This is an interlude in a series on passenger rail in the U.S. Part One can be found here and Part Two here.
In the last post, we looked at two high speed rail systems that took advantage of their relatively late starts to learn as much as possible—not to mention borrow directly—from successful systems already in existence, strategically limiting the number of innovations and hurdles needed to succeed.
Today these systems—China and Spain—are the number one and two HSR networks in the world by track mileage.
Today, we’re looking a little closer to home at a system that is in no danger of surpassing these two anytime soon. California High Speed Rail is the ambitious project designed to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles via high-speed rail.
The 380-mile trip will take riders through the Central Valley. Voters first approved the project in 2008—it is now scheduled to be completed around 2030. The project has been plagued by delays and cost overruns.
But most troublingly, the system was not designed with learnings from abroad in mind. It is the first modern, truly high-speed rail project to be built in the United States and the system opted to start by connecting SF and LA through the Central Valley—through some of the most challenging terrain in the country (mountains with lots of seismic activity)—setting up a perfectly foreseeable litany of setbacks related to topography, politics, and land acquisition.
Following the playbooks of successful international systems would have led planners to have first focused on less ambitious—but still well-traveled—corridors within California in order to gain political buy-in and knowledge before attempting the much more ambitious link between LA and SF. The political buy-in piece has huge implications for continued taxpayer funding for rail in the country. A poll of California voters in June 2021 showed 42% support for halting the project all together, due to the project’s endless delays and cost overruns.
Remember: these are CA voters. Not exactly natural rail opponents.
It didn’t have to be this way, though. If California rail planners had looked to the example of China, which opened its first line between Beijing and Tianjin—a whopping 72 mile trip—connecting two large population centers in relatively close proximity, they might have recognized the wisdom of perhaps connecting Los Angeles to Anaheim (27 miles) or Los Angeles and San Diego (120 miles).
These corridors have a huge need for high speed rail, without any rail link and being too close for traditional air travel to make a lot of sense. The ridership would likely have been huge, demonstrating high demand and galvanizing political will for more rail in the future.
Tomorrow, we look at more ways the CHSR could have benefitted from international learning.
This is a freeform daily newsletter about the transportation industry: Planes, Trains, and Automobiles. I take shallow dives into topics that I think are interesting, including write ups of startups in the space, historical explorations, market analyses, company and personal profiles, interviews with industry players, and occasional personal essays.
Thanks for reading—and please let me know if you have any feedback or if there is anything you would like to see me cover.
Ride well,
DS