SACRAMENTO — The state of California has unveiled a $310 billion plan to expand the state’s rail network to increase its share of passenger travel from 2% to 20% by 2050 through a network featuring extensive electrification and zero-emission operations.
The new State Rail Plan was announced Jan. 7 by Gov. Gavin Newsom. It envisions an electrified network including, but going beyond, the current high-speed rail system under construction, including additional service or new routes that are part of the Federal Railroad Administration’s Corridor Identification and Development program announced in late 2023 [see “Full list of passenger routes …,” Trains News Wire, Dec. 8, 2023].
“Our vision is simple: by 2050, every Californian should be able to choose rail as a way to get to their destination, near or far,” Newsom said in a press release. “Our rail plan is ambitious, but as the world’s fifth largest economy bursting with talent and innovation, we’re ready to take on this challenge.”
Said state Transportation Secretary Toks Omishakin, “Critically, this plan pushes beyond the status quo, improving multimodal options, clean air and equitable access to jobs and other opportunities ― all vital components of a thriving community.”
The full 70-page plan is available here, with a two-page fact sheet here.
California better control and prevent all those potential wildfire growth problems so as not to burn the catenary, not to mention their grandiose plans to electrify all cars.
More trains? Great idea. 20% goal? Impossible.
Now? The alt.energy bunch has been blowing green smoke for at least a decade and NOW they suggest mass electrification? This should have been job #1, priority #1.
Electrification might be wishful thinking but it needs to be done.
Fantasy Island isn’t just a TV show.
Find America’s most accomplished and effective and knowledgeable rail planner. Ask him or her what the goal is. It ain’t no 20%.
Whoever came up with that 20% number is likely someone who has done nothing to implement passenger train travel.
There’s those that do, and those that write meaningless “planning” studies.