9 ms·
I understand that California High Speed Rail isn't a popular project on HN, but to claim that it hasn't broken ground is just wrong. There are numerous complete
by conroy 2y ago
I understand that California High Speed Rail isn't a popular project on HN, but to claim that it hasn't broken ground is just wrong. There are numerous completed structures and a clear plan to get high-speed trains running from Merced to Bakersfield by 2030.
- lovecg 2y ago> from Merced to Bakersfield “and, by gum, it put them on the map!”
- zoky 2y agoBakersfield was already on the map. Not any sort of map you’d want to be on, but still…
- reducesuffering 2y agoIt's ironic that Merced and Bakersfield get shit on when it's the coastal Bay Area and LA people that are the actual problems standing in the way of making the rail...
- zoky 2y agoI don't know much about Merced, but the reasons that Bakersfield gets shit on have nothing to do with high speed rail and more to do with its reputation for meth, crime, and generally being a shithole to live in or even pass through. I suppose one might find this “ironic”, for very interesting definitions of “ironic”.
- PM_me_your_math 2y ago[dead]
- reducesuffering 2y agoI'm well aware of Bakersfield's problems. And yet, the area was able to handle implementing the initial steps of high speed rail, and the Bay and LA weren't (for whatever eminent domain / NIMBY reasons). So it's funny to me to see LA/Bay people give Bakersfield crap: "ugh why is the rail over there". Well, because you LA/Bay people couldn't.
- baby_souffle 2y agoMerced has two state universities, though. Bakersfield has … Devin Nunez
- dhosek 2y agoBakersfield has a Cal State.
- onlypassingthru 2y agoWay back in the day, it was notable for the Bakersfield sound.[0] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakersfield_sound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakersfield_sound
- lotsoweiners 2y agoI got that reference.
- rayiner 2y ago> There are numerous completed structures and a clear plan to get high-speed trains running from Merced to Bakersfield by 2030. It would be more embarrassing if that gets built than if it doesn’t. Echos of Ted Stevens’ bridge to nowhere.
- cjensen 2y agoYes, that annoyed me. What they really mean is that they claim this rail line will be in operation before CA High-Speed Rail. I find that hard to believe, but I would be happy to be surprised.
- dragonwriter 2y agoWhile construction only just now broke ground formally, this project has been around (under different companies) since before Prop 1A for CA HSR was passed, and has already done all route planning, environmental clearance, and right-of-way acquisition, on a simpler route with fewer stations (even compared to the CA HSR Early Operating Segment, though Brightline West is longer.)
- Rebelgecko 2y agoWill that segment of CAHSR be able to run at full speed? The plans have changed so much that it's hard to find a good and up to date source, but my understanding was that to save money a good chunk of phase 1 isn't going to be running at "HSR" speeds. e.g. it'll be sharing track with freight trains, and some routes were made windy-er to save money (with the side effect of limiting speeds)
- nostrademons 2y agoIt's supposed to run at 220mph, which is significantly faster than the project described here.
- Rebelgecko 2y agoWhat parts are supposed to run at 220mph? I know for a fact that the Bay area segment won't[1], same for other areas like the LA metro [1]: https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/san-francisco-to-san-jose/ https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sec...
- Rebles 2y agoFrom Gilroy to Burbank, it will run at top speed to make up some lost time from the Bay area segment. FWIW the BA segment will run at 110mph.
- donor20 2y agoI'm in the bay area and literally nothing they've designed around here is going 220mph unless they a going to be banking the tracks 40 degrees and doing a TON of ground breaking engineering around safety to run at 220 mph safely while sharing with Caltrain and other users.
- jeffbee 2y ago> be sharing track with freight trains That's a lie. > windy-er to save money The opposite: some segments are longer, more complex, and more expensive to gratify some NIMBYs and influential congressmen.
- grecy 2y ago> to get high-speed trains running from Merced to Bakersfield by 2030 Isn't that going to be the world's slowest "hi-speed" train ?
- saagarjha 2y ago220 miles per hour is nothing to sneeze at.
- Retric 2y agoThat’s 50% faster than Acela (150mph) which isn’t nothing, but doesn’t make much of a difference on its own. What’s actually important is maintaining high speed for most of the trip which is where Acela fails (~70.3 mph). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela
- fransje26 2y ago> What’s actually important is maintaining high speed for most of the trip which is where Acela fails (~70.3 mph). Reminds me of high-speed rail in France vs high-speed rail in Germany. To the point that newer Siemens trains will have a lower top-speed, because "there is no demand for it".
- ldng 2y agoIn France, it depends a lot on the lines : Paris-Lyon has average of 270 km/h (167 mph); Paris-Bordeaux clock at around 300 km/h (186 mph) while Paris-Brest is more at 200 (124 mph). It is interesting to note that it often seems ti correlate to the age of the line, with Paris-Bordeaux being the most recent.
- fransje26 2y agoYes, but they are limited by the technology used to build the line, and by how the lines were traced, but not because their high-speed trains need to stop at every city center or run on "winding" tracks, as is the case in Germany. The Paris-Lyon line is by far the oldest, and is top-speed limited because of how it was traced. (And also because of its out-dated security system that is in the process of being changed) The Paris-Brest line stops being a high-speed track in Rennes, so even if the first part is fast, it's still a long way to Brest on conventional tracks. The newer lines are faster, as they are designed for theoretical operational speeds of 350 km/h, with a current operational top speed of 320. (LGV Sud Europe Atlantique, LGV Rhin-Rhone, LGV Est, and even the LGV Bretagne Pays-de-Loire going to Brest)
- caf 2y agoThe article does actually mention that, towards the end.
- hinkley 2y agoThat Merced to Bakersfield line is characterizes as from nowhere to nowhere in How Big Projects Get Done. It’s one of the few negative examples in the book that stuck with me. It’s embarrassing.
- FrojoS 2y agoI know next to nothing about this project but isn’t this a way to build a train line somewhat cost effective? Once it exists, the land around both stations will increase in utility until it’s no longer a “nowhere”. If you build downtown to downtown you have to either dig a massive, expensive tunnel or buy up a lot of high value land or both. Perhaps it’s won’t break even for half a century but if it eventually does, it will be a success.
- selfie 2y agoBuild it and they'll come? At least one end has to be somewhere people want to be, right? A line from London into the countryside makes sense. You can live in the countryside and work in London. A line from nowhere to nowhere is a chicken/egg problem. Now if one end is an Airport and another is a new community who will have jobs at the airport, that might work.
- microtherion 2y agoI don't know whether people want to be in Merced or Bakersfield, but de facto, plenty of them are there.
- jhbadger 2y agoThey both are university towns (UC Merced and Cal State Bakersfield); given that academics are generally positively inclined towards public transit a line could encourage collaborations, I suppose.
- gravescale 2y agoIt's my theory partly why China has smashed out so many thousands of km of HSR and what appear to be excessively wide highways (other than prestige and a general vibe of governance=more, bigger infrastructure). In 100 years when the ossification and NIMBYism is the norm, the rail corridor land is already there. Renovating a line that already exists may not be easy, but it's easier than prizing land out plot by plot, and even in China that's a huge hassle. Plus the hard physical bits like blasting tunnels and digging cuttings is already done before labour costs succumb to spiraling cost disease. Then again, at about $45 million per mile, it's actually not even that much more expensive that Chinese HSR: to build the current 45000km of rail at the LV-LA price would be $1.25 trillion, which isn't vastly more than the Chinese system has cost so far. In fact it's very roughly about as much as the US spends, per year, on healthcare on top of what European countries pay for the same outcomes (total annual spending: 4.2 trillion and a bit, or 12.5k per person, vs global number two, Switzerland, at 8k: about 1/3, not far from 1.25/4.2!)
- nytesky 2y agoI will admit to never visiting either city, but my impression is that they are car dependent without major subway service? Probably some bus line with very local service? It’s like 2-3 hr drive between the two cities, and at both end you have to navigate auto transport, most likely a rental though maybe Uber would work out but at greater cost for anything beyond a single destination. I would imagine most people would just opt to drive, since they need a car at either end of that line?
- AndyMcConachie 2y agoYup. And the station in Los Angeles will be far east of downtown. So if you take Amtrak into LA you'll have to take a taxi or a bus to further transfer to Los Vegas.
- acchow 2y agoStrange because the San Francisco terminus is downtown
- this15testingg 2y agothe CAHSR station is at LA's Union station, which I think is the context of this set of comments. The line to Vegas (brightline west) does indeed end (for now) in Rancho Cucamonga with plans to continue on to LA's Union Station
- dhosek 2y agoThey’re referring to a different California HSR. Also, for the Las Vegas link, the terminus is on the Metrolink line so you can take a commuter train from Union Station. People taking Amtrak from points east could get off at the Ontario station and it’s a relatively short taxi/bus ride to the RC terminal (Amtrak uses a different set of tracks coming into L.A. from the east than the Metrolink station serving RC). I suppose it would be feasible to extend the line a little further south to connect with Amtrak should there be demand (if they went to the Ontario station, then the Ontario airport could also be integrated into the service).
- deleted 2y ago
- someonehere 2y agoNobody will use it. A majority of the demographic see it as a Washington disaster Trump stopped but Biden turned the construction back on. Everyone owns a car and carpooling is trivial. Most homes have one car per adult. There’s nothing of interest between Merced and Bakersfield. These were towns that grew from the old 99 freeway from Sacramento to Bakersfield and then on to LA.
- dhosek 2y agoExcept that it was a state-driven project, initiated and given state funding by proposition 1A.
- eszed 2y agoOperative phrase: "see it as". I can anecdotally confirm that central-valley relatives of mine bring up HSR as a reason not to vote for Biden. The Democrat = Democrat logic is strong, I suppose, even if the ignorance about federal structure is profound.
- dmitrygr 2y ago> high-speed trains running from Merced to Bakersfield I lived in CA for 15 years. I've been all over it (incl central ca). This would be such a pyrrhic victory, that I lack words! Who the hell needs to commute enough between those two god-forsaken places to justify the billions spent on this?
- jeffbee 2y agoWhat's the justification for the far more expensive SR-99 that serves the same route?
- pie420 2y agoNOBODY CARES ABOUT MERCED TO BAKERSFIELD. that's 100k people connected to 400k people. who cares. and it will not be ready by 2030, it'll be 2033. and that means SF to LA will be at least 2040. its absolutely insane and everyone managing that project should be fired and sentenced to 10 years of hard labor.