While the author is correct about the problems with CA HSR being primarily political, the opening premise that “without private capital, a CA HSR system cannot be built” because “it's too costly to be built with just state and federal funds” is laughable and disproved by the dozens of HSR lines built all over the world since CA voter approval of the Prop 1A HSR bond $9 billion system starter down payment in 2008 in and by states and countries whose economies are dwarfed by CA’s ($4 trillion) and the US’s ($29 trillion) economies.
The author brings to light many problems with CAHSR I was not familiar with. Obviously its leadership placed its chips on the wrong advisors and the wrong strategy. With 20/20 hindsight the best approach would have been to build Bakersfield - Los Angeles first, which does not have passenger train due to both geography and host railroads’ refusal to let Amtrak run regular service via Tehachapi Pass. A straight route parallel to I-5 would have allowed the new train to show its stuff. With enough riders to generate positive cash flow more investors would have had confidence to invest in future segments, e.g., Bakersfield-San Jose.
There no doubt are many things that could have and probably should have been done differently. But if I had my say, I’m not sure I would have selected the Interstate 5 alignment basically between Saugus (near Valencia) and Tracy with future extension to Sacramento. A reasonable alternative, I feel, could have been an I-5 alignment between Saugus and the small community of Grapevine (located at the base of Tejon Pass on the north side). From there the line could have veered north to Bakersfield along State Route 99 and then once in Bakersfield the line could have swung west following State Route 43 until it turns north and traverses Selma about 20 miles south of Fresno, where the line could have followed Business 99 into Fresno. That way three pergolas (what are referred to as viaducts by some) used to carry the high-speed-rail tracks over the BNSF Railway line would not have been needed.
From Fresno northward, the line could have run northeast aiming for the Sierra foothills and hugging those, the line then would lie west of Friant Dam which is northeast of Fresno, thus eliminating the need to build the fourth and final pergola located just south of the San Joaquin River next to State Route 99, that pergola carrying the high-speed train tracks over those belonging to the UP at that location. Besides, a San Joaquin River crossing just west of Friant Dam would have made so much better sense as there is a roadway bridge there already, and had a parallel HSR bridge been built across the river there, it would have been far less substantial than the existing San Joaquin River viaduct and be far more palatable to build economically speaking. It would, I presume, be comparable to the existing bridge over Cottonwood Creek in southern Madera County.
At any rate, from where the roadway crossing of the San Joaquin River just west of Friant Dam is located, the HSR line could proceed on a northwesterly trajectory skirting the Sierra foothills all the way from there to Tracy where the line could have once again turned west and made a beeline toward the San Francisco Bay Area and emerge near the east Bay Area community of Niles (Fremont) and either proceeded to take a westerly trajectory across the San Francisco Bay coming out on the Peninsula side near Redwood City or been built southwesterly in the direction of either Mountain View or San Jose. If built to Mountain View, the old Dumbarton rail bridge could quite possibly have been revamped to get that job done.
Taking that track would have resulted in much money being saved, disruptions to Valley-based major urban communities like Fresno and Merced avoided and be located close enough to the line to still be conveniently served, and, therefore, would have made so much more sense, practically speaking.
"A reasonable alternative, I feel, could have been an I-5 alignment between Saugus and the small community of Grapevine."
This Easterner didn't know you needed to get off I-5 and take 99 to get to Bakersfield.
I have another question maybe you or somewhere here could answer. Why is CAHSR building these lengthy concrete viaducts to cross rivers when earthen embankments accomplish the same? I am guessing it has something to do with flood plans.
Yeah, Interstate 5 bypasses Bakersfield. It and State Route 99 converge/diverge perhaps 15 miles south of the city proper.
As to your question regarding the lengthy concrete viaducts, generally speaking, I have no answer for you. Regarding the viaduct that spans the Fresno River in Madera County, it’s “lengthy” because it crosses, north-to-south, Raymond Road, the Fresno River, State Route 145 and an irrigation canal. If you do an Internet search of “California high-speed rail,” on the Wikipedia site, accessible are two separate images of the Fresno River where the viaduct crosses — one that shows some of the piers with the concrete forms still in place, the purpose of which is to contain the poured concrete within and the other photo showing the practically completed viaduct.
I was thinking of the Hanford Viaduct: well over a mile to go over two highways and a railroad. No water hazards as far as I can tell. Surely embankments would have worked.
I need to check what the Spanish, Germans, and French do.
While the author is correct about the problems with CA HSR being primarily political, the opening premise that “without private capital, a CA HSR system cannot be built” because “it's too costly to be built with just state and federal funds” is laughable and disproved by the dozens of HSR lines built all over the world since CA voter approval of the Prop 1A HSR bond $9 billion system starter down payment in 2008 in and by states and countries whose economies are dwarfed by CA’s ($4 trillion) and the US’s ($29 trillion) economies.
The author brings to light many problems with CAHSR I was not familiar with. Obviously its leadership placed its chips on the wrong advisors and the wrong strategy. With 20/20 hindsight the best approach would have been to build Bakersfield - Los Angeles first, which does not have passenger train due to both geography and host railroads’ refusal to let Amtrak run regular service via Tehachapi Pass. A straight route parallel to I-5 would have allowed the new train to show its stuff. With enough riders to generate positive cash flow more investors would have had confidence to invest in future segments, e.g., Bakersfield-San Jose.
There no doubt are many things that could have and probably should have been done differently. But if I had my say, I’m not sure I would have selected the Interstate 5 alignment basically between Saugus (near Valencia) and Tracy with future extension to Sacramento. A reasonable alternative, I feel, could have been an I-5 alignment between Saugus and the small community of Grapevine (located at the base of Tejon Pass on the north side). From there the line could have veered north to Bakersfield along State Route 99 and then once in Bakersfield the line could have swung west following State Route 43 until it turns north and traverses Selma about 20 miles south of Fresno, where the line could have followed Business 99 into Fresno. That way three pergolas (what are referred to as viaducts by some) used to carry the high-speed-rail tracks over the BNSF Railway line would not have been needed.
From Fresno northward, the line could have run northeast aiming for the Sierra foothills and hugging those, the line then would lie west of Friant Dam which is northeast of Fresno, thus eliminating the need to build the fourth and final pergola located just south of the San Joaquin River next to State Route 99, that pergola carrying the high-speed train tracks over those belonging to the UP at that location. Besides, a San Joaquin River crossing just west of Friant Dam would have made so much better sense as there is a roadway bridge there already, and had a parallel HSR bridge been built across the river there, it would have been far less substantial than the existing San Joaquin River viaduct and be far more palatable to build economically speaking. It would, I presume, be comparable to the existing bridge over Cottonwood Creek in southern Madera County.
At any rate, from where the roadway crossing of the San Joaquin River just west of Friant Dam is located, the HSR line could proceed on a northwesterly trajectory skirting the Sierra foothills all the way from there to Tracy where the line could have once again turned west and made a beeline toward the San Francisco Bay Area and emerge near the east Bay Area community of Niles (Fremont) and either proceeded to take a westerly trajectory across the San Francisco Bay coming out on the Peninsula side near Redwood City or been built southwesterly in the direction of either Mountain View or San Jose. If built to Mountain View, the old Dumbarton rail bridge could quite possibly have been revamped to get that job done.
Taking that track would have resulted in much money being saved, disruptions to Valley-based major urban communities like Fresno and Merced avoided and be located close enough to the line to still be conveniently served, and, therefore, would have made so much more sense, practically speaking.
"A reasonable alternative, I feel, could have been an I-5 alignment between Saugus and the small community of Grapevine."
This Easterner didn't know you needed to get off I-5 and take 99 to get to Bakersfield.
I have another question maybe you or somewhere here could answer. Why is CAHSR building these lengthy concrete viaducts to cross rivers when earthen embankments accomplish the same? I am guessing it has something to do with flood plans.
Yeah, Interstate 5 bypasses Bakersfield. It and State Route 99 converge/diverge perhaps 15 miles south of the city proper.
As to your question regarding the lengthy concrete viaducts, generally speaking, I have no answer for you. Regarding the viaduct that spans the Fresno River in Madera County, it’s “lengthy” because it crosses, north-to-south, Raymond Road, the Fresno River, State Route 145 and an irrigation canal. If you do an Internet search of “California high-speed rail,” on the Wikipedia site, accessible are two separate images of the Fresno River where the viaduct crosses — one that shows some of the piers with the concrete forms still in place, the purpose of which is to contain the poured concrete within and the other photo showing the practically completed viaduct.
I was thinking of the Hanford Viaduct: well over a mile to go over two highways and a railroad. No water hazards as far as I can tell. Surely embankments would have worked.
I need to check what the Spanish, Germans, and French do.