The California HSR reveals pretty much every problem with building anything in the US: private property, local interests and grift.
It also shows that mandating the speed in the amendment was probably a bad idea as it's greatly increased the cost projections.
China has a command economy so simply doesn't have to deal with eminent domain (and challenges thereto), environmental challenges (as much as environmental protection is a nobel goal, laws in California like CEQA have really been weaponized and the sole purpose is to stop any development whatsoever by local property interests), etc.
The route is being changed so include towns of 30,000 in the Central Valley. It's running down the I-5 corridor last I heard because that's where these small towns are vs the faster route to the west.
Just build connecting lines if connections to small communities are important. The primary purpose should be LA to SF&SJ.
If the HSR runs a train from LA to SF before 2050 I'll be shocked.
Brightline West will probably have more success primarily because the private property issues will be largely avoided.
> The project aims to transform transportation in the region with fully electric trains capable of reaching speeds up to 186 miles per hour, enabling the 218-mile trip between Rancho Cucamonga, California and the Las Vegas, Nevada to be completed in approximately two hours. Brightline has secured all key rights-of-way necessary to construct the railroad under long-term agreements, including leases, licenses and easements, with the states of Nevada and California and the federal government for passenger rail access to the existing I-15 corridor.
I don't really have a huge problem with the route. Branch lines to individual towns don't really make sense - you lay even more track, need more trains, complicate operations, and the value proposition for potential customers in those towns drops substantially vs a one seat ride to any destination.
Honestly given the once in a lifetime scale of the project, too, if they run a train from LA to SF by 2050 it even 2060 I'll actually be quite happy. There's no reason it couldn't keep operating for a hundred years after that. I mean I'm skeptical of that happening as well lol I'm just saying, projects like these will serve many generations and will only get more expensive in the future, so i support biting the bullet on doing them now despite our inefficient, backwards way of doing them.
It also shows that mandating the speed in the amendment was probably a bad idea as it's greatly increased the cost projections.
China has a command economy so simply doesn't have to deal with eminent domain (and challenges thereto), environmental challenges (as much as environmental protection is a nobel goal, laws in California like CEQA have really been weaponized and the sole purpose is to stop any development whatsoever by local property interests), etc.
The route is being changed so include towns of 30,000 in the Central Valley. It's running down the I-5 corridor last I heard because that's where these small towns are vs the faster route to the west.
Just build connecting lines if connections to small communities are important. The primary purpose should be LA to SF&SJ.
If the HSR runs a train from LA to SF before 2050 I'll be shocked.