California High Speed ​​Rail

California High Speed ​​Rail Authority
legal form	authority
founding	1996
Seat	Sacramento
management	Jeff Morales (CEO)
Branch	transport
Website	www.hsr.ca.gov

California High Speed ​​Rail
Concept of a train station
Gauge :	1435 mm ( standard gauge )
Legend Sacramento Stockton Modesto 0.0 San Francisco TTC (2029) 22.0 San Francisco Airport 48.4 Redwood City / Palo Alto 75.5 San Jose Diridon (2025) 124.6 Gilroy Merced (2018) ≈265 Chowchilla Gleisdreieck ≈285 Madera (?) ≈325 Fresno (2018) ≈395 Kings-Tulare ( Hanford ) ≈485 Shafter (?) ≈500 Bakersfield (2021) Tehachapi Mountains ≈650 Palmdale (2029) San Gabriel Mountains Burbank (2029) Los Angeles Union Station (2029) Norwalk Anaheim ARTIC Irvine Industry Ontario Airport Riverside Temecula Escondido University City (San Diego) San Diego

California High-Speed ​​Rail is a project by the state of California to build a high-speed line between Sacramento and San Diego , which will also connect the cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles . The implementation of the project was commissioned on November 4, 2008 through a referendum with 9.95 billion US dollars in seed capital. The new lines have been under construction since 2015 and the section from San Jose to Bakersfield is scheduled to go into operation with new high-speed trains in 2025 .

In February 2019, the project was initially reduced to a 275 km long core section, the implementation beyond that is open. The cost of the shortened segment is estimated at $ 12.4 billion.

history

Since the early 1990s, the California government tried to introduce a high-speed line that was to be legitimized by referendum . For fear of a “no” from the voters, the referendum was postponed until November 4, 2008, the day the presidential and House elections also took place. “Proposition 1A”, 10 billion dollars in tax money for the construction of one Guaranteeing high-speed rail was in favor of 52% of voters.

Funding by the federal government

The construction costs are estimated by the CHSRA and Goldman Sachs at 42 billion US dollars. In the first financial framework of 2008 it is stated that 12 to 16 billion US dollars will come from the federal budget of the USA and about 7.5 billion US dollars from private investments, the remaining 10 billion US dollars will come from cities and communities .

On October 2, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger submitted an application for $ 4.7 billion in construction grants to be taken from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act budget. That is more than half of the $ 8 billion allocated to high-speed rail in this program. On October 28, 2010, the White House made a financial commitment of $ 2.35 billion. On October 28, 2010, the amount was topped up by $ 900 million specifically earmarked for the Central Valley route. On December 10, 2010, railroad development grants that had not been called upon by other states (including Wisconsin and Ohio) were added to the CHSR. Overall, the grants from the federal budget would have amounted to 4.3 billion US dollars. However, these commitments were withdrawn when the Republican majority in the US House of Representatives halted all rail subsidies for new construction projects following the successes in the 2010 elections.

At the end of 2013 a court therefore questioned the financing and thus the entire realization of the project in a lawsuit against a landowner. As a result, California developed a new financing concept by mid-2014 that had to do without federal funding. Accordingly, 25% of the revenues from emissions trading are made available for the rail project. That equates to an annual average of 3.5 to 5 billion US dollars. This legally defined source of income enables the consortium to pre-finance construction costs on the financial market.

The US $ 2 billion federal funding restriction is that the state of California will provide the same amount and must be used by September 30, 2017. California secured this in December 2016 through resolutions on emissions trading with over 3.2 billion US dollars. The CaHSR CEO noted that there is sufficient planning to date to draw all federal funds. A total of three billion federal funds are available, including the 600 million US dollars for the Caltrain electrification, which formally does not belong to the California high-speed rail project, but is used by the high-speed trains in mixed traffic.

Legal Risks

Several appeals filed by Kings County and two property owners were dismissed during 2014 . The plaintiffs had criticized that the plans did not meet all the conditions that were made the basis of the procedure in the referendum. The court dismissed the complaints, but made it clear that the conditions of the referendum must be met before loans can be taken out to finance the construction. The California Supreme Court, on the other hand, did not accept plaintiffs' complaints. This means that preparatory work can continue on the basis of previous planning and without loan financing.

Current planning

On 18 February 2016, the design for a new was the business plan presented for Phase 1, named as Draft 2016 Business Plan . This changed the previous plans significantly. Instead of building the first operational route from Merced via Fresno south to Bakersfield , a north route to San Jose is being built instead. The high-speed train will first and foremost connect Silicon Valley to Diridon Station, and the route to Bakersfield will then end at a train station outside the city (near Shafter). The connection to Silicon Valley is more likely to go into operation in 2025; the target date for 2029 remains for the entire phase 1. In the new planning, the costs of the overall system are not only reduced by 10%, but the first operational route into the Central Valley is being built for 20 billion US dollars, which is easier to finance. The new business plan is to be approved by the legislature on May 1, 2016, after it was displayed for comment.

The new “IOS North” could also meet the BART extension from the East Bay to Diridon Station in 2025 , as well as an electrified Caltrain route to the Transbay Transit Center in San Francisco.

The main reasons for the postponement are the costs and risks of tunnel construction in the region, which is likely to cause strong earthquakes . While only the tunnels on the route from San Jose to Merced need to be taken into account in the 2016 planning, a very long tunnel is now being planned for the route from Palmdale to Burbank near Los Angeles instead of largely bypassing the mountains . After postponements, planning approval is not expected before 2020. The actual drilling could then take almost a decade, so that the time 2029 for the opening of the southern route is also at risk.

The new governor Gavin Newsom announced in February 2019 that he would initially want to implement the 190 km section between Merced and Bakersfield by the end of 2022, as the overall project would take too long and cost too much.

High-speed line

The route network is based on the successful high-speed networks such as ICE , TGV and other European railways, in which the routes between the large cities are re-routed in order to reach the maximum speed, while in urban areas they swivel into existing track systems that lead to this Purpose to be expanded. To a large extent, the California high-speed rail trains will run on their own tracks so that they do not have to take into account slower local trains and freight trains during operation; only on the sections San José - San Francisco and Anaheim - Los Angeles do the tracks have to be shared with conventional trains. The first plans specified a speed of up to 250 mph (402 km / h) for the new lines  , the current tender for the high-speed trains calls for at least 220 mph (350 km / h).

The route will connect California's major cities, especially the coastal cities. These are usually too far away from each other to drive by car , but at the same time too close to travel by plane . In this way, the construction of the new network will fill an important economic niche in the state's infrastructure . According to the California High Speed ​​Rail Authority , a trip from San Francisco to Anaheim would take 2:57 hours. In comparison, the current Amtrak “ Coast Starlight ” takes twelve hours from Oakland (San Francisco Bay) to Los Angeles. After the expansion, a drive from Sacramento (northernmost station) to San Diego (southernmost station) should take 3:35 hours.

The cost of the California High-Speed ​​Rail is expected to be around 40 billion US dollars by the year 2030, of which 9.9 billion US dollars have already been made available by the California population in a referendum. Further costs are to be borne by state funds at the federal and state level and private investors. The economic stimulus package under Obama's administration will provide an additional 8 billion US dollars for high-speed trains, a large portion of which will go to the already secured project in California. The established operation of the full high-speed rail line is expected to generate a profit of $ 1 billion per year.

Construction phases

Construction phases of the routes (as of 2012)

The first sections in the period 2013-2017 can fall back on federal funds, so the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides ten billion US dollars for the expansion and modernization of the railroad network. Since other states (due to the negative attitude of Republican governments to the railways) largely do not call on these funds, around 3.6 billion US dollars of it flow into California projects.

The connection through the plain of the Californian long valley is tendered as the first new line . The first phase of construction leads from Merced via a triangular track at Chowchilla to Fresno. In order to secure federal funding, this construction phase will also be opened directly, but not yet with new vehicles. The line will then be extended from Fresno to Bakersfield and then put into operation as a high-speed line.

There is currently no rail link south of Bakersfield via the Tehachapi Mountains , which separate the San Joaquin Valley (in which the Bay Area is located) from the San Fernando Valley (with Los Angeles). The new building over the Tehachapi Pass parallel to State Road 58 is the most expensive section of the entire project and is seen as its centerpiece. After crossing the mountains, the route reaches the plains of the western Mojave Desert . The greater Palmdale / Lancaster area with half a million inhabitants is connected here with its own station in Palmdale.

The Palmdale Plateau is separated from the Los Angeles Coastal Plain by the San Gabriel Mountains . Originally, the route was supposed to follow the valley route of the Antelope Valley above ground , but in more recent plans a tunnel route under the mountains is preferred, which has its first station at Burbank. Union Station in downtown Los Angeles can then be reached directly from Burbank via the trunk line . Corresponding preparatory work for the expansion should also be completed by 2022. A southern extension from Union Station via Norwalk to Anaheim is also being planned.

The northern extension into the San Francisco Bay Area was not originally planned for initial operation, but will be preferred in the revised version from 2016. As part of a preliminary construction work, the San Jose train station is already being prepared for connection to the new line. So far, San Jose is the end point of the Caltrain , which connects San Francisco in a very straight route. The high-speed trains can run in mixed traffic with the local trains on this old building line.

For the route from San Jose to Merced, a route over the northern Altamont Pass was initially discussed, which is already served by suburban trains. However, this was soon rejected and a route over the southern Pacheco Pass was favored. Originally, regional trains to Merced were originally supposed to run here, but the revised version for the initial operation of the high-speed lines will now include this section from 2025.

Overall, there is a distinction between the commissioning of sections with conventional trains as regional express trains and the IOS “Initial Operating Section” high-speed line with electric multiple units that have yet to be procured. Several possible variants were investigated for the IOS high-speed line - first the variant was preferred to travel over the Tehachapi Mountains from 2022, and then to offer a change to the respective regional express, which opens up San Francisco and Los Angeles, at the end points of the IOS line service . With the 2016 business plan, preference is now given to the “Northern IOS”, which connects the megacities of San Jose, Fresno and Bakersfield, thus allowing a better connection between the Central Valley and the internationally important Silicon Valley . This is now targeted for 2025 through delays lasting several years.

The other construction phases are currently not in the planning stage. An extension is planned south of Los Angeles via Riverside to San Diego along the route of the Pacific Surfliner . In the northern area it is extended from Merced via Stockton to Sacramento. Until then, both connections can be reached via old building routes.

The XpressWest (formerly DesertXpress) is not part of the CaHSR plan and is operated independently. In the first plans this was taken to Victorville, from there there is already a connection via a valley route to Los Angeles. In the last revision in 2012, however, a continuation through the desert to Palmdale is planned, creating a transition to both the California High-Speed ​​Rail and the Metrolink suburban line from Los Angeles.

status	Plan section	length		Installation
		km	mi	Planning 2012	Planning 2016
Planned	San Francisco – San Jose	≈ 80	50	2029	2029
Planned	San Jose-Merced	≈ 201	125	2026	2025 (IOS 2025)
Under construction	Merced-Fresno	≈ 96	60	2017 (IOS 2022)	2018 (IOS 2025)
Under construction	Fresno-Bakersfield	≈ 183	114	2021 (IOS 2022)	2021 (IOS 2025)
Planned	Bakersfield-Palmdale	≈ 137	85	2022 (IOS 2022)	2029
Planned	Palmdale-Burbank	≈ 87	49	2022 (IOS 2022)	2029
Planned	Burbank – Los Angeles	≈ 15	9	2028	2029
Planned	Los Angeles – Anaheim	≈ 47	29	2029	2029
Phase 2	Los Angeles – San Diego	≈ 269	167
Phase 2	Merced – Sacramento	≈117	110
study	Altamont Corridor

San Francisco to San Jose

Burlingame Caltrain Station with three tracks

The connection from San Francisco to San Jose to the south is one of the oldest railway lines in the USA, which was first opened in 1851 and is now served by the Caltrain every quarter of an hour . The railway can fall back on a wide corridor in which passing tracks have already been built for various express lines. Due to the increasing capacity utilization, electrification in this area was considered even before the planning of a high-speed line. After the resolution for a high-speed line, this was already targeted for 2015 (as of 2010), but was repeatedly postponed. With the orders from July / August 2016, the first electric multiple units from Stadler will go into operation at the end of 2020.

The main problem in this construction phase lies in the parallel operation of Caltrain and CaHSR. The Caltrain lines are traditionally operated with double-decker trains with low-floor entry on low platforms, while the high-speed lines are to be operated with internationally proven high-floor vehicles. The latter should also be given level access, i.e. at high platforms. Either new vehicles have to be procured for the Caltrain that have both a low-floor and a high-floor entrance, or separate platforms have to be built for the regional trains and high-speed trains.

San Jose to Merced

Pacheco pass

The route to San Jose in the Central Valley (California's long valley) is planned under the construction section San Jose to Merced. In fact, however, the rail line will end at the Chowchilla Gleisdreieck, where trains will either go north to Merced or south to Fresno. The Gleisdreieck is only a few kilometers south of Merced.

The reason for this route is that there is a mountain range east of San Jose. It was only initially considered to bend the high-speed line to the north in order to get over the Altamont Pass into California's long valley. However, since this route is more complex and neighboring cities also spoke out against it, it was discarded. The Altamont Corridor Express , which already runs over the pass, is to be expanded later for higher speeds (to the "Super-ACE") of up to 150 mph.

In the further course of the planning, however, the railway line leads straight south from San Jose to Gilroy, as it is currently operated with a few pairs of Caltrain trains. After Gilroy, the railway line can then lead east over the Pacheco Pass into the Diablo Range , but reaches the long valley there already south of Merced. This route is similar to an existing freight railway. Since the route runs along nature worthy of protection, it was criticized by the influential Sierra Club , but no further alternative routes were ultimately examined.

In accordance with the revised business plan from 2016, this construction phase will be promoted with priority. As soon as this line is ready, the first service of high-speed trains from San Jose via Fresno to Bakersfield can begin. Individual lines can then also lead directly from San Jose to Merced. However, Merced with 80,000 inhabitants is comparatively insignificant compared to the greater Fresno area with almost 1 million inhabitants. Although the direct connection to Silicon Valley was no longer included in the 2016 business plan, the route to Merced is also recommended for the IOS 2025 - Merced should at least be connected with a single-track curve from San Jose to Merced at the Chowchilla triangle (see Merced route to Fresno ).

The change in the business plan changed the priorities of the construction planning. The planning approval should take place in the course of 2017 so that construction can begin at the end of 2017 ^{[out of date]} . There are two options in long stretches: at San Jose station, consideration is being given to building a more powerful version in addition to the conversion of existing platforms, in which the platforms of the high-speed line are built above the existing platforms. To the south of the station, highways have to be bridged, for which there are two variants. At Gilroy station, in addition to expanding the station in the city center (Downtown Gilroy Station), there is the idea of ​​leading the railway line past east and building a new station in the open (East Gilroy Station). The station in the city center is preferred, but is blocked by the Union Pacific railway company, which does not want to give up land at the station and had previously objected to a very close tour along its railway line. In addition to the guided tour along the existing railway line, there is also the option along US Highway 101 a little further east. By combining the two alternatives, a number of options arise that are currently being clarified and should be presented for a decision in winter / spring 2017.

The schedule finally had to be discarded in 2017. Preliminary investigations had shown that the old plan over the Pacheco Pass with five short tunnels passed too close to the San Luis Reservoir reservoir. Instead, a single long tunnel of 22 km (13.7 miles) is now planned. The test drilling for this in the Franciscan complex rock began in June 2017 and will also be carried out in 2018 in order to be able to assess the risks - according to estimates from similar projects, there is a range of 5 billion to 15 billion US dollars. The financial resources available are insufficient for this. It is also important that a tectonic fault with a possible 7.1 magnitude earthquake is being built. After the geological investigations have been completed, a final route can only be determined, for which a plan approval procedure can be applied. Experts point out that the subsequent tender can take up to a year, the construction and installation of a tunnel boring machine another year, and with a phase of at least three years of actual drilling, the schedule for the opening of the route by 2025 is already at risk.

Merced to Fresno

New construction of the railway bridge over the Fresno River - the old BNSF railway bridge can still be seen behind it

The connection from Merced to Fresno was advertised as the first new line of the initial construction phase. The construction of the artificial structures will be carried out by the Tutor Perini / Zachry / Parsons joint venture for just under a billion (20% below the expected costs). When completed by 2017, this section can already go into operation with the first pairs of trains (as part of the San Joaquin Line between Bakersfield and Sacramento). After the award in April, the first groundbreaking was planned for July 2013, but legal appeals were still pending. As far as possible, the construction companies started work on August 20, 2013. The groundbreaking ceremony took place on January 6, 2015 in Fresno.

Package CP1 covers 29 miles from Fresno to Avenue 17 east of Madera. The first new bridges were built in spring 2016. Completion was originally expected for 2018 ^[obsolete] , due to the delays before the first groundbreaking, completion is now expected in 2019.

The further alignment, especially in the area of ​​the Chowchilla Gleisdreieck, is still being worked out. At the end of 2012, 14 variants were tested for the Chowchilla Gleisdreieck, which was restricted to six variants from January 2013, and in March 2013 it was limited to four variants for a more detailed investigation. Of the three variants remaining in 2015, the Chowchilla municipal council prefers the southernmost route (Avenue 21 / Road 13), as the other variants closer to Chowchilla overlap with existing urban plans. In June a new fourth variant was added further east, a decision on the preferred variant is expected in January 2017 ^[obsolete] .

Fresno to Bakersfield

Station in Bakersfield

The line will then be extended from Fresno to Bakersfield and put into operation. The route was confirmed by the railway authority in August 2014 and is parallel to the existing railway line.

In the 2016 business plan, the plans were changed so that the extension of Fresno ends before the city at Shafter . A platform is to be built there that will be in operation for a few years until it can be extended to the south. The construction of a completely new station is then planned in Bakersfield. After initial hearings, it is recommended that the new lines temporarily end further outside the city at Wasco , where it is possible to switch to conventional Amtrak trains, which can then reach Bakersfield city center via old lines.

Bakersfield City Council unanimously opposed this rescheduling, considering the provisional stop a waste of money, and fearing the economic benefits of connecting to the high-speed network in 2029 instead of 2025. A vote in November 2016, which could bring another financing option, is currently being discussed.

The CP2-3 package leads south of Fresno along the BNSF route and then bends east to get a new train station east of Hanford. The "Kings / Tulare Regional Station" will not be served by all trains. After Hanford, the new line again closely follows the old BNSF line. It ends on the border of Kings County and Kern County. The 65-mile CP2-3 package was awarded in December 2014 to the Dragados / Flatiron / Shimmick consortium, which with its bid of US $ 1.23 billion was well below the expected range of US $ 1.5 to 2.0 billion. $ layers. The planning authority subsequently allocated US $ 1.4 billion for this package. The contract with Flatiron-Dragados was signed in June 2015 and construction is expected to start at the end of 2016 ^[obsolete] . Completion is expected in mid-2019.

Package CP4 continues from the end of CP2-3 and ends north of Shafter. The award for the 22-mile route was awarded to California Rail Builders in January 2016 , with their bid of US $ 347.5 million, well below the expected range of US $ 400 to 500 million. Together with payments for the laying of routes by utility companies, the planning authority has provided 444 million euros for the package. However, there was a significant increase in costs in the Fresno metropolitan area, particularly with the relocation, with the expected costs multiplying from 69 to 396 million US dollars.

Terrain view on the Tehachapi Loop

Bakersfield to Palmdale

There is currently no rail link south of Bakersfield via the Tehachapi Mountains , which separate the San Joaquin Valley (in which the Bay Area is located) from the San Fernando Valley (with Los Angeles). (There is only one single-track, very curvy freight railway over the Tehachapi Loop into the Mojave Desert). This new line from Bakersfield via Palmdale to Los Angeles should be built by 2021, the connection from the Bay Area to Los Angeles should go into operation from 2022. In the more recent planning, this is now postponed to the year 2029.

The new building over the Tehachapi Pass parallel to State Road 58 is the most expensive section of the overall project and is seen as the heart of the overall project. The urbanized metropolitan areas on the Bay of San Francisco and California's long valley are currently largely separated by rail from the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Palmdale and further south of San Diego. The only connections in tourist traffic are along a coastal stretch that takes over twelve hours for 660 kilometers. Politically, it was seen that even if the high-speed line project failed, a new rail route over the mountains would still bring a great advantage. The deferral in the more recent planning is therefore viewed critically.

Palmdale to Burbank

Mountain ranges east and west of the Pacoima Dam in the center of the picture

There is already a suburban Metrolink line south of Palmdale via the Antelope Valley Line to Los Angeles. As part of hearings in 2014, an alternative route was suggested so that there are two corridors, both of which lead into the main route from Los Angeles at Hollywood Burbank Airport . The original corridor along State Route 14 (State Route 14 - SR14 Corridor) led in a northerly arc to the current end point of the trunk line from Los Angeles at Sylmar. A new route through the forest areas further east (East Corridor) allows a more direct connection, but will largely run underground for environmental reasons. While the SR14 Corridor follows the old valley route, a tunnel of 15 miles (25 kilometers) under the San Gabriel Mountains is planned in the East Corridor . The direct connection will reduce the regional connection from Palmdale from currently around 90 minutes to around 14 minutes, while in Burbank it is currently possible to change directly to two Metrolink routes (in future also the Pacific Surfliner).

For a possible resolution, the alignments were examined in more detail by the planning authority and submitted in March 2016 in three possible refined versions ( English redefined alternative ). The previous SR14 route no longer follows the valley section in the western part, but receives a tunnel that runs along the west of the Pacoima Reservoir . The EC1 route has the same ending point from a guide east of the Pacoima Reservoir. The EC2 route, on the other hand, goes straight ahead, skipping the valley of the Hansen Dam above ground further east, only to come back to the surface with another tunnel section after Burbank Airport. In all three refined variants there is no longer a connection to Sylmar, but the first station in the Los Angeles Basin is Burbank. In September 2018, the planning authority decided on a further refined SR14 route ("Refined SR14 ??"), as it contains the lowest risks, as also emerged from soil surveys. The plan approval procedure could begin at the end of 2019, and plan approval is expected in 2021 at the latest.

Burbank to Los Angeles

Surfliner in Union Station

Several railroad lines already exist in the Los Angeles Plain and meet at Los Angeles Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. One of the routes leads straight from Sylmar at the foot of the Santa Monica Mountains via Burbank to downtown Los Angeles. Essentially, this route only needs to be electrified. The Burbank train station at the north end, however, only had one smaller station that is being rebuilt as a transfer station.

The station area at Hollywood Burbank Airport was supplemented by a new transit center by July 2014, which in addition to a bus station and taxi stands also integrated a large area for rental cars. In January 2016, the municipal representatives provided financial means to investigate the expansion of the station for the high-speed line and to develop the adjacent area economically. The duration is specified as 18 to 24 months, so that a draft resolution could be available at the end of 2018 ^[outdated] .

Los Angeles to Anaheim

Metrolink in Anaheim Station

Several railroad lines already exist in the Los Angeles Plain and meet at Los Angeles Union Station in downtown Los Angeles. One of the routes leads south of the station in the direction of the coast and connects several important locations there. Essentially, this route only needs to be electrified. In the planning of 2012, this construction section was only planned with a direct connection to the high-speed line from 2029, in contrast to the connection to the city center from 2022. In the more recent planning from 2016, the section is specified as 2029, at the same time as the commissioning to Los Angeles at all , but parts of the project are only marked as optional. The first templates for routing and extensions are expected in December 2017 ^[obsolete] .

In anticipation of this, the community has already built a new station building, the ARCTIC / Anaheim Regional Transportation Intermodal Center . Preparations were made for an expansion of the transfer options, not only to bus and taxi, but also to a tram project under discussion - the Anaheim Rapid Connection route would then also lead to the gates of the Disneyland Resort .

operator

The planning authority has put out planning services that also include the operation of the initial route (IOS). Five consortia were interested in this combined contract until April 2017. Because the early train operator (ETO) to be chosen was not only supposed to provide support in the development and management of the high-speed line, but was also predicted to have good chances of winning the tender for final operation.

• China HSR ETO Consortium: China Railway International, Beijing Railway Administration, China Railway Eryuan Engineering Group, China Railway Corporation
• DB International US: DB International USA, Deutsche Bahn, Alternate Concepts, HDR
• FS First Rail Group: Ferrovie dello Stato Italiane , FirstGroup, Trenitalia, Rete Ferroviaria Italiana, Centostazioni, Italferr, McKinsey & Company
• Renfe: Renfe Operadora , Globalvia Inversiones, Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias, Amtrak
• Stagecoach Group: Stagecoach Group , with the US remote bus subsidiary Coach USA ( Megabus brand )

The first four consortia named finally submitted a binding offer; Stagecoach decided against it. In October 2017, the decision for the DB consortium was announced. The intended award was delayed due to an award complaint from the second-placed Renfe consortium, but was then awarded on November 15 in favor of DB.

vehicles

Using earlier plans in the USA (e.g. for the Houston-Dallas area), the new lines should be designed for speeds of up to 250  mph (402 km / h). This corresponds to the maximum value currently permitted by the railway authority for rail-bound vehicles. The minimum speed for classification as a high-speed train is historically different in the USA, in California the range from 125 mph (about 200 km / h) is used (in approximation to European regulations), while the Federal Railroad Administration already from 110 mph (180 km / h) counts the trains as "regional" high-speed traffic, and sets a second category as "express" high-speed traffic from 150 mph (approx. 240 km / h).

A section of the route in the Central Valley will be just enough to reach 250 mph (Bakersfield to Merced), for the later tendering of the high-speed trains at least 220 mph (350 km / h) were required. Amtrak wanted to take part in the tender because this speed is planned for the next-gen program for new lines in the northeast corridor. This cooperation was abandoned by the CaHSR, however, because the technical requirements diverge too far and, for reasons of cost, they want to fall back on internationally common designs for California. Among other things, there is a uniform platform height of 1219 millimeters (48 inches) in the northeast corridor with train floor heights of up to 1295 millimeters (42 to 51 inches), but the platform height of the important Caltrain is only 200 millimeters (8 inches) with the first step at 460 Millimeters (18 inches) on the trains used, which is closer to the European designs with 550 millimeters. In addition, Amtrak's next-gen program has not yet been specifically planned, and a maximum of 257 km / h (160 mph) for the north-east corridor is targeted in the closer next-up program.

The catalog of requirements from 2014 onwards specifies a minimum operating speed of 220 mph (350 km / h) for the new vehicles and the providers must show that they are based on a generation of vehicles that have been operating at speeds above 186 mph (300 km / h) for at least five years. h) are in use. The trains must have a capacity of at least 450 seats over a length of 672 feet (205 meters). Due to the Buy America program , the vehicles must be manufactured in the USA, but the Federal Railroad Administration has granted an exception for two prototypes to be delivered, so that manufacturers can subsequently build the systems. The first delivery lot for the route in the Central Valley comprises 15 to 20 trains, which will go into operation in 2018, the framework agreement for the final expansion is to include up to 95 trains with a time horizon until 2028.

The planning authority is currently holding consultations with the providers and intends to propose a decision for a manufacturer in spring 2015. A total of nine suppliers send their designs into the race for the order. In addition to the ICE-3 / Velaro from Siemens, which are already available in several versions (Siemens also already has a production line for trams in California), Kawasaki can also fall back on several Shinkansen models with speeds of 320 km / h (and especially wants their latest Generation efSET).

The Chinese manufacturers CNR ( CRH 380A ) based on Kawasaki technology and CSR ( CRH 380BL ) based on Siemens technology could be cheaper than these, but would have to start US production from scratch. The Canadian manufacturer Bombardier, on the other hand, is well established in the USA and, in addition to its own model ( Zefiro 380 ), also has existing partnerships. The Italian partner AnsaldoBreda offers the Frecciarossa 1000 (alias Zefiro V300), and the Spanish partner Talgo the Talgo 350 / Talgo AVRIL .

Added to this are Alstom, based on decades of experience with the TGV models the new Alstom AGV offer, and Hyundai Rotem, which based on the TGV-based proven KTX (albeit with only 205 mph) is currently a new generation as HEMU-430X develop (with then 267 mph).

In the first technical assessments of 2009, the planning authority favored the Alstom AGV and Siemens Velaro models. It is preferred not to use double-decker trains and rather to use low construction heights in order to avoid crosswind problems at high speeds. In accordance with the requirement for a step-free design, the plans from 2015 basically assume a floor height of 1270 millimeters (50 inches) with matching platforms for level access. For the Caltrain, which has so far only worked with 635 millimeters (25 inches), models with doors at two different heights are planned.

The importance of the Buy America program for the choice of provider was shown, among other things, by the fact that the main reason given was that the Chinese providers dropped out of the XpressWest project. Siemens, on the other hand, already operates a plant with 800 employees in Sacramento (mainly for light rail vehicles).

In November 2016, the Federal Railroad Administration submitted a draft resolution according to which crash safety in rail vehicle construction according to European standards (see EN 15227 ) should be treated as sufficient for the US market. This is actually intended to make the procurement of passenger trains easier in general, but will also make it easier for European high-speed train providers to adapt the models for the California high-speed project.

Travel times

When the “Proposition 1A” was presented to the referendum, the introduction already mentioned a design speed of 220 mph (350 km / h) in 2704.21 (f) (1) for the system. Based on this, a number of minimum specifications for trains and travel times were set up and resolved in 2704.09. These must not be undercut by the planners:

• 2704.09 (a): the electric trains must have an operating speed of at least 200 mph (320 km / h).
• 2704.09 (b): Non-stop trains must have a maximum travel time between the following cities:
  • 2704.09 (b) (1): San Francisco to Los Angeles Union Station: two hours 40 minutes.
  • 2704.09 (b) (2): Oakland to Los Angeles Union Station: two hours 40 minutes.
  • 2704.09 (b) (3): San Francisco to San Jose: 30 minutes.
  • 2704.09 (b) (4): San Jose to Los Angeles: two hours 10 minutes.
  • 2704.09 (b) (5): San Diego to Los Angeles: one hour 20 minutes.
  • 2704.09 (b) (6): Inland Empire to Los Angeles: 30 minutes.
  • 2704.09 (b) (7): Sacramento to Los Angeles: two hours 20 minutes.
• 2704.09 (c): The achievable train interval should be five minutes or less
• 2704.09 (d): The maximum number of stations in corridor 2704.04 (b) should be less than 24, there is no station between Gilroy and Merced.
• 2704.09 (e): Trains should be able to bypass or pass intermediate stations at operating speed.
• 2704.09 (f): For the train connections in 2704.09 (b), non-changing journeys must be available.

Assuming the 82 km route from San Francisco to San Jose, trains have to travel at least 102 mph (164 km / h) to be able to travel within 30 minutes. The Caltrain is currently driving this route at 79 mph (127 km / h) and after electrification from 2020 onwards, up to 110 mph (177 km / h) should be possible in the corridor. There are currently no non-stop trains on this section of the route and two possible stops are also planned for the CaHSR.

The time of two hours 40 minutes from San Francisco to Los Angeles (point 1) results from adding the 30 minutes just mentioned (point 3) and the two hours 10 minutes (point 4) from San Jose to Los Angeles. For a route length between 670 and 700 kilometers, this requires an average speed of 200 mph (320 km / h). Since driving more slowly in the vicinity of urban regions, the routes in between must be regularly planned for 220 mph (350 km / h).

At the time of the decision in 2008, this was not yet common, with a design speed of 350 km / h only two routes were designed, the Beijing – Tianjin high-speed route was planned for operation at 300 km / h from 2008, and LGV Est européenne will only be Regularly served at 320 km / h since 2016. The Californian high-speed train has to take advantage of the state of the art in order to meet the conditions of the referendum. High-speed trains were not yet operated at 350 km / h in 2008, the Velaro CN was just being accepted and the TGV POS was approved for 330 km / h in 2007 (the respective series for the routes mentioned).

Proponents of the project

Computer graphics

Costly projects are generally not endorsed by the California population. Both the Republican governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger , as well as the vast majority of Democrats (including MP Fiona Ma ) and a significant proportion of the Republican MPs in the California Capitol, as well as well-known politicians in California and other states, support the project. The broad support for California High-Speed ​​Rail is based on several reasons.

Politician

Politicians advocate the cost savings of an 800-mile high-speed line compared to building or expanding airports or highways . As an example, expanding Interstate Highway 5 in the Central Valley to four lanes in each direction would cost between $ 20 billion and $ 25 billion. By 2030, California's population will have grown to 52 million. The costs of maintaining or rebuilding the highways would be beyond the government's budget, resulting in additional traffic jams.

Interest Groups

On the other hand, interest groups such as the famous Sierra Club are in favor of the high-speed line, as it is the only environmentally friendly alternative to passenger planes and the highways. A bullet train would not only save carbon dioxide emissions , it would also reduce air pollution .

economy

From an economic perspective, California should also benefit. It is estimated that the construction of a largely completely new infrastructure will create more than 160,000 jobs that will deal with planning, project planning and construction alone. Another estimated 450,000 long-term jobs are to be created by maintaining the route or indirectly through shops and hotels in the new main stations.

population

From the point of view of the population, the new high-speed line offers an alternative to the car, which is becoming more and more attractive, especially with the rising gasoline prices. Since the train, according to the California High Speed ​​Rail Authority, is expected to carry 92 million passengers a year, it also relieves the roads and thus commuters who would otherwise spend more time in traffic jams. Traffic jams are already costing Californians $ 20 billion a year due to lost time and wasted gasoline.

Finally, it is hoped that the expansion of public transport will also result in less dependency on energy from the OPEC countries.

Opponent of the project

However, there are also voices against California High-Speed ​​Rail from both conservative politicians and environmentalists.

environmentalist

So the Planning and Conservation League Foundation is opposing the planned route. She fears that the route will run through untouched wilderness and thus disturb flora and especially fauna. As an alternative, it suggests a route that in terms of the route bundling runs along existing highways and existing rail lines to see forests and farmland.

Think tanks

Think tanks like the Libertarian Reason Foundation believe that predictions for the number of drivers and the cost of construction are incorrect. The think tank has calculated that the entire line will cost between $ 65 billion and $ 81 billion to build, compared to the $ 40 billion forecast by the California High Speed ​​Rail Authority. In addition, the number of travelers per year is estimated to be between 23 and 31 million, which would mean a loss of 4.17 billion dollars per year compared to 92 million.

technology

As a train control system between Los Angeles and San Jose ETCS is being considered. This would be the only variant of a positive train control system on this basis, while otherwise the 220 MHz PTC radio may be linked to ACSES balises. A separate variant of a PTC system was developed for the Caltrain Corridor: the Communications Based Overlay Signal System (CBOSS). The interoperability of CBOSS PTC with CaHSR trains was not included in the requirements, but the suitability of using the ten PTC radio base stations installed in the Caltrain Corridor for high-speed traffic was taken into account.

Web links

Commons : California High-Speed ​​Rail  - Collection of Pictures, Videos, and Audio Files

• California High Speed ​​Rail Authority. Latest developments. State of California, accessed March 28, 2017 . 

Individual evidence

1. ↑ Senators Kopp and Costa: Chapter 796. (preformatted text) Bill Number: SB 1420. In: California Legislative Information. California State Legislature, September 24, 1996, accessed March 28, 2017 . 
2. ↑ Jeff Morales. (PDF; 227 KiB) Chief Executive Officer. California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, archived from the original on March 10, 2016 ; accessed on March 28, 2017 (English, short biography). 
3. ↑ ^{a b} High speed rail plan scaled back . In: Railway Gazette International . tape 175 , no. 3 , 2019, ISSN  0373-5346 , p. 8 .
4. ↑ Trump administration cancels $ 929-million grant for California bullet train (en) . In: Los Angeles Times , May 16, 2019. Retrieved May 17, 2019. "The rail authority's most recent business report projected that costs for current construction in the Central Valley has jumped an additional $ 1.8 billion to $ 12.4 billion, a segment for which originally cost $ 6 billion " 
5. ↑ https://abc7.com/politics/high-speed-rail-project-costs-could-increase-by-$18-billion/5280622/
6. ^ High-Speed ​​Rail in California. (No longer available online.) Institute of Governmental Studies University of California, archived from the original on June 12, 2010 ; accessed on November 21, 2015 (English). 
7. ↑ Voters indicate they want high-speed rail system. 52% approval for $ 10 billion bond. (No longer available online.) San Diego Union-Tribune, Nov 6, 2008, formerly original ; accessed on November 21, 2015 (English): "The plan still could be derailed, however." 
8. ^ Financial Plan. (PDF; 124 KiB) for the California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority - San Francisco to Anaheim Segment. (No longer available online.) Infrastructure Management Group, Oct. 27, 2008, archived from the original on Nov. 15, 2012 ; Retrieved October 27, 2008 . 
9. ^ It's Time for California to Fund High-Speed ​​Rail Itself. citylabs, December 11, 2013, accessed December 11, 2013 . 
10. ^ California High-Speed ​​Rail Finally Finds the Funding It Needs. citylabs, June 18, 2014, accessed June 18, 2014 . 
11. ↑ ^{a b} Taking a bite of the bonds: Rail agency will seek $ 2.6 billion from Prop. 1A for Valley construction. Fresno Bee, December 10, 2016, accessed December 10, 2016 . 
12. ↑ ^{a b} Board approves high-speed rail funding as new lawsuit filed. The Merced Sun Star, December 13, 2016; Archived from the original on December 14, 2016 ; accessed on December 13, 2016 . 
13. ^ California high court clears way for more bullet train work. LA Times, October 16, 2014, accessed October 16, 2014 . 
14. ↑ ^{a b} Connecting and Transforming California - Draft 2016 Business Plan. (PDF) California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, February 18, 2016, accessed February 18, 2016 . 
15. ↑ ^{a b} Ralph Vartabedian: A 13.5-mile tunnel will make or break California's bullet train . In: LA Times . October 21, 2017.
16. ↑ Safety. In: News & Facts. California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, archived from the original on February 16, 2011 ; accessed on June 11, 2011 . 
17. ↑ Amtrak travel time and ticket cost
18. ↑ Interactive Map. (No longer available online.) In: Routes. California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, archived from the original on May 18, 2011 ; accessed on June 11, 2011 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.  
19. ^ Obama: High-Speed ​​Rail System Needed. (No longer available online.) Huffington Post, April 16, 2009, archived from the original on October 25, 2014 ; Retrieved April 16, 2009 . 
20. ↑ Caltrain signs double-deck EMU and electrification contracts. Railway Gazette, August 16, 2016, accessed August 16, 2016 . 
21. ↑ ^{a b} Draft 2016 Business Plan - Staff Recommended Edits in Response to Public Comments. (PDF) California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, April 21, 2016, accessed April 21, 2016 . 
22. ^ California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority Announces Bid Results on Central Valley Construction Project. (PDF; 458 KiB) April 12, 2013, accessed July 1, 2013 . 
23. ↑ Tutor Perini Joint Venture Executes Contract for California High-Speed Rail Project. (No longer available online.) In: The Wall Street Journal. August 20, 2013, formerly in the original ; Retrieved August 20, 2013 .  ( Page no longer available , search in web archives )  
24. ^ High-Speed ​​Rail Authority Hosts Official Groundbreaking Ceremony. (PDF) California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, January 6, 2015, accessed January 6, 2015 . 
25. ↑ About Construction Package 1. California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, accessed March 27, 2017 . 
26. ↑ ^{a b c} High-speed rail board awards third San Joaquin Valley construction contract. Fresno Bee, January 12, 2016, accessed January 12, 2016 . 
27. ^ Central Valley Wye Status and Next Steps. (PDF) California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, April 3, 2013, accessed April 3, 2013 . 
28. ↑ Chowchilla sounds off on high-speed train route. The Fresno Bee, October 14, 2015, accessed October 14, 2015 . 
29. ↑ Merced to Fresno Section: Central Valley Wye Community Meeting. (PDF) California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, December 8, 2016, accessed December 8, 2016 . 
30. ^ Central Valley bullet train construction gets federal go-ahead. Los Angeles Times, August 12, 2014, accessed March 27, 2017 . 
31. ↑ ^{a b} Calling bullet train a sham, fraud, City Council goes on record against interim station near Shafter. The Bakersfield Californian, March 30, 2016, archived from the original on June 5, 2016 ; accessed on March 30, 2016 . 
32. ↑ About Construction Package 2-3. California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, accessed March 27, 2017 . 
33. ↑ High-speed rail board awards $ 1.4b contract for construction south of Fresno. Fresno Bee, January 13, 2015, accessed January 13, 2015 . 
34. ^ High-Speed ​​Rail Authority Announces Bid Results on Next Segment of Construction in the Central Valley. (PDF) Dragados USA, December 11, 2014, accessed December 11, 2014 . 
35. ↑ Flatiron-Dragados JV wins $ 1.23bn California high-speed rail contract. Railway Technoloigy, June 23, 2015, accessed June 23, 2015 . 
36. ^ About Construction Package 4th California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, accessed March 27, 2017 . 
37. ↑ California Rail Builders selected for HSR Construction Package 4. Railway Pro, January 6, 2016, accessed January 6, 2016 . 
38. ↑ NEWS. California Rail Builders. Retrieved March 27, 2017 . 
39. ↑ Ralph Vartabedian: High-speed rail project vastly underestimated cost of relocating utility lines beneath Fresno . Los Angeles Times. April 18, 2018.
40. ↑ Palmdale to Burbank Route Concepts. (PDF; 4.05 MiB) California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, accessed on March 27, 2017 (English). 
41. ^ Burbank-Palmdale segment added to the bullet train timetable. Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2014, accessed March 27, 2017 . 
42. ^ Palmdale to Burbank Project Section. (PDF; 541 KiB) California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, accessed on March 27, 2017 . 
43. ^ Mark Madler: High-Speed ​​Rail Authority Proposes Palmdale-Burbank Tunnel . San Fernando Valley Business Journal. 20th September 2018.
44. ↑ Michelle Boehm. (September 19, 2018). Palmdale to Burbank Project Section Webinar . California High Speed ​​Rail Authority.
45. ↑ Here's the Brand New Transit Center at Bob Hope Airport. Los Angeles Curbed, June 30, 2014, accessed June 30, 2014 . 
46. ^ Funding set for Burbank high-speed rail station planning. LA Times, January 17, 2016, accessed January 17, 2016 . 
47. ^ Report on the Los Angeles to Anaheim Supplemental Alternatives Analysis. (PDF) Calornia HSR, April 12, 2016, accessed April 12, 2016 . 
48. ↑ Operators from five countries interested in California high speed rail contract Railway Gazette International April 6, 2017
49. ↑ International consortia bid to become California high speed rail early operator Global Rail News April 6, 2017
50. ↑ NaNa-Brief, tough competition from DB and Renfe / Amtrak , edition 45/17 of November 7, 2017
51. ↑ NaNa-Brief, tough competition from DB and Renfe / Amtrak , edition 45/17 of November 7, 2017
52. ^ DB consortium selected for California high speed rail consultancy contract Railway Gazette International October 9, 2017
53. ↑ NaNa-Brief, Ed. 47 + 48/17
54. ^ High-Speed ​​Rail Strategic Plan. (PDF) Federal Railroad Administration, April 2009, p. 10 , accessed April 16, 2009 . 
55. ↑ Amtrak and the California High Speed ​​Rail Authority are joining forces this coming week to begin the process of ordering up to 62 sets of high-speed trains for use in both the Northeast Corridor and in the Golden State. UIC press release, January 22, 2013, archived from the original on November 13, 2013 ; Retrieved October 15, 2013 . 
56. ↑ ^{a b c} In California's high-speed train efforts, worldwide manufacturers jockey for position. The Fresno Bee, December 27, 2014, accessed February 18, 2015 . 
57. ↑ CHSRA and PCJPB Boarding Heights Presentation. (PDF) Transbay Transit Center, October 9, 2014, accessed February 18, 2015 . 
58. ↑ HSR 14-30: Request for Expressions of Interest for Tier III Trainsets. (PDF) California High-Speed ​​Rail Authority, February 9, 2015, accessed February 9, 2015 . 
59. ↑ Trainset Configuration Analysis and Recommendation. (PDF) California High-Speed ​​Train Project, September 23, 2009, accessed September 23, 2009 . 
60. ↑ CalMod Program EMU Procurement Update. (PDF) Caltrain, May 7, 2015, accessed May 7, 2015 . 
61. ↑ Xpress West, seeking to build US high-speed rail, ends deal with China group. Reuters, June 9, 2016, accessed June 9, 2016 . 
62. ↑ Siemens has an established presence in Northern California. (PDF) Siemens USA, September 2014, accessed September 2014 . 
63. ↑ Resolution AB 3034 on the submission of a Proposition 1A. 2008, accessed in 2008 . 
64. ↑ High Speed ​​Rail Initiative. Archived from the original ; accessed on March 17, 2017 (English, Fiona Mas website to support the project). 
65. ^ Money train: The cost of high-speed rail. CNN Money, July 2, 2009; accessed March 27, 2017 . 
66. ↑ California's population is projected to reach almost 60 million people by 2050. California Green Solutions, accessed March 27, 2017 . 
67. ↑ Stop Sprawl High Speed ​​Rail. Sierra Club, accessed March 27, 2017 . 
68. ↑ ^{a b c} High-Speed ​​Rail - Prop 1A Passes! (No longer available online.) California Student Public Interest Group, archived from the original on November 5, 2011 ; accessed on November 5, 2011 . 
69. ↑ High Speed ​​Rail. Planning and Conservation League, archived from the original on July 31, 2011 ; accessed on June 11, 2011 . 
70. ↑ Chris Mitchell: Study: California's High-Speed ​​Rail System Will Cost Tens of Billions More Than Estimated, Adding to State Deficit. Reason Foundation, September 18, 2008, accessed June 11, 2011 . 
71. ↑ Positive Train Control - Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts. Federal Railroad Administration, August 2012, p. 5 , accessed August 2012 . 
72. ↑ Advanced Signal System Project - CBOSS PTC. ed, June 13, 2014, accessed March 27, 2017 .