Talk:History of California High-Speed Rail

Future construction
A "Future construction" topic on the History page is just WRONG. This also contains badly outdated information, so it will need to be eliminated here, and possibly some of it moved to the main CAHSR article. Robert92107 (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of California High-Speed Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101211181716/http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot20810.html to http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot20810.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160513061812/http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/12177009/ca-high-speed-rail-contract-inked-for-kern-county-stretch to http://www.masstransitmag.com/news/12177009/ca-high-speed-rail-contract-inked-for-kern-county-stretch

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on History of California High-Speed Rail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228222916/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-high-speed-intercity-passenger-rail-program-california to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet-high-speed-intercity-passenger-rail-program-california
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101103173346/http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/pr_715_Million.aspx to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/pr_715_Million.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017102528/http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot5711.html to http://www.dot.gov/affairs/2011/dot5711.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050147/http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/budget-deal-gives-25-percent-of-cap-and-trade-money-to-high-speed-rail.html to http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2014/06/budget-deal-gives-25-percent-of-cap-and-trade-money-to-high-speed-rail.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101226173825/http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/pr_approvesstatematch.aspx to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/pr_approvesstatematch.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

2020 completion?
This article reads, The 2008 Business Plan projected that construction for the entire project would be completed by 2020.. However, the cited document does not contain any such assertion -- the date 2020 only appears once in the document, in a projection of employment created as of that date. The document says that the system was expected to be fully operational by 2030 (though this is a different assertion).

Am I missing something or should this just be changed? 149.19.161.10 (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Construction Data Table modifications
I am confused by the Mileage field. It makes no sense, and is misleading. All the projects are specific concrete structures and have nothing to do with mileage. If trackage is going to be added to the table, I believe it would appear as a separate item -- or even a separate contract -- and its description would say its length. Similar comment re power catenaries. So, I believe that Mileage should be removed as well as Tracks.

Also, these tables need a row number for easier reference. So, that column should be added. Robert92107 (talk) 11:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Construction History
There should be a new main article titled Construction History of CAHSR.

There is just going to be TOO MUCH material re construction to ALSO cram it all into History! Robert92107 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Needs an overhaul too
This spin-off article suffers from the same problem as the old main CAHSR article. In particular, (1) this article does not know what it wants to talk about, so it kind of attempts everything (badly), and (2) same as previously in the main, the deviations from WP:MOS are wild.

Good news: A lot of information has been pulled from here and reworked into the main article, so that should help with cutting down the myriad of stub sections here.

I propose the following rough content outline: (1) Conception: State of CA rail system, early ideas and attempts, until 2008 Prop 1A vote. (2) Planning and financing: After Prop1A vote, all the business about which route, early studies, environmental process, ... This includes EIRs after construction started, all the way including LA-Anaheim, whenever we will be blessed with its environmental clearance. Chronologically interwoven with that all grants received and major cost estimate updates. (3) Contracts and construction: A detailed list of when major contracts were awarded, such as CPs, design, and hopefully soon trainsets and track&systems, as well as important services such as ETO. (4) Lawsuits: I can see the current section in the main, with its gory details, moved here and merged with extant complementary information.

With ongoing topics like this it is always a challenge to separate the present from the past, but with enough care it should be feasible to write a nice subarticle on all historical aspects that are encyclopedically relevant, yet too detailed for the main article. It should also focus on historical context and refrain from duplicating too much, where I see the main danger for e.g. the finances section in the main. It should avoid any tendency of trying to keep up-to-date, an issue discussed at length on the talk page of the main, and it would be especially out of place in an article that starts with "History of ..."

I would be delighted if someone feels WP:BOLD and leads the charge against this parapet. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)