As I see it, the greatest marketing tool is to get trains running as soon as possible in the Central Valley between Merced and Bakersfield, otherwise known as the interim Initial Operating Segment (IOS) (as I remember it being called) on 171 miles of right of way first. Once that happens, and riders get to see firsthand the value and benefit(s) that “true” high-speed-train travel in the U.S. has to offer, said people and others will be “making” the clarion call (singing the praises, really) requesting, perhaps even demanding, the interim IOS of Phase 1 (L.A.-S.F.) system be significantly added on to. It’s what my gut is telling me.
I’m less optimistic, I don’t think the people between Merced and Bakersfield will benefit much from the train as they are used to driving cars and no one outside of the area has a reason to use the disconnected rail line. It’s ridiculous that they moved the project to an area that had the lowest benefit to gain from HSR while more populated and HSR-friendly cities don’t get any use and largely subsidize it.
The “San Joaquin” service was (maybe still is) the 5th-best performer in the entire Amtrak network. The San Joaquin service is provided between Oakland and Bakersfield and between Sacramento and Bakersfield. However, the schedules of the latter aren’t really conducive to business-related travel. A high-speed link between Bakersfield and Merced could help in that regard.
In Merced, meanwhile, HSR will link up with Valley Rail, a new commuter-rail service going into effect before the HSR is up and running, which is, presumably, in 2033. Valley Rail will provide service between Merced and Sacramento and Merced and San Jose. A cross-platform connection at Merced will enable a switch between trains of the two systems. So, it won’t be like HSR won’t have a rail connection in Merced.
Furthermore, Madera, north of Fresno, is getting a new station that will be served by both Amtrak and HSR. Here, again, a cross-platform connection at Madera will allow for a change of trains.
The problem is that, with the Central Valley route -- and mixed-running near the cities will make this issue even worse --the project can't deliver the promised 2 hr 40 min trip between the downtowns of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
At this point, my view is that the federal government should abandon any further funding. California should abandon high-speed rail aspirations, for this particular project, and consider how the Central Valley infrastructure could be salvaged for regular-speed rail.
Perhaps, at some point in the future, true high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Diego or Los Angeles and San Francisco straight up I-5 should be considered.
But this project is irredeemable as high-speed rail. The sooner Californians realize that, the better.
Abandoning the project now would mean tens of billions of dollars wasted. It's too late to pursue the I-5 route, even though that would have been the right choice initially. Better, at this point, to find the fastest and cheapest way to make use of the infrastructure and rights of way the state has already developed. Choudri's plan seems like the most compelling way to do that.
As I wrote in a previous piece, a 5 or 6 hour SF-LA trip would still be really popular. It would be perfectly reasonable to do as other countries do and start with a less than world class high speed line, gradually building out improved infrastructure as the line's popularity grows. I also don't think we should underrate the potential of the Sacramento and Las Vegas connections sketched out above. These are really strong travel markets.
The federal funding question isn't a major consideration at this point. Certainly, there won't be any additional funds coming from the Trump Admin. The existing $3 billion grant will be fought over in court. None of that will have a make or break effect on the project.
The infrastructure can be salvaged for regular-speed rail. A 6-hour SF-LA trip is not what the federal government -- American taxpayers contributing to this project -- was promised. California has an economy the size of Germany -- if they would like to keep pouring money at this project, go ahead, but the federal government can't keep investing in it.
"The infrastructure can be salvaged for regular-speed rail."
That doesn't make any sense. The Merced-Bakersfield section is being built. The high-speed trains are the least of the cost so it makes no sense to use it at regular speed. And of course high-speed trains can run at regular speeds on regular track, as they will be obliged to do on the San Jose to SF leg anyway.
True, a 6h SF-LA trip is not what was promised but it would be worth doing because it would generate enthusiasm for reducing that time, ie. building the missing bits as high-speed track. This is a little bit like what happened to the Eurostar line connecting Paris to London. For the first 13 years (1994-2007) it was restricted to 160km/h using existing track for the approx. 100km from London-Waterloo to Dover; only on the French side did the trains run at up to 300km/h. Given the instant popularity of the Eurostar service, and the demise of political resistance, HS1 was built on an entirely new route thru northern Kent, passing thru the future Olympic site of Stratford (a giant TOD in east London) into London-St-Pancras cutting the runtime to a bit more than 2h (av. time 2h15m; fastest 2h03m).
The reason why the Road Lobby and the likes of Elon Musk would be happy to see the demise of CaHSR is that they know, just like with London-Paris and London-Brussels and every HSR line ever built it would be instantly popular. Even with Americans. Even a 6h travel time would appeal to business people with a single-seat ride in great comfort and with restaurant service, because it turns out HSR is a great work environment with no office distractions (and even better than WFH!). Note too, that airlines could offer SFX as an alternative for international pax to flying into the horrorshow of LAX. There is almost time to do this for the Olympics. (The HS1 part of the Eurostar line was being completed as the Olympic committee inspected Stratford and was a major factor in London being awarded the 2012 games.)
So now you're moving the goal posts to a 6-hour ride with luxurious dining service? No, business people aren't going to choose a 6-hour train ride over a flight.
Honestly, California can do whatever it wants with this project moving forward, but I don't want to see more federal funding that could be going to other rail projects.
Moving goal posts? You obviously haven't been on European HSR where meal service is normal, especially for business class. But even the cheapest economy seat is better than any class seat on a plane, and has access to the restaurant car. For the same reasons, you don't know if business people would prefer the train versus the plane. Though no one is denying 6h is sub-optimal.
I didn't mention federal funding and it doesn't matter what you, or I, think on the matter. But how much of the $20bn to upgrade LAX in time for the Olympics is federal? However, California is the richest state and richer than France or Spain with their thousands of kilometres of HSR track, so it could certainly afford to build it, even at the outrageous multiples of what France or Spain could build it for. I think it was Jonah Freemark who said the cost was just 0.18% of the projected GDP of California over a 20-year construction period.
I have used multiple HSR lines in Europe and East Asia. The difference is that the fancy meal service on an Italian high-speed train between Milan and Rome is still happening on a three-hour journey between the two cities.
California can use its massive economy and wealth to do whatever it wants with this project, but as a rail advocate living elsewhere, I don't want another cent of federal money spent on it.
There's a trainload of money sitting on the table if CA politicos had the courage to toll state (and county) freeways in the LA and SF metro areas, and dedicate the funding to transit and the HSR. Think tolls on the 134 and 60 in greater LA. Yeah, I know road users already pay gas taxes, but that goes to pay for roads not the impact of road use on the environment. We don't have a true carbon tax on the bulk of road users who (like me) still drive internal combustion vehicles. Can't till federal numbered freeways, but the state could do so on state and county freeways.
If I had to put a $1,000 on it, I'd put my money on this this --> CaliHSR as it is today is a zombie project. We just haven't recognized it as such ( yet ).
Just as in some basement somewhere there's some office for the League of Nations still, California High Speed Rail won't be officially dead. It just won't be doing anything that a project that's actually alive would be doing.
As I see it, the greatest marketing tool is to get trains running as soon as possible in the Central Valley between Merced and Bakersfield, otherwise known as the interim Initial Operating Segment (IOS) (as I remember it being called) on 171 miles of right of way first. Once that happens, and riders get to see firsthand the value and benefit(s) that “true” high-speed-train travel in the U.S. has to offer, said people and others will be “making” the clarion call (singing the praises, really) requesting, perhaps even demanding, the interim IOS of Phase 1 (L.A.-S.F.) system be significantly added on to. It’s what my gut is telling me.
I’m less optimistic, I don’t think the people between Merced and Bakersfield will benefit much from the train as they are used to driving cars and no one outside of the area has a reason to use the disconnected rail line. It’s ridiculous that they moved the project to an area that had the lowest benefit to gain from HSR while more populated and HSR-friendly cities don’t get any use and largely subsidize it.
The “San Joaquin” service was (maybe still is) the 5th-best performer in the entire Amtrak network. The San Joaquin service is provided between Oakland and Bakersfield and between Sacramento and Bakersfield. However, the schedules of the latter aren’t really conducive to business-related travel. A high-speed link between Bakersfield and Merced could help in that regard.
In Merced, meanwhile, HSR will link up with Valley Rail, a new commuter-rail service going into effect before the HSR is up and running, which is, presumably, in 2033. Valley Rail will provide service between Merced and Sacramento and Merced and San Jose. A cross-platform connection at Merced will enable a switch between trains of the two systems. So, it won’t be like HSR won’t have a rail connection in Merced.
Furthermore, Madera, north of Fresno, is getting a new station that will be served by both Amtrak and HSR. Here, again, a cross-platform connection at Madera will allow for a change of trains.
The California State Rail Plan, meanwhile, is a plan to improve passenger- and freight-train service in the state. Link here: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/rail/california-state-rail-plan
Thanks for the factual counterargument, I wasn’t aware of the possible connections.
The problem is that, with the Central Valley route -- and mixed-running near the cities will make this issue even worse --the project can't deliver the promised 2 hr 40 min trip between the downtowns of San Francisco and Los Angeles.
At this point, my view is that the federal government should abandon any further funding. California should abandon high-speed rail aspirations, for this particular project, and consider how the Central Valley infrastructure could be salvaged for regular-speed rail.
Perhaps, at some point in the future, true high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Diego or Los Angeles and San Francisco straight up I-5 should be considered.
But this project is irredeemable as high-speed rail. The sooner Californians realize that, the better.
Abandoning the project now would mean tens of billions of dollars wasted. It's too late to pursue the I-5 route, even though that would have been the right choice initially. Better, at this point, to find the fastest and cheapest way to make use of the infrastructure and rights of way the state has already developed. Choudri's plan seems like the most compelling way to do that.
As I wrote in a previous piece, a 5 or 6 hour SF-LA trip would still be really popular. It would be perfectly reasonable to do as other countries do and start with a less than world class high speed line, gradually building out improved infrastructure as the line's popularity grows. I also don't think we should underrate the potential of the Sacramento and Las Vegas connections sketched out above. These are really strong travel markets.
The federal funding question isn't a major consideration at this point. Certainly, there won't be any additional funds coming from the Trump Admin. The existing $3 billion grant will be fought over in court. None of that will have a make or break effect on the project.
https://benjaminschneider.substack.com/p/california-high-speed-rails-original
The infrastructure can be salvaged for regular-speed rail. A 6-hour SF-LA trip is not what the federal government -- American taxpayers contributing to this project -- was promised. California has an economy the size of Germany -- if they would like to keep pouring money at this project, go ahead, but the federal government can't keep investing in it.
"The infrastructure can be salvaged for regular-speed rail."
That doesn't make any sense. The Merced-Bakersfield section is being built. The high-speed trains are the least of the cost so it makes no sense to use it at regular speed. And of course high-speed trains can run at regular speeds on regular track, as they will be obliged to do on the San Jose to SF leg anyway.
True, a 6h SF-LA trip is not what was promised but it would be worth doing because it would generate enthusiasm for reducing that time, ie. building the missing bits as high-speed track. This is a little bit like what happened to the Eurostar line connecting Paris to London. For the first 13 years (1994-2007) it was restricted to 160km/h using existing track for the approx. 100km from London-Waterloo to Dover; only on the French side did the trains run at up to 300km/h. Given the instant popularity of the Eurostar service, and the demise of political resistance, HS1 was built on an entirely new route thru northern Kent, passing thru the future Olympic site of Stratford (a giant TOD in east London) into London-St-Pancras cutting the runtime to a bit more than 2h (av. time 2h15m; fastest 2h03m).
The reason why the Road Lobby and the likes of Elon Musk would be happy to see the demise of CaHSR is that they know, just like with London-Paris and London-Brussels and every HSR line ever built it would be instantly popular. Even with Americans. Even a 6h travel time would appeal to business people with a single-seat ride in great comfort and with restaurant service, because it turns out HSR is a great work environment with no office distractions (and even better than WFH!). Note too, that airlines could offer SFX as an alternative for international pax to flying into the horrorshow of LAX. There is almost time to do this for the Olympics. (The HS1 part of the Eurostar line was being completed as the Olympic committee inspected Stratford and was a major factor in London being awarded the 2012 games.)
So now you're moving the goal posts to a 6-hour ride with luxurious dining service? No, business people aren't going to choose a 6-hour train ride over a flight.
Honestly, California can do whatever it wants with this project moving forward, but I don't want to see more federal funding that could be going to other rail projects.
I no longer think about it as a viable project.
Moving goal posts? You obviously haven't been on European HSR where meal service is normal, especially for business class. But even the cheapest economy seat is better than any class seat on a plane, and has access to the restaurant car. For the same reasons, you don't know if business people would prefer the train versus the plane. Though no one is denying 6h is sub-optimal.
I didn't mention federal funding and it doesn't matter what you, or I, think on the matter. But how much of the $20bn to upgrade LAX in time for the Olympics is federal? However, California is the richest state and richer than France or Spain with their thousands of kilometres of HSR track, so it could certainly afford to build it, even at the outrageous multiples of what France or Spain could build it for. I think it was Jonah Freemark who said the cost was just 0.18% of the projected GDP of California over a 20-year construction period.
I have used multiple HSR lines in Europe and East Asia. The difference is that the fancy meal service on an Italian high-speed train between Milan and Rome is still happening on a three-hour journey between the two cities.
California can use its massive economy and wealth to do whatever it wants with this project, but as a rail advocate living elsewhere, I don't want another cent of federal money spent on it.
There's a trainload of money sitting on the table if CA politicos had the courage to toll state (and county) freeways in the LA and SF metro areas, and dedicate the funding to transit and the HSR. Think tolls on the 134 and 60 in greater LA. Yeah, I know road users already pay gas taxes, but that goes to pay for roads not the impact of road use on the environment. We don't have a true carbon tax on the bulk of road users who (like me) still drive internal combustion vehicles. Can't till federal numbered freeways, but the state could do so on state and county freeways.
I Had No Idea It Could Be So Expensive Not To Build or Accomplish Anything https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/i-had-no-idea-it-could-be-so-expensive
If I had to put a $1,000 on it, I'd put my money on this this --> CaliHSR as it is today is a zombie project. We just haven't recognized it as such ( yet ).
Just as in some basement somewhere there's some office for the League of Nations still, California High Speed Rail won't be officially dead. It just won't be doing anything that a project that's actually alive would be doing.
So you’re saying it’s screwed…