A SF->Fresno->LA train will be a boondoggle. They should have used the existing right of way on I5, no stops between SJ and LA.

> They should have used the existing right of way on I5, no stops between SJ and LA.

If you build high speed rail, you want ridership. Adding Fresno to the line takes the distance from San Jose to LA from roughly 340 miles to 366, adding roughly[1] 7 minutes to the route for express trains - hardly a dealbreaker. This also allows other trains to stop at Fresno and Bakersfield, adding a population of ~1million to the route, increasing its' viability.

A straight shot down I-5 would save a few minutes but severely limit the economic and social benefits it will have by increasing access to the central valley.

[1] 26 miles/220 miles per hour = 7.1 minutes. Trains that stop will add a few more minutes. Equivalent systems in every country with HSR have a mixture of express trains and local trains in this situation

Nitpick: on a 26 mile stretch with stops at both end, that train will do closer to half its top speed. It has to decelerate and accelerate one more time. I think that will add closer to 15 minutes to the time on the full stretch.

But yes, they need riders, and thus intermediate stops. Most train passengers don’t ride the full track, just as most highway drivers don’t ride the entire highway.

Yes, that is why I explicitly noted the "express train" thing in my footnote. The route itself is longer, so a direct train will take a little bit longer. A local train that stops will add more time.

Bigger nitpick: 220MPH is the top speed. Average speed is going to be more like 130MPH, so more like 12 minutes (before considering the time for any stop).

What is the speed on the central section though? The average is very heavily weighed down by track sharing on the SF end

And it will have to slow down through Fresno even it it express and not stopping

I5 doesn’t go through the Bay Area.

They should have gone down the 101 corridor in the central coast area. The weather is pleasant and I could see people living along route and commuting to SF or LA. Central Valley was a dumb move.

> They should have gone down the 101 corridor in the central coast area.

You can't even put a decent speed freeway, much less high speed rail, on parts of the 101 corridor.

Of all the armchair alternative route planning for HSR I've heard—and there's been a lot—this is the worst.

> The weather is pleasant and I could see people living along route and commuting to SF or LA. Central Valley was a dumb move.

People do live along the planned alignment (which is why it was chosen) and do already commute to the Bay Area as far as that is practical (and a bit more than most people would think reasonable) with existing transportation options (same on the LA end), and both displacing expected growth in freeway trips from that and extending the viable commute radius along that existing route is part of what HSR is aiming to do.

I’m confused doesn’t the 101 corridor go down the coast between Salinas and San Luis Obispo? And doesn’t the existing Coastal Starlight go along it?

I’ve actually taken that train. It takes 12 hours. A lot of that is padding because of the unreliability of the tracks, but also because the route is really tight. I doubt you would be able to improve the tracks there such that 5-6 hours would be possible, let alone the 2 hours through the valley.

I wasn't suggesting reusing same tracks, even building new it's less roundabout than the central valley track route.

From high speed rail point of view, 101 corridor makes even less sense to put any stations there.

Yeah there are a lot of people living on the east side of the Central Valley and few on the central coast.

I wish we had rail, including HSR, everywhere but the real world comes with financial constraints. While a Central Coast trunk alignment would be nice, any reasonable analysis indicates it really should be lower priority than the Central Valley trunk. It's something that would only be built in addition to and after the core system is running through the CV; to add additional capacity, redundancy, and to serve the Central Coast communities.

The Central Valley has millions more people and is projected to add millions more in the decades to come, which matters for ridership and the viability of the system. On speed, the Central Coast is only faster as the crow flies. It may not seem like it, but CV is actually is faster and more direct than the Central Coast on the ground. There's a reason people drive I-5 rather US-101 or CA-1/PCH when doing the NorCal-SoCal trip, unless they're intentionally taking the slower scenic coastal route [0]. There are formidable Coastal Ranges on Central Coast (and much California and Pacific coast of North America) [1][2]. This results in an alignment that is slower and more expensive due to more curves, elevated viaducts, and tunneling. It's also much more vulnerable to erosion, landslides, and flooding. [3][4] CalTrans and local DoTs struggle to keep roads open after winter storms.

[0] https://www.google.com/maps/dir/San+Francisco,+California/Lo...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Coast_Ranges

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Coast_Ranges

[3] https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-sea-level-rise-califo...

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/06/california-h...

The central valley is MUCH more populous than the central coast, plus they're a lot poorer.

It'll be huge for these people to have fast access to SF and LA.

High speed rail doesn't make frequent stops. The whole point is to get between major cities quickly.

But you can use the same track to run high speed rail going the full distance as well as a lower speed train going only half the way (or it could be high speed too just with an extra stop).

Much of the work in the Central Valley incorporates grade separation for the existing freight rail lines. So they have a small win every time they replace an at grade crossing with an overpass.

What you don't want to go to Fresno?