DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:California High-Speed Rail

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

To-Do List: (A) PENDING & (B) COMPLETED

[edit]

I think it might be helpful to have a to-do list for the CAHSR topic. So, I will start one.

This list is to identify significant areas of information that need to be created (now or in the future) or existing areas that need to be updated now. That is, not just minor corrections, but significant amounts of work. So, I'm going to be comprehensive here and list things in progress as well so the entire scope is visible.

ANY topic area in MAIN CAHSR that is long or will grow long over time is a good candidate for separation into its own page.

I've put this at the top (and combined the PENDING list and COMPLETED list into one document). So, each completed task can be easily pasted into the completed section at the bottom.

I'm also going to slightly re-format this so that discussion about each is more direct and simple.


(A) PENDING

(2) "LEGISLATIVE HISTORY" in HISTORY OF CAHSR -- NEEDED NOW 

   This is terrible now, and it needs lots of backfill to bring it up to date. In particular, we need a simple chronological format indicating the legislation that has defined and managed the project since its inception. Maybe a table? -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(3) TRAINS OF CAHSR -- FUTURE 

   I have a "pre-draft" version of this now on my computer (because the train specification data that was too detailed for MAIN CAHSR will fit in appropriately here). I'm waiting for some significant train news (since it is too short at present) before advancing it to an official DRAFT article. I expect we will get some significant news about trains in 2023. -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(4) OPERATIONS OF CAHSR -- FUTURE 

   Clearly this won't be needed until the end of the 2020s, however, we can anticipate lots of news here, such as inception, schedules, reception, performance, and financial info (costs and revenue, etc.). Since we can expect a lot of info to arrive at once we'll need to be prepared. -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(5) FINANCES of CAHSR? -- ???? 

   I've debated whether or not a "FINANCES of CAHSR" article would be worthwhile. Frankly, they are complicated, and perhaps not worth detailing at this point. We do have links to relevant source documents, and so perhaps they just need referencing in "HISTORY of CAHSR" along with a brief summary? Except for the next item? -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(6) "HISTORY of CAHSR" rename (after CONSTRUCTION article set up)? -- FUTURE 

    Frankly, perhaps we should just rename "HISTORY of CAHSR" and make it "LEGAL HISTORY of CAHSR" to distinguish what it contains, since the sub-articles for Construction, Route, Trains, and Operations will all have their own specific, more detailed histories?

   Or maybe name it "LEGAL ASPECTS of CASHR", so it would be more specific as well as contain detailed current info (in line with the other "... of CAHSR" articles? (In line with this idea, I'm going to rename the "History" sub-topic in MAIN CAHSR to "Legal Aspects".) -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


(B) COMPLETED

(1) CONSTRUCTION OF CAHSR -- AS OF 1/4/23 THIS HAS BEEN CREATED 

   DONE! Removed construction from History; also updated template.
   From Wikipedia: The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 19% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(7) Re-do "Las Vegas HSR" in MAIN CAHSR? -- DONE 1/4/23 

   I think this should be massively pruned, and any newer info we have here added to that topic main article. Why do we have so much about it? It should just be a short notice and a link in MAIN CAHSR.  DONE! -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(8) IMPACTS of CAHSR -- DONE 1/6/23 

   Copied all impact data to new article (IMPACTS OF CASHR), added link to it, and left brief intro and a couple teasers. -- Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


(C) OTHER COMMENTS? Robert92107 (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add info on Governance?

[edit]

Articles like Metropolitan_Transportation_Authority have a section "Governance", and TfL has "Organisation". Given the political significance of the project, I feel some information on governance structure, CEO, and Board may be relevant: Who appoints the relevant decision makers? Most people probably don't know who the "they" in "they waste our tax dollars!" are, and this article is currently only hinting at that. But I can also see how one may find this too niche. Comments welcome! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a separate wikipage on the Authority which is linked in the very first paragraph. If you wish to discuss governance, you should probably do it in the linked article. Robert92107 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon more reflection, I think it makes sense to have a small section "Governance (the Board of the High-Speed Rail Authority)" which has a brief intro PP then a link to the separate article.
A while ago I included information on forthcoming Board actions since that was a super-busy year for the Board with all kinds of major contracts covering years of critical, major activities coming up. This year has far less activity. However, when appropriate why not put in a subsection in the Board page about upcoming Board actions? The next big action will be selecting the train provider (so we will see the specs of the trains to be provided), and it is still projected for this year. Robert92107 (talk) 05:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DracaenaGuianensis

[edit]

You said, “The Authority is also conducting preliminary planning to obtain regulatory clearance for the whole of Phase 1.” I attempted to correct the false impression this statement gave, and in return you objected, and reverted to your text.

Frankly, you clearly mis-stated the efforts of the Authority. ALL segments except for LAUS to Anaheim have had final route approval AND preliminary construction plans created. Your statement is thus mischaracterizing the status of "preliminary planning"! Furthermore, the last segment is in process, and will be completed in the next year or so. So, many years of work and hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended to get to this point. It would have been far better to say that “preliminary studies and regulatory approval for all of Phase 1 are nearing completion”. Of course, further work requires construction funding. All I care about is you being factually correct.

I see a comment above about how the article is a mess, and while I agree that the version from before needed work, this version also created problems. The whole project is so massive that trying to cram everything into one piece makes it very unwieldy. I think there is far too much detailed financial info in it, for one. The whole article should be thinned down (and the detailed station info moved into the route subarticle).

Sadly, I don’t respect your efforts here. Our last confrontation was when I attempted to insert information (taken directly from the Authority's documents) on how they intended to close the funding gap for the IOS. I haven't checked recently, but I suspect that this topic is still not adequately discussed in the article. Too often you seem to be subtly denigrating the project. Basically, I don’t think you are being honest (although I could be wrong). Robert92107 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(without comment on the last paragraph) Assuming we're talking about this edit, @DracaenaGuianensis: isn't Robert clearly correct here? Environmental clearance has been obtained for all of Phase 1 except for the LA Union Station to Anaheim segment is clearly correct, that entire section is environmentally cleared. Whereas your phrasing The Authority is also conducting preliminary planning to obtain regulatory clearance for the whole of Phase 1 is highly misleading. "Preliminary planning" is flat out wrong. They're almost done! This sentence is, literally, over twenty years out of date. It has been inaccurate since, arguably, the 2005 Program level EIR. Leijurv (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert wrote: «I don’t think you are being honest». Robert, you should retract that. XavierItzm (talk) 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your idea, but I did admit that I could be wrong. Frankly, his saying that he is in favor of the project bears little weight when contrasted with what I perceive to be his consistent slightly negative reporting. I would prefer accurate reporting and neutral language. Robert92107 (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Leijurv, happy to answer. The main reason for my revert is that Robert consistently violates the basics of style, which includes the edit in this phrase: "between the IOS in the Central Valley to the Bay Area (the next priority)". This is an encyclopedia, and not a personal blog. The bad quality of prose before the rewrite was what partially prompted that, so I will tend to be stricter about it here. I acknowledge that instead of plainly reverting, one should try to separate improvements from undesirable aspects. Generally, I am happy to do that, just as others have done for my edits. However, Robert has been refusing to actually engage with his peers' comments on this talk page and has summarily dismissed Wikipedia guidelines as something he is not interested in; this makes his editing style largely WP:DISRUPTIVE. Therefore, I do not see why he gets to do whatever he wants, while we all have to put in the effort to clean up after him. I think many people here have been more than patient enough with him.
The second reason for the revert is that the other improvement is not that good. Therefore I felt justified in simply reverting. This is the lead paragraph, so the amount of jargon should be reduced as much as possible. I also mentioned that in my edit summary. Wikipedia is written for the general audience WP:TECHNICAL. Nobody can be expected to know what "environmental clearance" is supposed to mean. Whereas the more technical folks among us may find "regulatory clearance" more vague than "environmental clearance", it is much clearer for everyone else who does not read board meeting materials of major infrastructure projects as a hobby.
My intention with the prior phrasing was to point out that Phase 1 as a whole is not in its entirety cleared, hence "for all of Phase 1" -- this was mainly to avoid pointing to specific segments. Again, because for someone unfamiliar with the project, this quickly becomes overwhelming and confusing. Therefore, I don't think we should name the specific section in the lead with all the other names the reader has to parse. But I don't feel too strongly about it. I totally accept that the phrasing was not great. Perhaps one can improve it with e.g. "Phase 1 is cleared except a 30 mile section".
As for "preliminary planning", I'd guess, if we describe the steps of an infrastructure project to any person, most people would call environmental clearance "preliminary planning" and engineering "main planning", even though this is not how the term "planning" used in the construction industry. Therefore, I don't think it's flat out wrong, but a way to accommodate the reader. Anyway, I prefer not using terms such as "environmental clearance" in the lead paragraph. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification! I can understand where you're coming from. The (the next priority) didn't particularly irk me, but I've self-reverted since I can appreciate that it isn't WP:FORMAL. I would have done a partial revert earlier if I had known. I think Robert is clearly engaging on the talk page, however, I can somewhat see your point that he is sometimes not particularly concerned with following WP:MOS. For environmental clearance vs regulatory clearance I don't agree, I think environmental clearance has become such a common phrase when talking about large infrastructure projects that it's practically the same as regulatory clearance. But, that's fine, I've also self-reverted to "regulatory clearance". To be completely honest, the only thing that prompted me to revert was the connector phrase "to obtain": preliminary planning to obtain regulatory clearance. When you take each part individually, it's fine, sure they are in "preliminary planning" because they only have an EIR and they're at <30% design for much of the line, and sure we can call an EIR "regulatory clearance". The only problem is connecting the two phrases, which creates a new meaning, implying that they don't actually have regulatory clearance. So, here's how I see it: The rest of Phase 1, outside the IOS, is in preliminary planning is fine. All of Phase 1, except for Union <-> Anaheim, has regulatory clearance is fine. All of Phase 1, except for Union <-> Anaheim, is in preliminary planning to obtain regulatory clearance is, really, flat out wrong. They already have regulatory clearance. The thing that's in preliminary planning is the actual construction. The regulatory clearance is done. Your phrasing Phase 1 is cleared except a 30 mile section is fine, except I think it should say that this section is not on the "main" line from SF to Union Station. Perhaps: Phase 1 is cleared except for the 30 mile section south of LA Union Station to Anaheim? A little awkward. 95% of Phase 1 has regulatory clearance, from San Francisco to LA Union Station, the 30 mile section connecting LA Union Station to Aneheim is pending clearance. Still awkward. Anyway I just think it should convey that the headliner of "connect SF to LA" is cleared. Leijurv (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your last suggestion, thanks for engaging! I totally see what you mean with the connecting phrase. Looking back, the whole sentence was meant to be a more "positive" note in the first place anyway -- given that the next sentence starts with "However, [... funding woes]". This paragraph, as seen from its rewrite and subsequent edits, has been a headache and continues to be one due to its tendency to become awkward. I have not been too happy with the latter part either.
So perhaps we can try to fix all things in one go, such as:
"From January 2015 to December 2023, a total of $11.2 billion had been spent on the IOS – which has 119 miles (192 km) under active construction – and on upgrades to existing rail lines in the San Francisco Bay Area and Greater Los Angeles, where Phase 1 is planned to share tracks with conventional passenger trains. Regulatory clearance has been obtained for the full route connecting San Francisco and Los Angeles, which includes the IOS. However, the Authority has not yet received sufficient funding to construct the segments from the IOS westwards to the Bay Area or southwards to Los Angeles, both of which would require tunneling through major mountain passes."
I might go ahead later and implement the edit as per WP:BOLD, but of course please be welcome to adjust.
DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That edit looks good to me! Leijurv (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PP looks pretty good to me. My only quibbles are (1) Is it necessary to describe the next N and S sections in some detail? Maybe just say the next sections? I tried to insert that going N was the next priority, but while it's an important point it just adds to the verbiage. (2) Likewise adding the tunneling is just a major construction detail, and could easily be removed. (3) Also omitted with the segment priority was the fact that prelim construction designs (up to about 30%) have been obtained for SF-LA. I believe that this is also moderately significant along with the amount of money spent. This is why the next segments are ready for construction funding. Robert92107 (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert92107 "I don’t think you are being honest" -- I think I am allowed to take offense here. Well fine, I find it kinda funny how the Robert92107-version of this article got flagged by multiple editors as blatantly WP:POV, but now you insist on being "factually correct".
Maybe you haven't noticed, but I am a big supporter of this project and hope the Authority succeeds. But I will certainly not allow this to damage the credibility of this project. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge I have never posted ANYTHING that was factually incorrect. Nor do I ever remember anyone pointing to a factually incorrect statement which I did not correct. I cannot say the same for you, however (as this discussion covers later).
As to your assertion that you are a big supporter of this project, I have no way of knowing. Being factually correct is the job here, and that means calling both balls and strikes.
I saw you removing my correction of your misleading statement. Your justification did not concern the underlying facts, but only related to some formatting issue. Clearly you did not actually even try to understand my correction. It is largely meaningless saying that the Authority is doing preliminary studies on Phase 1, since that has been true for about 15 years now (since the start of the project). What is new (which actually was not mentioned in your text) is that the route has been authorized (and preliminary construction plans made) for ALL of Phase 1 except for 1 segment (LAUS to Anaheim, I think a distance of about 50 mi.), and this segment's authorization will be completed in a year or so (although this might be delayed for a bit because the Authority revised the location of the maintenance facility, and this will slow things down). That is quite a small piece of a route that covers hundreds of miles.
As to how the Authority addresses the IOS funding shortfall, I believe this is a vitally important issue. However, if the GOP takes control of the Senate in this election, they will try to hamstring the project, so the Authority's plans are not very significant. If the Dems take control, they are likely going to be very much alive. Bottom line ... its too soon to try to give this issue the discussion it needs. Robert92107 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to be civil and reached out to you to move forward, but I will not waste my time anymore engaging with your incoherent rambling or responding to your constant barrage of personal accusations and insinuations. Fact is: Prior to rewriting, you got flagged for WP:POV multiple times and the article was completely unreadable. Now you try to force that kind of style onto this version, which has been attested by the community to be a vast improvement. Nothing is ever perfect, but we certainly will not go back to whaDrat is was like before. Your editing behavior is described exactly in WP:DISRUPTIVE and we are under no obligation to clean up after you all the time.
If you want to write your own personal Robert92107-blog, go right ahead, but this is a community-based encyclopedia for the general audience. Refrain from personal attacks or I'll see you at WP:ANI. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I am shocked by your repeated personal attacks, and in no way see your repeated insults as "civil". As to "reached out to you to move forward," I really have no idea what you mean. "Reached out"? How? Did you offer specific ideas apart from criticisms of the work I did? Have I been trying to stop the evolution of the article? (No, I haven't.) And, I do not give you a "constant barrage of personal accusations and insinuations". I offer my criticism only after I've been subjected to another of YOUR insults. You are the only person who has been treating me like this in years of posting here, and I have never made comments like this to anyone else. I believe it is you who are triggering these issues.
I have always been working towards a factual and useful article. I have NOT been flagged multiple times for POV (at least by others), and I have never omitted criticisms of the project. To imply that my whole oevre here is a problem is both insulting and factually suspect. You referred to me as falling into in WP:DISRUPTIVE, but I examined this, and do not remember any examples of this in my work. If you wish, cite a specific example, but even if there were one incident of a dispute over content, I reject the idea that I fall into a pattern of this. As to characterizing my comments as "incoherent", without examples that is just an unsupported personal opinion. When I do raise specific issues (such as addressing the significant problem of the spending shortfall), instead of answering the issue, you seem to issue more attacks.
My comments on the state of the whole article I believe are valid. Likewise calling the architecture and style I had before as "completely unreadable", that is your stylist opinion. Frankly, the whole article has been taken in a whole different stylistic approach from where I'd left it. As I said before, my approach was to have a shorter, more readable high-level article with subarticles going in depth into more sideline issues (such as route and stations, history and financing, and financial and environmental impacts), but now some of those links do not exist anymore, so I think this approach isn't being used as effectively. I see that some useful information that was in some of those subarticles has been lost by enfolding those topics into the main article and "forgetting" the information. Keeping the article meaningful is always an issue because things do change over time, and some older information becomes less relevant. You raised the issue of putting information on governance of the project into the article, and I pointed out that there is already an existing related article on that (which I suspect was created at the same time as this main article was created.) Clearly this related article could be deleted and all the Board information moved into the main article, but to my mind that would make it even more bloated. (Perhaps, however, a very short topic on governance should be in the main article, and the link to the related article given?)
Now I see a very long article which might be even less useful, both to the average reader as well a reader doing more in-depth research. The use of the TOC at the side helps moderate the burden of this, but I think it is not as effective. This is primarily an issue of architecture and style, however. I presume you are happy with the current state of the article, but I think that it is not as readable nor as useful.
Lastly, it appears that almost all the time I post a change to the text I get an undo and an insult from you. This is not appropriate. As the recent episode with correcting the misleading statement about the current state of route approvals in the main lede shows, I think you just have a problem with me, and you are letting this override your better judgement. This was only corrected because some other poster had to correct it, and they called you out in more damning words than I used. As to having other Wiki leaders evaluate our problems, I am happy to have a review done, since I have no doubts as to my consistent efforts to be factual, do good work, and be cooperative. I do not take the step of criticizing another poster lightly. To my mind a lot of this is a waste of time and effort, but it needs to be addressed because this is affecting the article.
For a comparison of architectures, take a look at the wayback machine for the end of Dec. 2022. I'm saying compare how it works rather than the content per se: http://web.archive.org/web/20221221194404/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
So, my suggestions are that if you wish to correct something I post, (1) do not use insulting words, (2) be clear on what is incorrect, and (3) make the changes needed to correct the issue, and only do an 'undo' when it is most appropriate. I will in turn apply these rules to anything you post. Robert92107 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro PP there are two factual errors or mischaracterizations. It now says "Phase 1 targets a nonstop travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from San Francisco to Los Angeles, compared to about nine hours[6] on the existing Amtrak San Joaquins." Problem 1: the HSR time limit is not a wannbe-goal, it is a legal goal or standard. So, "target" is not strong enough. The Authority is striving mightily to provide this. Not achieving this might have legislative consequences, much as deviating from the authorized route would. So, I think that "requires" is a more accurate word. Problem 2: while the reference to the Amtrak time-table is authoritative, in practice it apparently rarely made it. In fact, at times it would take over 11 hours! So, trying to contrast the HSR to the problematic Amtrak service is actually a difficult issue. I'm not sure what the best answer is. Perhaps try to remove a specific value, and just say "existing Amtrak service which is substantially longer"?

The problem I see is that we've been through this before, based on discussion before this. Another take is DracaenaGuianensis is creating a new meaning for clearly defined English words. I recollect that the authorizing proposition did not say that the train would TRY to meet those travel speeds, it said IT WOULD. A "target" is a goal, a desirable outcome. However, a "requirement" is harder and more clearly defined as something that MUST be done. I just am finding it unreasonable that the clear meaning of the travel time is being distorted! Why can't he just use the EXISTING MEANING for that word! And, no, this not a trivial issue! This is why there are dictionaries that help standarize meaning. Yes, the Authority has a TARGET of directing the route through certain cities, but that exists because it is REQUIRED to put the route through those cities. It would thus be imprecise to say that the route is targeting certain cities. It is just so aggravating that a clearly simple and accurate word (requirement) is being deliberately replaced a less accurate word (target). How can this be acceptable? Robert92107 (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the latest dispute. First, this diff between A future Phase 2 would extend and A proposed Phase 2 would extend. The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:CRYSTALBALL. I think it is pretty clear that the word would makes either phrasing acceptable. It's obvious to the reader that this has not happened yet, and it will not happen until later. I think future is slightly better than proposed in this context since it conveys that it's even further in the future after Phase 1. But, either phrasing is fine. Second, this diff. For this one, neither phrasing is good. It is not accurate to say that SF to SJ has rail construction completed, as Jasper says in the edit (however, Jasper is incorrect that the section before 4th and King will be straightened - that may refer to the Pennsylvania Avenue Extension which is not currently planned; the straightenings are mostly down the peninsula). Nevertheless, the upcoming corridor upgrades between SF and SJ will be quite expensive (billions of dollars), so we absolutely should not say that rail construction is completed. On the other hand no high-speed rail segments outside the IOS have so far been funded is slightly misleading, as we've discussed on this talk page several times, CAHSR has given significant funding ($100m+) to various projects such as CalMod or the Rosecrans/Marquardt grade separation or other bookend projects that are not on the IOS. And of course the IOS itself isn't quite fully funded quite yet (stations, second track, the Locally Generated Alternative to Bakersfield, etc). Perhaps we could add some language like "other than small amounts for bookend projects" (with a link to the relevant section)? Leijurv (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel super strongly about "A future Phase 2 would extend" and "A proposed Phase 2 would extend", but would prefer "proposed". The reason is that at this point it is just that: a proposition made in an initial promise and with no substantive steps taken since then. Without any political, financial or planning commitment (no EIR started), I would prefer just being clearer with words. "would" does not sound quite enough to me, as it could simply refer to the fact that the system "would" connect Sacramento and SD after construction is complete, but it does not now due to being under construction still (which it is not). Not a hill I would die on, but this is why.
I am happy to remain accountable to the community for any reverts or edits, but to be frank I also feel like we are wasting a lot of our time discussing these tiny changes, and the fact that Robert belligerently defends each of these is contributing to exhaustion on my part. The reason why I reverted it instead of just leaving it alone was because each of Robert's tiny edits seem somewhat innocuous, but taken together change the phrasing to be too WP:POV and paints the project as something a reader should expect to be largely complete tomorrow. Since he changes these kind of phrasings incrementally over time, I can only revert each of them -- but since we both got an edit war-warning.... DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for "no high-speed rail segments outside the IOS have so far been funded" I feel more strongly -- because the bookend investments are quantitatively peanuts to the overall funding needs in their respective HSR sections. One grade separation should not affect the determination that that entire section is in essence unfunded -- even though that GS did cost a bunch. Exaggerating a bit just to make my argument clearer: If the Authority built a $50M GS between Bakersfield and Palmdale, it would feel inappropriate to make a huge deal out of it. That entire section needs $17.1B. $600M for Caltrain are much more, but still far off from the $5.0B still needed (see previous discussion for this one).
These kind of introductory paragraphs the latest disputes have been about should (in my opinion only) be more concise, rather than duplicating detailed information on e.g. bookend investments, which have their dedicated subsection in the very same section this paragraph introduces. Maybe to convince you that this is an abbreviation rather than a wrong statement: I consciously chose to say "high-speed rail segments", thus excluding blended corridor investments (which are mentioned already in the lead).
At the end of the day we have to keep in mind WP:TECHNICAL. The readers are people who have no idea why they don't see a high-speed train sitting in L.A., and scroll here to check what the status is. The correct answer in this intro paragraph should be something like: Don't complain about lack of completion, because you never fully funded it in the first place. All other information is then presented in great detail in the rest of the section.
I am of course open to tweak this particular phrasing above, but I do strongly believe in keeping these intros concise and non-verbose so the state of affairs is properly reflected. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"no high-speed rail segments outside the IOS have so far been funded" is an important point that should not be watered down. Yes, a minor part of the bond was for bookend projects with some implicit benefit to the some-day 200 MPH vision, and of course these have been funded as per voter approval, as clearly explained in the body of the article, but we should not confuse readers in the intro. Readers do not come here to learn about some electrification project somewhere, nor a station "HSR-prepared" in a downtown terminal hundreds of miles from any actual 200 MPH HSR operating segment, nor about the slow trains that for decades have done the existing daily SF-LA run, whether electrified or not; they come here to find out about a 200 MPH HSR running between downton LA and downtown SF. The article should explain in full all components of the system, but the intro should not mislead about the actual 200 MPH HSR project with wishy-washy, dreamy statements.XavierItzm (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment seems to be somewhat confused. The 200 mph HSR run will only be between Gilroy and Burbank; the run up to SF from Gilroy will be about 100 mph, and from Burbank to Anaheim also about 100 mph. (I believe the top allowed speed in the end segments per FRA would be 110 mph.)
The Caltrain upgrade project is thus an important investment for the HSR system, since it will share the same tracks and the same PTC system. Caltrain also upgraded various crossings, so those should all be done already. There are some curves in the Caltrain tracks that need to be straightened for 100 mph operation (I believe the worst of these has a speed limit of 79 mph). I have not seen anything from the Authority about replacing ALL the tracks, only a few curves that need to be straightened.
Thus the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on Caltrain electrification is (apart from the Light Maintenance Facility in that segment) by far the largest investment in the SF-San Jose segment. I have not seen a timeline for track straightening, but because Caltrain benefits from it, it might even be completed before the Authority needs it in 15 or so years. In any case, the cost of the track straightening should be comparatively minor in comparison to the monies already expended on this segment.
Thus, the Authority has made a substantial and significant investment in the SF-SJ segment, and comprises the bulk of the money needed compared to the amount of money and work still to be done for HSR operation. How this significant fact should be woven into the article is another matter; ignoring this fact is misleading. Robert92107 (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you are confused, and we have been through the funding status of SF-SJ twice before, such as here. Could you please read others' comments for a change, instead of pushing the same wrong view over and over again? That segment is largely unfunded as of the 2024 Business Plan, unless you know more about its cost estimates than ... let's check ... the High Speed Rail Authority planning this whole thing. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that track straightening is not nearly as straightforward as Robert supposes it is. The Caltrain right-of-way is hemmed in on virtually all sides everywhere on the peninsula, so in many locations, straightening will need land acquisition.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(this message marginally violates WP:NOTFORUM, apologies) I found an interesting resource on the straightenings here: [1] particularly this google earth file: [2] I'd never seen the actual property acquisitions visualized like this before. Leijurv (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future versus Proposed

[edit]

My correction of "proposed" to "future" is factually correct. Prop 1A AUTHORIZED Phase 2, but did not pay for it, and voters authorized it. Thus, it is by definition a future, UNFUNDED extension. Now, being labeled "future" does NOT mean that it will be funded or constructed. That distinction could be added, but saying that Phase 2 is "proposed" is FACTUALLY WRONG. Robert92107 (talk) 23:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the undo is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. If your definition of "proposed" means anything not yet funded or underway, then the entirety of Phase 1 with the exception of the IOS is "proposed" ... and this is just ridiculous!!!

"Proposed" also implies that the need/justification for the project would need to be held. Not necessary, because that hurdle was already passed BECAUSE PHASE 2 WAS AUTHORIZED!

No, the fact of the matter is that the Authority is a state agency with a set agenda to build BOTH Phase 1 and Phase 2 ... however long it takes ... unless and until its mission is changed by the People or the legislature.

So, my wording was factually correct and clear. Yours is misleading and incorrect! Hence I am undoing it again. If you want to change it to something else, fine, but it needs to be CORRECT! Robert92107 (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and do not shout. I'm engaging here because I will revert you on this now. No, as multiple editors have pointed out in their reverts, a vision not supported by any steps towards implementation is called – in plain English – "proposed".
And yes, in fact the entirety of Phase 1 outside the IOS is completely unfunded and might as well be regarded as "proposed", unless you find $130 billion somewhere or get a political commitment. I would not choose that wording myself, but it's not ridiculous at all.
You cling to one single legalistic reason, Prop 1A, to insist on changing a phrasing which is fine as is. I will give you one from the real world: The British HS 2 project got royal assent to be built to Leeds. But that entire northern segment from Birmingham to Leeds was cancelled last year -> WP:CRYSTALBALL. This is about appropriate editorial choices, not factual correctness – two words I would be careful to use as your are implicitly accusing us of misinformation. Unless you convince us that your wording is more appropriate, which you have not, you should respect the ad-hoc consensus not to change to "future". DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my emphases were over the top. However, if consensus leads to using factually-dubious or incorrect meanings, then I submit that consensus is wrong. We have dictionaries to clarify the meanings of words, and this is the distinction between the two words:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
propose (third-person singular simple present proposes, present participle proposing, simple past and past participle proposed)
1. (transitive) To suggest a plan, course of action, etc.
Synonyms: put forth, suggest, (rare) forthput
I propose going to see a film.
to propose an alliance
to propose a question for discussion
2. (intransitive, sometimes followed by to) To ask for a person's hand in marriage.
He proposed to her last night and she accepted him.
3. (transitive) To intend.
He proposes to set up his own business.
4. (obsolete) To talk; to converse.
5. (obsolete) To set forth.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
authorize (third-person singular simple present authorizes, present participle authorizing, simple past and past participle authorized) (American spelling, Oxford British English)
(transitive) To grant (someone) the permission or power necessary to do (something); to permit; to sanction or consent to.
Synonyms: license, permit
Antonyms: ban, prohibit, deauthorize
The General Assembly authorized the Council to take up the matter.
The judge authorized the wiretapping.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am only being "legalistic" in the sense of the actual fact of the situation and of the meanings of the words. While the third meaning of propose is factually correct, the act of "authorizing" adds an important extra element (that is, the legal right to proceed) to the understanding of the situation (much like adding funding would add an important extra element, that is the financial ability to proceed, as well). So, "proposed" by itself is less accurate than "authorized", and leaves the situation open to further questions.
However, it would be more factually correct (and perhaps less "legalistic") to use the word "planned" instead of "authorized" or "proposed". It is obvious that "authorized" is the optimal word, but I think that "planned" would also be acceptable and perhaps better for a less-knowledgeable audience. Robert92107 (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Authorize" isn't correct because authorizing a government agency to do something entails giving them at least a bare minimum of funds to do so, which hasn't occurred here yet. This is why the Rohrabacher-Farr amendment prohibits federal prosecution of marijuana use even though in the strict sense, it's only a clause in an appropriations bill.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, some significant issues were raised, and I had to go back to source materials: (1) Prop 1A text, (2) AB 3034, and (3) the 2024 Business Plan) to do some data checking.
(1) https://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/analysis/prop1a-analysis.htm
(2) http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3034_bill_20080826_chaptered.html
(3) https://hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2024-Business-Plan-FINAL.pdf
Bottom line … everyone who commented was both right and wrong in various ways. (Reality always seems to be more confused and complex than we anticipate!)
Re “authorization” … while this term is usually associated with a funding allocation, this is not exclusively so. In fact, in AB 3034, the Authority is specifically authorized to enter into contracts in certain specific situations or in pursuit of specific authorized activities, and there is no specific funding source or amount specified. However, in none of these documents are the routes specifically “authorized”, they are merely listed in the documents, and thus the routes were “approved” (and not “authorized”) by the legal approval of these documents. Consequently, the Authority has the legal right to pursue the Phase 2 route without regard to any other legal agency.
Re “Phase 2” … Prop 1A only describes Phase 1, it does not specify Phase 2. It does specify SF to LA as being the first priority (which is the bulk of Phase 1), however, it details 7 different routes (some of which overlap), and leaves it up to the Authority to decide what routes among these it will build after Phase 1 is in operation. Phase 1 comprises 3 of the identified routes (only omitting the extension to Irvine). Phase 2 comprises 2 of the specified routes, so the Authority already has permission to implement these routes. (And two destinations specified are not included in any current route plans: Oakland, and Irvine.)
Re “future funding” … The Authority needs no other permission (or proposals) to use its own unrestricted monies on the development of Phase 2. However, considering the massive amounts of funds needed, the Authority will need to apply to the state and the federal government for those funds. These steps would require submitting applications to various programs or proposals to diverse agencies. If the Authority wants further funding from the state, AB 3034 requires that funding be requested from the Legislature. So, in that sense, even though Prop 1A gave approval of different routes, the Legislature must choose to fund specific route choices, hence those requests will be “proposals”. I believe the extension of Cap-and-Trade funding would apply to any segments the Authority choses (but I have not verified this). There is no restriction on how the Authority can request funds from the federal government.
Re “proposed” … In point of fact, Phase 2 already has permission from the state and the People for the described route, and has had preliminary route planning completed, so it is more accurately described as “in progress, but paused”. Only preliminary planning is permitted on it until Phase 1 is in operation (which likely will leave its status unchanged for decades). Further, Phase 2 does not have any existing documents submitted, or ready to be submitted, to any funding organization. (Thus meaning #1 of “proposal” is voided.)
However, meaning #3 is valid (“intention”) but largely meaningless. It is not clear from the usage what the intention actually is: is it the planning to be completed?, or environmental clearance done?, or construction completed?, or “in operation”? Any step described by “intention” only changes its status to “accomplished” when it is 100% done. So, even Phase 1 would be “intended” for many decades before its status changes — overnight — to “accomplished”. (And only then could Phase 2's status be allowed to change.) For the above reasons, “proposed” is not an adequate descriptor of the Phase 2 current status (which as I noted above is actually “in progress, but paused” or "preliminary planning done, but paused"). And, if “intention” is the meaning being presented in the text, more clarity would be obtained simply by using the word “intended”, however, “intended” without a clearly stated objective would be a poor choice.
Re “blended Bay Area route expenditure” … The total cost of Caltrain electrification was about $2.4B, of which the Authority contributed $714M. The cost to get SF-SJ into HSR operational state per the 2024 BP is about an additional $5B, and the extension down to Gilroy would require about $6B. Thus, my estimate (or flawed recollection) of what it would take to straighten the curves (plus station construction and the Light Maintenance Facility) was clearly wildly wrong. However, the monies expended on electrification (and PTC and some grade crossing upgrades) for SF-SJ amount to about 32% of the total amount of money needed (plus a number of years of time spent on those tasks) to get that segment into "HSR ready" state. While this is certainly not all it will take for "HSR ready" state, it is to my mind clearly a not-insignificant effort in support of HSR, and deserves a suitable mention as an effort outside of the IOS. Robert92107 (talk) 11:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an idea: let's just avoid the argument by removing the word! A proposed Phase 2 would extend ... Leijurv (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leijurv I applaud your infinite patience and creativity with trying to get a compromise in no-mans-land. If this brings some calm into this talk page, it might almost be worth paying the price.
In isolation, I would be tempted to say "great, let's do it and move on!" immediately. However, I do not see why the community should give in to a single person who is unable to respect consensus and move on themselves, in fact explicitly saying they will edit against consensus. We have seen his intransigent behavior of the last few days, and I am afraid we are setting precedent that as long as you WP:FILIBUSTER the whole discussion and edit-war until the end, you will get your way. Then we'd be asking for trouble down the road, with the next sentence Robert is personally unhappy with. Therefore, I am not in favor of doing that – I don't see a reason to discard consensus for appeasement.
Not about your suggestion, Leijurv: It is absolute common sense to call Phase 2 "proposed", and Robert bringing in a whole law firm to litigate this won't change that. If he has difficulties with the semantics of the English language, it is his issue, not ours. We want people reading the introduction to immediately get a clear picture of what is going on. Phase 2 simply is a mere vision right now and not mentioned anywhere else in the lead. We don't want a reader to think that Phase 2 is set to happen and just a matter of time, say Segment 2 of Honolulu Skyline. That's why "proposed" is an important qualifier and should ideally remain.
In summary, normally I'd be happy to compromise, and I believe User:Leijurv we managed to improve the article by going back and forth constructively between the two of us. And there is more to do. Here I don't see a reason to cater to Robert's personal tastes – in fact, he was officially admin-warned for edit-warring this very issue. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically my reaction is just a vague shrug. Honestly I originally did and somewhat still do like future a bit more than proposed. However it doesn't really matter, at all. There's enough hedging in the would in the sentence that it's fine either way. I don't really follow the logic of leaning away from whatever Robert wants - sure he got warned for edit warring (arguably he should have instead been warned for WP:BLUDGEON), but that doesn't make him wrong, and so I don't follow the logic of Robert not wanting it this way meaning we should lean towards that, as, like, a form of punishment? Idk. Anyway, it seems you don't like my last edit for a reason other than sticking it to Robert, which is to convey additional uncertainty above and beyond what one would normally read from my "bare" phrasing. I guess that makes sense - Phase 2 is really far off and really uncertain. So I have self-reverted. Leijurv (talk) 22:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fair. And just to make clear, this is not to stick it to Robert, but based on an editorial preference from my side – a preference which given the numerous reverts by various folks seemed to me like is one shared among other editors here. (The reason for my preference is stated somewhere too.) So that is the premise I was operating under: people being happy with "proposed". My point above was that I feel disinclined to override that aspect just for the sake of softening the WP:BLUDGEONing, to stay in that metaphor.
But there is still lot's to do on this article. Given the recent, simultaneous activity of several editors, I wonder if this might be an opportunity to start a collaborative push towards WP:GA. Both in terms of general quality and missing pieces, such as details on each proposed segment. (oops here we go again – "future segment" ;-)) Would you be interested in pursuing this @Leijurv some time? This is more of an aside to this discussion. But I feel like this topic is important, will become more important, and is deserving of a good article. Last time a bunch of people chimed in at the same time, it spontaneously lead to the rewrite. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 23:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it is amazing how much time can be spent (wasted?) on just one word!
However, a few comments. First, there is a clear difference between what is right and what is popular. Just because there are a number of contributors who are supporting an idea which is factually misleading/wrong does not make that idea more right. Frankly, there are many things in shared knowledge which are actually wrong, and it takes time and effort to get those corrected.
The fundamental problem with using the word “proposed” is that it implies that Phase 2 is not in the actually approved plan. Speaking factually, it IS in the approved plan, but it is NOT in the current implementation plan. To my mind, confusing the two contexts is the crux of the problem, and the use of the word “proposed” exacerbates this problem. In the intro this is too complex a distinction to get into the details. A clear factual statement and not opinions (about “proposed” status versus “planned” status) should take precedence.
I also agree that just removing the modifier before “Phase 2” in that sentence would be the easiest fix since it is clear that selecting the actually correct modifier is posing a great problem. Robert92107 (talk) 00:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, it is amazing how much time can be spent (wasted?) on just one word! Correct, now there is just one step missing in terms of your introspection. For the rest of us: case closed, moving on. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of Galileo and the Holy See. Belief is a chemical state in the brain, and it has nothing to do with the actual facts of the matter. You can believe anything you want, even things that are untrue. This is especially visibly true now, since our political discourse is plagued with massive lies which many people are only too happy to accept. Robert92107 (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🙄 Leijurv (talk) 06:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Documenting misleading and erroneous statements

[edit]

It appears that this needs to be clearly documented, hence this topic.

In the intro section the current text reads: "A proposed Phase 2 would extend the system north to Sacramento and south to San Diego ..."

First of all, it is unclear what this is supposed to actually mean.
Phase 2 was described by two of the route segments which were specified in Proposition 1A. So, Phase 2 is ALREADY approved and in the HSR system plan -- in this sense Phase 2 is NOT "proposed" -- and the only remaining issues are in its implementation.
Another meaning for "proposed" is "intended", based on its being a future course of action. However, anything which is not actually completed can justifiably be described by this type of language. So, saying Phase 2 is not yet built is basically meaningless in the context of the current HSR system, since NONE of it actually is operating now.
Lastly, Prop 1A specified an implementation priority. The SF-LA route needs to be completed before any work can be done on the remaining segments (apart from some planning). Further, if the Authority needs to obtain additional state funds for the additional segments, it will need to go back to the Legislature. However, if the Authority uses federal funds or already appropriated funds (such as Cap-and-Trade income) after Phase 1 is completed, no further approvals (or proposals) are needed.
Thus, the word "proposed" is either misleading or erroneous. Better word choices include "planned" or "approved" or "intended" or "future" or "unfunded" -- or even omitting the word "proposed" entirely -- all of which are less confusing and more accurate.

Robert92107 (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTEN, WP:SATISFY Leijurv (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen? Sorry, I do not recollect anyone showing that my points are invalid. That is why I'm trying to summarize the facts of the situation here. If you want to show that any of my facts are wrong, please do so.
At to satisfying MY particular interests, I am only concerned with stating the truth, and from what I see that has not been done with the textual statement. To me this is just a minor matter of one word conveying such a wrong description that it becomes an untruth. But this seems to be an untruth that no one cares about, and that is what is so bothersome. (I do however suspect that my language filter is more sensitive than the other posters here; that is why I was so careful to post the actual meanings of "propose". Also, being a strong individualist, I've seen many times where the crowd is wrong, and I am not easily dragged along with a group opinion; truth does matter, after all!) Robert92107 (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Listen? Sorry, I do not recollect anyone showing that my points are invalid. That is why I'm trying to summarize the facts of the situation here. If you want to show that any of my facts are wrong, please do so. This is exactly why I linked to WP:LISTEN and WP:SATISFY ironically enough. It's true that no one has yet provided a counterargument that satisfies you, nevertheless the consensus is for proposed, hence you should read WP:LISTEN and WP:SATISFY again. Also, being a strong individualist, I've seen many times where the crowd is wrong, and I am not easily dragged along with a group opinion This is not really compatible with editing Wikipedia. Imagine if everyone behaved this way? How could we write about any topic of even the slightest controversy? That's why we have WP:DE and WP:TE (particularly WP:REHASH) and WP:CAPITULATE. Leijurv (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The word "proposed" itself is by its dictionary meaning misleading in this situation. How is that so hard to understand? This whole situation calls into question the proper use the English language. I am only pointing out the obvious.
Who was the proposal sent to? When do we expect to get an answer?
These questions have no answer because the wrong word was used. An uninformed reader would have these reasonable questions, and not understand the underlying reality.
Saying that I am wrong for pointing out the obvious problem just highlights one of the underlying weaknesses of the Wikipedia model.
Also, saying that this is just my individual desire here is completely mischaracterizing the situation. It is actually me + Wiktionary. You're fighting the clear text of that source. By using a minor meaning of the word "proposed" you are opening yourself up to misunderstanding by people who are using the main meaning. Robert92107 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, you show yourself as entirely incapable of engaging with arguments, and your repeated WP:REHASH will not get you anywhere. That's why nobody even bothers responding to your walls of text at this point. Stop this WP:FILIBUSTER or there will eventually be administrative consequences, plain and simple.
This is a collaborative project, and either you accept the common rules, or you go out and do your own thing. Nobody owes it to you to change the fundamental way of how Wikipedia works. If you don't like the underlying weaknesses of the Wikipedia model, go out and write the Robert92107-blog, nobody is stopping you.
[deleted, I was not 100% WP:CALM] Your repeated use of the word "factually" where it does not sensibly apply shows me that your confidence in your opinion is unfounded. And that's what it is in this case – an opinion, a preference. Not a fact. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I would avoid phrases like reflects a degree of hubris, apostle of truth, too bone-headed to accept consensus) Leijurv (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I'll get rid of those parts. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have picked a definition of proposed that doesn't fit the sentence. The phrase is A proposed Phase 2 would, which from context puts the part of speech for proposed as an attributive adjective, particularly a past participle. If we look at wiktionary:propose#English, you can see that the #1 definition is To suggest a plan, course of action, etc. Is it accurate to say that Phase 2 has been suggested as a plan, course of action, etc? Obviously yes. Or, consider the #3 definition, To intend. where an example quotation for usage is Many of the proposed dams would be among the tallest in the world. This also clearly fits CAHSR Phase 2. You ask Who was the proposal sent to? When do we expect to get an answer? but this is an arbitrary non sequitur. The proposal doesn't need to be sent to anyone, and we don't need to have a timeline for a reply. As we both know, Phase 2 is currently a vague, far-off plan (e.g. the exact route is not yet decided). You would agree with that phrasing I believe, but calling it a "proposal" rather than a "plan" is the problem? As we both know, the proposal for Phase 2 is put forth by CHSRA, a (very) high level overview of potential corridors was approved by the voters in Prop 1A, and, if everything goes well, the formal process for evaluating the proposal will begin in the coming decades in the form of an Environmental impact assessment under NEPA and CEQA etc. Those are the answers to your questions, as you know. I recognize your argument that Prop 1A has already essentially "approved" the Phase 2 proposal, which inherently ought to graduate it beyond proposal to a stronger word like planned or future or approved, but I find it unconvincing given how vague the plans are for Phase 2, how far off into the future they are, how uncertain they are, and the amount of environmental impact studies and design that needs to be completed before we even know the route. Leijurv (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) As I have indicated, there are various factually-inaccurate meanings to the word "proposed", which other descriptors (such as "intended" or "planned") do not have. So, why is there such intense interest in continuing to use a more problematic word? This to me is irrational, and is in fact not appropriate for this work.
(2) The difference between Phase 1 and Phase is not clearly explained in this current version of the intro. Phase 2 is NOT a proposal, it is an already specified objective and intended future route defined in Prop 1A. So, again, this version using the word "proposed" is misleading, since all the preliminary requirements have been satisfied.
(3) There is an already tentative route defined for the northern portion of Phase 2 (the southern portion is more ambiguous, since there are different alternatives not decided on yet). Yes, no implementation work is possible yet due to the constraints imposed by Prop 1A. This does not mean that this northern segment isn't an existing component of the HSR system. What remains to be done are more detailed route plans, the environmental approvals, obtaining the funding, and the contracts and construction processes. Essentially, then the word "proposed" = "more detailed route plans, the environmental approvals, obtaining the funding, and the contracts and construction processes". Does this word actually convey this? No, I don't think so. Once again I am left thinking that "proposed" does not accurately describe the status of Phase 2.
(4) It is clear to me that the world "proposed" basically lost relevance after 2008 with the passage of Prop 1A. Since then other words are better descriptors of the status of the project. Robert92107 (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Nope, the definitions of proposed on Wiktionary do match reality. (2) Disagreed. By the way it's very strange that you think "intended" is a stronger word than "proposed", to my ears "intended" is significantly more vague and insubstantial. (3) The northern segment is absolutely not an existing component of an HSR system. What you listed under "what remains to be done" is the entire project. (4) Unclear and unconvincing to everyone else. WP:LISTEN, WP:SATISFY Leijurv (talk) 08:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Push towards GA

[edit]

Given the renewed public interest in this topic, maybe we can find a coalition of the willing to compile a list of TODOs that would bring this article towards GA. Just pinging a nonexclusive list of editors who have contributed or left remarks, to gauge interest:

@Shannon1 @Leijurv @XavierItzm @Coolcaesar @Citing @OrdinaryScarlett @Saharazosh @Hindbaerbrus @Peterlaxamazing @Zzyzx11 DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shannon1 and @DracaenaGuianensis: on section Initial Operating Segment (IOS), we have this nice «IOS construction status, as of January 2025» table, showing:
* Construction Package 1 -> Fully Funded
* Construction Package 2-3 -> Fully Funded
* Construction Package 4 -> Fully Funded
Which is all nice and copacetic, until you read California high-speed rail project needs $7 billion by next summer on KCRA-TV's website, dated yesterday. So now I am confused. Why does our table say "Fully Funded" if the Authority has gone the legislature hat in hand to ask for $7b? And this is assuming the Feds will give them an extra $4b, and this is assuming the Feds will not claw back any of the $2.5b already given. Am I misreading our "Fully Funded" chart? XavierItzm (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @XavierItzm, indeed the estimated funding shortfall appears to be up to $7 billion for the Merced-Bakersfield section (IOS), which spans 171 miles. Construction Packages 1, 2-3, and 4 together span 119 miles, which are fully funded in terms of civil construction. If you look into the first and last row – the ones you haven't listed above – these are the Merced and Bakersfield extensions that would complete the 171 miles and that are currently under engineering design. The table marked them as only partially funded (yellow) – in particular, their civil construction is not fully funded. This is where "a few" billion are still missing.
However one annoying subtlety is that the column Funding status so far only covers engineering and civil construction. Where the rest of the $7 billion shortfall come from, besides civil construction for the Merced and Bakersfield extensions, is parts of track and systems. If I read correctly, it's the second track and possibly some infrastructure for the whole system that are unfunded. But this is a bit awkward to put into the table, as these do not pertain to specific construction segments.
So for those elements without a meaningful correspondence to a geographical segment (such as control centers, power systems, stations, maintenance facilities, ...), one could only put them into a separate table. But that might end up being a bit too bloated?
DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, that explanation really went above and beyond. Many thanks. In light of it, the article appears to be OK. I might add the KCRA-TV article in text, if nobody has yet. Thanks for your hard work on this article. XavierItzm (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be up for collaborating on a To-Do list to nominate it for GA. I've spent a good amount of time improving the article recently, fixing stale or inaccurate information, providing better citation, improving the style and flow of the writing, bringing it up to date, etc.
My impression of the article is that it now starts off very well. But it gets less interesting and less relevant as it goes on. And on, and on, and on, lol. I don't know how to gauge whether the article is too long for the subject matter. But I think there must be a better and more concise way of capturing the complex history and challenges of the project. There seems to be a lot of "water under the bridge" that is reported out in overly exhaustive detail in the second half of the article.
What remains to be done, in order to bring the article up to GA standards? Scorcheroo (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a good idea to go through a mock review using the existing Good Article criteria. It would give us a pretty good picture of what we need to work on, and get us on the right track for when we actually try to go through the GA nomination process. I should note however that we could go through the process without having made any changes yet since we will be able to get the article up to the standards once a review has been completed. It will also tell us what we need to work on once we get there. On that note, below is a surface level review using the GA criteria to see where we stand.
Criteria 1: The introduction has some repetition and could use some work on rewording it. With how information dense the article currently is, certain parts of the article make me feel like it could benefit from having sections split off into sub pages in order to improve the flow and also provide more in depth knowledge on each topic. I also feel like the article could potentially be reorganized a bit since the article feels like it jumps between sections in jarring ways. In particular, I feel that moving the Economic, environmental, and community debates section to be below the Finances and Cost estimates could make the article flow a bit better since they are somewhat related. Additionally, I wonder if having the Rolling Stock section be below the Stations and Service section might help the upper sections flow a bit better? I think we should go through the article and see if any subtopic seems less fleshed out than it could be so we know we have sufficient information. There's probably more that needs to be fixed or cleaned up on this front, so at some point we should see what information can stay and which should either be spun off into its own article or removed entirely.
Criteria 2: I believe we actually meet this criteria, though I have not scoured the article looking for any violations yet. I don't think it is possible to violate WP:NOR (at least on this page) just based on the subject matter involved. Someone else should go through and check to see if we actually meet this though.
Criteria 3: We definitely address the main aspects, but as I mentioned before we might be going into unnecessary detail in some sections and should consider splitting off some of the more unwieldy parts into their own articles.
Criteria 4: We almost meet the neutrality criteria. There are a few random sentences that don't quite seem like they meet the WP:POV standards, so maybe give the article a run through to see anything that seems like it could be taken as not neutral and rewrite it.
Criteria 5: We definitely meet this criteria right now.
Criteria 6: I am almost certain we meet this criteria right now as well.
All in all, I think we are about 80-90% of the way to GA right now, but the amount of time required to get us over the finish line is probably more than most editors are willing to put in. Considering the fact that the GA Nomination process could take months, we might benefit from putting the article into the queue now and working through these issues while we wait for a reviewer to be assigned. AmpereBEEP (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been accused of being biased

[edit]

I don't know if the accusation is true or not, but I'm going to post this here to see what others think.

https://x.com/DanielAlmanPGH/status/1892837210245697874

The Mess of Adrian Listenger (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edit in question is a year old, and all that information is still present in the current version of the article (which has been completely rewritten since then). It's not worth spending the time and energy responding to every Twitter troll. Shannon [ Talk ] 07:38, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Informed Citizenship

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 January 2025 and 23 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CT15005 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CT15005 (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why the project failed

[edit]

I came across the following 2022 article published by Center for Law, Energy and the Environment of the UC Berkeley School of Law and The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies at the same university. I think some of its well-written and sourced material can be used as source, because the current article does not really explain the reasons the project has failed so far. Here's a taste: 

"California’s high-speed rail project was constrained by stringent requirements from the ballot measure that initiated state funding (Proposition 1A). The project also had to adhere to federal funding requirements. Because funding as linked to a voter-approved measure, the project needed to meet certain expectations, even when those expectations made it difficult to meet budget and timeline expectations"

"Unlike most other local transit projects, the high-speed rail project emerged from a statewide ballot initiative, not an initial proposal from a transit agency. This setup allowed less flexibility as conditions changed [...] specifications helped to ensure that funding would not be diverted to other transit projects and would be used for electric high-speed rail only. In practice, some of these specifications led to challenges. Most prominently, Proposition 1A specified that high-speed rail must be designed to connect San Francisco and Los Angeles in less than two hours and forty minutes. According to some experts, three hours would be a more reasonable time estimate. While the technology was available to achieve this connection, cost estimates to achieve it varied considerably over time, and the requirement may have guided decision-making when other factors (such as maximizing ridership or minimizing need to acquire right-of-way) could have better served efficient and beneficial deployment [...] Proposition 1A also included a provision that high-speed rail cannot receive an operating subsidy (i.e., funding towards the operation of the rail service; only funding towards construction is allowed). The “no operational subsidy” provision may make it difficult for high-speed rail to function" (pages 81-83, footnote calls omitted)

source: https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/64939/dot_64939_DS1.pdf XavierItzm (talk) 22:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have a section focusing on failures on the IOS: California_High-Speed_Rail#Setbacks_on_the_IOS, which goes into more detail about land acquisition, cost estimation, third-parties, and legal challenges. But it does not address the system-wide issues you outlined, such as legislation potentially doing too much micro-managing. Another unused source that is interesting in terms of explaining failures are the reports from the inspector general, which go into quite a bit of detail. But these are again dealing with more specific topics in each report, such as management or third-party permitting, and are less about "strategic" mistakes.
Though I don't have a handle yet on how one can best structure it all coherently. Maybe it comes with time. In the meantime given some current events, it looks like we again have some updating to do here.
DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 12:31, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been away from this topic for a while, but I'm happy to see that the article is looking much better than when I left it. As to the topic raised re the "failure of CAHSR" I have to say that this is ridiculous! Since the project hasn't ended, by no means can it be put into the past tense! There are indeed some significant constraints, but the quotes only seem to show ignorance and not reality. For instance, the project was grossly oversold as to its simplicity -- (we're going through the empty farmland of the Central Valley, so that'll go quick). No, Farmers are very protective of their land, and the Authority didn't have enough experienced staff in eminent domain proceedings. Then, too, there was the fact that there were rivers to cross and major highways and other rail lines. In short, a ton of massive structures were needed. Even if the Authority had all the money to do it, it didn't have the skill and experience to do it all simultaneously. Bottom line, the Authority has been learning how to do this (and is doing a better job all the time.) This is a normal learning curve.
The Prop 1A constraints are significant, but not a barrier to success. For instance the single greatest time constraint is SF to San Jose, but with judicious scheduling the train can do it -- barely. The SF-LA time constraint seems more daunting, but the system only has to show that it can do this run, and NOT do it every day. I recollect my rough calculation is that the train has a 10 minute time reserve with the train going its rated 200 mph speed over the whole route. With a top speed rated at 220 it has a bit of a speed reserve as well. Both together appear to be adequate to meet the time constraint on a special scheduled run. (Normally it wouldn't try to do this, of course.)
As to the funding, expectations were that this would be treated like any NORMAL project at the national level. In fact, the Republican Party in general has been opposed to this from the start, and they've done as much as they could to sabotage it. Recently receiving a promise of $1 billion a year from the state for two decades guarantees a way to get the IOS into operation in the 2030s. And, there is no reason to think that the Authority can't make a go of that. Linking the IOS to SF (their next goal) would make the system a great success, since there is great demand for that service. CAHSR will be initially replacing the Antrak San Joaquin (with an established customer base), and has the expertise of the German high speed rail system operator to guide them in opperations.
Bottom line, again the carping on the known past problems by no means indicates that the project is doomed. The unknowns and complications of tunneling could throw another wrench at the project, but it might go easier than expected. Who knows? All I can say is the project is improving all the time. Like any big engineering project, it has overruns, but ultimately can succeed with the proper support ... and reasonable expectations. Robert92107 (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
«Like any big engineering project, it has overruns». Woah. The normalization of failure. Tell it to the successful and on-budget Empire State Building, to the Golden Gate Bridge, or indeed, the Interstate 85 bridge collapse, fixed six weeks and one full month before expected, or the award-winning I-35W Saint Anthony Falls Bridge, built in 13 months, 3 full months ahead of schedule, and on budget. You might be of the opinion that projects generally fail, or exceed budget, but you are very mistaken. The Brightline railroad between Miami and Orlando was announced in 2012 and revenue service started in January 2018. «Like any big engineering project, it has overruns». Nope. XavierItzm (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The interstate highway system took over 30 years to build. Other stuff exists. What are you proposing be changed to this article? Or are you just here to say that the project has failed? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How can a megaproject be labeled a "failure" when its construction is successfully ongoing, and it hasn't even opened to the public yet? Your examples of two relatively tiny civil engineering projects, and two famous projects from a century ago – all four of which were fully funded, by the way – are not very relevant to a modern megaproject. And Brightline in FL is not a purpose-built, grade-separated high speed rail system that necessitated massive civil construction. It was an incremental enhancement to an existing right of way, with an average speed of no more than 69mph.
If anything "failed" with regards to CAHSR, it was the naive projections (cost and timeline) published in the Prop 1A voter guide, which were prepared by a consulting firm with no experience in high speed rail. They had no route in mind, no information to guide their work, no idea of the regulatory, legal difficulties, or the oncoming storm of political opposition. Theirs was, at best, nothing more than a conceptual guess. Using those faulty projections as a basis for assessing success or "failure" of the project itself seems irrational. Scorcheroo (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-standard, biased map

[edit]

The "Plans, construction, and project status" map (prepared by Shannon) is not according to best practices, and needs to be edited.

Specifically I am referring to the snarky "Ready for use" legend item, which isn't even used in the map itself. Now, there are cartography practices and specific reasons why some map legend items may be used when the item does not appear anywhere in the map itself. But this is definitely NOT one of those cases. This has the appearance of bad faith satire, and in fact this map has been widely circulated by CAHSR trolls specifically for that reason.

Fixing this map shouldn't be that difficult, though. Instead of "Ready for use," the green legend item could say "Electrification complete," and then the SF-SJ segment would be green (instead of being labeled with text). Scorcheroo (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since construction on Phase 2 is likely up to decades away, and Phase 2 is included in the map already cited in the article, this map should focus on Phase 1. Scorcheroo (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree here. Especially, accusing this particular editor of being snarky and acting in bad faith against the CAHSR project is unacceptable, and frankly does not even make sense if you look at the version history of this article and their past contributions to it.
Labeling "Electrification complete" with a green legend key would suggest that the segment is ready for HSR service, which it is not. It would still require upgrades and investments, e.g. signaling, which in total the Authority has estimated to cost in the order of billions. The fact that the PCEP was completed is mentioned explicitly via a label.
I am irritated that lately there seems to be the desire in this discussion page to make some sort of value judgements about CAHSR. That's not the job of Wikipedia. The article explains in great detail the many external challenges the project has (had) to overcome. Nevertheless the fact is: there is currently not a single operational segment, while being way past the original deadline. People can decide themselves given that factual basis. If trolls circulate this figure, that's too bad, but that does not counter the need for the public to have a clear and concise map that tells them exactly where each segment is at, at one single glance. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that perspective, but disagree. Including a "ready for use" legend item, when there won't be any segments "ready for use" for a number of years, lends a satirical impression and an implied value judgment about the project. And it isn't the proper language to use, anyway.
If giving the public precise knowledge about the status of each segment is the goal – and of course it should be – then in any case, "ready for use" should not be one of the menu items, particularly until such time as it is relevant (and at that a point, it should say "track certified") "Track laying in process" can be used, "electrification complete," "Trainset testing in process," "Revenue service initiated," etc., these are all legitimate stages of construction to label on a map of construction status - but not until they become relevant.
"Not ready for passenger service" is extraneous information, it's like saying my hobby is "not collecting stamps." Map locations are labeled for what they ARE, not for what they are NOT. Scorcheroo (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not sure why there is such a legend item. It might be an artifact of some previous work-in-progress version (or perhaps the result of some previous discussion that I've forgotten about) in any case, its inclusion appears to be in error- I will remove it. for future reference, SVG files are easily editable by free vector programs such as Inkscape, and this being Wikipedia, you are also free to make changes as you see fit. Shannon [ Talk ] 07:07, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing that, and I'm sorry if I came off too pushy about it. I saw that map being shared around by trolls, and so I assumed that the "ready for use" legend item, which didn't refer to anything on the map, was deliberately snarky. Scorcheroo (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]