Curious to see how this turns out. As the headline says, privately-owned intercity rail hasn't been a thing in the US in over a 100yrs. The prices seem decent, especially that family/group 4-pack...
The first big test of whether privately owned high-speed passenger train service can prosper in the United States will launch Friday when Florida’s Brightline begins running trains between Miami and Orlando, reaching speeds of 125 mph (200 kph).
[...]
The company is charging single riders $158 round-trip for business class and $298 for first-class, with families and groups able to buy four round-trip tickets for $398. Thirty-two trains will run daily.
Curious to see how this turns out. As the headline says, privately-owned intercity rail hasn't been a thing in the US in over a 100yrs.
The prices seem decent, especially that family/group 4-pack of tickets. But will it be worth it to save ~30min of time instead of driving?
Doing some quick math: that round trip would cost anywhere from $40 (assuming a Prius) to $200 (assuming a big pickup) in gas alone. Assuming parking (for drivers) and in-town transit (for rail...
Doing some quick math: that round trip would cost anywhere from $40 (assuming a Prius) to $200 (assuming a big pickup) in gas alone.
Assuming parking (for drivers) and in-town transit (for rail riders) is something of a wash, I guess it means that for one person it's roughly comparable in price (assuming some median fuel economy), but more expensive for those with fuel-efficient cars, or EVs. Likewise a lot more expensive for groups that could otherwise carpool.
All that said, I hope it's a success, because we need more of this. Though I'd rather it not be privatized...
If it weren’t privatized it wouldn’t have happened, as evident from the numerous examples of pie-in-the-sky transit plans concocted by states which are bogged down by bureaucracy, lawsuits, public...
Though I'd rather it not be privatized...
If it weren’t privatized it wouldn’t have happened, as evident from the numerous examples of pie-in-the-sky transit plans concocted by states which are bogged down by bureaucracy, lawsuits, public hearings, and a lack of funding to such an extent that they are little more than an exercise in lighting money on fire.
I'd rather it not be privatized either, but like u/stu2b50 says, it probably wouldn't have happened. Certainly not as quickly. I mean, if the past is anything to go by, Brightline may end up being...
I'd rather it not be privatized either, but like u/stu2b50 says, it probably wouldn't have happened. Certainly not as quickly.
I mean, if the past is anything to go by, Brightline may end up being government-owned at some point...
How do other countries, especially those in Europe do it? Is it common for intercity passenger rail to be owed and operated by government? I know Deutsch Bahn in Germany and SNCF in France are state-owned, much like Amtrak is. I get the feeling that UK passenger service is probably private. But yeah, what's the split?
In Europe it is typical for the government to own the rails and for a mix of public and private companies to operate passenger service on them. There are exceptions. Wikipedia has a List of...
In Europe it is typical for the government to own the rails and for a mix of public and private companies to operate passenger service on them. There are exceptions. Wikipedia has a List of European railways and a List of railway companies in general. They don't have any charts on public/private overall, but most are definitely public.
In the US it is typical for private companies to own the rails and for government only to operate passenger service on them. Amtrak owns only ~650 miles of track in the US compared to the 21,400 miles it operates that on. Most of those lines are held privately by freight companies. While cities own many tracks in their metro areas, this does not typically extend to inter-city tracks.
One of these is a much more effective model than the other.
Thanks for finding that list! Last year, I took Amtrak from Kansas City to Chicago and back. Just a long weekend trip for a wedding. To Chicago, we were delayed by 2hrs because of a damned freight...
Thanks for finding that list!
Last year, I took Amtrak from Kansas City to Chicago and back. Just a long weekend trip for a wedding. To Chicago, we were delayed by 2hrs because of a damned freight train. Luckily, my group got in the day before the wedding, so it was NBD. Amazingly, on the way back, we got in within like 10min of the scheduled time since there were no freight delays.
Still though, it's one of those things that has to be accounted for when taking Amtrak, since like you mentioned, Amtrak owns none of the rail outside of the NEC. I wish Amtrak would/could enforce that supposed rule that Amtrak trains get priority over freight. Because it never actually happens.
Amtrak actually owns a little bit of rail outside of the Northeast Corridor, just not enough to be particularly useful. In addition to 363 out of 457 miles of the NEC (the rest owned by regional...
Exemplary
Amtrak actually owns a little bit of rail outside of the Northeast Corridor, just not enough to be particularly useful. In addition to 363 out of 457 miles of the NEC (the rest owned by regional authorities), Amtrak owns 104 miles of track between Philadelphia and Harrisburg (Keystone Line), 98 miles of track in Michigan near Kalamazoo, 62 miles of track between New Haven and Springfield (Connecticut), and some other pitiful offshoots of the NEC on the Empire Corridor in NY totaling around 23 miles.
It's hard to find a map of the entire Amtrak-owned system anywhere on the internet, probably because it's too depressing for railfans to publicize.
The Chicago–St Louis mainline was upgraded to 110mph service recently, which is nice, though still not high-speed. I don't think the section to KC was upgraded. In regard to freight traffic jams, this issue could be alleviated without Amtrak building new rights of way if they simply double-tracked or triple-tracked high-traffic sections, giving passenger trains some breathing room while not seriously affecting freight operations. You'd have some 5-minute slowdowns here and there, but no 2-hour waits. However, this is expensive and usually involves some land acquisition, which is expensive and slow.
For high-speed rail to become a reality, diesel lines would have to be electrified, which is capital expenditure that freight railroads just aren't interested in making. So sometimes it's better to just give up on the freight lines and build a new one for passenger trains only.
Since the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated $66 billion to passenger rail in 2021—more than the agency has ever received in funding in every year of operation combined—it's possible that we'll see Amtrak purchasing tracks in important areas. However, they also have to do a lot of maintenance to catch up on decades of underinvestment/political sabotage.
The Amtrak Connects US: 2035 plan looks promising. Nothing revolutionary, but a big step in the right direction for passenger rail. The new map shows plans for increased service on existing lines and some extensions to places that currently don't have service. Some of the infrastructure projects necessary to make this successful is contingent on additional funding.
I was a bit confused because when they talked about safety, it sounded like the train was already running. Apparently the news is the opening of the Orlando station. From a Washington Post...
I was a bit confused because when they talked about safety, it sounded like the train was already running. Apparently the news is the opening of the Orlando station. From a Washington Post article:
Five years after Brightline opened its 67-mile service between Miami and West Palm Beach, passengers fill the five-car trains for sporting events and festivals, while commuters use them to get to jobs. Students receive discounted passes for educational excursions.
Brightline uses business tycoon Henry Flagler’s original Miami train station and his Florida East Coast Railway, built in the late 1880s. The station had fallen into disrepair and was surrounded by parking lots. The raised platform is now the hub of 1.5 million square feet of development, with office, commercial and residential spaces built by Brightline’s owner.
So yeah, that’s how you make money from public transit.
Fares, which are comparable to Amtrak’s and competitive with airfare, vary depending on the time of travel and how early tickets are purchased. A ticket from Miami to West Palm Beach can cost between $15 and $52. Economy fares from Orlando to Miami start at $79 one way. Brightline will offer 16 daily round trips with hourly departures between Miami and Orlando.
The service carried more than 1.2 million people in 2022, with more than 1.1 million rides this year through the end of July.
Apparently they have big plans:
But the goal has always been linking two of the nation’s most tourist-friendly cities to their respective nearby metropolis — Orlando to Miami, and Las Vegas to Los Angeles — before taking high-speed rail nationwide.
…
The 218-mile Las Vegas-to-suburban-Los Angeles route, dubbed Brightline West, has land, federal reviews and labor agreements in place, and company leaders say it could be built in four years. Its prospects are good, industry leaders and transportation officials say, amid renewed attention to rail in Washington and historic levels of federal funding for a national rail network that has lagged on the global stage.
Brightline West, expected to be funded primarily through private investment, like the Florida project, is also aiming for a multibillion-dollar federal grant.
I'm most interested in the Vegas to Los Angeles service. This past weekend, my brother and I drove from Vegas down to L.A. and back for a weekend visit. It took about 3.5-4hrs on a Saturday midday...
I'm most interested in the Vegas to Los Angeles service. This past weekend, my brother and I drove from Vegas down to L.A. and back for a weekend visit. It took about 3.5-4hrs on a Saturday midday to get there. Going back to Vegas on Monday, it took 5hrs because we got caught up in rush-hour traffic. Typically Fridays and Sundays are the worst. I once drove L.A. to Vegas on the day after Thanksgiving. "Yikes," is all I'll say.
Anything that can be done to alleviate traffic and emissions -- short of highway lane expansion -- between those two cities needs to be done.
Nationally, bring on the trains. I actually live in Kansas City; while we have some Amtrak service here (Chicago/L.A. and St. Louis), KC should be connected to other regional cities via passenger rail.
Fortress' property development scheme around Brightline stops is underappreciated. Density needs to be high near urban rail corridors for them to succeed. Replacing parking lots with housing near...
Fortress' property development scheme around Brightline stops is underappreciated. Density needs to be high near urban rail corridors for them to succeed. Replacing parking lots with housing near train stations is a great decision as far as sustainable ridership metrics are concerned.
I think it's a great way to fund building the railroad. It's also a very old scheme. Many street car lines were originally funded by real estate development. A problem is that, after the real...
I think it's a great way to fund building the railroad. It's also a very old scheme. Many street car lines were originally funded by real estate development.
A problem is that, after the real estate is sold, there's less incentive to invest. But that could be dealt with in a different way.
This is a good project, and while I don't care for privatized rail, it's better than the alternative of not having any fast trains in the area. The long-term issue Brightline/Fortress faces is the...
This is a good project, and while I don't care for privatized rail, it's better than the alternative of not having any fast trains in the area.
The long-term issue Brightline/Fortress faces is the route through Orlando to Tampa. As I understand it, the current alignment ends at the airport, which is a strange and not particularly useful stopping point. The trains really need to route to a station in central Orlando, perhaps including major attractions. Unfortunately, both Disney and Universal have been lobbying for routes favoring the other company not to be adopted, ultimately leading to... nothing happening? I think the Universal route is currently favored (but it will stop at Disney anyway?), but there's no environmental study yet. Either way, it'll be an expensive alignment.
I'm interested to see if Brightline does well with their Orlando extension. Looking forward to the construction of Brightline West too. My hope is for that project to kickstart rail investment in California in particular.
I hope they continue building, but I'm wondering why you don't think Orlando airport is a good stopping point for now? It's already a transit hub, it's close to downtown, and it should be...
I hope they continue building, but I'm wondering why you don't think Orlando airport is a good stopping point for now? It's already a transit hub, it's close to downtown, and it should be convenient for anyone traveling by air.
This looks to me like privatized rail winning at building stuff, at least in the US. Any bets on whether the Brightline's Vegas to LA line will be done before California High Speed Rail? They chose easier and likely more profitable routes and they build incrementally, but I think that's why it's working?
Long term, it might make sense for the state to take over, though.
The airport is an acceptable location (better than a parking lot!), but major transit hubs should ideally be somewhere within walking distance of urban amenities, or only a few minutes by transit....
The airport is an acceptable location (better than a parking lot!), but major transit hubs should ideally be somewhere within walking distance of urban amenities, or only a few minutes by transit. Orlando's airport is about 1h15m by bus to the central business district, which somewhat negates any theoretical time-competitiveness. I guess it won't be worse than air as far as "getting to the city center" goes, but that's a pretty low bar for short-haul flights.
Airport connections are important for high-speed rail (see: Newark Int'l), but you also need direct center city connections (see: NYC Penn Station). If you only have an airport connection and don't have a center city connection, you can induce a reasonable modal shift away from air but not much from cars. (If you have to drive to the Orlando airport to get to the station, and the flight to Miami is faster than the train, you might as well fly.) I assume they didn't want to spend another $1 billion on downtown land acquisition and tunnels/elevated tracks, which is reasonable. They'll still get some market share from business travelers who would otherwise fly. And of course they'll get some market share from people who simply don't want to fly or drive no matter what.
Speculating: had this been a public project, it probably would have focused on hitting all the long-term ridership and usefulness metrics from the get-go (downtown connection, airport connection), not unlike CAHSR. I suppose the advantage Brightline has is that they kind of got to choose their constituents here, and they chose air travelers over urban residents. Still, better than no rail getting built.
Any bets on whether the Brightline's Vegas to LA line will be done before California High Speed Rail?
Just a question of funding now. California High-Speed Rail pretends to be one megaproject, but it's really 3+ megaprojects with some connecting infrastructure: the greater San Francisco/San Jose metro area (and I guess Sacramento); the greater Los Angeles/San Diego metro area; and the Central Valley. However, the state made the questionable decision to prioritize the Central Valley over either SF or LA. I have no doubt the Central Valley segment will be completed approximately on schedule (passenger trains running not before 2030). It's mostly funded already and I'm confident the state will pull itself together to connect Merced–Bakersfield.
I'm less confident about the rest of the network. The Caltrain line between San Francisco and San Jose is currently being electrified, which is an essential "bookend" improvement for the system. The problem is that there's like a $60–100 billion funding shortfall to finish all of "Phase 1" because it's such a sprawling mess. It would have been politically and operationally easier to fund HSR between SF and Gilroy, eventually connecting to Merced and up to Sacramento; and a completely separate HSR network between San Diego, Anaheim, LA, Burbank, and I guess Palmdale; then a third completely separate HSR network between Merced and Bakersfield, eventually connecting all these self-sustaining networks. The SF–LA connection wouldn't happen until the very end, but that's OK: if the project ran out of money before the Central Valley segment, you would have been left with a pretty good NorCal and/or SoCal network, ideally both. With functional "bookends" anchoring both major metros, it would have been easier to allocate funding for the middle.
That's all to say that I don't think CAHSR is getting $60–100 billion before 2027. I also don't know if Brightline West is getting $8 billion for their line, but considering the entire Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated $66 billion for rail in the whole country over the next few years (only ~$20 billion of which CAHSR can draw from, as $46 billion is for Amtrak), I have trouble envisioning a political environment where CAHSR (a project that affects exactly one state) gets complete funding in the very near future. There are other funding sources than the BIL, but it's the big one. Brightline's request seems paltry in comparison. I could see Brightline West getting delayed until after the Central Valley segment of CAHSR is finished, but not much longer than that unless the company monumentally screws up. They're really far along: they have a lease for most of the land and the route's environmental review is approved. They also have the Olympics as special incentive, which the CAHSR Authority apparently doesn't care about. They just need a federal grant. If they don't get it, they'll have to scrounge up capital privately, which I think is also possible, though it puts them at risk.
I think the rest of CAHSR will eventually be built, I just don't think it'll be until the mid 2040s at the earliest. And I understand why it was easiest to start in the Central Valley. That was what cleared environmental review first, it has the fewest engineering challenges (flat, no tunnels), and federal grants have time limits if the money isn't being used, so they had to start. They are definitely inching along. It is painstakingly incremental. In this case, I don't think the issue was that the authority in charge of the project was public, but rather that the plan was codified into law prematurely (the Proposition 1A bond measure stipulated particular station/routing and speed requirements), which constrained engineers somewhat into designing a particularly expensive system. In Brightline West, the company is able to make fast decisions like reducing the number of tracks from two to one because they saw an opportunity to actually build the line in the median of I-15. That was an unfortunate compromise which will limit average speeds slightly, but they at least have a feasible short-term project. When the public and the government get riled up about public transportation, they become more interested in these massive, magical, perfect projects; overbuilding so that we can have something awesome, even if that means being more idealistic than realistic. To some extent this is just an issue of cost-benefit analysis decisions being made by politicians before project managers.
Yet I respect the vision that California High-Speed Rail has. Sometimes you do need to think big. Even by the time CAHSR gets built, I doubt the Northeast Corridor will have gotten up to 220mph!
I don't particularly blame the public for voting for CAHSR, though they could have voted it down. Voters don't look at referendums all that closely. I do blame the political process that ended up...
I don't particularly blame the public for voting for CAHSR, though they could have voted it down. Voters don't look at referendums all that closely. I do blame the political process that ended up putting the proposal on the ballot for screwing it up.
re: Florida, I was thinking more along the lines of someone starting at a different station (somewhere without an airport), taking the train to Orlando airport, and then flying. Or in the opposite direction. That would be for a location outside Orlando, though.
Looks like the next station is all the way in West Palm Beach, which does have an airport. But perhaps some connections are better through Orlando.
So yeah, I think you're right, they need both. Maybe a station in to the east of Orlando somewhere too? It seems like a real estate development project for someone.
Curious to see how this turns out. As the headline says, privately-owned intercity rail hasn't been a thing in the US in over a 100yrs.
The prices seem decent, especially that family/group 4-pack of tickets. But will it be worth it to save ~30min of time instead of driving?
Doing some quick math: that round trip would cost anywhere from $40 (assuming a Prius) to $200 (assuming a big pickup) in gas alone.
Assuming parking (for drivers) and in-town transit (for rail riders) is something of a wash, I guess it means that for one person it's roughly comparable in price (assuming some median fuel economy), but more expensive for those with fuel-efficient cars, or EVs. Likewise a lot more expensive for groups that could otherwise carpool.
All that said, I hope it's a success, because we need more of this. Though I'd rather it not be privatized...
If it weren’t privatized it wouldn’t have happened, as evident from the numerous examples of pie-in-the-sky transit plans concocted by states which are bogged down by bureaucracy, lawsuits, public hearings, and a lack of funding to such an extent that they are little more than an exercise in lighting money on fire.
I'd rather it not be privatized either, but like u/stu2b50 says, it probably wouldn't have happened. Certainly not as quickly.
I mean, if the past is anything to go by, Brightline may end up being government-owned at some point...
How do other countries, especially those in Europe do it? Is it common for intercity passenger rail to be owed and operated by government? I know Deutsch Bahn in Germany and SNCF in France are state-owned, much like Amtrak is. I get the feeling that UK passenger service is probably private. But yeah, what's the split?
In Europe it is typical for the government to own the rails and for a mix of public and private companies to operate passenger service on them. There are exceptions. Wikipedia has a List of European railways and a List of railway companies in general. They don't have any charts on public/private overall, but most are definitely public.
In the US it is typical for private companies to own the rails and for government only to operate passenger service on them. Amtrak owns only ~650 miles of track in the US compared to the 21,400 miles it operates that on. Most of those lines are held privately by freight companies. While cities own many tracks in their metro areas, this does not typically extend to inter-city tracks.
One of these is a much more effective model than the other.
Thanks for finding that list!
Last year, I took Amtrak from Kansas City to Chicago and back. Just a long weekend trip for a wedding. To Chicago, we were delayed by 2hrs because of a damned freight train. Luckily, my group got in the day before the wedding, so it was NBD. Amazingly, on the way back, we got in within like 10min of the scheduled time since there were no freight delays.
Still though, it's one of those things that has to be accounted for when taking Amtrak, since like you mentioned, Amtrak owns none of the rail outside of the NEC. I wish Amtrak would/could enforce that supposed rule that Amtrak trains get priority over freight. Because it never actually happens.
Amtrak actually owns a little bit of rail outside of the Northeast Corridor, just not enough to be particularly useful. In addition to 363 out of 457 miles of the NEC (the rest owned by regional authorities), Amtrak owns 104 miles of track between Philadelphia and Harrisburg (Keystone Line), 98 miles of track in Michigan near Kalamazoo, 62 miles of track between New Haven and Springfield (Connecticut), and some other pitiful offshoots of the NEC on the Empire Corridor in NY totaling around 23 miles.
It's hard to find a map of the entire Amtrak-owned system anywhere on the internet, probably because it's too depressing for railfans to publicize.
The Chicago–St Louis mainline was upgraded to 110mph service recently, which is nice, though still not high-speed. I don't think the section to KC was upgraded. In regard to freight traffic jams, this issue could be alleviated without Amtrak building new rights of way if they simply double-tracked or triple-tracked high-traffic sections, giving passenger trains some breathing room while not seriously affecting freight operations. You'd have some 5-minute slowdowns here and there, but no 2-hour waits. However, this is expensive and usually involves some land acquisition, which is expensive and slow.
For high-speed rail to become a reality, diesel lines would have to be electrified, which is capital expenditure that freight railroads just aren't interested in making. So sometimes it's better to just give up on the freight lines and build a new one for passenger trains only.
Since the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated $66 billion to passenger rail in 2021—more than the agency has ever received in funding in every year of operation combined—it's possible that we'll see Amtrak purchasing tracks in important areas. However, they also have to do a lot of maintenance to catch up on decades of underinvestment/political sabotage.
The Amtrak Connects US: 2035 plan looks promising. Nothing revolutionary, but a big step in the right direction for passenger rail. The new map shows plans for increased service on existing lines and some extensions to places that currently don't have service. Some of the infrastructure projects necessary to make this successful is contingent on additional funding.
I was a bit confused because when they talked about safety, it sounded like the train was already running. Apparently the news is the opening of the Orlando station. From a Washington Post article:
So yeah, that’s how you make money from public transit.
Apparently they have big plans:
…
I'm most interested in the Vegas to Los Angeles service. This past weekend, my brother and I drove from Vegas down to L.A. and back for a weekend visit. It took about 3.5-4hrs on a Saturday midday to get there. Going back to Vegas on Monday, it took 5hrs because we got caught up in rush-hour traffic. Typically Fridays and Sundays are the worst. I once drove L.A. to Vegas on the day after Thanksgiving. "Yikes," is all I'll say.
Anything that can be done to alleviate traffic and emissions -- short of highway lane expansion -- between those two cities needs to be done.
Nationally, bring on the trains. I actually live in Kansas City; while we have some Amtrak service here (Chicago/L.A. and St. Louis), KC should be connected to other regional cities via passenger rail.
Fortress' property development scheme around Brightline stops is underappreciated. Density needs to be high near urban rail corridors for them to succeed. Replacing parking lots with housing near train stations is a great decision as far as sustainable ridership metrics are concerned.
I think it's a great way to fund building the railroad. It's also a very old scheme. Many street car lines were originally funded by real estate development.
A problem is that, after the real estate is sold, there's less incentive to invest. But that could be dealt with in a different way.
This is a good project, and while I don't care for privatized rail, it's better than the alternative of not having any fast trains in the area.
The long-term issue Brightline/Fortress faces is the route through Orlando to Tampa. As I understand it, the current alignment ends at the airport, which is a strange and not particularly useful stopping point. The trains really need to route to a station in central Orlando, perhaps including major attractions. Unfortunately, both Disney and Universal have been lobbying for routes favoring the other company not to be adopted, ultimately leading to... nothing happening? I think the Universal route is currently favored (but it will stop at Disney anyway?), but there's no environmental study yet. Either way, it'll be an expensive alignment.
I'm interested to see if Brightline does well with their Orlando extension. Looking forward to the construction of Brightline West too. My hope is for that project to kickstart rail investment in California in particular.
I hope they continue building, but I'm wondering why you don't think Orlando airport is a good stopping point for now? It's already a transit hub, it's close to downtown, and it should be convenient for anyone traveling by air.
This looks to me like privatized rail winning at building stuff, at least in the US. Any bets on whether the Brightline's Vegas to LA line will be done before California High Speed Rail? They chose easier and likely more profitable routes and they build incrementally, but I think that's why it's working?
Long term, it might make sense for the state to take over, though.
The airport is an acceptable location (better than a parking lot!), but major transit hubs should ideally be somewhere within walking distance of urban amenities, or only a few minutes by transit. Orlando's airport is about 1h15m by bus to the central business district, which somewhat negates any theoretical time-competitiveness. I guess it won't be worse than air as far as "getting to the city center" goes, but that's a pretty low bar for short-haul flights.
Airport connections are important for high-speed rail (see: Newark Int'l), but you also need direct center city connections (see: NYC Penn Station). If you only have an airport connection and don't have a center city connection, you can induce a reasonable modal shift away from air but not much from cars. (If you have to drive to the Orlando airport to get to the station, and the flight to Miami is faster than the train, you might as well fly.) I assume they didn't want to spend another $1 billion on downtown land acquisition and tunnels/elevated tracks, which is reasonable. They'll still get some market share from business travelers who would otherwise fly. And of course they'll get some market share from people who simply don't want to fly or drive no matter what.
Speculating: had this been a public project, it probably would have focused on hitting all the long-term ridership and usefulness metrics from the get-go (downtown connection, airport connection), not unlike CAHSR. I suppose the advantage Brightline has is that they kind of got to choose their constituents here, and they chose air travelers over urban residents. Still, better than no rail getting built.
Just a question of funding now. California High-Speed Rail pretends to be one megaproject, but it's really 3+ megaprojects with some connecting infrastructure: the greater San Francisco/San Jose metro area (and I guess Sacramento); the greater Los Angeles/San Diego metro area; and the Central Valley. However, the state made the questionable decision to prioritize the Central Valley over either SF or LA. I have no doubt the Central Valley segment will be completed approximately on schedule (passenger trains running not before 2030). It's mostly funded already and I'm confident the state will pull itself together to connect Merced–Bakersfield.
I'm less confident about the rest of the network. The Caltrain line between San Francisco and San Jose is currently being electrified, which is an essential "bookend" improvement for the system. The problem is that there's like a $60–100 billion funding shortfall to finish all of "Phase 1" because it's such a sprawling mess. It would have been politically and operationally easier to fund HSR between SF and Gilroy, eventually connecting to Merced and up to Sacramento; and a completely separate HSR network between San Diego, Anaheim, LA, Burbank, and I guess Palmdale; then a third completely separate HSR network between Merced and Bakersfield, eventually connecting all these self-sustaining networks. The SF–LA connection wouldn't happen until the very end, but that's OK: if the project ran out of money before the Central Valley segment, you would have been left with a pretty good NorCal and/or SoCal network, ideally both. With functional "bookends" anchoring both major metros, it would have been easier to allocate funding for the middle.
That's all to say that I don't think CAHSR is getting $60–100 billion before 2027. I also don't know if Brightline West is getting $8 billion for their line, but considering the entire Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated $66 billion for rail in the whole country over the next few years (only ~$20 billion of which CAHSR can draw from, as $46 billion is for Amtrak), I have trouble envisioning a political environment where CAHSR (a project that affects exactly one state) gets complete funding in the very near future. There are other funding sources than the BIL, but it's the big one. Brightline's request seems paltry in comparison. I could see Brightline West getting delayed until after the Central Valley segment of CAHSR is finished, but not much longer than that unless the company monumentally screws up. They're really far along: they have a lease for most of the land and the route's environmental review is approved. They also have the Olympics as special incentive, which the CAHSR Authority apparently doesn't care about. They just need a federal grant. If they don't get it, they'll have to scrounge up capital privately, which I think is also possible, though it puts them at risk.
I think the rest of CAHSR will eventually be built, I just don't think it'll be until the mid 2040s at the earliest. And I understand why it was easiest to start in the Central Valley. That was what cleared environmental review first, it has the fewest engineering challenges (flat, no tunnels), and federal grants have time limits if the money isn't being used, so they had to start. They are definitely inching along. It is painstakingly incremental. In this case, I don't think the issue was that the authority in charge of the project was public, but rather that the plan was codified into law prematurely (the Proposition 1A bond measure stipulated particular station/routing and speed requirements), which constrained engineers somewhat into designing a particularly expensive system. In Brightline West, the company is able to make fast decisions like reducing the number of tracks from two to one because they saw an opportunity to actually build the line in the median of I-15. That was an unfortunate compromise which will limit average speeds slightly, but they at least have a feasible short-term project. When the public and the government get riled up about public transportation, they become more interested in these massive, magical, perfect projects; overbuilding so that we can have something awesome, even if that means being more idealistic than realistic. To some extent this is just an issue of cost-benefit analysis decisions being made by politicians before project managers.
Yet I respect the vision that California High-Speed Rail has. Sometimes you do need to think big. Even by the time CAHSR gets built, I doubt the Northeast Corridor will have gotten up to 220mph!
I don't particularly blame the public for voting for CAHSR, though they could have voted it down. Voters don't look at referendums all that closely. I do blame the political process that ended up putting the proposal on the ballot for screwing it up.
re: Florida, I was thinking more along the lines of someone starting at a different station (somewhere without an airport), taking the train to Orlando airport, and then flying. Or in the opposite direction. That would be for a location outside Orlando, though.
Looks like the next station is all the way in West Palm Beach, which does have an airport. But perhaps some connections are better through Orlando.
So yeah, I think you're right, they need both. Maybe a station in to the east of Orlando somewhere too? It seems like a real estate development project for someone.