There’s a political cost but operationally it shouldn’t take long to acquire the land. Just expensive. Well... not in California, apparently. Caltrans recently abandoned the I-710 to I-210 connector in LA, after 50 years of trying to finish acquiring the land. Some people just don't want to sell for any price. Maybe it's the house they grew up in or maybe it's ideological. If choosing a more direct route delays the project for 50 years, that's effectively the same thing as blocking it. That's why I say they made the right call on re-using Caltrain and Metrolink for the Peninsula and LA, respectively. > The core problem though, and I hope we agree strongly here, is that they’ve spent a shit ton of money on the easiest parts of the project vs getting things operationally as fast as possible and also focusing on completing the most difficult parts first. I agree that is an important problem, but not the core problem. The core problem, as I see it, is that purists demanded a 220 mph system from the start, and that caused a cascade of decisions that delayed operations. If CAHSR could be built with a max speed of 160 mph instead of 220 mph, almost all of the land acquisition in the Central Valley goes away. If 110 mph were acceptable in urban areas (including cities in the Central Valley), most of the grade separation work goes away. If even lower speeds were acceptable in mountain sections, CAHSR could have used the sinuous ACE commuter rail line through the Altimont pass. Do that, and all the challenges and costs of building across the Pacheco pass go away (there's a reason no railroad tried to build that route in the 1800's). The only new thing you need to build in that scenario is a new route through the Tehachapi pass. Sure, it doubles travel time, but the first trains would be running already.

Fatnino 4y ago

Why does the line have to come up the peninsula anyway? It should have always gone up the east bay and then crossed over to sf on a bridge or tunnel.