I just learned about this a few minutes ago.
Sen. Rosen also says the initial goal of opening by 2028 — just in time for the U.S. Summer Olympics in Los Angeles — is still on track.
this is inaccurate, the california hsr authority started in 1996 but took 12 years to come up with a plan they could put to voters. and they've been working on it (though for a long time at a glacial pace) since 2008.
It's pitiful overall but it's better than hyperloop
Not as bad as HS2 in Britain. Was projected to take 40 years to make a line from London to Leeds. Now it's on hold again. 200 miles. 40 years.
High speed rail from the Disneyland front gate to the main stage at Excalibur. You know, the major commuter routes.
My billion dollar idea is having a high speed rail for cars and it goes from the platform to a gas station
It's Vegas, baby. Eventually news will break about how $100s of millions were "misspent". Maybe some small contractors will get charged with crimes but - of course - the big fish criminals will somehow get away. Maybe their firms will be pay fines and the DOJ can have a press conference about that.
What's that- we have breaking news... I'm just being informed, during the bidding process a Chinese state construction company was contracted by mistake - they've apparently announced it will be opening on the first of January 2024, and will include the surprise addition of a maglev line to Rio de Janeiro.This is the most perfect thing. The only bit of rail we could see is from from where you don't want to be to where you don't need to go.
no problem. arrive, step off the train, step back on the train, repeat
Idk why you all are doomering this, when they already built some 6/10 rail service in Florida. They're doing the same thing on easy mode over open desert, it's not a big deal. The question is whether they can pinch through the mountains to actually get to LA, that's the part that's gonna take another 15 years.
Doomerism by default is pase and these dorks should know better
I’m from the future. It doesn’t open until 2060, and the republicans have threatened to defund it because it’s “unprofitable” unless the transit agency installs slot machines at each seat
The slot machines don't turn on until you cross the Nevada state line
That seems awfully optimistic. My eta is never because after ~20 years they will have only finished ~20% and the project will be cancelled and that will be that.
Yeah if it happens at all it will be decades late and millions over budget, service will be underfunded from the get-go, and then we'll get to spend the next 30 years after arguing whether the line is costing taxpayers too much money to maintain.
Warning: freedom units, because I'm from the US talking about a US issue and I'm too lazy to make the conversions ATM.
Okay, I'm all for dunking on private companies, but Brightline is actually not awful. They're also not high speed rail, which is why they're able to have such relative success with their budgets and timetables. FRA rules for their speed category (I think category 5 or 6? Can someone check me on that?) are A LOT less severe than they are for true HSR speeds (190 mph+ as I understand it). That makes the alignments cheaper and easier to build on. Brightline also handles some of the funding for the rail line by doing an old but tried-and-true method of developing real estate around the stations and sort of acting as a real estate company that dabbles in trains. They also saved money and time when they didn't grade seperate, which is why you're going to see a lot of Brightline trains flexing on and pixelating drivers in FL. Okay, a got a little off track there, but the point is that Brightline isn't bad. A lot of urbanist YouTube wants to hate Brightline, but can't seem to bring themselves to do so; whether that's an argument for Brightline or against the state of transit in the US is another matter.
In fact, I'd argue that Brightline's model of building highER speed rail (~150mph) is actually really sensible for longer distance trains than would normally be covered by HSR. HSR is goddamn expensive to build in the US, you need a lot of ridership (which usually means making sure that you're aligned with a series of metros instead of just point A to point B), and conventional wisdom is that it can't really compete with airlines past about 450 miles.
Take, for example, LA to Seattle. Google Maps has that at 1134 miles. Currently, the trip by car is 18 hours (avg 62 mph), which is a hard drive, but doable in a day with an iron ass and some ultra shitty gas station coffee. That same trip by Amtrak (coast starlight) is 34-36 hours (avg 33 mph for the 34 hour case). For our viewers at home, that's half the speed and, therefore, twice as long. That, to me, is inexcusable. There's no situation in which mid-or-long-distance train travel should be matched or beaten by car travel, and that's how it is all over Amtrak's network. Basically, the only argument Amtrak has is comfort, and that's not nothing, but Amtrak isn't exactly the pinnacle of luxury on rails. Every European exchange student I've had who's ridden the San Joaquins thought it was "okay", as in middling. I could live with that if it was fast or frequent, but it's neither.
Now, what if we raise Amtrak Coast Starlight's average speed to just 120 mph (which is less than Brightline, I should add)? Well, 1134 mi / 120 mph, the miles cancel, leaving us with 9.45 hours. That's a comfortable overnight trip. I can't find 36 hours to take a train to Seattle, much less 72 round trip, but I could definitely find 10 and 20, respectively. If we raise the average speed to Brightline's ~150 (less realistic because of the very long distance, imo) we can pull it off in less than eight hours. The California Zephyr, running from San Francisco, CA to Chicago, IL (2,132 mi by driving) goes from 51 hours by train (avg 41 mph) vs 31 hrs by car (which still comes out faster even if you add 12 hours for rest at a final avg 49 mph) to just 17 hours at 120mph or 14 hours at 150. And yes, I'm aware that Amtrak does not own almost any of their own alignment. In this hypothetical, they would and it's a choice between HSR and Mid-Speed Rail; in either case, the most drastic improvements will always come from Amtrak having their own alignment so they can't get jerked around by the vulture capital freight companies.
These Mid-Speed Rail lines are cheaper and easier to build, equip, and maintain and could still offer a viable (and possibly cheaper) alternative to flying or driving while being a lot more realistic than expecting people to set aside two or three whole ass days of sitting in a coach seat with pretty middling accomodations. All in all, don't take this as a defense of Brightline as much as a defense of Mid-Speeed Rail. I think it's a perfectly reasonable solution for LA to Vegas transit, and I'd much rather see more of it than not. That is, I'd much rather see Mid-Speed Rail networks blanket the US than opposing them so we can continue to fantasize about a nation-wide High Speed Rail network that will probably materialize some time after we figure out fusion power (read: "in twenty to thirty years"). I think it makes a lot more sense to do HSR where it's super obvious to be beneficial (like California, the Gulf Coast, or the proposed Chicago hub network) and just stick with Mid-Speed for everywhere else and longer-distance tracks.
which is why you're going to see a lot of Brightline trains flexing on and pixelating drivers in FL
They're already up to 100. Love when a company gets away with social murder, but I guess the PR is bad enough they're trying to fix the most egregious grade crossings. Fortunately Brightline West is fully grade-separated so it shouldn't be an issue.
But yeah especially if Amtrak or whoever started doing overnight sleeper trains for those upgraded 8-12 hour, 1000-1500 mile trips (even just to 120mph) I think they'd really be able to really put a dent into number of flights between the cities even though it's not 'traditionally' viable.
It's important to note that in the AP analysis "none of the deaths have been found to be Brightline’s fault," citing suicides, drivers going around crossing gates and pedestrians running across tracks.
Just like the other poster, I'm all for dunking on private companies, but calling it "social murder" to have a train line is a big stretch here. I don't take the AP at their word on a lot of things, but I don't even need their input to know that trains are extremely predictable, and easy to be safe around as long as the crossings are in working order. There's no evidence of dangerous crossings or faulty equipment in this article (happy to see it, if you have it).
but calling it "social murder" to have a train line is a big stretch here.
Nah. They explicitly cheaped out on grade separating the line, only doing the absolute bare minimum. They have the highest per mile death rate of all 821 railroads in the country. What is that other than social murder?
I know "play stupid games, win stupid prizes" is chud shit, but Im not very sympathetic to people getting hit by a train in most circumstances. They're easy to be safe around if the crossing guards aren't faulty. If it were a bus I'd feel bad. If a driver gets passengers killed, I feel bad. Trying to run crossing gates and beat a train is idiocy. Suicide is a social problem and has little to do with the train.
I actually used to agree until I started looking at the crossings. FDOT is one of the worst DOTs in the states for safety and the railroad crossings are no exception. Here's an example of one of these railroad crossings.
The new shit starts in Rancho Cucamonga. You have to take low-speed rail to get to the high-speed rail, which then drops you off in another city that shits on you for not driving.
I remember the high speed rail between LA and Sacramento being announced like 15 years ago.
That project is not comparable to this project. This project is in the Mojave desert. No mountains, no farmland/landowners to deal with, no bureaucracy cause nobody gives a flying fuck as long as the company puts up the money to build it.
There is one big problem, but it's going to get built, and probably by '28.
It's also mostly running in the highway median so the ROW is even easier than normal desert running, plus everyone stuck in car traffic will have to seethe as the train goes flying right by them
God, California has to be one of the few US states I genuinely want to see succeed.
Imagine just relaxing by watching diverse climate zones zoom by as you're on a train to get to LA if you live in Sacramento for a fraction of the price you would pay for a plane ticket, and then some time in your trip, you ride of the Surfliner and see beautiful coastline.
This is a decidedly okay thing. Not the best option obviously but considering the state of other high speed rail projects, this is actually a very encouraging step.
So for everyone who thinks it's gonna be a boondoggle, this is just about the easiest build alignment for the potential ridership in the country. The single biggest difference between this and CAHSR is that Brightline doesn't need to dig a single tunnel, unlike the 60+ miles of tunnels required to get to LA and SF which is where the real expense is. They also aren't pushing the speed too hard, only 186mph top speed (CAHSR is 242mph) but they will be using the same signalling tech as CAHSR so they can interline whenever the LA section gets built so they can go to LA Union Station if Metrolink hasn't electrified by then.
It also will provide a very obvious example of just how much better trains are than driving or flying. It will literally zoom past everyone driving on the 15, showing up 20 minutes before is playing it safe--not 2 hours like the airport. And hopefully it will provide enough support to actually fund/finish the LA section of CAHSR since Bakersfield-Anaheim is almost half the total project cost.
As far as I see it CAHSR is at the stage where it's doing the typical thing the US government does when it develops something at great expense (yeah I know its not unique), then it gives it to private businesses for cheap/free. Obviously it's a nonideal situation but it gives (real) High Speed Rail a chance of actually becoming widespread in this shitty country (most of) us live in, barring a literal revolution.
I thought CAHSR's top speed was 220? Unless that's meant to be the average speed. I also thought the average speed of Brightline West was meant to be substantially lower, closer to 150 mph. But you're spot on about the alignment. It also helps that they're barely going through any metros where CAHSR is going through as many as possible on purpose (and that shit gets expensive FAST, it's more expensive per mile than tunnels IIRC). It's also helpful that they're on flat desert for the most part, and I also suspect that Nevada is much less aggressive about ecological impact surveys than CA. ALSO it helps that being in a lower speed category means that they're under less severe FRA regulations.
Gods, I hope you're wrong about CAHSR privatization, though. I might get bona fide fucking radicalized, like crushing Linen's femur to dust and snorting it, if they sold that shit off for beans to a private company that's obviously going to vulture capitalize it or do some other incredibly stupid shit like start sending freight on it.
I thought CAHSR's top speed was 220?
So the top sustained speed for CAHSR will probably stay at 220mph, which it has to do a lot of due to the reduced speeds in SF and LA (I think they're limiting it to 110mph but it could go up to 125mph before having to get reclassed), but the trainsets are mandated to be able to go at least 242mph.
I also thought the average speed of Brightline West was meant to be substantially lower
Brightline West will be quite a bit slower than CAHSR due to the lower top speed (186mph) and much steeper grades (up to 5%) but it will still be faster than the Acela which will top out at 160mph (currently 150mph). CAHSR average speed is pushing 200mph and Brightline West is pushing 150mph.
it's more expensive per mile than tunnels IIRC
Well it depends on exactly where but part of the reason the tunnels are so expensive, aside from being insanely long, is that they have to tolerate the trains going at 220mph in them due to the Prop 1A requirement for LA-SF to be under 2 hours and 40 minutes.
I also suspect that Nevada is much less aggressive about ecological impact surveys than CA.
I don't think they even had to do a full EIR since it's entirely in the median of the 15 except for the end stations. They're supposedly building 3 wildlife crossings at various points on the alignment but we'll see if they actually do.
Gods, I hope you're wrong about CAHSR privatization, though.
I meant more just the technology and know-how of how to build it, not the actual tracks. I doubt they could sell them even if they wanted to but I'm fairly certain the Tier III tracks (220mph) legally forbid freight trains.
