Talk:California High-Speed Rail

Chowchilla Wye was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 May 2021 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into California High-Speed Rail. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California High-Speed Rail article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Passenger trains Mid‑importance Trains Portal DYK March 28, 2021 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by the Passenger trains task force. California: Los Angeles / San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

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]

I made an edit moving the table to the history article as it is both quite detailed, maybe a bit too detailed for the main page, and a full table of CP1-4 would get very long very quickly and take up a sizable amount of the article. I added a main article link to be able to access it from the main page. It got reverted, so I will restore my edits unless someone chimes in with a position otherwise. Jspace727 (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Construction project tables are now in Construction of CAHSR Robert92107 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could be fun and informative to create a map that shows the construction status of each of the segments of the Phase 1 route. e.g. in construction, environmental review, etc. Corevette (talk) 12:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have reliable sources for such a map? Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have an old map sitting around that I'm happy to update for this. All the necessary information is available at the state HSR site. Shannon [ Talk ] 20:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Shannon did this, and it is now in MAIN CAHSR Current Status Robert92107 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updated status map, putting in more discernible colors on segments, and an updated and expanded legend. Robert92107 (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit about V. and biased and inaccurate articles. In fact, there were three topics all on this! So, I've consolidated them all here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

@XavierItzm: Ralph Vartabedian's CAHSR coverage is openly biased and should be treated as opinion, not fact. Streetsblog - while not unbiased itself - has pretty good coverage showing that Vartabedian uses deliberate mistruths in his stories, that that's been the case for years, and specifically notes the questionable claims in the piece you've used as a source.

What you've added to the lede is a bold claim bordering on exceptional, and the laundry list of allegedly affected groups strikes me as not adhering to NPOV. If noted in the lede, it needs to be supported by unquestionably reliable sources, and it needs to be given due weight. Critics have claimed that the project disproportionately impacts disadvantaged communities in the Central Valley. would be more appropriate that the list you included. Even then, it should be in a later section and specifically note the source of the criticism, unless reliable sources are available that neutrally summarize the claims being made and who is making them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a summary of the article so unique content doesn't belong there. I was looking for an appropriate section and realized that there is not a place for hyper-local impacts like this. A subsection under "Route and stations" might be a good start. Fettlemap (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into consideration Pi's position that the Los Angeles Time's (a WP:RS if there ever was one) might be too bold of a claim to have in the lede, and Fettlemap's position that it would be better placed in a sub-section, I've removed it from the lede. Thanks, XavierItzm (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

while the LA Times in general might be reliable, V. In particular on this topic very much isn't. He's been caught in too many outright falsehoods to count and he's obviously got an axe to grind... Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a WP:RSP to support that opinion? XavierItzm (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT and WaPo articles were garbage. I don't know of a WP:RSP. However, I originally wrote this criticism of them and put this in main CAHSR, but there was objection to it, so it was removed:

RECENT PUBLISHED CRITICISM

The New York Times (2022)

In a New York Times article "How California’s Bullet Train Went Off the Rails" published October 9, 2022, Ralph Vartabedian, a frequent critic of the plan, wrote how the project is a political nightmare. One critic he cites is Dan McNamara, a career project manager for SNCF, the French national railroad, who said that Morocco (where SNCF subsequently assisted in building an HSR system) was "less politically dysfunctional" than California.^[1] SNCF attempted to become involved in the project in the early 2000s, but withdrew in 2011. This article devoted extensive text to the route chosen as being a political compromise to garner more potential riders, but with the certainty of a longer, more expensive, and more difficult to complete project. The project has subsequently been stumbling in planning, management, budgeting, and its timeline projections.

Issues with this article:

(1) Note this article does not purport to be an up-to-date or complete review of the project. For that, refer to the latest Peer Review Group report (see the Peer Review Group section above).

(2) By 2008, Proposition 1A had passed, and the route had become established in law. The route criticism is thus largely ‘old news’, since the voters of California specifically approved a route that linked all the major population centers of the state together. This was a political decision, and not an engineering one. So, SNCF's recommendation for an easier, more direct, and less expensive route between San Francisco and Los Angeles became moot.

(3) California's Department of Transportation has a State Rail Plan that integrates HSR with local transit systems. With an eye to "blended system" operation, the Authority has been helping fund improvements to the metropolitan commuter rail systems in San Francisco and Los Angeles. The "blended" HSR trains will share trackage and train control, and run at about the same speed as the improved local commuter rail; the article does not mention this. Thus, technically the HSR route actually is being built in the metropolitan areas now, and safer and higher speed local transit will be a result. In the Central Valley, the HSR trains will run at their higher speed, about twice that of the commuter rail line speed. (In the north, HSR funding is assisting with trackage, control, and electrification; in the south it is assisting with trackage.)

(4) The article correctly states that the HSR system is a massive and complex undertaking, and that numerous mistakes have been made. However, there was no agency in the US with the right experience to implement it. Thus, the Authority has had to learn the hard way what to do and how to do it. The Authority is getting more competent as the project progresses and the myriad problems are being resolved one by one. (Management improvements are discussed in the HSR Business Plan and the Peer Review Group reports.) So, in fact, the project actually is progressing; the article left the impression that it was foundering.

(5) The Authority indicates that projected funding will be sufficient to get the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) into operation and linked to other transit systems to the north and south; this is not noted in the article. Also not noted is that passenger rail in the Central Valley is currently limited by freight traffic, is one of the highest volume Amtrak routes in the country, and is in need of an upgrade. By 2024 all the necessary route plans and environmental approvals for Phase 1 will be completed, so that only funding will be needed to begin the construction process on other segments. However, the Peer Review Group notes that additional funding sources will be required to build the next segment, which links the IOS to San Jose. (San Jose is the south terminus of the Bay Area’s blended Caltrain route, and connecting it to the IOS would enable HSR trains to run from San Francisco to Bakersfield). Building the link to the Southern California segment is even more problematic at this point. So, while it is clear that the entire system cannot be built as envisioned with known resources, a significant part appears likely to be successfully implemented and serve a real need.

The Washington Post (2022)

The Washington Post published a related article on Oct. 12, 2022 titled "California’s ‘crazy train’ is still going nowhere fast" by Charles Lane, another opinion writer who has previously criticized the project. In this article he cites the New York Times article, and repeats many of the points made there. He says, "Surely there is a cheaper, less grandiose way to achieve the same [gasoline] savings." He concludes by advocating abandoning the project.

All of the issues with the New York Times article also apply to this one, with the addition of the following one:

(6) His suggestion that other ways be found to achieve the same fuel savings does make sense on one level. For instance, that same amount of money could be used to replace internal combustion engine automobiles, and achieve even more gasoline usage reductions. However, reducing gasoline use does not address the problem of providing long distance transit in the state. Apparently no one has a come up with a more cost-efficient solution at this point. (See the Alternative infrastructure proposals section for the ones publicly discussed.) So, Mr. Lane may certainly wish for a better solution than HSR, however, there doesn't appear to be one available now. Robert92107 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Note this article does not purport to be an up-to-date or complete review of the project." WP:RS do not need be up to date and reflect the latest fashion. On the contrary, reliable sources can be cited to support encyclopedic facts regarding historic issues, including economics, route selection, construction problems, etc. The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, as well as other sources, are generally accepted as reliable, and anyone wishing to blacklist them is welcome to head to WP:RSP, but not to omit them from articles until the community as a whole approves the blacklisting. XavierItzm (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I’m not sure what your stated intent here is. In no way was I saying that NYT or WaPo are unreliable; I was just discussing two very flawed opinion pieces in those excellent newspapers. (The authors actually remind me of sore losers who just can’t get over a scuffle they lost years ago, and keep bringing it up despite the world having moved on!) In the section below titled “Published criticism” I was stating how both author’s work was clearly biased (but didn’t show the text above because it was still in main CAHSR at that point.)

On the whole, these articles are just a flash in the pan. I’m not even sure this scuffle deserves a place in the CAHSR History article. It was this awareness (which user “Citing” brought to my attention) that largely discouraged me from trying to put it back into CAHSR main. If you have another viewpoint, please be specific. Robert92107 (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean. I think people might be mad the project is filled with graft. Literally stuffed with graft. 2601:18F:A82:6E50:5936:7E7:359B:EBA9 (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS. One other misleading fact in these two opinion articles is that they incorrectly state the estimated cost to complete Phase 1. The actual numbers given are a range from $76 billion to $113 billion. They only give the high estimate, and give no indication that it could be significantly less. (The major unknown factor is the cost of tunneling, which will require field studies to determine the nature of the rock.) Updated cost estimates are due in March 2023. Robert92107 (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of doom quotes in the NYT Sunday article How California’s Bullet Train Went Off the Rails, with reporting based on new interviews and documents. In my own WP:OR the Grapevine I-5 route instead of Palmdale is always seen as infeasible, but in the article it's lauded. Nevertheless, I'm really just here to wonder why this article, nor History of California High-Speed Rail, nor California High-Speed Rail Authority, nor their article histories as far as I checked, mention the I-5 Grapevine routing. Route of California High-Speed Rail does it give it a brief mention. Not mentioned in any of the four articles and their histories are pivotal figures in and around the California High-Speed Rail Authority, such as Quentin Kopp and Mike Antonovich. Rather than Wikipedia:Boldly editing one of more of the articles, I'm here with these preliminary question marks. -~~~

Colfer2 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an archive of the New York Times article: https://web.archive.org/web/20221009102347/https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-rail-politics.html

It has a lot of relevant information that could be useful for improving this article. In my opinion, this is the most notable part:

The state was warned repeatedly that its plans were too complex. SNCF, the French national railroad, was among bullet train operators from Europe and Japan that came to California in the early 2000s with hopes of getting a contract to help develop the system.

The company’s recommendations for a direct route out of Los Angeles and a focus on moving people between Los Angeles and San Francisco were cast aside, said Dan McNamara, a career project manager for SNCF.

The company pulled out in 2011.

“There were so many things that went wrong,” Mr. McNamara said. “SNCF was very angry. They told the state they were leaving for North Africa, which was less politically dysfunctional. They went to Morocco and helped them build a rail system.”

Morocco’s bullet train started service in 2018.

The New York Times article has a lot of other useful info too, much of which could be used to improve this article.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My own OR on the subject of railways on Wikipedia tells me many (most?) railway articles border on boosterism and stuff that looks bad for the industry (or a given project, as it may be!) may have on occasion been removed, or simply never been added to the articles. So, Colfer2, be not afraid to boldly edit: I am of the opinion that there is always room to add info, whether positive, negative, or neutral, as long as it is well sourced from WP:RS and it is encyclopaedic. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 02:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we ignore published criticism of this project or not? The recent NYT and WaPo articles were savage attacks on the viability of the system -- even suggesting that the project be cancelled! Readers of those articles might reasonably wish to see what Wiki says about the project and the article. So, I included a summary of those articles (and links to them) as well as listed what was factually wrong with them. Where else is the public going to get relevant info on this?

So, someone completely removed this info, and now there is NO mention or discussion of the recent criticism. Should we keep this info in or not? Robert92107 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our place to fact-check whatever the latest column in some newspaper is talking about. Reliably-sourced criticisms can be mentioned in a way that doesn't give them undue weight. I removed them in this edit partially because it read more like a debate than an encyclopedia article and partially because it was massive (almost 1000 words!). Citing (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a problem. NYT and WaPo are generally well-regarded sources, even for opinion pieces. However, they should not have published those pieces because they were woefully inaccurate and intentionally misleading. Only someone thoroughly familiar with CAHSR would know how egregious they were. This goes to the heart of the question of what is the role of this Wiki page. An "encyclopedic" presentation is best created after the dust has settled. A related issue is the architecture of the knowledge tree to be presented here. As the project is being incrementally completed, then "current" concerns will be relegated to "history" pages (and there refined appropriately). Robert92107 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still people shouldn't be kept in the dark about what is causing the delays. The railway can be built if it wasn't so held back by the unhelpful politics. I don't think it's proper to add in 'individual' criticisms as they are just snap opinions. But the page does need fair mention on the main culprits who felt the need to complicate the project and make it so much harder to fund phase 1 as a result. Because deviating the route to go through difficult mountain terrain just to reach an affluent suburban district, was stupid. Readers need to see how political deals are the underrated reason why New York Times called the project as a loser.[1]RememberpaBrandon (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you are believing Vertabedian, who has a distinct bias and is not truthful, and you likely haven't read enough of this article and its supporting documents.

(1) The route planners realized that in order to get statewide support, the system needed to offer statewide benefits. Furthermore, passenger rail in the Central Valley desperately needed an upgrade, but that was impossible with the existing infrastructure and freight traffic sharing the line. Do you think everyone in the state would support only SF to LA HSR? So, the route needed to service the population centers of the Central Valley. Thus, running up along I-5 on the west side of the valley was out. As it was, only 52% approved the proposition with servicing all the population centers in the state, so it was fairly close even then. (Approval ratings have gone up a bit since and remained fairly steady at about 56%, with more approval in the north and Central Valley.)

(2) There have been delays, however, V. exaggerates these and is not being truthful about the reasons. This is a massive project, and these things just take time. (So, a lot of delay is just due to unrealistic expectations at the start.) The biggest delay is due to land acquisition. It was assumed at the beginning that this wouldn't be as big a problem. It's just farmland, right? Wrong. There are thousands of parcels, property valuations, negotiations, and even lawsuits from farmers who don't want to give up their land. A political decision was made to NOT have the DOT handle that, so that caused extra delays. Timing issues in delivering land to construction caused delays and contract amendments and cost increases. But, as the article mentions, there was no one else in the US with a similar massive project, so the Authority has had to learn the hard way how to handle these things. If you read the construction status reports you will see they are now delivering parcels on time or even in advance of need.

(3) Routing into the high desert is causing NO delays at this point, since all construction is focused on the IOS, and the next step is reaching SF (and not LA). There were two basic options: (a) a longer high desert 'detour', or (b) going through the Grapevine pass (really under). The latter would also have major problems which the desert detour doesn't, and so possibly cost more. (Not sure if you've actually driven the Grapevine route, as I have, but from the south it is mostly a very long climb to the top of the pass, and from the north it is a shorter but very steep climb. The SR14 route to the high desert from the south is a gentler climb with far less tunneling, and from the north also has to gentler grades into the Central Valley. So, for the Grapevine route CAHSR would have vastly more extensive tunneling. The exact trade-off cost-wise isn't published that I know of. So, a "political" decision, enabling a connection to Las Vegas HSR as well as linked to a growing area outside of LA, solved that issue. It was a reasonable decision; it was not just servicing an "affluent suburban district" of LA. I think the evidence shows that V. is just unreasonably fixated that the direct SF-LA route wasn't chosen.

(4) Due to the terrain, expensive mountain crossings at the north and south of the Central Valley are unavoidable. The original cost estimates of about $30 billion were badly off (but they almost always are for big projects). Tunneling costs are major unknowns until detailed geological studies are done. The costs of lawsuits are unknowns. The whole project is riddled with unknowns, and the earlier projections just set expectations wrong. The most important issue is not whether or not it will cost more and take longer, but is it worth doing at all. For example, all of these issues were raised about the Golden Gate Bridge, and it has been a critical and invaluable benefit for the Bay Area. The same will be said about CAHSR in 50 years time.

(5) You said, "Readers need to see how political deals are the underrated reason why New York Times called the project as a loser." This is buying into V.'s myth. There is NO big mess caused by political deals. V. is whining about the route selected back in the early 2000s, and is not current with what has been happening with the project since. Furthermore, NO, the NYT is NOT calling the project a loser; it is solely V.'s opinion. (Only opinion articles written by the NYT Editorial Board represent the opinion of the NYT itself.) If you actually read this CAHSR article (or the Authority's documents) you would see that the project is progressing. It was too big and complex to build all at once, and the GOP takeover of the Senate (and their anti-development policies) eliminated the expected federal funding support, so less could be accomplished anyway, and this has complicated the project. However, the process is continuing, and a useful HSR system is very likely to come into service at the end of the decade. It is still a bit short funding wise extending it to SF (which is where it will really begin to show benefits), but the Authority is advancing a plan to accomplish that. Additional funds will be necessary; how much is not yet clear.

(6) It is also critical to remember that the project already has expert outside monitoring by the Peer Review Group as well as an independent financial monitor. Nothing is happening that isn't being observed and reported to the legislature and the public. So, the CAHSR plan is a good one, and is feasible. The major issues are just getting the funding, and setting public expectations to what is actually happening.

(7) There is no factual reason why V.'s article be given notice here. If there were a significant discussion about his points there would be other articles (and there is just his and the WaPo one from his buddy Lane). We'd also have other articles in the press about why they are wrong. We don't have those articles, so (as I said), these are just a flash in the pan, and not worth discussing because they are so badly inaccurate. I've called them garbage, and they are. I also wrote to the editors of the WaPo (since I subscribe to it) that they shouldn't publish such garbage.

I'd be happy to discuss this further if you want. Robert92107 (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what. You’re right. I see it now. This project would never attract graft. You’re right. Everyone involved is beyond noble. 2601:18F:A82:6E50:5936:7E7:359B:EBA9 (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GenQuest: The bias of those organizations is mentioned on the other articles, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. Having mention of the bias prevents people from potentially being mislead about the nature of these organizations, but I don't understand how the article is improved if the bias is not mentioned. In the examples mentioned on the WP:BIASED page, the biases are mentioned on the main pages for each source, but that doesn't preclude the biases from being mentioned in the article. पदाति (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Neutral calling-out political alignments of any organization in an article not about that organization, unless it is germane to the subject at hand. Opposition or support for this rail scheme is not based on political leanings, it's bi-partisan as far as I can tell, and the article should not indicate otherwise. Are we to note the political leanings of every organization mentioned in this article when that info is available at their article for those who wish to know? That is both unwieldy (bogging down the article) and unnecessary (readily available with the hover tool – or just a click away). GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely germane to talk about the political alignments of groups advocating against the project, given that their lean (e.g. being against government spending) is relevant to their opposition of the project. It's not WP:NEUTRAL to include the viewpoints of a biased group as if the group was neutral. If criticism is bipartisan, then we can include more criticism from more democratic or left-leaning groups as well, but this doesn't mean the bias shouldn't be mentioned. However, I'm skeptical of the claim that opposition is bipartisan - according to a source cited in this very article, "71% of Republicans support stopping construction while only 29% of Democrats want to halt work", suggesting that opinion is divided significantly along party lines. पदाति (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention in this article of the fact that the Governor said that there shall be no more construction beyond the Initial Operating Segment because the state does not have the 100 Billion to complete Phase 1 in the state budget. In other words the project is effectively cancelled in terms of going beyond the IOS. Someone reading this article would find no mention of that. 2600:6C52:6200:16E:51BC:ACCB:403B:CE74 (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is your source for that? Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 02:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He said it in the state of the state address 2019. Can't find the text right now but CBS News quotes it, "...there simply isn't a path to get from Sacramento to San Diego, let alone from San Francisco to L.A. I wish there were."

Let's be real, the current project, as planned, would cost too much and respectfully take too long. There's been too little oversight and not enough transparency."

that's from https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/gavin-newsom-brakes-california-high-speed-rail-plan/

And then regarding the release of the last 4 billion that we voted on (really? they've used it all and didn't complete anything? very proud I voted no at this point), he said this year,

"Let’s get the job done. Let’s finish the Central Valley component. The voters set aside the money for this purpose, I want to get those dollars out from Prop 1A and finish that job. Doing it in a fast and judicious way,"

That's from https://www.sandiegonewsdesk.com/2022/01/newsom-doubles-down-on-high-speed-rail-funding-using-4-2-billion-to-finish-central-valley-segment/

So he clearly said "let's finish the central valley component", not, "I take back what I said before, we're going to complete the whole thing." So basically the project is dead beyond the IOS.2600:6C52:6200:16E:E086:AF3D:335B:1844 (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair point and I have added the CBS source. XavierItzm (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The goal for the project as I understand it at the moment is to fully fund and get the IOS completed and then worry about funding the other sections later. Keep in mind that the High Speed Rail project cannot be stopped until a new ballot measure is run and gets a majority public vote in opposition. Until then, anything said by the Governor is not legal precedent for project cancellation and as such holds no real water(the project is legally required to continue until complete). As for your statement regarding nothing to show for their money, I suggest that you drive out there and see it for yourself. I personally have and noticed that there is a lot of construction ongoing with roughly two thirds of the sections being nearly complete or already done. Tracklaying and wiring is the last step in the process and is merely a formality. AmpereBEEP (talk) 21:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Newsom's position and the legislative priority has been added to Current Status.

(2) It does not need a statewide ballot measure to alter the project; it only requires a new law passed and signed as normal. Robert92107 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this article is such a clusterfuck of outdated info, rewritten projections, old controversies, if anyone decided that they wanted to write an entirely new CAHSR article and just wholesale replace this dumpster fire I would absolutely accept and encourage the change. -MJ (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[removed my comment for being unconstructive] Citing (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I've been doing some clean up of the main article AND set up a "Current status" topic at the top so that people can easily find out where things are right now. The main article was entirely too bloated and filled with obsolete info. Now it is much better, but work still needs to be done. As to the idea of starting from scratch, that is ridiculous. We'd still need the same topics, so really all we have to do is move significant (but old) info into History. What we should do is just put in brief "highlights" info into each subtopic, and provide a link to the relevant History main page for full, detailed history. Remember that CAHSR is going to be around for decades, so we need to keep a structure in mind that will be easily able to grow, as "current" becomes "history".Robert92107 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We could model it on a more readable article. Maybe something like Chūō Shinkansen? For now I've been trimming redundant information and political minutiae. Citing (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have grave concerns with some of what you are doing here.

(1) At this moment, the main article has NO specific subsection on the route or the stations. In the Route subsection I gave link to a main article on CAHSR Route. There is just too much info on routing to keep all the info in main CAHSR. A similar issue exists with respect to History. I believe the best strategy is to have a subsection in main CAHSR with brief text, then a link to the related main CAHSR Route and CAHSR History pages. This way there is brief intro available as well as a link to more detail.

(2) I also have grave concerns about removal of the References section. The two main documents the Authority produces are the biannual Business Plans and the Update Reports. It is very important that readers know about these, and this is why they are explicitly included. Perhaps they should be referred to in a different way, but their inclusion is very important to readers who want to understand what is going on. Robert92107 (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, putting a link to main CAHSR Route under subsection Current Status is the wrong location. Route deserves mention as a subsection of its own in Contents. Robert92107 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is so much information on CAHSR that it cannot all be fit into one article. Nor should it. Thus, main CAHSR needs to be the critical entry point to ALL the relevant information. Thus, ALL of the subsidiary main CAHSR pages need to be referenced here (and NOT in just an External links subsection, but in the flow of text itself inside main CAHSR). At this point in time, I know of Authority, Route, and History, as well some for specific stations (which still need to be linked appropriately from Route).

Thus, there is a balance between readability as well as referencing that needs to maintained. That is, using referencing in such a way that the reader knows there is another major information resource to discuss that issue in more depth. Robert92107 (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CAHSR History is problematic. Right now it contains legislative, legal, budget/financial, and construction. It seems likely that History should be broken up into two: CAHSR Legal History and CAHSR Construction History. Legal can contain legislation as well as litigation. Construction is going to be ongoing for many years and get a LOT longer, so it makes sense to separate it. Budget history seems inappropriate as a main article; it is best found anyway in the periodic Authority reports. It likely should be removed from History altogether. Robert92107 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert92107 are you familiar with some of the basics of Wikipedia writing (i.e. things like the manual of style, what Wikipedia is not, etc)? I see you've been around for a few years but have worked almost exclusively on this article and I notice there are things like bolded inline links and lengthy descriptions of bureaucratic decision-making, which are really dragging the article down and not providing useful information.

We absolutely needs stations and routes. However, I removed the Route section because it contained no actual information about the route, just controversy around displacement with a link to a separate article. This seems to be an issue with the whole article -- entire sections lack critical information and instead delve immediately into political issues (or in many cases, per-empting political arguments) or slip back and forth between describing the project and telling readers to reference various government documents. This makes for a very messy and uninformative article.

As for the Business Plan: it is a very useful reference, but it is mentioned in the article over a dozen times and has about as many citations. It should certainly be used as a reference but we don't need to tell readers to check it constantly.

CASHR may have a messy story, but this website has well-written articles on a variety of contentious topics so I don't see writing about this rail project as an intractable problem. Citing (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there was a decent route section in this old revision. I'm a little confused since it seems like you removed it a few days ago. What would you think about reverting to this version and working from there? It seems like it has a useful skeleton, and while you're clearly knowledgeable on this topic, I think you could use some guidance on editing. Citing (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I have read/skimmed through the manual style. I am more concerned with making the article accurate, complete, and useful. This article has struggled for a long time with all of these. I believe that good topic sentences (which are often missing) or (in many cases better yet) reference keywords should be essential at the beginning of sentences to make their purpose more useful to the reader. Due to the nature of the topic being a moving target (as it were) there needs to be a clear understanding of what is currently going on as well as describing a large, complicated project. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I especially try to make it more referenceable. For instance, under Opinion Polls I put in the two subheadings of the years of the two polls listed. Why? To clearly set them apart. If one wanted to just look at the more recent poll it would be obvious. As it is now, the reader needs to actually read the beginning of each paragraph to find out what they are about. To my mind, I made the information more accessible to the reader; you made it less. Why? Is it better to serve the needs of the reader, or follow a style formula?

(2) Just because some critical, external reference site is mentioned in the text does not mean that it should not deserve a mention at the end. For instance, the Authority is mentioned in the very first paragraph with a link (and I think that is its only link in text) but it is also given a link at the very end where readers can easily find it. It is also mentioned many places in the text, but I believe it only has two links. I do not think that every reference to the Authority deserves to have it given with a link (but this is debatable as a principle). So, I did something similar with the Business Plans and the Update Reports (also giving information there in the References section of the years those documents were available). (As to how many internal links there are to specific Business Plans, there might be an issue with that, however, those would be links to specific ones, as opposed to a link to the CAHSR webpage which lists them all.) Why you deemed it not worth keeping the References section around is beyond me. The only conceivable alternative to me would be to move it to the History section, but you didn't do that. (Did you even think of that?) You just decided it wasn't worth telling people. Why? People otherwise would have to actually go the HSR.CA.GOV website and DISCOVER the sections for Business Plans and Update Reports for themselves, which to my mind is a bad choice. This is a big, complex topic, and it deserves a very thoughtful design and very thoughtful editing.

(3) Re the Route (and stations). I removed the old material because (a) there was an existing main Route article so this one was just too much text added to main CAHSR and it made for a lot of redundancy across them both, and (b) it created just too much bloat here, making the main CAHSR article extremely (even unbearably) long, especially with the Stations table added. As I said before, the key test should NOT be how much text is under a subtopic, but rather the concept of the subtopic itself. If you thought there wasn't enough "meaningful text" under the Route subtopic, then why didn't you ADD enough meaningful text yourself and still keep the link to the other page? I believe your hasty edit created a problem by not having a meaningful reference to route in the Contents -- and there should be one. You know that the only reason why there are other linked main articles (specifically Route and History) is just to keep the bloat down in the main CAHSR article!

(4) I tend to like information, so perhaps I like more detail than you do. I DO want to always give references to where more information on an issue can be found, so that the reader always knows where to get more.

(5) The more I think about it in writing this, the more convinced I am that the subheadings Route and References should be restored. (One of the things you deleted when you removed References was information about what is actually required by law in them; this information might be useful to a reader so he knows what is in there for his review as well as the years that information was available.) Restoring these sections does not mean that there shouldn't be other corrections in the text, since I think that is likely.

(6) As a native Californian I am very interested that this project be accurately described. There has been a lot of misinformation about it, and most people really don't understand why it is the way it is, or how the project is progressing. My time is also limited. I'm not a dedicated Wiki editor, since I have other things going on in my life. In particular, I'm writing a theory of everything book (and over 90,000 words into it), I'm pursuing a pro per lawsuit, I have to work (although only part time), my wife is dealing with a disability so I do most of the work around the house, and I need a lot of stress relief. I think I have enough on my plate!

(7) I am certainly open to discussion about how to make the article better. I wouldn't necessarily say that I've devoted "too much" space to bureaucratic decisions. But then, this is really a slippery slope issue. In particular, there is still text in topic History where information should be pruned (either deleted or moved to main History). Similarly those "think tank" article discussions are obsolete. Is that info even worth saving? Also, the two professional studies cited likely should be over in main Route, since they seem to be more subsidiary and background than top level interest.

(8) Anyway, this is certainly an ongoing effort. In particular, it would be good to develop a clear ongoing strategy for adding current text and moving old text into (a) main History and (b) History topic in main CAHSR (mainly a lot of short sentences, or bullet points, or timelines), since this will be needed for the decades to come. Robert92107 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, since you seem to know a lot about the internals of Wiki, is there a "return to Contents" link format? I do not remember there being one (and I do not remember even seeing one in other articles), and it would be nice if there were an easy way for the reader to return to the TOC to insert in the article.

Theoretically speaking, this is part of the whole promise of hyperlinked text, so that information is not just static on the page, but an interactive process. Speaking even more theoretically, the whole structure of HTML is static itself (as is Wiki itself). Ideally for a large block of text there should be a JS script that automatically converts a string into a hyperlink (so that the programmer does not need to hyperlink a specific string manually, but the script automatically converts a string into a hyperlink. Thus, for example, clicking on the word "Authority" anywhere in the text would automatically link to the Wiki main Authority page. ... Interesting speculation! Robert92107 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What "the programmer does not need to hyperlink a specific string manually" means is that there would be a table which a programmer filled out linking a specific string to a hyperlink. Thus the "connection" is only made once in that table, rather than individually thought out the text. This also means that JS would need to automatically scan a certain defined block of text automatically on a "mouse down" through the "connection" table. Robert92107 (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great idea and a good choice for a model. Saharazosh (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fundamental problems with the article introduction are (1) it shouldn't get into the details too much, and (2) it should still be factual.

Re (1), there are just a lot of elements here which need fuller explanation in the relevant subsections below to make sense. So, that means the intro should be fairly sparse. Yet, it should still give enough info that the reader has SOME idea of what the project is about.

Re (2) talk about WHEN it will connect to SF and LA is too problematic at this point. The 2022 Business Plan does not even mention a timeline here. Also, all that construction is all dependent on future financial commitments. So, too iffy!

The current intro to my mind has too much info, and too many "unfounded" claims, resulting in conveying inaccuracies to the reader. So, this isn't an easy intro to write. Hence I'm pruning it back again, commenting out PP 2 & 3. Robert92107 (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added those paragraphs to the lead to provide a general summary of the article's contents. You are right on there being no specific date for full Phase 1 completion, for some reason I thought it was 2033 but now I can't find where I got that information. I should probably take the dates out of the map too. I am going to make a few more edits there in the lead, but omit the ambiguous info this time. Shannon [ Talk ] 04:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know the project promises too much! The 2033 date was in earlier Business Plans, but there is no date yet because there is no additional funding yet! In my version I just wanted to give the barest info on the fundamentals, and have people refer to the Contents to get more info for each question. Also, that Project Status map shouldn't have November 2022 as its date; I think it is April of 2021. Go to Further Reading and the Info Center link to see the Authority's maps. I also like the one with the stars to show other investments as well, but there is no one map that is entirely up to date on everything. Robert92107 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The intro has been re-written. It is still a bit long, but it covers the fundamentals. Robert92107 (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have having some problem with Saharazosh's edits. I certainly don't fault edits for style and improving clarity. However, what bothers me are his edits which actually remove data and references. I will give you some examples of things he removed:

(1) In the subtopic "Financial status" I added the following at the end of the text with the bar graph: "Table 3.3 (p. 55) provides more detailed information about federal funds and their use."

The graph is interesting, but the table actually explains what it says (as well as more). Looking at the chart, I have questions. So, I thought it was beneficial to have that reference there. To my mind, rather than putting a mass of detailed data in the text, or a reference which was not tied to the chart it explained, it was better to just give a reference directly under the chart. So: should it stay or should it go?

(2) Under "Further reading" I'd changed it to "Further study" and added this:

"===Video presentations===

A Youtube video presentation created by Sam Dwyer in June 2022 provides a 13 minute summary of the project: California High-Speed Rail: Moving Forward"

Is there something wrong with video presentations? Some people prefer this kind of thing, and WP is a mixed media environment. This is a basic intro to the topic, but it is by someone who does this kind of thing for RRs all over the world, and he has a lot of experience doing it. It's well done. So: should it stay or should it go?

(3) Also under "Further reading" I added this note at the bottom:

"Use the California High-Speed Rail Wikipedia Articles template at the end of each CAHSR article for a quick reference to related articles."

To my mind, this benefits the novice WP reader. I usually don't bother with the templates at the end. I think that having this noted here is beneficial (since ALL further material is referenced under ONE subheading in the main text). So, should it stay or should it go?

(4) He unfortunately deletes data which might be better moved elsewhere. In the "Route of" article under "Implementation", he removed the following (which maybe should go to the history pages or into the "Background" area of "Route" instead):

"In earlier planning, the Initial Operating Section (IOS) had two options: extend from the Central Valley northward toward the Bay Area (the IOS-North, San Francisco to Bakersfield), or southward to Southern California (IOS-South, Merced to San Fernando Valley). In the 2012 and 2014 Business Plans the goal was to implement the IOS-South, but a 2016 analysis of the funding available and time necessary to bring an IOS lead the Authority to propose the IOS-North be implemented instead. The proposal, named the Silicon Valley to Central Valley Line, was expected to have sufficient funding available to bring this segment online by 2031.^[1] The rail authority stated its commitment to pursue additional funding to complete the Phase 1 system by 2033.^[1] The current 2022 Business Plan does not commit to the 2033 date."

This was a significant issue from 2012 to 2016. I noted it, and think it still has significance. So, should it stay or should it go?

I have concerns that these types of edits of his might not be best for the article. Please voice your opinions. Thanks. Robert92107 (talk) 04:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind:

1. Falls outside the norms of WP:CAP, particularly the need to be succinct and draw the reader into the article.
2. Falls outside the norms of WP:RS, particularly WP:UGC. Sam Dwyer identifies himself only as a railfan and transit enthusiast on his youtube page, and appears to have neither scholarly nor journalistic credentials. He is also not even a particularly prominent youtuber, as his account has fewer than 15k subscribers.
3. Falls outside the norms of MOS:INSTRUCT as well as typical WP article formatting. It also contributes to the needlessly bloated and redundant form that characterizes the article as a whole at present.
4. Misrepresents the edit. The section is not titled "Implementation," but "Current Implementation Plan." Years-old discussions of rejected hypothetical implementation plans are irrelevant to the section and, again, contribute to the needless bloat characteristic of articles on the project.

That said, if editors aside from Robert92107 broadly concur with his position, I am more than happy to defer to their position. Saharazosh (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re (4), I specifically said, this edit "deletes data which might be better moved elsewhere". I recognize that the data is not current. It was elsewhere, and ended up in "Current" when it clearly wasn't. (Remember, this is part of a gradual process of improvement, and I do not expect perfection in every incomplete step.)

So, there was apparently no thinking that the data was a significant bit about the plan's implementation, and should go into a more relevant part, rather than just disappearing? The implementation phase is NOT over, and isn't this still an item of some value? Remember, recent critical articles in the press were still complaining about the route, which was actually settled in 2008. So, I just can't justify deleting route decisions from the record. Robert92107 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(This became moot when I re-added the deleted material back under "Background" in Route article.) Robert92107 (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re (1) "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense", and "Most captions draw attention to something in the image that is not obvious."

The usage of the deleted caption text fits within these guidelines. Basically, meaning "this diagram is useful to explain the overall funding/budgeting strategy, but if you want a detailed explanation of what it says, refer to this other source." Putting the note in the caption is very specific to the diagram, and reserves the article text to the overall narrative.

Remember, a style manual is not a straight-jacket; the specific result always weighs more than a general guideline.

I think the basic problem is the balance of how much the article serves as a basic discussion versus how much it serves as a reference to more explanatory (but relevant) information. Would a footnote be better, or even a note? Robert92107 (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re (2), the visual presentation was selected specifically because it was a visual presentation. It cites basic information. There is NOTHING in there that falls into the category of "unreliable". The standard that its producer must be an expert of some sort is wrongly applied. Robert92107 (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re (3), there is certainly some validity that it is not typical to refer to a template. The concerns about the article being "bloated" come from, in part, the fact that there is a lot of complexity to the topic, and too much is crammed into one main article. Thus, CAHSR really requires multiple articles to cover its different facets. We now have Authority, Route, and History, and we can clearly see that subsidiary articles will also be needed for (a) Trains, (b) Construction history, and (c) Operations, but we are not quite at the point of needing them now.

So, how to direct the reader to related topics which have specific links in the CAHSR template? We're using the template format simply because there are so many related articles that it makes no sense to list them at the tail end of the main article. I'm looking for a way to remind the reader to look in the template for further study. Maybe I'm being a bit too detailed here, but I do like this kind of reminder for further study. I'm just not sure how best to do this. Robert92107 (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(1) (Update: Construction of CAHSR has been created as of 1/4/23. This PP has been deleted.)

(2) I am also preparing a draft for Trains of California High-Speed Rail, but have not submitted it yet.

>>>> NOTE (Dec. 27) I am waiting for some significant train events to add to the entry, such as selecting provider or construction contract before requesting it be a separate sub-article. I can then include the specification information which seemed too detailed for the main article, and submit the DRAFT Train article.

Robert92107 (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry why are we creating additional pages when there are so many issues with the main page.Nweil (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) This is a large, complex project. This topic will also be something to document for decades to come. As a consequence, there is just too much material to cram into one article and have it be readable. Ideally the main article will be a succinct intro to the project's current state and future plans, and then it will have links to sub-pages to deal with its more detailed aspects (and each of those will also include history on those aspects). So, moving material to sub-pages actually will help clean up and simplify the main page.

(2) Your lack of specificity is troubling. "So many issues"? Can you be more specific? I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

(3) I also feel that you flagging this article as "fan point of view" is not justified by what you've presented. I believe this may be your opinion, but I want to see some justification. We will correct any problems that you identify.Robert92107 (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to WP:INDISCRIMINATE which includes the following sentence: "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It's very applicable in this article. You are giving undue weight to the self-published reports from the High Speed Rail authority. An independent source would be the LA Time or the New York Times etc. You are giving the self published report more weight than the independent ones which is backwards. That is why I'm saying it reads like it was written by a fan. Nweil (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(1) There are no recent news articles discussing the project in any major news sources that I know of to be included. If you know of any, please provide those. (The two recent opinion pieces by long-time critics of the project in the NYT and WaPo are discussed extensively here in Talk, and they are not suitable to be included because they do not discuss relevant and current project information, and are opinion articles with a clearly biased viewpoint and have little factual value.) Since the Authority is thus left as the primary source of information, if we did not give the Authority's information, we'd just have an article with only paltry information in it. This would not serve the information needs of the reader on this topic.

(2) The two independent project reviews are given reasonable prominence in the article. Neither of them indicate the Authority's estimates are wrong or that the project is facing serious trouble; they indicate some cautions about the project estimates which are noted in the article. The reader is also encouraged to check out those sources, and they are made readily available.

(3) Upon further thought, I see two specific areas where we should provide further information: (#1) we could contrast the original Proposition 1A estimates and the current project estimates, and (#2) we could give more prominence to the governor's reference to getting a deliverable as soon as possible and SB198 setting this as a legal requirement. Re #1, this is a relatively minor point, however, since major projects with many unknowns such as this one are usually wrong in their initial estimates. The current estimates to get the Interim IOS into operation indicate the project is progressing and will deliver an operable system. It is further extensions that are the big unknowns here, as has been noted. We are awaiting the 2023 Update Report in March for a significant update on the Authority's estimates and plans in particular for the IOS-North extension. Re #2, this could be discussed a bit more, although getting a deliverable as soon as possible is a priority which is noted in the article. The need for more work on the Legislative History has been noted in Talk here, so that is a known pending need. The need to provide more on this is thus not a significant problem but should still be done.

(4) You have noted that more independent information sources are needed. That would be desirable, but this must be weighed against the needs for a factual portrayal of the project. We will correct the issues noted above (and other issues if you find any). Thus, I am removing your "fan point of view" flag since the burden is on you to provide some significant problems which need correction, the issues noted are relatively minor, and this warning inappropriately tarnishes the article. Robert92107 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are off the rails (pardon the pun) but I am not interested enough in this subject to make the needed changes. Hopefully other people steer you in the right direction. Happy editing. Nweil (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In re the above, #2 has been done in the Current Status sub-head

Robert92107 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article's "Further reading" section should be converted into bullet points (all appendix-like sections are supposed to use bullet points, I believe) per WP:LAYOUT. The one external link left in it could easily be converted into a reference. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should the original estimated and current estimated cost for completion be in the summary? Fdr2001 (talk) Fdr2001 (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert92107, I am familiar with what you have done to the article in recent months and I disagree with your premise, also expressed here, of relying on the Authority’s statements.

The Authority is self-serving (which stands to reason) and cannot be relied upon as a final arbiter of best expectations at any point in time. Yet you again have chosen to dismiss an independent, major WP:RS (namely the The Mercury News), deleting it, and have instead chosen to let the article cite fan-like dates and dollars whose only source (at this point) is the Authority, and which are optimistic by billions of dollars and by years.

At the very least you should briefly include and contrast The Mercury News’ figures where you and CASHR now say “At end of 2030, passenger service to begin” (which TMN considers false, by 3 years) and also by your financial estimates, where you and CASHR report a “range” from la-la-land and where TMN cites a specific expected cost, not a range. XavierItzm (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two qualifiers about uncertainties in timing and cost in the intro, since that is entirely fair. I do strive to be factually based and fair in my work.

However, it is wrong for you to assert that the Authority is "self-serving". This is likely true to the extent that ANY organization is "self-serving", since it is trying to justify its effort and existence; however, going beyond that without clear evidence to the contrary is simply wrong. As you know, the Peer Review Group reviews the Authority's reports, and the consistent theme is that funding is a problem, and this problem poses extra complications which in turn affects budget and timeline projections. Management has been consistently improving, and this is being reflected in better operations and more efficiency, and the PRG has noted this as well.

I think that TMN did NOT perform any independent analysis of the state of the project, but merely assumed the worst numbers the Authority created. Therefore, this would be just another example of a stab in the dark, and even then is based on the Authority's own data! Thus, how you can cite TMN as a reliable or accurate source is beyond me, since NOTHING in that article indicated anything to the contrary. Since the data cited is at P65, it is entirely possible (although at a lower level of probability) that the Authority will miss that timeline. At this point no one knows the final cost/time parameters, and strongly asserting anything else is wrong.

As I said, in early 2024 the Authority will publish newer estimates, and we can update relevant data as appropriate. Of course, the closer we get to completion of the IOS the more accurate the numbers become. Robert92107 (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: How has the project "stalled"? Every source I can find indicates that they are making progress and have thousands of workers at constructions sites, etc. I see that you have found a mention in a NYT article that was mostly about California Forever saying that the project is not making progress. This is clearly WP:CONFLICTING. I see that you have quoted "Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the sources already in the article". I'm not sure how you concluded that I had done that (the "just because")? I did not mention any existing sources. Please clarify why you think that the project has stalled? Leijurv (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor, I make no judgements. I go by the sources. I reverted you because in deleting the source, you cited WP:CONFLICTING, a policy that reads: "Do not remove the conflicting sources just because they contradict the sources already in the article”. It seemed a bit comic to me to use WP:CONFLICTING as justification for “removing the conflicting sources." That said, hey, if you don’t like the source, feel free to delete it. I will no longer revert you on this issue. Peace, XavierItzm (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Yes, I don't like the source. I believe it may not be reliable in this case because it's an article about another topic with just a passing mention of CAHSR and perhaps an ambiguous usage of the single word "stalled" that may be misleading to pull out and quote. I also note that it's in direct conflict with our other more reliable sources. That is not comic, I am not sure what you mean. When a source that's perhaps less reliable or perhaps more opinionated is in conflict with many other reliable sources, yes it is indeed valid per WP:UNDUE and WP:CONFLICTING and WP:EDITDISC to set aside the less reliable one and not mention it. Leijurv (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overview in this article seemed more like a point-by-point debate than an overview, alternating between a highly skeptical point of view and a boosterish one. I've just done some quick restructuring of the overview to try to get to the most important information quicker and improve the flow, without removing any information. Only a first pass and it could be improved a lot more; inline citations might help. Graue (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, @Graue: I have issue with the sentence “When the project began, there was no comparable agency with the skillset necessary to manage this project”, which was probably already there before your efforts. You see, at the beginning, the most experienced multi-country entity in the world was engaged with CHSR: SNCF. That’s the entity that either built most of Europe’s TGV’s from Madrid to Amsterdam and from Zurich to London, or whose technology was used in close cooperation. A previous version of this article used to include SNCF’s involvement, but it got nuked out of the article in 2023, for reasons unclear. SNCF left California in frustration with the political dysfunction in 2011 and instead opted to build a high-speed TGV in Africa, which has now been operating since 2018. Source: The New York Times (read the quote in the ref, it is a doozy).^[1] Cheers, 16:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Given the dynamic nature and complexity of the project on multiple fronts (technical, economic, political, ...), this article has expanded its scope over the years, but has also become quite messy. If we take a step back, you'll find that a first-time reader may be supremely confused at parsing the structure of this article, and even "repeat-readers" will find it cumbersome to navigate.

Hence, it may be a good time to do a major clean-up. I would like to propose in particular to harmonise the article along two dimensions: (1) conciseness and (2) hierarchy.

(1) Conciseness

For ongoing and dynamic topics, there is always a trade-off to be made between (a) providing up-to-date information and the lowest-level detail, and (b) limiting oneself to the most relevant, maybe not up-to-today information, but structured firmly. For a main article on such an important and involved project, I would suggest tending more towards (b), much more than is currently done. If we compare it to other articles of similar topics and scope, this article goes into levels of detail that do not meet the Wikipedia-defined encyclopedic level of relevance. For example, we see extensive passages of verbatim text from CaHSR Authority Board Meeting material. This is too much (and, given the uncritical reproduction, veers towards WP:NOTMIRROR) for being on the main article. This level of detail can be nicely referred to with Board Meeting material being an explicit source (and compiling patterns about where to find what), but I would strongly suggest departing from the verbatim quotes. To make clear, I am not pushing for ruthless deletion with a wrecking ball, but rather decluttering the main article, shifting the low-level details to WP:SPINOFF and deleting some lowest-level details in favour of referring to external sources. So more of a surgically operated jackhammer ;)

(2) Hierarchy

Another dimension of improving the reading experience would be to harmonise along the standard hierarchy of a Wikipedia article. For example, the introduction is quite long and dives straight into details about estimated economic benefits. This should definitely be moved into the appropriate section of the main body. Another example would be that the subsection "Inspector General" has the same level as "Construction status and plans" (note WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE) The former could be mentioned as a short paragraph at most, perhaps as part of a section on project oversight or public criticism, while the latter deserves and indeed has its own spin-off article given its complexity and scope (Construction of California High-Speed Rail). Relatedly, since questions about construction progress are of first-order interest in the foreseeable future, this spin-off article could be much more prominently linked at a top-level section, rather than be buried away as it currently is.

[NOTE: Inspector General sub-section was moved to CASHR Authority page] -- Robert92107

I would be happy to take on a major overhaul and harmonisation, but as there are quite a few custodians of this article who have been developing it over the years, I would definitely want to propose this to you all first and maybe invite a discussion on how to proceed. I do believe however that some sort of regularisation is more than necessary after years of incremental, but unharmonised growth. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DracaenaGuianensis: I've also had these concerns for a while. I haven't been really able to address them in an effective way, as the article seems guarded by several editors who have reverted my edits in the past. Pretty much the only thing that's survived was the map I added to the article. In general I'd say there are a few things we can do to clean up the article if a consensus can be reached. I have cited some examples below of what I am talking about:

• While it has been generally well updated with new information, a lot of superseded old information remains and is cluttering up the page.

• Other random bits and pieces that likely come from older versions of the article and are now stranded in the wrong section.
  • Under "Status and plans": The California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group has noted concerns... There is an entire section dedicated to "Peer review, public opinion and criticism", it's probably safe to delete this.
  • A lot of repeated information under "Status and plans" and "Phased implementation plan as of November 2023"

• Some excess detail can be trimmed while maintaining the existing structure.
  • Under "Status and plans": The only remaining task to resolve is a land-rights dispute between third parties that affects just 400 feet of guideway...
  • "Financial status and plans as of 2022–2023 and 2024": could probably be summarized into a single table.
    • Entire paragraph "The 2024 Business Plan will be released in final form in April 2024..."
  • Under "Construction status and plans"/"North and south extensions": remove boilerplate language under Notice to Proceed-2 (NTP-2) for Merced to Madera...
  • Under "Maintenance facilities" - I don't see why the second paragraph, starting with The 2023 Project Update Report... is necessary at all
  • Under "Station updates" - could be better presented in a single table.
  • Under "Train design": while I'm not terribly familiar with rail articles, I doubt most of the bulleted information is relevant as of right now, when the rolling stock hasn't even been procured yet. Eventually, once the trains are built and delivered, it would justify a separate article with these kinds of specs. I think the way it's handled on the Taiwan High Speed Rail article is a good example.
  • Under "Professional studies of blended systems" - no need to discuss in so much detail the specific studies.

• Information I'm not sure belongs in the article at all
  • The entire section titled "Forthcoming and Recent Board actions" – a lot of corporate sounding detail that could probably be trimmed to a paragraph or two describing most recent updates and integrated into "Status and plans". Most of the info I'd retain is in the table under that section.
  • Under "Economic costs/benefits and environmental impacts": again a lot of corporate sounding language with excessive detail that could be trimmed.
    • The Authority produces an annual Sustainability Report... to put it bluntly, corporate-speak that says a lot while not really saying anything at all. Again, this is an issue that arises all over the article.

• Outdated or no longer relevant information:
  • Under "HSR passenger line operations"/"Request for qualifications": This was relevant in 2017, but with the new RFQ in 2023 (which the article itself mentioned), that information can probably be scrubbed.

Reorganization: Based on my general concerns including those listed above I would propose this kind of rough outline for a revised version: History - how this got started, legislative history/Prop 1A, why and how the route was chosen (several alternatives were considered: Tehachapi vs. Tejon Pass; Pacheco vs. Altamont Pass; Highway 99 vs I-5 corridor), the role of the CAHSR Authority and other agencies involved with the project link to sub-article, History of California High-Speed Rail Planning and construction link to sub-article, Construction of California High-Speed Rail Phase 1 - general discussion of the phase 1 route (San Francisco - Anaheim). describe the shared (blended) operations on either end, discuss how the IOS changed from Merced-south to Bakersfield-north due to funding constraints. IOS (Initial Operating Segment) - all current construction and planning work in the IOS should go under this section. Bookend projects - all current construction and planning work outside of the IOS, including Caltrain electrification/improvements, Downtown Rail Extension, Link Union Station, Metrolink/BNSF right of way improvements, etc. Phase 2 - general discussion of planned phase 2 extending to Sacramento and San Diego. mention potential station locations, but this should be relatively brief, as this is still very early in the planning process Rolling stock - this would be generally short as they haven't actually determined what trains they will use; just a discussion of the vendors they're currently considering, and some key stats (e.g. expected top speed, passenger capacity) Stations - create a table with station names, locations, transit connections, and current status; see Tokaido Shinkansen for an example Service - discuss planned service patterns if available, travel times established by prop 1A, service patterns on IOS and on completed phase 1 system. Discuss northern connection to San Joaquins at Merced, interim bus service from Bakersfield-LA. Discuss future connectivity to BrightlineWest, Valley Rail, Cross Valley Corridor, ACE. Discuss projected ridership for IOS and full system. Budget and finances - overview of cost and history of cost estimates; funding sources (bond measure, cap and trade, federal grants) Economic and environmental impacts - general discussion of how it's expected to change travel patterns in the state; reduction in vehicle miles and flights, impact on CO2 emissions, providing access to cheaper housing in the Central Valley. Do mention current economic impacts (e.g. # of jobs created, tax revenues) but doesn't need to go into heavy detail. Do mention renewable energy requirements/sustainable construction practices, but again, summarize, no need for excess detail. Criticism and controversy - discuss some of the major critiques of the project: specifically cost overruns, contracting issues, land acquisition issues, potentially dubious(?) ridership and revenue projections. In addition to the state Peer Review group, I think the Reason Foundation's 2008 report is worth citing, as is James Fallows' series in The Atlantic. No need to go over each and every source's findings in detail. Discuss the *issues* and attribute them to the sources. Keep the section on public opinion surveys, but it could be tightened some. Possibly mention key lawsuits, but that might be better left for a sub-article. Further reading - the collection of links is useful for providing up to date information about the project, but needs to be better curated.

I didn't intend to write so much; it basically turned into a peer review entry... I really appreciate that you've outlined the crux of the problem, that we need to agree on a unified vision of what this article should be going forward. Modeling after other articles on high-speed rail lines – I particularly like the Taiwan one, a good example of a fairly recently built line – would be a good start. I would caution against simply splitting off detailed information into sub-articles, as that would just push the issue of excessive detail/disorganization into spaces where they are even less likely to be seen and addressed. Shannon [ Talk ] 21:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shannon1: Thank you for taking the time for this thorough review! I agree with the specific issues you listed, and really like your outline of a reorganised version. That would eliminate duplicate but diverging information that is currently strewn across sections. We should definitely align ourselves with articles that have been assessed as WP:GA, both in structure as well as in style.

Given your framework, some suggestions in terms of mid-level details:

• Naming the second section Plans and construction (instead of Planning and construction) to highlight the distinction from the history of planning in the preceding section. Perhaps could even add the word "status" somewhere, to make clear that this focuses on the current state and point of forecast?
• Section "Legal Aspects" would be demoted under the proposal: Its content can be split and merged into History and Criticism and controversy respectively
• Stations and Service could potentially be cast into one section Stations and Service. Both to reduce the number of top level sections even further, and because stations, service patterns, and extensions to other service such as BrightlineWest or Cross Valley Corridor can be nicely laid out in a joint way. If all goes well, we might have to add a section Operations in 2030-33 -- then we'd be largely aligned with the structure of Taiwan High Speed Rail.

I reckon the key thing now is to achieve consensus. I am not quite sure how to go about that: Pinging all editors who have have contributed regularly in the past year to solicit their opinion? DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much like to contribute to parts or all of this, it's a topic that really interests me. As I mentioned though, I've been discouraged in the past as my edits have been reverted and as it is I'm hesitant to put in too much effort. I think I'll go write just one or two sections in my sandbox, to provide an example of what I believe is a more encyclopedic approach to the topic. But again, it's not fair for me to push my vision onto the article as opposed to other editors' vision of it, my opinion isn't more or less important than that of any other editor, ie WP:OWNERSHIP.

I would say the article as it stands veers into some sort of WP:FANCRUFT and while I wouldn't argue against the authenticity/veracity of the information presented, there's just a lot of stuff that doesn't meet notability guidelines. It's like one of those film articles where the author decided to write a 10,000 word plot summary that takes longer to read than to watch the actual film.

Not sure how many editors there are who would be willing to undertake a thorough review of this article. I would definitely suggest going on the WikiProject Trains talk page, maybe there would be some interest there. Shannon [ Talk ] 01:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forked the current state of the article into a sandbox here: Sandbox for CAHSR main article, and will experiment there a bit over the next few days. Please feel free to put your "dream sections" there! Maybe we can start off with rewriting the introduction, which should be fairly uncontentious given past discussion about its length and lack of coherence on this TP. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you mention that, I've made at least two major revisions to the introduction in the past which were summarily deleted/reverted. But I am doing a revised version of the plans/construction section. Not sure when it'll be done, hopefully soon. Shannon [ Talk ] 07:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting here as my input was solicited by DracaenaGuianensis. I see two issues with the article's readability, which are both being discussed. The first is its organization. The second is that the writing is verbose and confusing, and I think this is the bigger issue. It is filled with too much bureaucratic language (probably a reflection of much of the language being copied from government/technical reports), too many bullet point lists, and frequently veers into minutiae or debate, starting with the introduction. I came to this article hoping to know which cities would be connected by CAHSR, when it is projected to be completed, and what the overall plan for the rail system is. I still don't know the answers to these questions. As an example, the second paragraph introduces a bureaucratic acronym (IOS) and by the end of the paragraph has confused me with details about funding for different phases. The introduction generally has no logical flow to it, jumping between funding, technical details, various economic metrics, and then abruptly ends with a bullet point list. Unfortunately this sets the tone for the rest of the article.

I agree that a lot of the writing needs to be condensed or excised. Readers do not need to know that the Authority has created a 105 page draft train specification document called Sched_1PtA_Auth_TierIII_Trainsets_Spec_Rev0_013015_Industry_Working_Draft.pdf which is not available online, nor the name of every single released draft or report. Contract details and funding disputes can be summarized--they do not need to be detailed fully in the text with every change as it happens. Citing (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "I came to this article hoping to know which cities would be connected by CAHSR, when it is projected to be completed, and what the overall plan for the rail system is. I still don't know the answers to these questions."

There is no specific list of cities which will be connected in the article, however, the Stations page lists the location of all the stations. The 1st PP in the Intro gives a broad perspective on the route of the system.

The 2nd PP in the Intro gives the completion of first operable segment as in early 2030s (target date is end of 2030, but target window extends to end of 2033, which is discussed in IOS/EOS completion timeline sub-section).

The overall plan of the project is briefly summarized in 1st through 3rd PPs in Intro, and discussed in more detail in the "California State Rail Modernization Plan (2023 Draft)" (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/rail-mass-transportation/documents/california-state-rail-plan/20230309-casrp-public-dor-guidance.pdf) referred to in the Status section.

I suspect that you just didn't read carefully, because all the information is there. Even the Overview box gives some of those answers. The problem is that there are LOT of details, and it is not easy to summarize all of them. Robert92107 (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The train spec document was listed as a source for the list of pre-lim train specs. I am expecting a new document to be issued shortly which will replace it (and which will be online so this ridiculous reference can be deleted).

I think this whole article is in various stages of temporariness, since the project is still undergoing considerable development. Thus, it cannot truly be "encyclopedic" in nature, since that really requires some historical perspective which we don't have now.

The basic funding issues were stabilized about 2022, so all details since then are largely compatible, with only minor updates based on newer data. The earlier funding/cost issues are discussed in History. Robert92107 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If I had my druthers, I'd do the intro something like this:

California High-Speed Rail (also known as CAHSR or CHSR) is an American publicly funded high-speed rail system being developed in California. Overseen by the California High-Speed Rail Authority, it was authorized by the 2008 statewide ballot proposal Proposition 1A. Goals. The system is intended to reduce travel times in the state, particularly between the major urban areas of the San Francisco Bay Area in the north and Greater Los Angeles in the south. It is also intended to reduce pollution and carbon emissions, ease highway and air traffic congestion, and boost the state's economy, particularly in the Central Valley region. Route. The rail system is currently planned to be built in two major phases, span over 800 miles (1,300 km) , and have up to 24 stations. The first phase will stretch 520 miles (840 km) from San Francisco/Merced to Los Angeles/Anaheim, while the second will connect the state capital of Sacramento to Merced and the border city of San Diego to Los Angeles. Projected operation. The first section to be in service is anticipated to be in 2030-2033. It will run 171 miles (275 km) through the Central Valley connecting Merced to Bakersfield. This section's proposed top speed of 220 mph (350 km/h) would make it the fastest train in North America; it also will provide a major improvement in passenger rail in the Central Valley. Role in statewide transportation. In 2023, Caltrans, the California state transportation agency, released a draft statewide rail modernization plan which lays out the justification and vision for CAHSR. This is the first comprehensive rail plan in the US, integrating HSR with other passenger rail services. It also includes the goal of statewide scheduling and ticketing across all passenger rail systems to improve passenger travel.[1] Integration with commuter rail. The HSR system will also use "blending", sharing the infrastructure of local rail systems in the Bay Area and Los Angeles areas, for reduced costs and improved efficiency. Currently, the electrification of Caltrain in the Bay Area is proceeding, and is due to be completed in late 2024 (although connection with CAHSR will not be done for years yet).[2] Criticisms. Various aspects of the project have drawn criticism, including its route, management inexperience and turnover, delays in land acquisition and construction, and costs greatly larger than initial projections. Construction began in the Central Valley in 2015, and currently 171 miles (275 km) of the route are at various stages of completion. Current problems. Current projections indicate that only the initial 171 miles (275 km) segment in the Central Valley can be built and an operational system initiated with projected funding. Additional funds from the state, the federal government, and the private sector will be necessary for the other system segments. Also, the initial 171 miles (275 km) segment, while beneficial, will have the smallest benefit of all the segments. Economic impact. As of late 2023 an average of 1,500 workers were employed on CAHSR construction sites each day, making it the largest construction project in the US.[3]The CAHSR Economic Impact Factsheet[4] for 2023 shows that 6,980 job years were created last fiscal year in the Central Valley, which pumped $0.490 billion in direct labor income into the economy, which in turn multiplied into $1.310 billion in economic activity. For the project state-wide cumulatively (July 2006 – June 2023), the statewide totals are 83,960 job-years of employment, $7.010 billion in direct labor income, and $18.410 billion in economic output. Also, "During FY2022-23, 66% of project expenditure occurred in disadvantaged communities in California." And, "To date, the Authority has paid more than $1.47 billion to certified Small Businesses, Disadvantaged Business Enterprises and Disabled Veteran Business Enterprises in California." Thus, the project is creating substantial economic benefits to areas and groups which particularly will benefit from it.

However, whenever I have tried to use paragraph keyword phrases (such as above) before, I've been told they are not acceptable on Wikipedia, and always been deleted. I think they would greatly clarify the Intro text. Robert92107 (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding User:Citing's comments, it's not that the info isn't there; it is, it's just hard to find for readers who may not be familiar with rail systems or the technicalities of large infrastructure projects. Wikipedia is written for a general audience. While I personally am able to navigate the existing article, I can see why others may have a more difficult time.

The last paragraph of the outline you have posted, Economic impact, is indicative of the general concerns I have to the article. Wikipedia is supposed to provide a high-level overview of topics, and if a reader wants to know more granular details they are welcome to dig into the references/external links themselves. If I were writing that paragraph, I might narrow it down to: As of late 2023, CAHSR was the largest single construction project in the US, employing an average of 1,500 workers each day. In the Central Valley, where it passes through some of the state's poorest communities, it has had a significant economic impact, creating more than $18 billion of economic output since 2006.

While I more or less understand terms like "job-years" and "disadvantaged business enterprises", it will go over many readers' heads (note that a lot of "college educated" Americans read at grade school levels).

While I am contributing to a revised version of the article, I'm not going to get too involved with any changes that ultimately occur in mainspace; this page is just as much of a political battleground as CAHSR itself and I will leave it to others to resolve. Shannon [ Talk ] 17:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re the Economic Impacts, your version I believe is entirely appropriate, and the other summary info could be moved down to the sub-topic on the page. Robert92107 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I seen an article which basically doesn’t cite the media (with precious rare exceptions), and instead relies on government and corporate press releases. Look at the first 10 refs:

• Ref 1: CA Gov.
• Ref 2: CA Gov.
• Ref 3: Stadler Rail Group PR
• Ref 4: CA Gov.
• Ref 5: CA Gov.
• Ref 6: CA Gov. (includes “How CA Became The Leader”)
• Ref 7: CA Gov.
• Ref 8: CA Gov.
• Ref 9: CA Gov.
• Ref 10: CA Gov.
Objectors will say the CHSR Authority is not the same as CalTrans and not the same as the CA Gov. Sure. Somehow 100% tax-funded, but yeah, “not the CA Government.” Yeah, now tell me Diet Coke ain’t Coke. Most Wikipedia articles rely heavily on major independent media such as the LA Times, The New York Times, or the Mercury News. These media sources used to be refs. on this article, but got largely and methodically expunged. XavierItzm (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge are are NO independent media sources which are objective and reliable sources of information on CAHSR. I believe there is one citation from LA Times (Vertabedian) regarding how the route/construction has harmed minority communities, but that is the only independent factual analysis I've seen, and that topic isn't even mentioned in CAHSR's data. Other media (NY Times, Washington Post) rarely will have something, but it is usually an opinion piece. Even in these, however, they cite CAHSR Authority's data, and so is thinly disguised factual repetition. There are also some "rail fan" cites possible, but once again they are thinly disguised factual repetition. Robert92107 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just chiming in to say that I agree this article is a mess. No article should ever have a section like this one's "Forthcoming and Recent Board actions". An up-to-date log of recent committee meetings has no place in a broad overview of the project. Also, Robert92107, I imagine the reason you get reverted is that this is an encyclopedia and is meant to be writen in prose paragraphs (though this article currently does a terrible job of that). Paragraph keyword phrases like you use go against the manual of style. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Rock Canyon, I think there is a tension between an "encyclopedic" viewpoint (i.e., the project is "in development" so in 10 years we will tell you about the completed first segment) and the "news" viewpoint (i.e., we will tell you what the project is doing every step of the way towards completion). A large, complex project like this has many different components and steps. Even though this article has problems, it appears to me to be the only source that attempts to summarize its history, goals, where it is now, and what its next steps are. Thus, to my mind, it has significant value for someone who is trying to understand the project in its entirety (another aspect of an encyclopedic view). What is the best way to do this I think is really the question. Robert92107 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: To be fair, it's unusually difficult to find objective criticism (or even just coverage) of this topic that doesn't lean into sensationalist doom posting. In the draft version we have been working on, I have been trying my best to discuss the various controversies surrounding the project, but it's hard to take seriously anything that describes the project as a "colossal boondoggle" and then proceeds to state that flying cars will make rail travel obsolete by 2026. There are definitely more credible sources out there, lost in the sea of angry personal rantings/politically motivated hit pieces, and I have been slowly collecting them.

We are long past the whining of nay-sayers on the project. The state is doing it, and is making progress, but has significant problems. This is the real story, and rehashing the perspectives of 10 years ago does no one any good. Furthermore, the Authority is being very factual in its reports; it is not editorializing, it is making good faith estimates and reporting what is happening. So, it is unreasonable to be suspicious of it without evidence. Robert92107 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vartabedian of the LA Times, which I see you were involved in previous discussions on, I personally think he is biased but I wouldn't discredit him completely as a source. In controversial topics, I would prefer to find a second, independent source to back it up (see WP:ONESOURCE). In particular, the SNCF debacle in the early 2000s. It's an interesting story, and highly relevant to the project's history, but the LA Times article is the only source of this information and I was unable to find any other independent coverage, nothing from SNCF itself, and nothing from searching any of the names of people interviewed in the article. This is the kind of thing that worries me about even "major independent media" coverage of this topic. Any news outlet can drop a bombshell, but without context it can easily be brought into question. Shannon [ Talk ] 18:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shannon, as I noted above, we are far past discussions of "should we do it". Now we are in the "how is it doing now" phase. Some right-wing commentators just can't seem to get past their Cassandra personas, and are still looking to prove themselves right. At this point, Phase 1 has been defined as 3 operable segments, but there is only sufficient funding for the CV segment. Getting the CV segment built (and into operation), and how can the state come up with funding the for the next segment are really the important issues now. (And BTW, thanks for that map of yours; it is a nice one to show updated status on.) Robert92107 (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep the focus of this discussion on article improvement, rather than exchanging opinions about the project. @User:Shannon1's comment is about how the article should lay out criticism. It certainly will need to devote a significant section on that, because the controversy is relevant to the public -- whether you personally like the criticism or not. Otherwise, the project would have been fully funded by now. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DracaenaGuianensis, "Otherwise, the project would have been fully funded by now" is your opinion. (Indeed, the project is very expensive, and will require a very strong commitment over many years to fund.) In fact, the article doesn't even get into the national political divisions, which are actually the main reason why the historic federal government support levels weren't given to this project in its early years. So, the "should we do it" controversy/criticism should only be briefly mentioned (and the details moved into History), and the "what is wrong now" controversy/criticism should be in the main article. (In fact, the current controversy/criticism is now largely one of funding, and this does have significant discussion in the main article.) The state is by law now committed to the project, and this is not an item of significant critical discussion in the main article. Robert92107 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted the rewrite of the Intro per what was shown above, sans paragraph keywords. Robert92107 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Shannon1: regarding your comment on the California vs. SNCF debacle and your finding this on the LA Times in 2012, please consider that the New York Times noted the same thing in 2022, a full decade later. We have @SquirrelHill1971 to thank for this contribution above on this here TP, where the NYT interviews other people, who say «SNCF was very angry. They told the state they were leaving for North Africa, which was less politically dysfunctional», and where the Times drolly states: «Morocco’s bullet train started service in 2018». Certainly the 2022 NYT got worked into the article (and the 2012 LA Times probably as well, back at the time), but these sorts of things routinely get expunged from the article. XavierItzm (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article from 2018 states the SNCF debacle had roots in prior years: «In 2009, the French national railroad SNCF offered to build the project along a slightly different route, and even lined up private funding. The CHSRA rebuffed the offer and kept silent about it for years, until the California legislature authorized public construction funds.» XavierItzm (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: The reason I've wanted to find another source, preferably one from SNCF itself if that exists, is precisely due to the repeated back-and-forth of deleting and re-adding. I think it's worth including, but if it's causing this kind of trouble then it would be better to back it up with more sources. The City-journal page you cited – which reads like an angry Reddit post, but I digress – only mentions the SNCF incident in passing, linking to a blog (Pedestrian Observations) which in turn links back to the LA Times article. I would not consider either of them to provide any additional value beyond the original article (and as personal blogs, probably don't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources anyway). I have been digging through this subject trying to find original documentation from SNCF itself, which would be the "holy grail", so to speak, if such material even exists. Maybe I'll have to translate my search terms to French. If you would like, please take a look at what I have written on the subject in this section on the draft CAHSR page (third paragraph). Shannon [ Talk ] 05:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XavierItzm: I am skeptical about this NYT source, as it too was written by Ralph Vartabedian, the same gentleman as in the 2012 LA Times article. It seems you are quite fond of his reporting, as evident from this talk page, but there seem to be reasons to believe he is not neutral on this issue, in terms of consensus building. This combined with the fact that any other media publication with similar claims link back to either his 2012 LA Times or his 2022 NY Times article makes me uncomfortable with presenting his finding as facts. If there were other independent sources confirming this story, that would be fine, but so far it's a one-man show. (The fundamental problem we are facing is that journalists don't seem to care enough about the project to do their own investigation and reporting.) DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should add for completeness that I do fully agree with you that it is highly unsatisfactory to cite mostly the Authority as primary source, especially given the controversy around management issues. I think doing so is fine under specific circumstances or provisions, e.g.
(i) Numbers: Such as expenditure to date, or expected costs. Since the article will mention cost overruns quite frequently, the context for WP:NPOV should be there.
(ii) Plans: Imo it's fine if we report plans directly, since that's just what it is. We should add qualifiers though, e.g. when a major planned segment has zero financing.
I definitely appreciate your effort highly w.r.t. diversifying the references -- we will have to work hard on this, and it will require a major team effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DracaenaGuianensis (talk • contribs) 18:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed two sections of text today that fundamentally were unencyclopedic. I agree with most of the comments given in the section above; the tone of this article, its reliance on CASHR reports, and its lack of summarization mean that it has rapidly become basically unreadable. It should be shorter and written at a much higher summarization level, with less detail and less minutia on details of board activity and construction. @Robert92107, I urge you to re-read the section above and take these concerns seriously. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, if you understood the facts presented and have a better summarization plan in mind, why didn't you just prune/revise it? I think that a Next Steps sub-section is a good idea because I think that people come to the article to understand what is happening with the project, and not just what has been done (which usually takes years to come to fruition), but I do tend to be overly detailed. However, looking at the next steps leads one to understand that the project inherently is filled with small steps and details. So, it is clearly a balancing act.

The financing/costs plan is also stabilizing. The last major unknowns are (1) track and systems, and (2) tunneling. Track and systems RFP data will come in later this year. So, this sub-section can be simplified and updated soon.

Your comment about Wikipedia not being a government newsletter/calendar raises some questions. What is the “encyclopedic” role of Wikipedia? The Next Steps sub-section provided a to-do list of what the Authority is doing now (and is planning to do) to advance the project. Is that significant information? No other site on the internet, including the Authority itself, provided that in one place. Actually, to get that information, the user would need to comb through the Board Minutes and CEO Reports going back months.

In fact, the draft 2024 Business Plan, a critical project document, is an example of a current step in development now. Another example of a step in process now is acquiring trainsets, which will require an RFQ (done), RFP (in process now), contract award (future), delivery of test sets (future), testing of test sets (future), acceptance of test sets (future), and delivery and acceptance of remainder of order (future). According to the timeline, the testing trainsets will be delivered in 2028, and the remainder delivered in 2030. Isn’t this significant information which should be included in the article? Of course, all this development data is a moving target, and will be updated/cleaned over time as the situation changes.

It is my belief that providing status on the current state of the project (and listing the “to-do” coming steps) is useful information, and (while not historical) is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the project. So, how this information is presented is the key issue, and not whether or not it should be.

Comments? Robert92107 (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the dates and times of specific meetings, both past and present, are entirely unimportant. The WP:10YEARTEST is always a good guideline. What will actually be relevant decades from now for people to learn about this project? RFQ and RFP data should be summarized down to a few sentences. In the end, acquiring trainsets is probably worth a couple of paragraphs in total. I support the efforts at rewriting the article taking place here.

Something similar sometimes happens with articles on politicians as elections approach - they become directories of a candidate's position on every single conceivable political issue, often sourced to the candidate's website, rather than encyclopedic summaries. Editors who make these additions will argue that this information will be helpful to voters in upcoming elections. That may be true, but Wikipedia is not a voter guide. Correspondingly, Wikipedia is also not a newspaper nor a public advocate. Wikipedia should be based mostly on secondary sources (like newspaper articles and academic works) rather than primary ones (like government body reports) precisely because secondary sources do a first pass at filtering out unimportant detail and pulling out the most relevant facts, providing summaries and analysis which can be turned into good encyclopedic prose.

Our job is not to provide a report on the Authority's activities past and present. Our job is to summarize the project as a whole, so that an average reader can get a sense of the full scope of the thing in an organized, clear article of reasonable length. —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert92107, looking over the last few months on this talk page, I see that at least 5 separate editors (@Nweil, @Shannon1, @XavierItzm, @Citing, and @DracaenaGuianensis) have expressed significant concern about the style and content changes you have introduced. There have also been comments from other editors. Consensus seems to be that there are significant editorial issues with the article, largely arising from your additions and removals. While you are obviously passionate about the topic, I recommend you think about how to conform to the emerging consensus while still working collaboratively with others. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a fundamental error which is common to a number of commenters here. The story of CAHSR at this point is fundamentally different from all the other mature rail systems. Sadly, even though we’ve lived through the collapse of Republican support for HSR (remember, 3 Republican governors refused funding for HSR systems in their states), and their enmity to CAHSR in particular, I don’t know of any good sources to document it. So, leaving that aside for now, we’re trying to tell the complicated story of how CAHSR is struggling to get the first segment built and into operation.

I estimate that maybe half of the current main article text will be changed or deleted inside of 10 years, as the article is constantly changing based on the evolution of the project. Some of that will be moved into History, but some will be just out of date and not worth saving. I also estimate that it will probably take another 8-10 years (from when CV is operational) until the next operable segment (SF to CV) is completed, assuming that the project is able to come up with another $28B without having permanent funding sources at the state and federal levels.

So, we are not close to setting up a “final” structure to the project pages. My point is to not worry about the entirety of the article at this point; it will grow as the story matures. Indeed, I can justify setting up the main “branches” of the story (at this point comprising main, history, construction, route & stations, and benefits; I also anticipate two other branches for trains, and operations in the foreseeable future), and to have these ready for “permanent” text storage.

The dates and results of Board meetings now are clearly of only passing interest, but they are significant now in telling the story of CAHSR, since each is a significant step in the creation of the first operable segment. Consider: trainset, power, station construction, and track and system orders will be placed soon, decisions which will have impacts lasting decades. So, they deserve some significant coverage now, but only briefly (or in passing) in "permanent" text.

My main concern now is winnowing down excess text, yet keeping the story of the current struggle alive. Let me repeat, this is not the same story (and, in particular, not being told the same way) as will be told in the "permanent" pages.

Let me also clarify that I do "take seriously" the structure and content of the pages. However, I view the entire thing as an organic evolution, and constantly in revision based on what is happening, and that is what I am doing. However, I cannot justify pruning something which is of significant, yet ultimately momentary, concern. The project is at the point where it is now (with the two NTP-2s) beginning the final pre-construction steps for the N and S extensions, but that point hasn't quite been made clear yet in the text, since it was in the deleted Next Steps text.

Robert92107 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert92107 You seem to believe that we are all erring in some way -- which could well be -- but I also feel like you are not carefully reading the comments here. Allow me to explicitly point to two things, that have already been mentioned.
(1) As @Ganesha811 has laid out, "Wikipedia is not a voter guide. Correspondingly, Wikipedia is also not a newspaper nor a public advocate." Wikipedia guidelines are subject to interpretation and should be bent whenever that makes the project better, but there is also consensus that many details you are adding are not interesting to the general audience and actually make the article hard to read. Please refer to WP:TECHNICAL. Also see @Citing's comment: "I came to this article hoping to know which cities would be connected by CAHSR, when it is projected to be completed, and what the overall plan for the rail system is. I still don't know the answers to these questions." Of course all the information is here, but hidden behind a myriad of incoherent sections; it is often repeated at two different spots but in slightly diverging ways; and masked by jargon from board meetings that is left unexplained. As editors we are not only here to provide information, but to summarize, digest, and exhibit it for the general reader. A web blog may be the right format to quote entire section from the 2024 Business Plan or dive into the details of the latest F&A committee update, but this ain't it.
(2) This touches upon another thing: style. See WP:MOS. The article currently just strays too far from the norm. Nobody here is against explaining the next steps of the project. Actually a lot of "complainers" came here precisely because they wanted to know about it. But nobody will understand anything if we throw around terms like "NTP-2" in the main article. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second what @DracaenaGuianensis said above. And will add this; as editors, we have to make editorial judgments about the content of a page. These decisions are subject to consensus. Your views are in the minority here. You have been unable to persuade others that your view of the article is correct. It might be time to accept that the article will not end up in the form you support. As a knowledgable and productive editor, you have a great deal to contribute to the article, but it has to be in line with consensus on what is appropriate for the page. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I am not objecting in principle to what anyone says here re criticism. This topic is very demanding in its content and timeliness. I am more concerned about how we evolve it, since the basic structure works well. I certainly agree that the article needs some serious cleanup because it has gotten too wordy and is a bit of a mess.

(2) Re not being able to find the route and stations, this illustrates the fact that the article covers a lot of ground. That information is shown in various places (after all, there is one entire sub-article on route and stations listed in the Contents!), and it is even shown on the Project Status map -- which is rather hard to miss. So, this issue shows more the reader's problem than something that we can easily fix.

(3) I also agree that I tend to get too detailed, so this needs more balance. I am certainly not opposed to proper layering of information. In general I suggest that detail needs to be more in the subsidiary pages and not the main one, so when there is cleanup I suggest that detail be moved there whenever possible. Clean up of subsidiary pages is another issue, but not as pressing. There in general more detail might be warranted. Thus, cleanup should entail MORE thinking than just "Oh, I'll delete this!" rather than "Where should this information go?" After all, when information is deleted, then the responsibility for recovering and using it is put on someone else ... or else it might just be "lost" indefinitely. A small example, cleanup today of train design deleted info re business class seating ("business cubbies"), wifi, onboard train information systems, and food service. Well, these are certainly not earth-shaking, but they do indicate this is not just a bus on a rail-carriage, and they provide a better understanding of the type of service which is being planned for inside the train. This is significant information which was lost in the cleanup.

(4) As I have said, the focus of the main article needs to be not only on the project goals, but also on its efforts to achieve them. Thus, it should be "more like a newspaper" than most other Wikipedia articles because it is posting more timely (and transitory) information, and after things have cooled down then it will be more static. For instance, construction status is definitely transitory, but entirely relevant to the state of the project.

(5) I do not see many "jargon" terms used here, and the first occurrence always has a full explanation. For instance "ROW" is right of way, and "NTP-2" is notice to proceed 2. However, maybe the full term should always be used. HSR is also used, but that is pretty obviously part of CAHSR which was clearly defined at the start, and IOS and EOS were also defined up at the top. There really aren't many jargon terms.

(6) I also really would prefer the use of paragraph keywords in some places (as I illustrated far above in Intro text) because they enhance ease of reading and referenceability. The principle is the basic one of having a topic sentence for a paragraph -- which is standard English composition -- but just very abbreviated for ease of use. It would be particularly beneficial in the Intro paragraph, since it helps people who have some basic, specific questions in mind. Robert92107 (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have neither made any new points here, nor addressed our comments substantively. Except your dissenting opinion, consensus has been established on that a rewrite is merited and on how it should roughly look like. I don't think any further discussion here will be fruitful, as you are not engaging with our arguments. Please feel free to call on WP:DR if you prefer to have outside opinions or moderation, but I'll disengage here. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. @Robert92107, you are simply restating your viewpoint. You are entitled to your perspective, but it is in the minority and contrary to the consensus on this page. Your personal view that this article should be "more like a newspaper" or that it should use paragraph keywords (contrary to the manual of style) does not override local consensus. Please stop adding inappropriate material that violates our content guidelines and manual of style. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this I've asked for some consensus on two issues (timeliness and referenceability), citing @Nweil, @Shannon1, @XavierItzm, @Citing, @DracaenaGuianensis and the last two topics on the Talk page. Robert92107 (talk) 20:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus already exists at pages like this one. Remsense诉 00:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at this article in a while, but it was a very pleasant surprise to see the mess of this article addressed. Thanks to everyone who worked on this. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors, as you may have noted, the CAHSR article looks a bit different now. As announced in the discussion above, we have been working on a complete overhaul as per community consensus. The output of this effort is now in place. The guiding themes of the rewrite were: (i) stricter adherence to MOS and encyclopedic relevance (ii) more secondary sources, less reliance on CHSRA material (iii) a clearer structure to address what the general audience wants to know.

In this talk page topic, I would like to highlight some issues and explain a few editorial choices we made, and give an outlook on what we think could be further points to improve on. It goes without saying that the entire editing community is invited to join in to make it better! But before that, I would like to thank and acknowledge Shannon1 (talk · contribs), who was absolutely instrumental for jumpstarting this overhaul, pulling through it, and bringing it into an acceptable form for the main namespace. As a rookie w.r.t. larger edits, I could not have undertaken my parts without Shannon being there. Further thanks go to XavierItzm (talk · contribs), who has been tirelessly hunting for secondary source-references across the entire article (and probably is not done yet) and providing feedback and suggestions, and to Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) and Citing (talk · contribs) for helpful comments and much-needed encouragement. When I say "we" here, this is meant as a rough placeholder for the team working on the draft, even though I mostly speak for my specific views, and all overly bold statements and mistakes here shall remain mine. Please chime in if I went rogue here!

Now back to the material at hand! Starting from guiding theme (iii), we wanted to restructure the article so that common questions are answered much quicker, and with a clear hierarchy that develops details accordingly. In particular, we hope that the following questions are answered in a much clearer way: (1) Where is it being built? (2) How much has been spent, how much will it cost? (3) When is it done? And implicitly (4): What even is "it"?

For guiding theme (ii), according to the consensus reached, we have dispensed with referring to California High-Speed Rail Authority statements wherever possible. However, there are instances where relying on them as primary source is either necessary or simply sensible. For example, the former case applies when we go into the section for finances and expenditure, since (sadly) no news report is seriously going through the precise numbers, telling us how much has been spent -- so often we have to refer to the Authority for lack of other sources. The latter case applies when the article discusses predictions made by the Authority, such as when analysing the evolution of cost estimates. Here, it is Authority statements themselves that are the object of interest. Generally, we could not avoid citing the Authority in many instances, especially if it is about plans and intent. But we should stick to the established consensus, and not resort back to habits of extensive verbatim quotes from Authority material, and thus violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOTMIRROR.

For guiding theme (i), we tried to establish a stronger analogy in structure, style, and content to other articles for similar topics, such as Taiwan High-Speed Rail, Tokaido Shinkansen, or HS 2. We tried to align it particularly close to the first one, as it is rated WP:GA.

For reference and preservation of edit history:

• Draft: User:DracaenaGuianensis/Sandbox 1
• Talk Page of Draft: User talk:DracaenaGuianensis/Sandbox 1 — Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

But the work is far from over! There are a few things we are finishing up (Shannon is working on updating maps), and there are some specific points of possible improvements: (a) more secondary sources, and citations in general (b) shortening prose if possible (c) adding images about construction progress, but sensibly and not as WP:FANCRUFT (d) replacing instances in text where "current", "so far", or similar is not being qualified with a specific date in order to future-proof the article.

That's it from my side, we are open to hearing your feedback/hate messages/suggestions! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanatory note! Kudos to you and all those who worked on this rewrite. I believe it much more closely matches both the consensus established on this talk page and Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. It's a huge improvement. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there a number of nice features. I have a few quibbles re minor errors which crept in (which will be fixed in time).

My biggest take-aways from my cursory review are

(1) the new Project Status map needs more work to make it clearer and more meaningful (and I think it should be larger so it is easier to read) (and I think that it is desirable to break out track & systems from civil construction) (and I think some sort of "ready to use" status would be desirable, since Caltrain will fall into this category later this year),

(2) I think there is too much space and detail on the financing aspects (and in the future the table will grow too large and unwieldy), so perhaps all this financing detail should go into a whole new sub-article on Financing of California High-Speed Rail,

(3) I think the large station table should reside in the Route and Stations of California High-Speed Rail sub-article (and only a briefer list of station and city location given), and

(4) I also question the large amount of space being devoted to historical details, since these are not matters of import in the current ongoing project; so wouldn't these be better in the History of California High-Speed Rail sub-article?

(5) I also saw that some of the customer-friendly aspects of train design were omitted. CAHSR is deliberately focused on providing a superior customer experience with a variety of seating options (including business "cubbies" for work), internet access, food service, and family & kid-friendly play areas. Also, there was no discussion of the floor height incompatibility of CAHSR and commuter rail trains. I believe these deserve note.

(6) I am also a bit surprised that the discussion of route completely omitted the consideration that an I-5 route would not provide significant economic benefit to the Central Valley nor garner as much statewide political support for passing Prop 1A, whereas the chosen route was specifically chosen for economic benefits, transportation enhancement, and political support.

While I see a lot of good, I still see need for refinement/improvement. but this is to be expected. Robert92107 (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think article 2.0 is a massive improvement, and want to thank DracaenaGuianensis and Shannon1 who both dedicated an unbelievable amount of work. The article is now quite readable to a high encyclopædic standard, not only because of the quality of the writing, but also on account of its logical layout. To cite an example of the latter, there is no «history» section, for which there is a separate article that would be pointless to duplicate or even summarize here; however, when suitable, the historical factors that created the present dependency paths of the project are presented within the overarching logical layout; a clear exposition therefore exists not only for the overall article, but for each logical unit. Outstanding! XavierItzm (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were largely about specific issues I saw in the new version. However, your comments did not refer to ANY of my specific issues. Why would you even think that your comments were a "reply" to my comments? Did you even think about the issues I raised? Robert92107 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume, from reading their words, that XzavierItzm was responding to the subsection as a whole, and not to you specifically - please try to assume good faith on the part of others. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that from the placement of his comments that he was referring to what I said. Otherwise he should have bumped up the indentation. (So, I will do that, based on the reasonableness of your assumption.)

As to its overall readability, I found the first half readable, but the second half got bogged down in extraneous detail (such as, for example, the financing table I referred to in my comments, and too much detail re annoying lawsuits). I'm not saying that this information should be thrown away, but rather belongs in an "archive" (which is basically what the History of California High-Speed Rail sub-article is). Robert92107 (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the version is generally too long. We're still working on paring things down. Shannon [ Talk ] 16:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I would shorten anything first, it would be the subsection on lawsuits, because it can be summarised naturally and its hold-up on the project was probably the least. I would not cut anything from the finances subsections, and I actually feel more strongly about it, because (i) finances are also discussed in the WP:GA articles we were aligning this with (ii) it is absolutely crucial to understand financing to make sense of what is going on with this project, and it's quite unique in this regard. This point relates to guiding principle (iii), as for example many people have a complete misunderstanding on what is even in the active scope of the project. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I am generally very apprehensive about shifting stuff into subarticles en masse, as it mostly leads to a deterioration in standards of encylopaedic relevance there. I can see the legal details moved there, but anything of first-order importance should be addressed in the main article, and not hidden away. A somewhat lengthier main article is ok if it serves that purpose, especially if it is as intractable a topic as this one. Further, CAHSR subarticles better have a major clean-up too before moving anything there. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that XavierItzm may have meant to indent by one fewer level, as I agree that it doesn't seem like they were replying to you, rather to DracaenaGuianensis. Leijurv (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is intended to explain the overall layout and to elicit higher-level feedback. If you have issues with maps, it would be easier for discussion to open it as new topic. When working on the overhaul, we tried our best to make it an improvement along all dimensions. Given the scope of this undertaking, it is unfortunately inevitable that this move will entail some hiccups. As mentioned in my original statement, we are still working on the maps; and if you look at the edit history, Shannon has already reverted the map to its older version until the new version is finalised. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

inserted from prior discussion:

The more I look at the Project Status map for March 2024, the more problems I see in it. Some of the colors don't have enough difference so it's unclear, thus it looks like construction is completed on the central section when it's not. Also, Caltrain electrification seems to be in engineering design! Yes, these are minor, but a graphical display like this needs to have better design.

Added: I do NOT understand why the old diagram was replaced! This one is NOT an improvement. Please fix it or restore the older, more accurate one.

Robert92107 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is intended to explain the overall layout and to elicit higher-level feedback. If you have issues with maps, it would be easier for discussion to open it as new topic. When working on the overhaul, we tried our best to make it an improvement along all dimensions. Given the scope of this undertaking, it is unfortunately inevitable that this move will entail some hiccups. As mentioned in my original statement, we are still working on the maps; and if you look at the edit history, Shannon has already reverted the map to its older version until the new version is finalised. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me briefly list some of the features of the old map versus the new one:

• different project "stage" colors are clearly and distinctly different (with "pre-construction" also separately identified for NTP-1 and NTP-2),
• different identifiable sections are separate drawing objects, so their status can be quickly and easily changed without extensive re-work,
• the labeling in the map contains no date which needs to be frequently changed (since that can be easily changed in the footer and the supporting text),
• it provides a more complete range of "stages" in the legend (it does NOT, however, contain stages for "train & track in testing" and "in operation", which will be needed later this decade).

Remember that this project will be in existence for decades, so a more "durable" map would very beneficial.

One shortcoming in this design I believe is having the Phase 2 cities in the same grey color as the route. So, more than the route would need to be updated when/if those sections ever progressed (which is likely to happen in 10 years or so). Thus, all the cities/stations listed should be in the same type color.

One shortcoming in the new map design is attempting to show alternate Phase 2 routes. Since these are all so preliminary that they are basically meaningless, and since they do not properly indicate station options, and since making the map entirely accurate would make it look even more confused and extremely messy, I do not see any significant value in this. Rather, what was done in the old map is better -- just showing a simple line to those major cities. (Maybe use a single dashed softer grey line in place of the harder darker ones to indicate its approximate status?)

BTW, another minor issue with both status maps is that they do not currently have supporting text which clarifies/defines the route status terms. It would be better if these descriptions were somewhere.

Robert92107 (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DracaenaGuianensis said in his revert note "funding for Caltrain already in prose and note. shading refers to "funded and underway" for substantive Authority work and would be misleading for SF-SJ

The problems with this are (1) basically the ONLY route work CAHSR will be doing on this segment (apart perhaps from station work?) is through Caltrain electrification, and (2) this work is currently proceeding (and actually nearing completion). So, this segment by his definition would NEVER have work done on it. Yet, this is clearly counter-factual.

I do see that there is a Caltrain note for this entry, but I have to wonder if this is adequate. Why isn't a shared project allowed in this table? The work and money are certainly real. Robert92107 (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Robert; Caltrain electrification definitely needs its own color. The physical infrastructure is substantially already present. While they need to straighten some areas, it's still the case that the Caltrain corridor is the only place where rail and overhead wires are in place that will be used by CAHSR eventually. Additionally, this was partially funded by the authority. "Partially funded and underway" would be somewhat accurate, getting its own color and footnote would be better. Not having any note at all doesn't make sense. Leijurv (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree here, hence the revert. Admittedly it is somewhat borderline, but the lack of shading here was quite deliberate, because doing so would be highly misleading to the reader. Assertion (1) made by @Robert92107 is incorrect, and this can in fact be easily inferred from staring at the number $5.0bn for SF-SJ, or the capital cost basis of estimate report if one wants the gory details.

Now why the choice not to shade? What these financing sections and this table ultimately are about is to answer the following question: What are the cost estimates, and what is the state of funding for the Authority to do its work? And for this, sadly, SF-SJ is basically not funded. About $600m dollars for the PCEP project are not close to the $5bn required. Is it technically correct that it is "partially funded"? Yes it is, as you @Leijurv, mentioned. But then, Burbank-LA should also be shaded since CHSRA is contributing something at the order of $500m to Link US (also explicitly discussed in the article), a non-negligible amount, or LA-Anaheim too since the Authority paid a large chunk of the Rosecrans-Marquardt GS project. So evidently, we have to draw a line somewhere strictly non-zero. I'd say that line should be where it confuses readers least. If we shade SF-SJ, albeit technically correct, people will be left under the false impression that the Authority has been endowed with the means to get it ready for operations, maybe missing some $100m here and there -- and will be mad later why the Authority is asking for more money.

So to summarise it in a more polemic way: Bookened investments are peanuts in the grand scheme of things. The financing situation is already intractable enough, and if we want the general audience to understand the most important things, we have to abstract from details that are already discussed at lengths elsewhere. Between the choice of making something technically correct but the understanding wrong, or the understanding right but technically wrong, in this case I prefer the latter. That's also why the note on PCEP funding is not displayed more prominently. (The other claim that there is "no note at all" is not quite right -- it has been there all along right at the $5.0bn number for SF-SJ.) DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree. When the Board elected to do a blended system SF-SJ, it obviated the whole $5B estimate. Would you then mislead people into thinking that $5B was the current plan for constructing the route?

Calling the SF-SJ funding "peanuts" is immaterial. What is significant is the route being funded/constructed. You could look at blending as a cost-saving measure (which it is in part), and say that this saved a lot of money from the original estimate. So, rather than SF-SJ being an "unfunded" route, it is a very economically constructed route. The idea of a separate shading color for blended segments seems like a good idea to me, since it shows not only shared funding, but also a fundamentally different type of segment being constructed.

As to the blended funding in the south, I hadn't forgotten it. Re LAUS, since it is a station it is hard to assign it to one segment or another. Re Marquardt, since it has general benefit and is just one spot I elected to close my eyes to it. Would CAHSR even use it? (I think it is only freight, but I'm not positive).

I think part of the problem is the purpose of the table is a bit confused, since it is trying to do two separate things which in the blended segments are different from the rest of the table.

I think leaving the table as-is is misleading, and some sort of correction needs to be made. Robert92107 (talk) 09:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the financing situation correctly, and this is precisely the reason why I am not in favour of shading. $5b is the current cost estimate for SF-SJ, as of the 2024 business plan. Again, it seems like you are not carefully reading the comments here and jumping straight to replying. How the sections are implemented is completely irrelevant for the matter of financing, key point being that SF-SJ has been allocated less than 15% of funding that the Authority needs; and this determination won't change unless more serious funding commitments are made.

The table is not confused at all, its purpose is to outline costs -- as its section and table titles clearly state. The shading for funding is a visualisation for what had been mentioned in prose, and it's a simple way to connect the sections on funding and costs without being overly WP:TECHNICAL. It's not about implementation methods at all, which are discussed in section 2.

I am going to change "partially funded" to "substantially funded", which essentially allows for more discretion in the binary classification. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it would be improper to shade SF-San José. The $600m funding provided is but about 12% of what the Authority itself expects to have to spend on that segment. As such, the segment is 88% unfunded and therefore no shading is appropriate. XavierItzm (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This report definitely deserves significant space. This has a lot more significance than articles in periodicals! Robert92107 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. Let’s see how external parties end up analysing the report, and update the article accordingly.XavierItzm (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else think the Funding and expenses, until Dec 31st 2023 table is a little unclear? The columns under "funding" have nothing to do with the columns under "expenses", but the rows continue from "funding" to "expenses" as if they were related. Is there any way to add a gap between the two sections of the table? Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree there are some significant problems with the latter half of this article. The second half seems to get bogged down in a variety of ways. This table is one of the more serious, since it is quite confusing. One issue is that the table is project wide in intent, yet the Authority is now focusing on getting the IOS working. Funding is not so easily mapped to locations, especially when many years are required for funding and expenditures. Roughly only half of identified funding has been expended, yet even more funding is needed to be sure the IOS gets into operation by 2030-33. (Similar problems with the 2024 Draft BP were noted by the IGO with funding/expenditures, so the draft has been revised.) And, for SF-SJ, only about 15% of planning has been accomplished, so its funding requirements are more like guesses at this point. (However, it is not clear that the unfunded portions are mostly to be allocated to the maintenance facility, stations, and curve-straightening, since the Caltrain electrification covers the bulk of the rail line.) This whole complex picture of finances and needs to my mind is not adequately discussed, and the table does no service for this. As to adding a blank line separator in the table, that is trivial to do, as would be breaking the one table into two separate tables. Robert92107 (talk) 05:40, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding, I forgot about it. Indeed, as the table is a balance sheet, items on the asset side have no deeper connection to the items on the liability side, and the table class was used to preserve visually pleasing horizontal alignment. I have now added a gap that should break any conceptual link within a row. @Red Rock Canyon Could you kindly let me know if this resolves the ambiguity sufficiently? DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in my edit summary, please keep in mind that the structure of a table should reflect its meaning, and blank columns and rows are very bad for accessibility—think people using screen readers.

I would recommend making these two separate tables. Remsense诉 15:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you can achieve the visual effect you want by thickening the border for cells on this column, I've gone ahead and done that.—oh! I've just tried to do that but you beat me to it. Remsense诉 15:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was just typing the reply, but you beat me to it here in return :-) Thanks for the pointer RE accessiblity. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great solution. Thanks to both Rem & Drac. XavierItzm (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DracaenaGuianensis, I have NO IDEA what your problems are with my edits to the table. Many of my edits in the table are just minor format revisions, most of which do not change the meaning whatsoever. For instance, moving the reference links from the TABLE TITLE to the COLUMN TITLES actually makes perfect sense, since it more specific as well as cleans up the table format.

I did add the future federal funding note down in the total space since it is noteworthy, but not included it in totals. The Authority has some reasonable expectation of getting more federal funding, albeit amount uncertain. Ignoring that Authority has said it has federal fund expectations is misleading.

As to adding the quotation from the 2024 Business Plan re future C&T, that is entirely reasonable. In fact, insisting on ONLY reporting the most conservative C&T figures is actually misleading. THAT I have a serious problem with, since you seem to be deliberately misrepresenting C&T information clearly reported in the 2024 BP. How can you justify that?

In sum, your reversion seems to show thoughtlessness.Robert92107 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, you have to calm down, there is no need for all-caps. Now that you pinged me, I went to have a look at your series of edits.

First of all, your edits often decreased the quality of exposition. A table should be as concise as possible. This includes putting things that concern the whole table (such as the date of the information) into the title instead of repeating it in both columns. Some other additions like the $5000m federal funding sought were just completely out of place. There were inconsistencies of formatting within the table. Other things were stylistic deviations from convention, a general issue you have been pointed to and then warned about repeatedly.

Second, you complained on this talk page earlier that the financing section is way too detailed, and now you are adding way too many details yourself. I am confused about your position. There were other issues like adding duplicate phrasings. Please read the entire financing section before making premature edits.

Third, I did not intend any misrepresentation for cap-and-trade (C&T). The left column was intended to represent funding firmly secured, and putting in the low end of the C&T estimates seemed prudent to me back then. This assumption is even explicitly articulated in the note. Honestly, I did not put too much thought into it, as I was focused on collating the numbers. Your accusation of deliberate misleading is a grave accusation – you have crossed a line separating editorial disagreements from personal attacks. This is not an acceptable way to communicate on this project. You don't seem to realize that I am a big supporter of CAHSR myself, but this is intentional as I keep my emotions out of it, and try the same with any bias. This is also not the first time where you assumed bad faith from other editors right off the bat.

Fourth, it seems you have a poor grasp of the financing situation. I am going to be frank here, because this is the second time in a few days where you made plainly wrong assertions – once on this talk page two topics above, and once in your edit (technically twice, due to double-reverting). Given that you previously wanted to get rid of the financing content, I advise you to just leave this section in other editors' hands. There is no need for editing just for the sake of it.

Lastly, I was not even the one reverting your edits to the table, so please don't "yell" at me. To use a prior editor's words: "You are off the rails." DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. You certainly did not do the major reversion; I saw your name in the edit note, and didn't read it carefully. This reversion basically ignored the issues I'd flagged.

I continue to have serious concerns which are apparently being skipped over. For instance, Table 5.0.1 in Final 2024 BP says the 28,470 expenditure total is "Estimate YOE", which I characterized as "baseline assumption". You have reverted it to "zero risk assumption". This is thus an incorrect characterization. You could say "with no risk assessment made", and that would be correct. Or, just label it as the Authority as done.

This table concatenates two time periods, and I was trying to make the distinction between the two halves clear. It might likely better be separated into two tables, since each part of the table is saying different things. While the table is understandable with some study, it just looks unclear, since everything looks the same. I also changed the totals headers to italics to differentiate those subsections from the item detail subsections above. Maybe the total subsections should just be colored differently.

In the text I also quoted from the Final 2024 BP re the Authority's assessment of the stability of C&T revenues, and this was deleted. I thought it put the C&T funding into perspective. Now with the range estimates eliminated from the table this is more of a problem.

The future funding expectation is also being seriously mischaracterized: it ignores the range of C&T estimates used by the Authority (refer to Table 3.1 in Final 2024 BP, footnote ***;also see p. 57); it also ignores discussion of federal funding. While a number for the latter shouldn't be added to the table, noting it keeps the table honest (which it currently is not). The comparison of funding and expenditure totals thus gives a different impression of where the project stands from the Authority's projections.

I suggest you look these data up, since this is significant. Robert92107 (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, as I was the one who reverted your edit, let me say that the simple reason I did so was because the series of edits showed overall issues which have been seen before on this article; poor summarization, inaccurate numbers, and adoption of the Authority's perspective to the exclusion of others. If any quality changes were caught up and reverted alongside the others, that was unintentional. I restored the prior version of the page because you have regularly edited against consensus for the article, and so I thought it was more sensible to ask you to seek consensus for the changes on talk. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I suggest you look these data up" Robert, you are being condescending. You are not the only one reading CHSRA reports. Such comments are out of place, especially so given that you are wrong about financing.

How did you get from "Estimate YOE" to "baseline assumption"? That's not what the Authority says. "Zero risk assumption" is exactly what that number represents. "No risk assessment made" is imprecise, as that term could represent a rough ballpark for risk, just without detailed calculations. Anyway, these semantics are not a source for serious concern at all. Again, I feel like you are making changes just for the sake of it, and thus causing me to spend a lot of time correcting it.

The table says: What do we have secured in funding, what have we expended, what do we need? This is something the general audience is confused about, and makes this for of exposition valuable (I hope). Keep it simple, keep it clear.

Federal funding being sought is noted in prose. It is also put into appropriate perspective by mentioning the very low current federal share (good news for CHSRA), while also acknowledging the political reality in the chronology of federal funding (bad news for CHSRA). Putting any federal number in the table is entirely premature and was just a wild guess.

I frankly do not want to spend time to comment on each point you raise, and it feels increasingly frustrating to deal with your numerous demands or alleged "serious concerns". It takes me a lot of time to address these, while you at the same time keep disregarding our comments and edit against consensus and basic guidelines. At the end of the day, no editor here WP:OWN owns this article. You should not have the expectation that every single thing will end up the way you want it. You are very welcome to start your own blog or website about CAHSR; that may a good place for the real-time updates you keep trying to push here. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being condescending here, especially since you are just poo-pooing the concerns I've raised, and not offered any specific data as to why they are not real.

I am merely trying to clarify the facts of the matter in the table. As it stands, the table IS misleading, and for the reasons I have stated. There are two specific data problem areas, which I pointed out. Ignoring these facts does not make them less real, despite what you say. I think it is entirely appropriate that the table accurately represent all of the data, and if it excludes some relevant facts, then at the very least it should say so. I think that most readers would think that assuming that readers will carefully read the text and pick up on the fact that the table is ignoring relevant data is just not acceptable.

As it stands, the table gives the impression that there is a large funding gap to get the IOS completed. The Final 2024 BP shows that the Authority has analyzed this issue (see Exhibit 3.0) and, while the need for federal funds is clear, funding expectations are that they are roughly sufficient.

As to How did you get from "Estimate YOE" to "baseline assumption"? ... The modeled risk probabilities are all based on the Estimate YOE figure, hence that figure is a baseline -- by definition. Page 92 says "The YOE estimate is a critical part of the risk process. It is a stripped and adjusted base estimate that starts from a number that is free of risk and serves as the basis for developing a risk range. Given outcomes are uncertain at this time, the Authority recommends a budget that corresponds to a probability level of contingency that aligns with guidance from the federal government, which is P65; however, the Authority’s goal is to manage within the P50 level for all projects". Thus only part of the Estimate YOE figure is free from risk (because it incorporates already known expenses, and future expectations which are also included will always incorporate a risk factor). As to calling the whole figure "zero risk" as the table does, that is just flatly wrong. If there actually were "zero risk" with that number there would be no need to model the different risk probabilities with getting the IOS into operation with that figure, because that figure would represent a certainty. How is this not clear?

As to me pointing out data that is not incorporated into the table (and should be), I see nothing wrong with specifically bringing it to your attention. If you are feeling offended about that, that is unfortunate, but (as they say) "it is what it is". When facts are misrepresented, not pointing it out would be wrong. This is a problem that needs to be addressed.

I admit that I do not pore over the "rules" of Wikipedia, particularly with an eye to call someone out on them. Someone objected when I included an external link to the Early Train Operator website. I examined the rules which they said I was violating, and frankly I could not see any violation at all. Their objection included no specific rule, just that page of rules, so I think this was improperly done. I ignored this, since while the link, although relevant as an external link to a component of the whole CAHSR project not under the Authority, at this time does not contain a lot of important information. (In the future it might, and so this issue might be revisited later.)

I also admit to feeling that some people are just thoughtlessly reverting whatever changes I make. How else would you explain the simple change I made to the second table, where I moved the "Price Level" label over to the right, so it clearly is associated with the columns to the right, and not the entries directly under it in the table? My revision improved the understanding of the table. So, what was wrong with that? It is things like this that suggest to me thoughtl4ess reversions. Robert92107 (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DracaenaGuianensis In your recent edit note you said, "Robert, your prior assertion wrong. The baseline assumption for expenditure is P50. This is the second editing dispute where you are simply wrong about financing."

(1) Refer to Table 5.0.1 (p. 94). It clearly shows P50 is 33,815 not 28,470. Thus, 28,470 does seem to be a baseline figure from which the probability risk assessments are derived.

(2) Thus, we still have a problem with the description of the 28,470. I think the only accurate course is to label it as the Authority does: "Estimate YOE", and not the confusing/inaccurate "zero probability assumption" label.

(3) You still seem unable to not get involved in personal attacks. May I remind you that the goal here is to have an accurate and understandable result? Counting up "errors" (real or imagined) and throwing them out is clearly a personal attack. Please desist.

(4) As I said in the section above, there are 3 errors in the table. The confusing/erroneous label is one. A second is using an incorrect C&T future expectation figure of $750m/yr, since the Authority is actually assuming $1,000m/yr (refer to Table 3.1 in Final 2024 BP, p. 54). The third is ignoring the fact that the Authority is committed to applying for various federal grants (see p. 64) which total $4,700m, and expects to get some funding from them. This fact needs to be noted to the table in order to clarify that the total funding you cite is not what the Authority actually expects. For the table to accurately reflect funding expectations these two funding shortcomings should be addressed. Robert92107 (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(1) It seems we just disagree on what "baseline" means. To me, it's the relevant estimate that is being used in practice. For that, the authority targets P50. This is what I was referring to in my edit summary. If you think of "baseline" as the term describing the zero risk internal estimate, fine. Different interpretation of the word. For our purpose it would confuse readers, as they don't care about what is the basis (or in your words: baseline) of internal estimates. Instead, they care about what the relevant cost estimate will be. For that, 28,470 is not the right number. It is P50. Hence I decline to make the change.

(2) Zero risk assumption is exactly what that number represents, you have not explained why that is incorrect. 28,470 is the estimate of costs if they do not consider any additional risk. In plain English, assuming zero risk.

(3) This is not a game of reciprocity, so I won't engage here.

(4) The BP does not have information at this level of disaggregation, so this table is based off other CHSRA sources. The sources are fully cited. In there, $750m was the assumption so it's natural to stick with it. Again, if you read my comments, there is a note right there explaining this, and even stating clearly that $750m is the low scenario. Generally, I am not in favour of including stuff in the table that is not secured. Call it E[funding secured by t | t = Dec 2023], where randomness is coming from C&T. "We expect funding" does not mean "we will get funding". BP p.64 is just a listing of NOFOs they want to apply to. Nothing more than that. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table is perfectly alright as is. It is not healthy to engage in WP:OR or in tea-leaves reading as to what a WP:PRIMARY (the Calif. government) was trying to articulate. Our policy actually says: «Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation», and adds «do not put undue weight on its [primary] contents». Instead, rely on WP:RS, such as, for example, The San Francisco Chronicle, which reported a few weeks ago: «the project remains about $7 billion short of the cost to complete the initial segment from Merced to Bakersfield». The Chronicle further adds: «Authority officials say they’re trying to secure $4.7 billion in federal funds to pay for the bulk of the Central Valley segment’s remaining estimated cost»;^[1] in other words, the WP:SECONDARY contradicts Robert, because it says that even if the California government gets the entire sum it wants from out-of-state taxpayers, it will still be short billions. Bottom line: leave the table as is, it is correct. XavierItzm (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are wrong in several ways.

(1) I am not concerned about “interpretation of source material,” rather I am concerned that current primary source material is NOT being presented in the table when it should be. All of my proposed “corrections” come directly from the Final 2024 Business Plan. The discussion is not about what the facts are, but rather what is being presented in the table, viz.: (a) using an out of date number for future C&T funding expectations instead of the latest one, (b) omitting mention of federal funding as a future expectation, and (c) using an incorrect/confusing label in place of the Authority’s own label. Specifically:

(a) The table seems to give the impression is that it contains CURRENT data, when in fact the C&T funding expectation given is not. How difficult can it be to put in the current C&T projected funding? It is actually trivial to do.

(b) Does the table note that federal funds will be sought (and that there is some expectation the Authority will get some federal funding in the future)? No. The table completely ignores this, and thus misrepresents the funding expectations. I’ve said that a note should be added to the table about this. Again, it is trivial to do so.

(c) I also object to an incorrect and misleading label. I’ve suggested using the label the Authority itself uses for that figure. Again, a trivial fix.

(2) I never said that the table should say that all funding has been secured or is expected for completing the IOS, and that is not what this discussion is about. I am just trying to get the table to be right factually -- which I am again stressing is now misleading.

(3) As to the newspaper article, I haven’t seen it, and so can’t comment on it. Robert92107 (talk) 03:32, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This guy's wholesale elimination of my edits is seemingly a feud.

INTRO PPs:

(1) Original text:

The project was authorized by a 2008 statewide ballot to connect the state's major urban areas and reduce intercity travel times. Phase 1 targets a travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from San Francisco to Los Angeles, compared to about nine hours on existing Amtrak service.

My change:

The project was authorized by Proposition 1A, a 2008 statewide proposition stating the goals of connecting the state's major urban areas, reducing intercity travel times, reducing vehicle and air traffic congestion, and providing economic benefits.

Reason for my change:

I specifically cited the name of the ballot proposition (link is the same). I also more accurately summarized the stated arguments for it, rather than only two given. So, my changes are more precise. Phase 1 does not "target" 2:40 hrs, it is a LAW. Eliminated time of Amtrak service to SF (no reference given for this, Amtrak does not "go" by train to SF, and my search reported Amtrak is 11 hours to Bay Area) so I couldn't justify keeping this dubious statement.

(2) Original text:

Construction of Phase 1 began in the Central Valley in 2015. Due to limited funding, the project is being built in sections. As of 2024, the state was targeting completion of a 171-mile (275 km) long Initial Operating Segment (IOS) connecting Merced and Bakersfield. The IOS is projected to commence revenue service as a self-contained high-speed rail system between 2030-2033, at a cost of $28–35 billion.

My change:

Construction of Phase 1 began in the Central Valley in 2015. Due to limited funding, the project is being built in sections. As of 2024, the state was constructing a 171-mile (275 km) long Initial Operating Segment (IOS) connecting Merced to Bakersfield. The IOS is planned to commence revenue service as a self-contained high-speed rail system between 2030-2033, at an estimated cost of $28–35 billion.

Reason for my change:

Mostly minor, actually.

(3) My version (this is in addition so there was no replacement):

At the north end, the IOS will connect to other rail services going to the San Francisco Bay Area and Sacramento. At the south end, the IOS will connect to an Amtrak bus service going to Los Angeles.

Reason for my change:

This puts the whole IOS into context of transportation in the state. This omission is a significant flaw in the intro PP. Otherwise it appears to be a train "going from nowhere to nowhere".

(4) Original text:

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. The Authority has not secured funding to connect the Central Valley section with either the Bay Area or Los Angeles, which would require crossing several major mountain passes. As of 2024, the entirety of Phase 1 was projected to cost $106.2 billion.

My change:

From January 2015 to December 2023, a total of $11.2 billion has 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. The Authority has not secured funding to connect the IOS with either the Bay Area or Los Angeles, which would require crossing major mountain passes at both the north and south ends of the Central Valley. The Authority is also completing preliminary planning and environmental clearances for the entire Phase 1 route. As of 2024, the entirety of Phase 1 was estimated to cost $106.2 billion.

Reason for my change:

Mostly style. However I did include the note that even though funding hadn't been secured for the rest of the system, environmental clearances were being obtained for all of Phase 1.

(5) Original text:

Supporters of the project state that it would alleviate air traffic and highway congestion, reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and provide economic benefits by linking the state's isolated inland regions to coastal cities.^[1] Opponents argue that it is too expensive, and that the funds should be spent on other transportation or infrastructure projects. The route choice has been controversial, along with the decision to begin construction in the Central Valley rather than more heavily populated parts of the state. The project has experienced significant delays and cost overruns caused by management issues, legal challenges, and lack of a complete funding commitment.

My change:

Supporters of the project state that it would alleviate air traffic and highway congestion, reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, and provide economic benefits by linking the state's inland regions to the major economic centers.^[1] Opponents argue that it is too expensive, and that the funds should be spent on other transportation or infrastructure projects. The route choice has also been controversial, along with the decision to begin construction in the Central Valley rather than more heavily populated parts of the state (although "bookend" projects are being constructed there). The project has experienced significant delays and cost overruns due to management issues, legal challenges, and lack of a complete funding commitment.

Reason for my change:

Removed "isolated" (a bit pejorative) and also instead of "coastal cities" said major economic centers; a more accurate description, since there are other coastal cities not involved. Bookend developments also begun early in SF and LA; the impression this is not so is wrong.

OVERVIEW OF PROJECT FINANCES

(6) My version (this is in addition so there was no replacement): In its 2024 Business Plan (Final) the Authority says, "Currently identified funding of approximately $28.8 billion is not sufficient to fully fund the program through completion of the Merced to Bakersfield passenger service, which is estimated in Chapter 5 to cost between $32.1 billion and $35.3 billion (Table 5.0.1). The Authority is endeavoring to close most of that funding gap with new federal grants as outlined in this section. Due to success with grant awards through 2023, the Authority is confident of additional grant awards going forward."^[2]

On May 28, 2024, the Authority announced it was applying for a $450 million grant for construction of the IOS extension to Merced.^[3] The 2024 Business Plan (Final) discusses the Authority's plans to apply for $6.95 billion in federal funding (with an associated $1.82 billion in matching state funds, for a total of $8.79 billion).

Reason for my change:

I have long complained that this version does not give an accurate presentation of projected federal funding. Obtaining future federal funding will be essential to getting the IOS into operation. These two paragraphs discuss this very issue, and are entirely relevant to an overview of the project's finances.

The second PP is a recent press release about a grant application for construction funds for the northern extension. The article now says there are no funds for that. So, this addition indicates the Authority is working towards correcting that.

IN CONCLUSION:

While stylistic difference can be argued about factual omissions, which are oftentimes misleading, should not be acceptable in this article. The text I replaced corrects these problems. If DracaenaGuianensis wants to correct these problems he is certainly able to do so, however, ignoring these problems is really a poor choice.

His criticisms were: "reverted due to editing against consensus (again) + changes that were entirely unnecessary, and decreased quality of prose". I do not see justification for this blanket critism.

Thus, I fail to see ANY justification for reverting to ALL the original, flawed text. Undoing all of them wholesale as he did smacks of either a feud or recklessness and poor judgement. Robert92107 (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

An edit summary is by definition a short notice on what was done and why, and hence cannot be exhaustive. I agree that changes should not be summarily reverted if substantial constructive edits would be reverted too. In this case, I made sure to look at the changes made on the version history and the determination to revert was made afterwards. Therefore, I reject your (repeated) claim of recklessness on my part.

I have nothing against you in principle, but I disapprove of most of your edits to this article, as they reflect a persistent disregard for both policy and consensus, both of which are pillars to this collaborative project. My main interest is in making sure this article is well-written according to encyclopedic standards and useful to readers; this is why I revert changes I deem a disservice to this goal. Unfortunately, that was the case for most of your recent edits, albeit not all of them (which I did not revert, in those cases). If you interpret these actions as personal feud, this is regrettable. However, I would also be dishonest to say that I am completely happy with your conduct on this talk page. This place is meant as a place to exchange arguments and opinions in a constructive, consensus-building manner, but past interactions felt very much like you trying to WP:FILIBUSTER and force your opinion by way of persistence. I am stating this not to start a fight, but to explain why I have stopped engaging with every single line you write on this talk page, and will continue to do so absent major changes. I simply feel like it's not getting anywhere and I want to spend my time improving Wikipedia, not talking into the void. So I am writing this long paragraph as an explanation of my general behavior to you, applicable to this entire article and talk page, not just this particular revert.

Circling back to this particular instance, it is for this reason – out of respect for my own time – that I allow myself not to dissect each of my decisions regarding your edits change by change. If other editors would like a more detailed explanation in this case, I am happy to provide one. Basically, one edit was in direct violation of consensus established on this TP and pointed out to you repeatedly by different editors. Others were fixing issues that were not really issues in the first place. Semantic meanings of a word or phrase are established in their wider context and rarely by themselves, and in this case that meaning is often derived from the whole paragraph or section. Certainly no sentence is ever perfect, but I frankly don't see big issues in these cases. What actually prompted the revert though was that your changes actually moved the article in the wrong direction, by introducing repeated phrases, ambiguous or false suggestions (so not an improvement), or simply worse prose. I welcome any changes that improve the phrases. I was indifferent to one change; but since it was no improvement either, I was fine reverting it along with the others.

I should add that my threshold for reverting on this article may be quite strict, because we had the "mandate" from the community here to undertake the major rewrite recently (reference: scroll back). That rewrite was in large part necessary due to your edits over the years that accumulated the issues mentioned many times on this talk page. I am a bit sorry to say this as you are clearly a passionate editor, but as mentioned above, I don't see much hope that this will change anytime soon. I see my reverting not as WP:OWNER, but more as a continuation of that mandate. (If I'm wrong in this, I'd love others to point this out for me.) For full transparency and disclosure, I was very involved in that rewrite. Since this naturally causes some bias no matter my ambition of impartiality, I am happy to take a step back with reverting if the editing community here thinks that to be more prudent for the sake of consensus and harmony. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but phrases like "persistent disregard for both policy and consensus" are inflammatory, and unless you can be specific as to which edit changes relate to that, I honestly have no idea what you are referring to. Apart from some minor stylistic instances, I'm adding content that either fixes incorrect or misleading statements, or adds additional facts. This is why I went to such lengths as to detail WHY I made those changes.

Most egregious of all though was my attempt to correct a glaring problem with the federal funding issue -- which you still persist in ignoring. This deliberate action does a disservice to the reader, since it actually leaves an incorrect impression that the Authority is not taking the funding gap seriously nor has plans to deal with it.

Hiding behind so-called "standards" and "consensus" rather than dealing with actual facts that relate to the subject is a feeble defense. Your actions persist in keeping intact an article that has some errors, omissions, and misleading content in the Intro, and a notable omission in Overview of Finances. That is where we stand at this point. FIX THE PROBLEMS the way you feel they should be done and I won't complain. Robert92107 (talk) 00:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits to the lead trying to address everyone's concerns here. Leads are difficult as they must balance succinctness while providing an inclusive summary.

• 1st paragraph: added citation for existing Amtrak time from SF to LA. While the San Joaquins is not a direct rail connection and requires bus transfers, the buses are operated by Amtrak so in my view it can just be called "Amtrak service". This is the case with much of the western US, where Amtrak is as much of a bus system as it is rail.
• 2nd paragraph: clarified that IOS will replace existing San Joaquins service south of Merced, probably the most succinct way to indicate its transportation context
• 3rd paragraph: I think it's appropriate to note preliminary planning is happening for the rest of Phase 1
• 4th paragraph: specified that the debate is over the first high speed segment being constructed in the Central Valley. Paragraph 3 already indicates that upgrades to the blended segments are under way.

I am less sure of how to approach the funding section. The fact of the matter is that no one knows what the financial future of CAHSR entails, outside of the existing funding commitment of cap and trade. The Authority may state that it's "confident of additional grant awards going forward", but that depends on a bunch of factors no one can predict, chief of which include the results of the presidential election this November. Similarly, the news media can make all sorts of wild claims about how the project will never obtain full funding and will never be completed. None of this has any grounding in reality unless 1) California does secure further federal funding or passes its own funding measure out of the state budget, which it has not or 2) the project gets officially canceled beyond the segments under construction, which it also has not.

The current version states that "The Authority seeks further federal grants to ensure completion of the IOS, thereby increasing the current 23% federal share in project contributions. It further strives to obtain an extension of the 25% cap-and-trade appropriation from the state until 2050, which would provide additional funds that are hedged against inflation-related cost increases from delays in schedule." To me, it seems like this covers the bases.

Shannon [ Talk ] 17:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think this is better. I still see two significant problems, though.

(A) I still see notable issues in PP 1: "Phase 1 targets a nonstop travel time of 2 hours and 40 minutes from San Francisco to Los Angeles, compared to about nine hours on the existing Amtrak San Joaquins." There are several problems here.

(1) 2:40 hr. is technically not a "target", it is a "requirement" for non-stop service (as it is a law). (This is obviously why the Authority is focused on route travel times and train speed.) (2) Googling "Does Amtrak go directly to San Francisco?" gives "San Francisco does not have an Amtrak train station, but you can reach the city from three nearby stations: Oakland, Emeryville and Hayward." So, really Bay Area is correct, but SF is not. And (3) "How long is Amtrak from SF to LA?" gives "Traveling by train from San Francisco to Los Angeles usually takes 10 hours and 50 minutes, but the fastest Amtrak train can make the trip in 9 hours and 30 minutes." Is it even worth mentioning the long travel times? If so, what is there now is just wrong (and should the "usual" time be used, or the fastest?).

(B) I don't think the federal funding issue is covered quite well enough. The Authority gives quite specific grant requests it will be filing (amount, grant source, and deadline), and it discusses how critical this is in the 2024 BP, so I think a little more authority re this issue in the article seems reasonable. Mentioning the recently filed application for $450M for constructing the north extension is also reasonable, since the article says that there is no funding for that at this time (and it might be awarded later this year). It is also quite appropriate to say that the coming Presidential election could affect future grants received. Robert92107 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are fine as is.

(A.1) 2:40 is what the Authority targets, this phrasing is appropriate. The Prop 1A requirement is noted in the section on legislative background, and again explicitly under "Station and service". There is no need for such detail in the lead. Putting excessive emphasis on the legislative text is also undue, as it will only be achieved few non-stop services, whereas most service patterns will take longer. It appears that generally some people treat Prop 1A as some sort of holy scripture. By that standard, there are other requirements in there which would be extremely unfavorable to the current state of the project, but everyone rightfully ignores them because it was nothing but a vision from 2008, so not everything should be taken at face value.

(A.2) We shall not rely on Google, and Shannon has given an answer to this already. I would propose a less restrictive formulation such as "on existing public transit" or something similar, as it is also less prone to specific service changes in the Bay Area. But not a big deal.

(B) We've been through this already Robert. I am probably as much a proponent of this project as you, but this is too WP:POV. Just because they want to apply for a grant does not mean they will get it. Without quantification on likelihood of award, this introduces too much bias. I am not in favor of parroting self-serving statements from the Authority, and this view has been established as consensus (which I urge you to take seriously instead of being dismissive). The existing sentences give ample attention to prospective funding. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank Shannon, whose compromise edits fully satisfy all the reasonable concerns raised by Robert, while leaving out Robert’s unreasonable ones. On the whole, Dracaena’s initial revert was warranted by the overall unreasonability, and as we can see it took Shannon significant effort to separate the grain from the chaff. XavierItzm (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I just started a stub High Desert Corridor article and I'm interested if anyone here would like to take a crack at helping me flesh it out? I'm not good at writing articles, but I figured since it was a project tangentially related to California High-Speed Rail that editors here may be interested in helping me out with it. Thank you! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the lead, it has been a missing piece! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 08:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and thank you for helping me on it! I also made another stub article and template for Dallas–Fort Worth high-speed rail as well, since I also saw that that one was also seemingly a missing piece! OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It needs a lot of copyediting. But I have neither the time (at least two hours) nor the inclination to correct the dozens and dozens of errors in this train wreck of an article. I'm counting on average one error every two sentences, which is awful. Coolcaesar (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't even have the time to even point out what's wrong, then no point in wasting others' attention with such a vague remark... Shannon [ Talk ] 05:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a main article plus subsidiary articles for discussions which would otherwise bloat the main article. The idea was that they would contain much more detailed info, and the main article would only give a highlight or two and then point to the subsidiary article. From what I see, the main article is now truly bloated and a mess. Why not go back to the idea of the subsidiary articles? I’m not even sure what’s happened to all the text in them at this point, but I see the links are gone.

History (legislative and legal)

Route and Stations (history and transit system links)

Impacts (for both environmental and economic)

Finances

Operations (for when the system actually starts operating)

Trains (for when the details of the trains come out)

Actually this rather reminds me of what I saw as a systems analyst decades ago. IBM would come out with a major application of some sort, then a number of years later another unit would come out with a replacement product ... but they never seemed to learn what the earlier product did right. So each product would have different flaws, and the optimal product was never created... Robert92107 (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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: [2] particularly this google earth file: [3] I'd never seen the actual property acquisitions visualized like this before. Leijurv (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]