7 ms·

Article states that I-5 corridor skips all major towns in central valley which kinda kills the purpose of HSR connecting SF to central valley towns to LA

by slt2021 1y ago

GeekyBear 1y ago
I thunk it boils down to the fact that acquiring land near San Francisco or LA through imminent domain would be both hideously expensive and extremely unpopular. Building "High Speed Rail to nowhere" in the Central Valley allowed them kick that can of political infighting down the road.
- gruez 1y ago
  >and extremely unpopular Who's shedding a tear for some farmer getting paid above market rates (presumably) for their land? California is probably the last place I'd expect people to think using eminent domain in this case is a slipper slope to communism or whatever.
  - GeekyBear 1y ago
    Eventually you will have to build out the rail line in densely populated areas (especially near San Francisco and LA). High speed rail requires that you to avoid unnecessary curves. At that point, you're going to have to start using imminent domain. Putting it off until after you have billions of dollars in sunk costs in the Central Valley doesn't change that.
    - gruez 1y ago
      >Eventually you will have to build out the rail line in densely populated areas (especially near San Francisco and LA). High speed rail requires that you to avoid unnecessary curves. why can't you have it run slowly in built up areas? As another commenter mentioned that's how it works in France.
      - GeekyBear 1y ago
        Because competing with the airlines requires some semblance of "high speed"? California is fairly densely packed once you get away from the Central Valley and nearer to the coast where the people are.
        bobthepanda 1y ago
        The current plan actually accounts for this; the 2:40 includes the amount of time it takes to run on the current Caltrain tracks from San Jose to SF which will not be running at the highest speeds.
        vlovich123 1y ago
        Said another way, that SF/San Jose stretch accounts for 25-30% of the total time. That’s similarly true for the last stretch of LA meaning a truly engineering driven design could have done it within ~1h50. And note that the 2h40 goal is admitted as a pipe dream by everyone involved, particularly because of the last mile issues and the circuitous route.
        bobthepanda 1y ago
        IIRC the last stretch in LA is actually planned to be new build with Palmdale to Los Angeles taking about twenty minutes. Engineering is about optimizing and updating where you can. There aren't really high speed rail lines anywhere that go into the center of their major cities at full speed. In Europe and Japan the city-center sections are slower; China solved this problem mostly by having high speed trains skirt around built up areas.
        vlovich123 1y ago
        > China solved this problem mostly by having high speed trains skirt around built up areas. Which is what we should have done. Follow the 5 and build out high speed spokes to the other cities. And really unfuck the rail system in the Bay Area instead of travelling at Caltrain speeds for San Jose -> SF.
    - fwip 1y ago
      *eminent domain, from a Latin-ish phrase "dominium eminens."
    - slt2021 1y ago
      the state can manage that expense over time, for example by refusing to enforce laws, spiking crime rates, turning into dystopia and chaos, thus lowering property values. after land is acquired, the property and law enforcement will bring up values
      - gruez 1y ago
        /s?
    - nostrademons 1y ago
      That's why they went with the blended system with Caltrain. Caltrain already owns a suitable right-of-way; they just needed to electrify it. Which they've already done. The SF-to-SJ part of CAHSR is effectively done; they just need to built acquire the SJ-to-Gilroy right of way and tunnel under the Pacheco Pass to connect with the rest of CAHSR.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      > Eventually you will have to build out the rail line in densely populated areas (especially near San Francisco and LA). The SJ to SF run is on existing rail right of way. > At that point, you're going to have to start using imminent domain. They’ve been using eminent domain the whole time, they aren't going to have to start at some point in the future.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > I thunk it boils down to the fact that acquiring land near San Francisco or LA through imminent domain would be both hideously expensive and extremely unpopular. “Eminent domain”, and the SF to SJ run for CA HSR uses almost entirely existing rail right-ot-way shared with Caltrain. > Building "High Speed Rail to nowhere" in the Central Valley allowed them kick that can of political infighting down the road. You are right that doing Central Valley first was political, but you have the wrong political motivation. The political motivation was (1) to mitigate partisan political resistance to the project by prividing the most immediate benefit to the Republican districts in the Central Valley, and (2) to secure federal funding under ARRA, which prioritized shovel-ready projects, because the issues that needed cleared to reach an approximation of that state for the termini were more time consuming.
rsync 1y ago
"... which kinda kills the purpose of HSR connecting SF to central valley towns to LA ..." Yes, that's exactly right. The original - and highest value - purpose was a high speed rail route between SF and LA. The meandering route through Fresno (and the new, ex post facto "purpose" the article refers to) is the result of political machinations that happened after the fact and traded utility for brief, local (and trivial) political gains.
- DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
  The route through Fresno is only 50 km longer than the I-5 route. It's a difference of 7% in total length. Going through the two biggest cities in the Central Valley is worth a 7% increase in track length.
  - andbberger 1y ago
    the opportunity cost isn't a 7% increase in length, it's the tens of billions in extra infrastructure to build 350km/h right of way straight through the middle of every town all the way down the central valley, and the massive hit to SF-LA run time that will come with that. beyond the stop penalty, HSR just doesn't run at full speed through city centers anywhere in the world. doesn't happen.
    - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
      As I wrote elsewhere, the average speed of CA HSR (as planned) is 250 km/h, which is very competitive, internationally. It's about as fast as the fastest French TGV routes. It only really lags behind the fastest Chinese routes, which run at average speeds of about 290 km/h. If CA HSR can go through the cities in the Central Valley and still achieve an average speed of 250 km/h, that's well worth it.
    - slt2021 1y ago
      people who need to get from SF to LA as soon as possible are already served by the airplanes. Your business class traveler from LA/orange county to SF bay is already well served by the many airports in both metro areas. the HSR is about connecting the rest of the state to economic opportunities in these large metro areas

Article states that I-5 corridor skips all major towns in central valley which kinda kills the purpose of HSR connecting SF to central valley towns to LA

GeekyBear 1y ago

I thunk it boils down to the fact that acquiring land near San Francisco or LA through imminent domain would be both hideously expensive and extremely unpopular. Building "High Speed Rail to nowhere" in the Central Valley allowed them kick that can of political infighting down the road.

gruez 1y ago
>and extremely unpopular Who's shedding a tear for some farmer getting paid above market rates (presumably) for their land? California is probably the last place I'd expect people to think using eminent domain in this case is a slipper slope to communism or whatever.
- GeekyBear 1y ago
  Eventually you will have to build out the rail line in densely populated areas (especially near San Francisco and LA). High speed rail requires that you to avoid unnecessary curves. At that point, you're going to have to start using imminent domain. Putting it off until after you have billions of dollars in sunk costs in the Central Valley doesn't change that.
  - gruez 1y ago
    >Eventually you will have to build out the rail line in densely populated areas (especially near San Francisco and LA). High speed rail requires that you to avoid unnecessary curves. why can't you have it run slowly in built up areas? As another commenter mentioned that's how it works in France.
    - GeekyBear 1y ago
      Because competing with the airlines requires some semblance of "high speed"? California is fairly densely packed once you get away from the Central Valley and nearer to the coast where the people are.
      - bobthepanda 1y ago
        The current plan actually accounts for this; the 2:40 includes the amount of time it takes to run on the current Caltrain tracks from San Jose to SF which will not be running at the highest speeds.
        vlovich123 1y ago
        Said another way, that SF/San Jose stretch accounts for 25-30% of the total time. That’s similarly true for the last stretch of LA meaning a truly engineering driven design could have done it within ~1h50. And note that the 2h40 goal is admitted as a pipe dream by everyone involved, particularly because of the last mile issues and the circuitous route.
        bobthepanda 1y ago
        IIRC the last stretch in LA is actually planned to be new build with Palmdale to Los Angeles taking about twenty minutes. Engineering is about optimizing and updating where you can. There aren't really high speed rail lines anywhere that go into the center of their major cities at full speed. In Europe and Japan the city-center sections are slower; China solved this problem mostly by having high speed trains skirt around built up areas.
        vlovich123 1y ago
        > China solved this problem mostly by having high speed trains skirt around built up areas. Which is what we should have done. Follow the 5 and build out high speed spokes to the other cities. And really unfuck the rail system in the Bay Area instead of travelling at Caltrain speeds for San Jose -> SF.
  - fwip 1y ago
    *eminent domain, from a Latin-ish phrase "dominium eminens."
  - slt2021 1y ago
    the state can manage that expense over time, for example by refusing to enforce laws, spiking crime rates, turning into dystopia and chaos, thus lowering property values. after land is acquired, the property and law enforcement will bring up values
    - gruez 1y ago
      /s?
  - nostrademons 1y ago
    That's why they went with the blended system with Caltrain. Caltrain already owns a suitable right-of-way; they just needed to electrify it. Which they've already done. The SF-to-SJ part of CAHSR is effectively done; they just need to built acquire the SJ-to-Gilroy right of way and tunnel under the Pacheco Pass to connect with the rest of CAHSR.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > Eventually you will have to build out the rail line in densely populated areas (especially near San Francisco and LA). The SJ to SF run is on existing rail right of way. > At that point, you're going to have to start using imminent domain. They’ve been using eminent domain the whole time, they aren't going to have to start at some point in the future.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> I thunk it boils down to the fact that acquiring land near San Francisco or LA through imminent domain would be both hideously expensive and extremely unpopular. “Eminent domain”, and the SF to SJ run for CA HSR uses almost entirely existing rail right-ot-way shared with Caltrain. > Building "High Speed Rail to nowhere" in the Central Valley allowed them kick that can of political infighting down the road. You are right that doing Central Valley first was political, but you have the wrong political motivation. The political motivation was (1) to mitigate partisan political resistance to the project by prividing the most immediate benefit to the Republican districts in the Central Valley, and (2) to secure federal funding under ARRA, which prioritized shovel-ready projects, because the issues that needed cleared to reach an approximation of that state for the termini were more time consuming.

rsync 1y ago

"... which kinda kills the purpose of HSR connecting SF to central valley towns to LA ..." Yes, that's exactly right. The original - and highest value - purpose was a high speed rail route between SF and LA. The meandering route through Fresno (and the new, ex post facto "purpose" the article refers to) is the result of political machinations that happened after the fact and traded utility for brief, local (and trivial) political gains.

DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
The route through Fresno is only 50 km longer than the I-5 route. It's a difference of 7% in total length. Going through the two biggest cities in the Central Valley is worth a 7% increase in track length.
- andbberger 1y ago
  the opportunity cost isn't a 7% increase in length, it's the tens of billions in extra infrastructure to build 350km/h right of way straight through the middle of every town all the way down the central valley, and the massive hit to SF-LA run time that will come with that. beyond the stop penalty, HSR just doesn't run at full speed through city centers anywhere in the world. doesn't happen.
  - DiogenesKynikos 1y ago
    As I wrote elsewhere, the average speed of CA HSR (as planned) is 250 km/h, which is very competitive, internationally. It's about as fast as the fastest French TGV routes. It only really lags behind the fastest Chinese routes, which run at average speeds of about 290 km/h. If CA HSR can go through the cities in the Central Valley and still achieve an average speed of 250 km/h, that's well worth it.
  - slt2021 1y ago
    people who need to get from SF to LA as soon as possible are already served by the airplanes. Your business class traveler from LA/orange county to SF bay is already well served by the many airports in both metro areas. the HSR is about connecting the rest of the state to economic opportunities in these large metro areas