This project didn't make sense from the start - look at where the construction is and what's been done. It should be SF to LA not all this other nonsense.
This would reduce a lot of the population pressure on the SF Bay, lowering real estate prices and knitting the state more tightly together.
Yes, they were. There was confusion caused by Newsome's restatement of the status quo (that the outside funding sought for construction outside of the initial construction segment had not yet been secured, and until it was, that construction wouldn't happen), but the plan was always to continue environmental clearances and work on lining up funding for the entire Phase 1 SF-LA project, with focus on first finishing the SJ-Bakersfield initial operating segment (of which the Merced to Bakersfield initial construction segment included a large part.)
Unfortunately, many of these cities seem to already suffer from sprawl which might limit their potential. Going from SV through farmland just to eventually end at a tiny station, with little public transport and low rise buildings would be a little bit too ironic.
It is almost like it would make sense to build the stations between the towns, or at least at one end of them.
Federal fund restrictions meant CA has to pay for SF->SJ (which is being done under the caltrain modernization project) and Bakersfield to LA (which is completely unfunded) as this is AFIAK considered 'commuter rail' so is not eligible for federal funding.
Work on everything other than the Merced to Bakersfield initial construction segment, other than the environmental clearance and planning work that was explicitly stated to be continuing in Newsome's State of the State address, was never actually scheduled because funding had not been secured; the state was actively seeking funding before the address, and all the address said was that the State would continue seeking funding and would not do work until it had secured it. The address literally was waving around the status quo as news. It didn't do anything (which it wouldn't even if it had announced a policy change, because actual policy is made by laws, regulations, executive orders, and a number of other vehicles, the State of the State address not being one of them.)
> The Merced to Bakersfield segment, by itself, is nearly useless.
The Merced to Bakersfield segment is the one for which the federal government had specifically designated funding. Cancelling the funding on the basis that the state was, as always explicitly planned, building only the funded part until securing additional funding is beyond ludicrous.
(Of course, Newsome's statement in the State of the State address which was clearly designed to appear to be announcing significant policy while actually announcing the status quo was also beyond ludicrous, and politically played into opponents of the project and opponents of the state as a whole -- and the Trump Administration may or may not be the former, but has pretty openly shown itself to be the latter.)
is beyond ludicrous
There is no court ruling here; the “appeal” is an internal administrative appeal, not an appeal to a court, which is why the article explicitly notes it wad the Trump Administration (which is not a court) that had rejected the appeal, and why it said that the state is expected to sue over the action (which would not be an option if a court had already ruled on the issue.)
Hence this part is being funded as part of the caltrain modernization project, which is literally under construction as we speak. It will turn the existing 2-3tph corridor into at least 10tph each way with all the standard features of a European/Japanese/Chinese train line.
>Bakersfield's population is around 380,000,[10] making it the 9th-most populous city in California and the 52nd-most populous city in the nation.[0]
Gee, I wonder why some folks have the idea that SV/SF/Software people are disconnected from the rest of the world.
I don't want to have a reason to go to Bakersfield, but maybe it's a bit aloof to pretend like it's some tiny outpost in the middle of nowhere; it's a CA freeway hub that's connected to the entire rest of the state by a slew of highway arteries that facilitate easy travel from SoCal/NorCal/Central. It's literally the intersection of 5 or 6 highways from all over the state.
It's perfectly reasonable to have a mass transit hub there; it leads to anywhere you want to go in California via highway.
If not, it's a distinction without a difference.
I grew up in the central valley. Nice place in many ways, but all that matters for this discussion is whether that route is useful. And I highly doubt it is.
A lot of the traffic on that route is trucking, which isn't helped by high-speed rail. You say it's connected by highways, but if you are riding the train you don't have a car. A bus? Kind of makes the train speed irrelevant if you are trying out a bus route from Bakersfield to somewhere else.
Not seeing the user story for this project.
San Francisco, the 13th largest city in America? And San Jose, the 10th largest city in America?
If they were serious, they should have done New York to Los Angeles where the dollars spent would actually be useful rather than moving people from Nowhere to Nowhere Else.
The project did spend money there on electrification and other improvements to existing CalTrain and other service and infrastructure; Merced to Bakersfield was a new track segment that was in a position to compete favorably for federal funding then on offer for that specific purpose, and as the whole system always relied on getting additional federal and private funds, that's what got prioritized for new rail construction.
The initial construction segment was never even imagined as the initial operation segment (which was SJ to Bakersfield, which is very much not nowhere to nowhere else, but are two significant population centers with poor existing linkages, unlike SF to SJ which, while significant population centers, have much better existing linkages.)