I've been following this project off and on. There are various Youtube videos about it. Lots has been written. It's interesting because it's really a failure on almost every level but most especially political. Some examples:
- Proposal 1A, the voter amendment that was passed to build the project, specified the speed of 220mph. This was really a mistake. It's greatly added to the cost;
- California's notorious environment impact review for a project of this scale require about the same planning, time and budget as the JWST. This is only a slight exaggeration. This article refers to the northern section (SF to the Central Valley). The southern section (Central Valley to LA) is, I believe, still in review. California has started to rollback some of these onerous review processes (eg CEQA) as its become apparent they're largely weaponized by NIMBYs to delay or derail (pun intended) pretty much anything;
- They're still securing land parcels through the Central Valley. Why this wasn't a textbook case for eminent domain for farmland (which is usally WAY cheaper than any kind of residential, industrial or commercial land) is beyond me. I'm sure there's a reason but it seems crazy;
- Counties along the route have managed to extract concessions for not blocking the project that greatly add to cost and travel time. For example, instead of running down the I5 through the west side of the Central Valley, it runs through regaional towns like Bakersfield on the east side. This is greater tack length ()ie more cost and overall travel time) and more stops (ie even more travel time);
- The Sacramento spur originally had a plan where I believe it went through Oakland rather than along the Caltrain line. IIRC this was overruled for political reasons;
- LA is huge. Acquiring land for this is going to be a massive and expensive undertaking.
So I'm a fan of a robust public transit infrastructure but the likely $100b+ price tag for this just seems insane to me. I actually think it probably would've been better to build a LA to Las Vegas line first. There is a ton of demand for this. Yes you have to cross some mountains (but less than the HSR does) but you're also dealing with desert on the Nevada side, so acquiring land gets a whole lot less problematic. It's also shorter.
The Brightline West route from LA to Las Vegas seems like it's going ahead. But it has different design constraints (eg 180mp speed vs 220). You should really design all these systems with the same design constraints and the same rolling stock.
Whenever I see projects like the HSR and even the NY 2nd Ave Subway with their truly massive price tags for very little my mind always goes to Crossrail in the UK. It might've been late but really not that much and to me it seems to be a stunning success. To build that much new tunnel under london (which is essentially a ruin/graveyard with 2000+ years of accumulation) is, to me, an astounding feat.
The comparison to China is always made. Well, that's central planning for you. It may have its benefits but it also has its costs.
> specified the speed of 220mph. This was really a mistake. It's greatly added to the cost;
Why? That is well within the speeds of typical high speed rail systems. Going slower with a totally new project would just be embracing. The main cost are not really improved by using a slightly slower design speed and you end up with a much worse system.
> Counties along the route have managed to extract concessions for not blocking the project
Going threw those towns actually makes a lot of sense for a serious rail project and potentially even safes money.
Only in the US people say things like 'why would we connect these millions of people with a rail line'.
> Why? That is well within the speeds of typical high speed rail systems.
So consider this set of goals:
1. You want to get from SF to LA as fast as possible;
2. You want to go 220mph; and
3. You want to stop in many places along the way.
With just these 3 goals you already have conflict. More stops makes 220mph less valuable because it takes time to accelerate and decelerate. The driving distance between SF and LA is (according to Google maps) 382 miles. Will this route get there in 382 / 220 = 1h44m? No, it's more like 4 hours.
Getting from SF to LA in 2 hours by train would be fantastic. But that's not what's getting built.
> Going threw those towns actually makes a lot of sense for a serious rail project and potentially even safes money.
You clearly don't realize the consequences of this as I described above. You may pick up extra passengers in Fresno but you may then lose passengers by taking too long to get from SF to LA.
LA is building a rail extension to LAX, which is going to solve so many problems for using LAX. I believe it's costing $2.2 billion and it's about the best money you could spend.
If the route takes too long you may as well just drive or take a plane. That's what you're competing against.
> 1. You want to get from SF to LA as fast as possible;
This is a dumb goal, and a total misunderstanding of the whole point and benefit of a rail system.
The real benefit of rail is that you can have stops and integrate the high speed rail with many other regional rails and local transport solution in order to build a sustainable practical transportation system for the whole state.
We are not talking about 100s of stops, you take a few stop in a few places where you have 100'000s of people living. A system that doesn't just connect 2 things point by point but rahter all cities directly to the next closes large city and the next closes after that.
HSR should be the backbone of a transportation system that enables as many people as possible to live without a car. Its far more important to prevent people from driving all those inside of California routes with their cars, then it is to prevent non-stop travel between SF-LA by cars or planes.
- Proposal 1A, the voter amendment that was passed to build the project, specified the speed of 220mph. This was really a mistake. It's greatly added to the cost;
- California's notorious environment impact review for a project of this scale require about the same planning, time and budget as the JWST. This is only a slight exaggeration. This article refers to the northern section (SF to the Central Valley). The southern section (Central Valley to LA) is, I believe, still in review. California has started to rollback some of these onerous review processes (eg CEQA) as its become apparent they're largely weaponized by NIMBYs to delay or derail (pun intended) pretty much anything;
- They're still securing land parcels through the Central Valley. Why this wasn't a textbook case for eminent domain for farmland (which is usally WAY cheaper than any kind of residential, industrial or commercial land) is beyond me. I'm sure there's a reason but it seems crazy;
- Counties along the route have managed to extract concessions for not blocking the project that greatly add to cost and travel time. For example, instead of running down the I5 through the west side of the Central Valley, it runs through regaional towns like Bakersfield on the east side. This is greater tack length ()ie more cost and overall travel time) and more stops (ie even more travel time);
- The Sacramento spur originally had a plan where I believe it went through Oakland rather than along the Caltrain line. IIRC this was overruled for political reasons;
- LA is huge. Acquiring land for this is going to be a massive and expensive undertaking.
So I'm a fan of a robust public transit infrastructure but the likely $100b+ price tag for this just seems insane to me. I actually think it probably would've been better to build a LA to Las Vegas line first. There is a ton of demand for this. Yes you have to cross some mountains (but less than the HSR does) but you're also dealing with desert on the Nevada side, so acquiring land gets a whole lot less problematic. It's also shorter.
The Brightline West route from LA to Las Vegas seems like it's going ahead. But it has different design constraints (eg 180mp speed vs 220). You should really design all these systems with the same design constraints and the same rolling stock.
Whenever I see projects like the HSR and even the NY 2nd Ave Subway with their truly massive price tags for very little my mind always goes to Crossrail in the UK. It might've been late but really not that much and to me it seems to be a stunning success. To build that much new tunnel under london (which is essentially a ruin/graveyard with 2000+ years of accumulation) is, to me, an astounding feat.
The comparison to China is always made. Well, that's central planning for you. It may have its benefits but it also has its costs.