Gavin Newsom will take a segment-based approach to high-speed rail construction. To succeed, these segments must be effectively integrated into California’s existing intercity transit system.

California's under-construction high-speed rail line parallels existing conventional lines in the Central Valley. (Photo courtesy of the Sacramento Bee)

Gavin Newsom, then the Lieutenant Governor of California, announced in early 2014 that he opposed the state’s high speed rail project. At the time, criticizing the rail line was a trendy thing for state politicians to do because a group of opponents from Kings County, led by agricultural kingpin John Tos, had just scored a big win in court that seemed to put the project’s future in doubt.

But since then, large-scale construction has begun. Tos and Company have racked up a lengthy legal losing streak, their beginners’ luck long gone. Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow Elaine Chao even capitulated, releasing federal funds for the ongoing electrification of Caltrain that will allow high-speed trains to serve San Francisco.

A native of San Francisco – part of a metro area home to countless trendy transportation companies including Uber, Lyft, Tesla, Lime, and Skip – Newsom knew to go with the flow, flip-flopping to establish himself as a supporter of the project during his successful gubernatorial campaign last year.

Newsom used this week’s State of the State address to establish himself as the project’s new leader. But his plan to take a more segmented approach than his predecessors – focusing on completing the under-construction Central Valley section between Merced and Bakersfield while holding off on extensions to San Francisco and Los Angeles until sufficient funding is obtained (though environmental reviews for those sections will continue) – did not come across articulately. His prior opposition to the rail line didn’t help clarify his message.

To set things straight, the Newsom administration should develop a plan to ensure that, upon its opening, the initial high-speed rail segment is effectively integrated with California’s existing statewide train system.

Other countries have built high-speed rail systems in segments, but have maximized those segments’ utility through effective integration with pre-existing conventional rail systems

A TGV train on France's LGV Rhin-Rhone, near Belford-Montbeliard. Trains that traverse this line typically continue onto conventional lines to reach their destinations. (Photo courtesy of Departement du Territoire de Belfort)

Until this week, the state’s plan had been to first build out and operate high-speed trains on the San Francisco-Bakersfield section of the line. Later extensions would then complete the core Phase 1 route to Los Angeles and, eventually, Phase 2 branches to Sacramento and San Diego.

In some respects, Newsom’s decision to truncate the northern end of the initial operating segment to Merced brings California’s high-speed rail construction more into line with buildouts of comparable routes overseas. 

For example, France’s 87-mile LGV Rhin-Rhone between Lyon and Strasbourg, which trains traverse at around 200 mph, has only two stations, which serve mid-size cities that resemble those on California’s Central Valley segment: Besancon (metro area population: 250,000) and Belfort-Montbeliard (combined population: 300,000). Also, Eurostar trains used conventional tracks in Britain for the first thirteen years of their existence and still must reduce their speed through the Channel Tunnel, which is shared with slower auto and freight trains.   

Lines like these have been built out in a manner that effectively integrated their earliest segments into the larger rail network. Pre-existing electrification of the conventional passenger rail lines those segments connect to has given them a boost, as trains can seamlessly switch between regular- and high-speed tracks to provide through service. For example, I took a TGV train from Lyon to Frankfurt and back last year that used the entire LGV Rhin-Rhone, a portion of the 190 mph LGV Sud-Est (which connects Paris and Lyon), and conventional tracks in France. Then, once in Germany, the train reached upgraded tracks and sped back up to over 150 mph to complete its trip.

As new high-speed segments open, travel times steadily shorten, though it’s still possible for some trains to deviate via conventional lines, serving communities that lack direct high-speed connections or allowing for track maintenance.

To eliminate uncertainty, Newsom’s administration should unveil a step-by-step plan to integrate high-speed segments into the state’s existing rail network

Hanford, CA's Amtrak station, as seen from a San Joaquins train. (Photo courtesy of Seat 38A)

Newsom framed his approach to the under-construction high speed rail segment as an economic development project for the Central Valley. And it’s true that connectivity to long-neglected locales like Fresno, Hanford, and Bakersfield is one of the project’s strongest upsides.

But the governor failed to elaborate on the initial operating segment’s greater role in Californian mobility. As a result, CityLab writer Laura Bliss saw disheartening similarities between the Merced-Bakersfield line and the short-line, mixed-traffic urban streetcars that, while intended to stimulate economic development, provide a transportation product of questionable quality. And transit opponents, who have long tried to convince people that the high-speed rail project is a “train to nowhere” that will never extend beyond the Central Valley, celebrated what they hoped was the truncation that would imprison intrastate travelers on I-5 forever. 

Fortunately, Newsom has one of America’s strongest intercity rail networks to work with as he moves forward with his plan. California’s three main Amtrak corridors all rank among the national system’s seven most heavily ridden routes. One of these lines, the Oakland/Sacramento-Bakersfield San Joaquins, serves many of the same communities the high-speed route will. In addition, the once-a-day Coast Starlight train – still the only one-seat rail option between the Bay Area and Los Angeles – draws more riders than any other long-distance line in the country.

To integrate the initial high-speed line into this extensive system, the state must overcome substantial challenges that the above-mentioned overseas routes did not face. Specifically, none of California’s existing intercity rail system is electrified, and no passenger trains operate between Bakersfield and LA.

Connecting to Northern California

A diesel engine pulls a TGV train on a non-electrified section of tracks in France in 2003. (Photo courtesy of Au fil des rails)

Unless the rail lines that connect Merced to the Bay Area and Sacramento are electrified soon – an unlikely prospect – the state will have to find a way to integrate high-speed trains with those lines’ existing diesel-powered passenger service.

Currently, only San Joaquins trains stop in Merced, but planned Altamont Corridor Express (ACE) extensions will bring additional service to the city in the near future. There are three main ways the initial high-speed segment can enhance these routes and bring meaningful improvements to riders:

• Timed transfers between conventional and high-speed trains: Passengers would have to change trains in Merced, but scheduled layover times would be minimal. This would allow the two distinct types of rail service to operate using separate technologies and specifications that best fit their purposes. It also could facilitate shorter headways, because the San Joaquins could dedicate a larger share of its equipment to the northern portion of its route. However, the conventional trains would still be subject to the same restricted speeds and freight congestion that San Joaquins and ACE trains face today, making it challenging to maintain reliable timed transfers to high-speed trains and potentially suppressing ridership.
• Through trains that switch between diesel and electric power: Passengers would enjoy a one-seat ride, and their train would swap locomotives at Merced. Numerous rail routes around the world, including Amtrak trains traveling from the Northeast to Virginia and points south, operate in this manner. However, time spent stopped during the swap could be lengthy – Amtrak’s scheduled dwell times for its locomotive swaps in Washington, DC range from 20 to 50 minutes, for example, and power to the passenger cars (including air conditioning) turns off during the procedure.  Other countries have found ways to resolve this issue, such as simply tacking a diesel locomotive onto the front of the electric one rather than swapping the two engines.
• Diesel operation on the full line: Passengers would enjoy a one-seat ride on conventional diesel equipment traversing the full Northern California-Bakersfield route. On the high-speed segment, it’s not likely that such trains would be able to reach maximum track speed, but they would still travel much faster than the 79 mph speed limit of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe tracks they traverse today. Caltrans recently ordered new diesel-powered trainsets for the state’s Amtrak routes (scheduled to begin service in 2020) that are capable of 125 mph, matching the top speed of the East Coast’s Northeast Regional (the U.S.'s most heavily used intercity train). However, even though 220 mph electric trains would ply the line following further extensions, the initially reduced operating speeds would cause opponents to complain of a “bait-and-switch” and put California at risk of missing out on its fleeting opportunity to be the first U.S. state with true high-speed rail service.

Connecting to Southern California

Today, Central Valley rail passengers continuing on to Southern California destinations must transfer to buses in Bakersfield. (Photo courtesy of The SubwayNut)

Providing effective connectivity between the initial segment’s Bakersfield terminus and LA will prove more challenging than in Northern California. As mentioned earlier, no regularly scheduled trains continue south from Bakersfield, forcing passengers to transfer to buses susceptible to severe traffic congestion-caused delays to reach their destinations. Union Pacific won’t likely permit passenger service on its existing tracks in the near future, and even if they do, the projected 7-hour Bakersfield-LA travel time via those tracks would repel many would-be riders.

Newsom’s administration can help boost the quality of the existing bus service by pushing for dedicated lanes and better cooperation between the multiple providers (such as Amtrak and Greyhound) who help fill the Bakersfield-Southern California transportation gap. Currently, California state law prohibits riders from booking Amtrak trips involving only Thruway buses, limiting riders’ options and flexibility. Thus, the governor should work with legislators to change this and ensure the bus and rail systems complement – rather than compete against – each other.

But given the pressing nature of this gap, Newsom should plan to prioritize a south-of-Bakersfield extension for his state’s second high speed rail segment. This segment would connect to Lancaster and Metrolink’s Antelope Valley Line to LA, which could be integrated with high-speed rail in a manner similar to the proposals for Northern California described above. Furthermore, a long-discussed high-speed line that will initially connect Victorville, CA to Las Vegas now seems closer to reality than ever after Brightline, which already operates a rail line in Florida, took over that project; extending the second segment of California’s line farther to the east would allow for a direct connection between these two routes.

.

Completing this segment, which will traverse the mountainous Tehachapi Pass, would put the most expensive and challenging-to-build high-speed segment behind us and erase any lingering doubt that the state can finish the full San Francisco-LA route.

*** 

California's primary recent contribution to our mobility has been a series of venture capital-funded products, like ride-hailing and shared e-scooters. While these options can be a useful component of a transportation system, they have not helped my home state alleviate its crippling traffic congestion or lower its skyrocketing housing prices.

To make it easier for people to get where they need to go and improve quality of life, California must develop a network of modern transportation infrastructure. The state's cities are doing this at the local level, passing ballot measures to improve and expand their transit systems. At the statewide level, fast, reliable, and efficient intercity trains are needed to connect those local systems to each other.       

China, Russia, and even Saudi Arabia all have proven capable of completing full-length high-speed rail lines. By ensuring each new project segment bolsters California's already-extensive passenger rail system, Governor Newsom can help his state – which would already be the world's fifth largest economy if it were its own country – keep pace.