Talk:California High-Speed Rail/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Criticisms and Air Travel Paragraph Problems

The first paragraph under criticisms regarding air travel has multiple issues. I think it would be best removed entirely as it is unsourced, confusing, and somewhat original research, but have yet to do it as I am "green" and I figured that it could still be rewritten in a better way. I could see this as a possible citation to use (persuant with a rewrite, and the use of multiple other sources) Link. The paragraph also uses the term "right-of-way" of which I cannot think of a better term, although it may be confusing and considered a technical term.

Also the unsourced article asserts that aircraft travel "twice as fast" and is rather redundant.

Anyways, just my thoughts (figured I could do something positive for the article), and a bit of markup (with logic behind it)... still learning wikipedia cleanup. --Flamozoid (talk) 06:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There really is no actual criticism of the project in "Criticisms". I tried to make some and they were deleted. My issue is that commercial air travel is possible and as fast or faster between most of the cities served WITHOUT substantial spending on infrastructure (some airports would have to be enlarged. Compared to the size of this project it would be minor). Airplanes travel at 300 to 500 mph (depending on type) and come is sizes from 12 passenger to 200 passenger so they can be configured for NON_STOP trips by choosing and airplane that can handle the typical passenger load between cities. Now if that is not a valid criticism of this HUGE project I would like to know why. It may not invalidate the project completely in everyone's mind, but it IS a valid criticism. Also the times stated for trips between cities in the "Travel Times" section don't seem to include any stops. The train stopping and starting is going to slow the time down considerably and if it IS an express (no stops) then the comparison with airplanes definitly holds, with airplanes coming close to being twice as fast in travel time.

Is the project on such shakey footing and the editors of the article so one sided they are unnable to see any valid criticisms whatsoever, making the article simply supportive an article of one-sided support of the project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorpilotman (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Air travel is extremely inconvenient, you're packed together because space is convenient and you have to plan well in advance to get good prices on tickets. It's also not easy to take baggage with you usually, there might be a fee and it might get damaged (while on a train, you place your own checked baggage so you know nobodies been throwing it around). All the cheapest airlines also have huge fees not listed on the ticket price. I would have to be wasting a lot of time to not prefer a train to a plane. Also, you have to go through a large layer of security at the airport, which severely cuts down on the time advantage that flying brings. On a train, you pretty much get to just walk on, no cavity search necessary.138.162.0.41 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

An airplane does not get you downtown. The stations are for the most part centrally located and well connected. Plus a plane landing and starting again takes way, way longer than a train stopping and starting again. See other HSR routes in Europe or Asia and how they compare to aviation. There appears to be a very strong correlation between travel time by train and market share. Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Claims of Acela Express operating surplus ignores capital expenditures.

The current language says "...the Los Angeles-San Francisco route will generate a net operating revenue of $2.23 billion by 2023, consistent with the experience of other high-speed intercity operations around the world. Even Amtrak's semi-high-speed Acela Express service generates an operating surplus that is used to cover operating expenses of other lines."

This is contradicted both by its own citation and a number of other citations below. In it's own citation it says:

"Passenger rail systems throughout the world lose money and require government subsidies to cover operating expenses. [...] The Government Accountability Office had previously said the omission of depreciation substantially understates the capital expenses associated with Amtrak's routes."

In other words, the citation indicates that the Acela Express and other rail systems "surplus" excludes captial expenditures (maintenance, replacement equipment, etc.). But according to Wikipedia, the very definition of operating surplus includes consumption of fixed capital (depreciation): Operating surplus.

Specifically, Amtrak's own cost estimates for maintenance and equipment for the entire Northeast Corridor is $368 million per year for the next 15 years.

Of course, how much of this "should" be assigned to the Acela Express is open to debate, but I think everyone can agree that it's certainly more than $0, and perhaps even more than the $71 million that the line would have made in 2011 if depreciation was $0, as explained here.

Can we have some good suggestions for alternate language? I'll get the ball rolling with one possibility:

"...the Los Angeles-San Francisco route would generate a net operating revenue of $2.23 billion by 2023 as long as depreciation and other capital expenditures continue to be subsidized by the government, consistent with the experience of other high-speed intercity operations around the world. Even Amtrak's semi-high-speed Acela Express service would generate an operating surplus if it didn't have to pay for any infrastructure maintenance or new equipment."

Thank you for the discussion, --Daniel (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Forcing it to read that way comes across as snarky; "Well of course Acela would make a profit if the government paid for everything!" If this needs to be said then the sentiment should be reworked entirely, rather than finding a way to shoehorn this into the existing sentence. (And, really, do we say that about private companies like UPS? Would UPS's profit be as high if a gigantic portion of their infrastructure, the highway system (not to mention the air system), weren't subsidized by the government?) --Golbez (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, it does come off snarky and a rewrite would be a lot better. I shouldn't have tried to shoehorn it into the existing sentence.

And yes, we really do say that about private companies like UPS. If there was a second highway system that ran parallel to the current one, reserved for exclusive use by UPS alone, you can sure bet that no one would claim that UPS has an operating surplus and $0 capital expenditures.

If UPS paid for it all themselves, they would be *forced* to subtract the depreciation from their revenue. Not just by common sense, but by GAAP, the SEC, or the bankruptcy court which they would find themselves in very quickly.

If the government subsidized all of the capital expenditures of the parallel highway system, and people tried to claim that UPS was a cost-effective, efficient mode of transportation, with a huge operating surplus, the outrage would be *palpable*. No one would buy the idea that all those roads were really created for free, or that they wont need any maintenance in the future. In the same way, claiming that the Acela Express has an operating surplus, while ignoring all capital expenditures, is incorrect.

Thankfully, the reality is that UPS, like the rest of us, pays their fair share through gas taxes and tolls. In fact, we even have weigh stations so that heavy commercial vehicles can be taxed even more (on top of the extra gas they consume).

Of course, if UPS had found some way to skirt the gas taxes and tolls, such as by deploying a fleet composed entirely of bicyclists and electric vehicles, then you would have a point. They would be benefiting from the public infrastructure without paying for the portion of depreciation that their use causes.

As a matter of fact, that is precisely what a lot of people are doing right now, myself included. As a hybrid owner, the lower gas taxes I pay unfairly burden the MPG-challenged drivers around me with more of the cost of road upkeep. Politicians are chomping at the bit for a way to increase taxes on those goody-two-shoes environmentalists and people like me with our gas-sipping modes of transportation. And personally, I think they should. Unfortunately, I can't imagine a solution that doesn't involve an abuse of privacy. I apologize for straying off-topic. --Daniel (talk) 07:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

By "We", I meant Wikipedia. And we don't say that about UPS. --Golbez (talk) 13:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, that's because UPS does *not* depreciate any public infrastructure that it doesn't pay for through user fees (gas taxes, tolls, and commercial freight taxes). If the Acela Express paid for its portion of use of the public infrastructure through user fees, then we wouldn't say it about Acela either. But they don't, and therefore we do, as evidenced by our own definition of Operating surplus. --Daniel (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article defines "operating surplus" both ways, with and without depreciation. The wording that excludes depreciation is "net operating surplus." --Traal (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Gas taxes don't even begin to cover the true costs of the automobile, let alone UPS. It is estimated that even in Germany where gas costs ~ 1.50€ a liter it would have to cost significantly more to cover all costs of driving (roads, maintenance, external costs of air pollution, external costs of accidents, external costs of congestion, external costs of noise...). If you doubt that, try selling all roads to a private investor and pay them nothing in subsidy other than the gas tax and see when they file for bankruptcy or raise fees and tolls. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Cite Note 6

Should the link be updated to this? http://californiastaterailplan.dot.ca.gov/docs/1a6251d7-36ab-4fec-ba8c-00e266dadec7.pdf (I don't know if this was the same document) --AllyUnion (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

"Almost double"

The article claims that $68.4 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars is "almost double" $33 billion in 2008 dollars. On the face, it looks like $68.4 billion is more than double $33 billion. But the $68.4 billion was also expressed in the Business Plan as $53.4 billion in constant year 2011 dollars, which is the same as $51.1 billion in constant year 2008 dollars according to the inflation calculator. If we're comparing apples and apples (constant year 2008 dollars to constant year 2008 dollars), $51.1 billion is 55% more than $33 billion. So is $68.4 billion in year-of-expenditure dollars really "almost double" $33 billion in 2008 dollars, or is it more than double (because 68.4÷33=2.07) or well under double (because 51.1÷33=1.55)? --Traal (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ridership Projection

I removed the ridership projections for several reasons. 1) The link didn't go to the PDF report that it claimed had that information. 2) The only ridership and revenue forecasts report that I could find[1] is far more complicated than a giving a simple number. What I can see is that it says there will be a certain number of riders PER YEAR (not per day) and that number was calculated based on there being 256 trains perday (!!!) and that the average fare will be either 50% or 70% that of an airline ticket (whatever that means, the report doesn't say). I know this is a government comissioned report but it almost strikes me as fringe theory because it's claims are rooted in such absurdly unrealistic assumptions (a north to south train departure every 12 minutes for 24 hours strait, the cost of the tickets being less than an airline fare, which are currently around $60). I would be interested to hear what other editors think about this. Thanks!Monopoly31121993 (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

CAHSRA reports are be peer reviewed. You shouldn't be removing them unless you understand their methodology and can pick out a specific error. 130.132.173.108 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The removal had nothing to do with the methodology and everything to do with the selective figures that were cherry picked from the report. As I said above, there were no fixed estimates in the report and the numbers they gave had a very wide variation. I'm not at all opposed to including the report if a neutral summary of it can be written.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Are the rails in the current construction contracts?

In the last paragraph of Building the Initial Construction Segment (ICS), it says "Also, the track-laying and electric power installation will also be in a future contract."

The LA Times article says:

...project's initial $6-billion construction phase, which includes bridges, viaducts, trenches and the installation of rail, and is expected to be completed by 2017. The electrical system to operate trains would be part of a later project...

What is happening with the tracks? Fettlemap (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

From the CP_1_Factsheet (FINAL_2015):
"MAJOR WORK WILL BE DONE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS WITHIN CP 1
• Geotechnical Studies and Surveys
• Clearing and Demolition
• Utility Relocation
• Foundation Work
• Grading, Embankment and Drainage
• Structure Construction
• Paving, Re-striping, Landscaping and Traffic Signals"

The CP 2-3 and CP 4 construction packages will be similar. Thus, the rail-laying and electrification will need to be in other construction packages. I have not seen any discussion of when these will occur, however. Note that CP 5, which is not defined yet, overlays CP 1, 2-3, and 4 in their entirety. Robert92107 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Article style is a mess

This article needs to be heavily rewritten. It clearly does not follow many of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Manual of Style, including not properly formatting quotes, excessive use of inline external links, and substantial layout issues. -hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 12:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one responsible for bringing the article up to date and adding more comprehensive data to it. I've only recently edited Wikipedia, so I'm clearly not expert at it.

As to what should be done to improve it, I'm not clear on this. The project is a large, complex, and controversial one, and there are definite issues remaining. I'd hate to cut out any of the topics since that would give an incomplete picture. At this point the entry is large because it covers so much. I'd assumed that the reader would refer to the area of information they want using the contents listing.

To make the table of contents shorter I could combine some subsections together under one entry. For example, the route segments and the construction package subsections could be omitted from the contents, but I doubt this is a net benefit, since the total length is about the same

Another option might be to thin the section entries down so there is less text in each area, and we'd let the reader refer to the citations for a fuller description. For instance, I could remove the links to the construction section and route maps, and just have one link to where the maps are located. Of course, by doing this the entry is not as convenient since users would have to delve further into the offsite webpages to find what they want, making it more inconvenient for them.

As to the issue of how much length is desirable, I think I'd need some guidelines. Does Wikipedia have some sort of article word count reference somewhere that would help with this?

As to the question of am I using the references and links to external documents incorrectly, I would need to see specific cites of where I'm doing it wrong so I can better understand what should be done. Robert92107 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not a fan of the "correct" organization of sections that Wikipedia wants. It bothers me that External links FOLLOWS References, where clearly the content of the external links is a user-read section of where to look further in a broad sense, and the references are where to look further for a specific piece of information. Clearly, they need to be reversed, since that is the more logical AND user-friendly location. Should an arbitrary standard trump a more functional organization? If so, is the reason sufficient justification? I don't see a reasonable one. Robert92107 (talk) 18:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a thought ... why don't we do a parallel summary article? This would just contain the highlights and be a quick read. The longer article can be fixed up, but still contain a lot of detail and the references to more information elsewhere. ??? Robert92107 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a Manual of Style that governs layout and other formatting issues on Wikipedia, which articles adhere to. It's rather long and complex, so I don't blame you for not being familiar with it. For better or for worse, we've decided through consensus that references come before external links. You're of course welcome to start a discussion to change this, but frankly it's not worth your time. As for the length, rule of thumb for splitting articles is that 100kb+ articles should be divided. This one is just over that threshold, so I think a split of the "Route" or "History" sections would be a good idea. Conifer (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Splitting out the 'History' of the project into a separate article would probably be the best suggestion here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think a reasonable grouping into two articles would be to put current state and future plans together, and history and past criticisms together. I also think that the route and history sections could be thinned down a bit. So, I will work on thinning first. If that helps enough then splitting won't be immediately necessary. In any case, this whole effort requires time. Robert92107 (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Thinning work has made the article clearer and slightly reduced length. It is still long, but it is readable. More work needs to be done thinning, however. Removed warning headers. Robert92107 (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Re two articles, CHSR (current) and CHSR (history), I think that we're approaching (but not yet at) the point where a split is desirable. In other words, I think we need to get a bit more history before we do a split. Maybe when the ICS is complete, in a few more years? I think we can keep readable length until then. When route operations (IOS) comes up, then more space will be needed, so it fits reasonably well. Robert92107 (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Two things to watch out for: having single-paragraph sections is discouraged as it makes the article choppy. Also, there's a lot of what we call proseline, which are short paragraphs stating what happened on a specific date. It's better to provide more context on the overall flow of events. In general, this article has way too much detail on minor aspects of the topic, but doesn't provide a clear, concise overview of the most important aspects. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Station table

There is a problem with including the station table as it is. The Phase 2 extension to SD has several route options, so all the stations (except for SD and Escondido) are optional now. This makes this part of the table misleading as well as confusing. I think details re Phase 2 (which means mostly stations) should be omitted at this point. When the Authority gets serious about work on Phase 2, the appropriate stations can be added in again. Robert92107 (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

There is also a problem with the internal divisions within the table, since they do not correspond to how the Authority identifies these. I'm not even clear that they are needed at this point, since the stations are clearly identified on the maps. For that reason, I'm removing the division labels. Robert92107 (talk) 09:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposed stations

NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING TABLE OMITS NORWALK, and also incorrectly lists Hanford.

All stations in this table represent proposed service. Existing stations, if any, are linked, but for Phase 2 stations there is often a choice of alignments, some of which may involve the construction of a new station at a separate location.

Station	Location	Phase	Connecting services	Coordinates
San Francisco branch
Transbay Transit Center	San Francisco, California	Phase 1 (2027)
Millbrae–SFO	Millbrae, California	Phase 1 (2027)
Mid-peninsula (optional)		Phase 1 (2027)
San Jose	San Jose, California	Phase 1 (2027)
Gilroy	Gilroy, California	Phase 1 (2027)
Sacramento branch
Sacramento	Sacramento, California	Phase 2
Stockton	Stockton, California	Phase 2
Modesto	Modesto, California	Phase 2
Merced	Merced, California	Phase 1 IOS (2022)
Central segment
Fresno	Fresno, California	Phase 1 IOS (2022)
Kings–Tulare Regional Station	Hanford, California	Phase 1 IOS (2022)
Bakersfield	Bakersfield, California	Phase 1 IOS (2022)
Palmdale	Palmdale, California	Phase 1 IOS (2022)
Burbank Airport	Burbank, California	Phase 1 IOS (2022)
Los Angeles Union Station	Los Angeles, California	Phase 1 (2029)
Anaheim branch
Norwalk–Santa Fe Springs (optional)	Norwalk, California	Phase 1 (2029)
Fullerton (optional)	Fullerton, California	Phase 1 (2029)
Anaheim	Anaheim, California	Phase 1 (2029)
San Diego branch
El Monte, West Covina, and/or Pomona		Phase 2
Ontario International Airport	Ontario, California	Phase 2
San Bernardino (optional)	San Bernardino, California	Phase 2
March ARB (optional)	March Air Reserve Base	Phase 2
Corona (optional)	Corona, California	Phase 2
Murrieta	Murrieta, California	Phase 2
Escondido	Escondido, California	Phase 2
San Diego International Airport	San Diego, California	Phase 2

Why not put the link to station maps/images in the coordinates col.? Why do we need coordinates anyway? I don't think the current separate list of these provides any benefit. Ideally they should be associated closely with the station name, and this is the best place to do it. Robert92107 (talk) 10:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

History

What is the point of moving Legal Challenges out of History and into Criticisms? I don't really see it. As each legal challenge is resolved then that text will need to be moved back into History again, into its own Legal Challenges subsection. To me, it makes more sense to keep this subsection in History. The Criticisms already had these complaints mentioned, they can be dropped on in the future and the legal history would remain in History. What's wrong with that??? Robert92107 (talk) 09:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I see your point and I moved it back. Perhaps some of the criticism section can be moved to history as well. This article is very long and it's ripe for splitting history into its own article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've also thought the same thing about criticisms. Basically, just about everything has both a time and a place descriptor. However, we don't want to cram everything into history! So, the question is what is the best way of organizing the info. I was putting the significant current actions into the History section -- funding, legal challenges, and construction -- since they are historical events unfolding, as opposed to more conceptual matters such as criticisms or route data. As more historical events take place, then the older ones can just stay there. Case in point, the ICS is current now, but will fade into dead history as new construction segments come up. Since there is controversy and criticisms, I was putting that in its own separate section, since those are mostly ongoing issues that just don't seem to die easily. Eventually, when the project is running, they all become moot and suitable for historical treatment. At least, this was my thinking on it. I'm trying to map a structure which the data can grow into without having to do major reorganizations all the time. Unfortunately, there is more than one way to skin a cat! Robert92107 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree at some point there should be two articles: (1) history, and (2) current system and operations. As to when this split should take place, the best conceptual division point would be when there actually is an operational train of some sort, a route decided for Phase 1, and trainsets selected ... which would probably be 2019 at the earliest (for Amtrak San Joaquin use), or 2022 (for HSR IOS). Until then, we should use the subheadings and PP leaders to forewarn the reader so they can skip that sec. or PP so they can make it more readable for them. The basic problem is that all the construction, legal challenges, financing steps, etc., are making history, since that is the primary thrust of the project now. In short, I don't see a good way to divide it now without it being a forced division that doesn't "work" very well. And, if you thin the text down to shorten it, then you loose some worthwhile narrative. (I do know it needs to be thinned in some places, but we don't want to lessen the worth of the article for the purpose of making it easy to read.)

One idea we could consider is actually start a "CHSR (history)" article right now which would essentially be a copy of the history section of the current "CHSR" article. In other words, try to start building it now. The history in the root article could be thinned down a bit as it was copied into the branch article. I have no idea how the sacred Wikipedia style manual views something like this, however. Robert92107 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You're exactly right. The article has about 58,000 characters of readable prose right now, which is about the right time for a split. See WP:SIZE. A much shorter summary would be kept here, and the full text of the history section would be moved to History of California High-Speed Rail as explained in WP:SUMMARY. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

REDUNDANCY in lead in PP

Why do we have to put up with redundancy? The route basics are given in the intro PPs, and then in the first section below the TOC we have the exact same details again. Why??? I can justify redundancy for two reasons. (1) As a listed item in the TOC, that's good, but it is such basic info it also needs to be in the intro PP. Should we then just cut it out of the intro? (2) If it were buried far below in the text, then I could justify it. However, the exact same info following closely is ridiculous!! Robert92107 (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I've tightened the lead some to make it less redundant. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs)

I've also messed with this. Some key points were omitted in PP1, so I added them back. Intro is a bit longer now, but shorter than it was. More thought necessary. Robert92107 (talk) 10:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Future Construction

This really is filled with redundancy. It needs a careful read, and extracting of some useful info and putting it elsewhere before the redundancies are removed. Robert92107 (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Map locations

I also fail to see any advantages in putting a bunch of map links together into a separate table. I think ideally each map link should be closely associated with its relevant text, so the user can read the text and, if desired, click on the link to see what is being talked about. As it is now, the user needs to look in a separate place to find the map they desire. In fact, they might not even know there is a map link for that section of text unless you specifically tell them "refer to the map"! To me, this is not an improvement, since it makes things more confusing and even requires extraneous text to make it more user friendly. (I do think the station table is useful, and putting the station map links there is a very good idea.) Robert92107 (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Inline external links are discouraged, as was mentioned by someone a few sections ago. The sidebox still keeps them pretty close to the relevant test; the alternative is to convert them to footnotes, which does make them hard to find and which are less appropriate here IMO. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

A couple points here. First, it should be the context and benefit of inline links that is the prime consideration. To my mind, from the user's perspective if there is a benefit to using them and noticeable downside to not using them, then I'd go with what benefits the user every time. The key thing here is that while having a 'recommended guideline' might be nice, it should not be used blindly in such a way that it reduced the utility of the article. There is also a difference between a recommendation and an absolute requirement. In this situation, I see a recommendation that can be ignored when there is good reason to. Thus far, I do not see any reason why the recommendation should trump their use in a way that improves the article.

Second, as regards the station table, I think putting 'coordinates' in is immaterial. That's just extraneous data, much like the station elevation would be. I think that column should be repurposed to hold links to the station maps. And that brings us again to the 'external media' table. Again, to my mind, it makes far more sense to have the station map links put into the station table than kept in an 'external media' table for the reasons I've given above. Robert92107 (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Third, it also really strikes me as odd. The whole point of HTTP in fact is inline links! That's why it works well. So, saying not to use them is kind of like having a car, but being told that you shouldn't go faster than 10 mph in it! Robert92107 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Stations

(1) The numbers in the station table point directly to the station images in the separate table. This is beneficial because the lists do NOT correspond, and thus make it easier for the user to cross-reference.

(2) By deleting the table footnote some status terms are not adequately defined. Adding more explanation to the table thus makes it unwieldy.

Robert92107 (talk) 16:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, it is really stupid to have two parallel tables like this. Somehow someone thinks that W prefers to have external images in a separate table. It is painfully clear, however, that this table should be just another column in the station table! I fail to see any real benefit to this organization. Robert92107 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Route Diagram Template

Hey there. I noticed you were having a discussion about route maps. I wanted to offer up my services to create a route diagram template for this article, if you thought it was appropriate. I have gained considerable experience making them for projects in the Greater Toronto Area. I would want your feedback along the way before placing it in the article too, these things have a tendency for getting overcomplicated. --Natural R_X 15:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Current Status

I have some problems with James Allison's rejection of a Current Status section which references an official status report from the Authority to the House of Representatives in its oversight role. He claims that it does not reflect a neutral point of view because it comes from an actor in the project. Did he read it? I very much doubt it, because the report is actually filled with factual information from the agency responsible for compiling said information. Who else would obtain all this information if not the Authority? Thus, this objection seems rather nonsensical.

I also have concerns about there not being a single place in the CAHSR entry where a summary of current status of the project can be found. The project is currently described in three different entries in Wikipedia, and thus is very long. To find current status information would require going through them as well as research in different areas of the Authority's website. Furthermore, the question of the project's current status is an entirely reasonable and predictable user inquiry. Based on these reasons, I think that a Current Status section in the entry is warranted.

Of course, where and how it should be placed is another question. My original attempt was a minor insertion in the lead in paragraphs. He objected to that on format grounds, thus I re-added it as a section of the entry. Now he is objecting on grounds the content itself is inappropriate.

Frankly, I don't see any merit in his latest objection, and don't feel that he is advancing the usefulness or accuracy of the entry. Thus, I regretfully feel compelled to re-add it. If he objects to the entry, I think he should find some way of improving it, rather than deleting it entirely. If he finds this whole thing wrong, then I think this issue should be moderated.

Robert92107 (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

First, edit warring is never acceptable. Your edits violate WP:EL. You appear to misunderstand WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; the "different entries" are on purpose. Please see WP:IRS and WP:3PARTY for more information on why the link is not considered a reliable source. James (^talk/_contribs) 04:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I think a link to the current status is appropriate, but in the Further Reading or External Links sections. I would count it as a reliable source on factual statements about the project's progress, though third-party sources should also be used to identify any bias. As for text, I think it's appropriate to state in the lead something like "contracts have been awarded for the segment from Madera to Wasco, and construction is underway on several bridges." Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@James - Please stop acting like an attorney and quoting various Wikipedia articles that support your view. I agree that the current status is appropriate, but it just needs some additional sources. KirksKeyKard (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I'm sorry, but I see no reasonable justification given WHY a Current Status entry (which links to a report to Congress) is NOT a valuable resource and worthy of inclusion. James is only criticizing, not advancing, the goal of making the entry more informative to users. I strongly feel this is the wrong attitude, and this is apart from the question of the format or location of the citation.

Second, it seems to me that including the Current Status entry in an External Links section is wrong. This location would not only be buried among more extraneous matter, it basically would obviate the entire purpose of a Current Status section. The section should be placed so that users can easily get more timely information about the project, and not have to dig around in the notes or "odd lots" in the entry. Also, there is already a link to the Authority's website, so another link to just the Current Status there seems confusing and wasteful.

Third, I'm really having a problem with this "not neutral" fixation of James. Since perhaps 90% of the material in the CAHSR entries comes from official documents of the Authority, it makes no sense to say that they are not accurately reporting what they say. Take the objection to this citation, for example. The link is to testimony given in a verbal and written report to Congress. It is a written, official government document. What it says is not in doubt (that is, unless you believe that the Authority is intentionally lying to the Congress). Also, many of the things it says (but not all) are referenced elsewhere in the entry. The idea that there should be a "neutral third party" to verify the material in the document is ludicrous. If there were, it would be just a news source citing what testimony was given in Congress ... except that material is by definition already in the public record exactly as written! I also strongly have a suspicion that James has not read the actual material he is objecting to, so he has no first hand knowledge to back up his assertion that a neutral, third party is necessary.

Thus, I in all honesty cannot accept what James is objecting to. I would welcome further comment on this. Clearly, further input is needed, and perhaps a formal complaint might be needed. Robert92107 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Transportation Links

I don't think XpressWest should be in the transportation links at any of the station on the diagram. It is not certain that it will be built, and even if it is, the line will likely be run by the CHSRA rather than another private company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:42F:1CBA:DA4E:2113 (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Citations

In the phase ii section, there is a citation for the Oakland to San Jose and Stockton to Union City lines. I have the link for the source, but I don't know how to implement it into the references. If someone can do it for me, I'd appreciate it. Here is the link: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2008_FullRpt.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:42F:1CBA:DA4E:2113 (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Organization of Article

Since Oct 2016, the article has been tagged for being overly detailed and COI. I took a stab at simplifying the lead. I moved the History up front; it subsumed some of the original lead. I dumped detail in History, particularly the discussion of subsidiary spending. It is all covered in

Main article: History of California High-Speed Rail

. In similar fashion, I suggest that the detail of the route is covered in its own article

Main article: Route of California High-Speed Rail

. I suggest that in this article the existing map is an appropriate level of detail. People who are interested in the details can go to the subsidiary article.

My most effective argument for this change in approach is my observation that this main article has had some many good and true facts that it is a log of the journey rather than an encyclopedia entry. No information will be lost in this transition, only a change in structure.

I ask you think on it rather than a rapid reversion. If after that, you don't like it, revert away! Rhadow (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this. One comment is I'd prefer that the history section be after the route section. The first thing readers will want to know is where the rail system will go, not which lawsuit was filed when. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Antony-22: I'm going to have to disagree with your movement of the history section. The Manual of Style suggests that we refer to Wikiproject manuals and established precedent within a scope to decide the organizational structure of articles. It has been well established among rail-related articles, including these selected high-importance FA rail articles, City and South London Railway, MTR, and Stockton and Darlington Railway, that a history or related background section should come first in the organization of an article. This preference for history is also reflected in the Wikiproject Trains Manual of Style.

You make an interesting argument about reader preferences. While that may true, the table of contents makes jumping to different sections very easy to do, should readers prefer to read about routes first. In response, I believe that following the current precedent among rail-related articles that articles should introduce a topic's background and history first before jumping into the nitty-gritty details about routes and rolling stock, is more important. So I've reverted your edit for now. --haha169 (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've considered the article a little bit more, and given the current state of the history section (the project is still under construction so the history section isn't particularly robust yet), I've moved routes and stations up to the top. But I've left the history section as the second section. --haha169 (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The name of the government agency

In reply to Haha169's edit, note that the name of the government agency is "High-Speed Rail Authority". California is not in its name; it is added to the title as a convenience for the global reader. To minimize infobox clutter, it can probably be assumed and left out of this article. While most Californians probably can't afford to buy it (or even check it out of a library), the source is called the law of California, specifically Public Utilities Code division 19.5, which is pretty trustworthy when it comes to the names of California government agencies. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The website states the name California High-Speed Rail Authority, per this link[2]. Morphenniel (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You disagree with the law of California, or you disagree that's what the law says? int21h (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it generally prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." If generally available official sources use "California" in the title, it overrides what appears in the law. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:59, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We're not talking about picking the article title, but use of wikilinks in infoboxes. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 01:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Lack of consistent acronyms

I notice that the article initially establishes the following acronyms: California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) and California High-Speed Rail Authority (CAHSRA) ...but then later omits the first "A" and attempts to re-establish the acronyms as "CHSR" and "CHSRA". I think it would make for an easier-to-read article if we established a single acronym style and use it consistently throughout the article. I suppose one alternative solution could be to just call CAHSRA/CHSRA the "Authority" instead, as is done in some source material I've read, but that doesn't solve the issue with the CAHSR/CHSR acronym. Anyway, thoughts? —Alika|Alex 21:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The acronym including the A seems to be used most in reliable sources (CHSR being ambiguous to a number of other organizations), so I believe that one should be used. James (^talk/_contribs) 17:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

So far, one vote for "CAHSR"/"CAHSRA". Any other thoughts? —Alika|Alex 20:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Another vote for "CA". CPColin (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Use of word "will" makes the article look speculative or like public relations fluff

The project is in trouble.

I recommend to be very careful using the word "will".

It will this or that. Better, it is projected to....

I will make a few corrections.

Vanguard10 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Unless you have verifiable sources to backup your assertion that "The project is in trouble. " then expect your edits to be reverted.

Always better to discuss potentially controversial edits beforehand. Use of the word "will" seems appropriate given the construction progress that is being made on the Initial Operating Segment between Fresno and Bakersfield. - Morphenniel (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Major revisions to this article coming

I'm working on a major restructuring and cleanup of this article here. I'm trying to keep as much of the existing content as possible, minimizing disruption, while providing critical updates as parts of this page appear to not have been edited in several years. Comments, suggestions, criticism welcome. Shannon [ Talk ] 18:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)