User talk:DracaenaGuianensis/Sandbox 1

>>>> CLICK HERE TO GO BACK TO DRAFT <<<<

High-level draft discussion

Hi @Shannon1: As you suggested, moving the discussion here and just making a meaningless comment to get it started. For each section, I'd suggest adding it as a new topic so we can make use of the inbuilt hierarchy system.
It felt invigourating to delete 30,000 bytes! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Subpages

Just wanted to start a discussion of how to approach the subpages: History of California High-Speed Rail, Construction of California High-Speed Rail, and Route of California High-Speed Rail (not sure if that's all of them), as part of this effort. I can see the History page being merged into the main article - the main page covers almost all of the same points, and there's a lot of content (some outdated) in there that could be trimmed. I also think it would make sense to merge the Construction and Route pages into a single page, probably titled "construction".

A final concern I have is that the Construction page including every single structure along the route may be too much detail. If/when the other sections begin construction, it would make for a very, very long list. I'm not aware of any railway articles that are like this. I personally think it's great, but it might not be in line with Wikipedia standards. Shannon [ Talk ] 05:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid I found another one: Impacts of California High-Speed Rail.

As to the bigger picture, we have similar thoughts:

• History of California High-Speed Rail into main. The sections on background, funding, and costs are well covered in our current draft. I don't see much more substantive information there. It does have seem to have some interesting material for legal challenges and public opinions, but I have not looked too closely.
• Route of California High-Speed Rail looks entirely superfluous to me, as it is largely duplicate to the main, contingent on our rewrite. Again, some relevant content could be salvaged for the sections currently in work.
• Construction of California High-Speed Rail is the strongest candidate for retaining its own subarticle. Personally, I don't mind more detail in subarticles, as the policy for relevance becomes less strict as we down the hierarchy. I found the list of structures in that article quite helpful, when trying to understand what "CP4 is 98% complete" means. I agree though that there seems to be no precedence for this at all. I wonder too if the scope could be expanded by also incorporating other forms of technical progress, e.g. environmental clearing and planning (and later hopefully testing), since the article is generally intended to detail the state of the project today. I added such a table at the very top a while ago, because neither the main nor this subarticle cleared my confusion about overall technical progress.
• Impacts of California High-Speed Rail also seems superfluous, it does not have much substantive content in there and got flagged for potential WP:NPOV violations.

DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur, there is a lot of interesting and relevant information that could be included in an expanded "Construction" page. Every segment has its idiosyncracies that would be too much detail for the main article, and it would be helpful to include historical information about what shaped the development of the route. Just on the SF-SJ segment there are a whole bunch of things worth mentioning- original plans for a 4-track CAHSR up the peninsula, the messy attempts to unify grade separation projects, the controversial approach to SJ Diridon station, for example. Or how there's no stop in Los Banos as a political compromise with environmentalists concerned about creating sprawl, or how the route into Bakersfield changed based on community input, or how the horse people in Tujunga sank the San Gabriel mountain tunnel project, etc. Shannon [ Talk ] 20:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Economic and environmental benefits

I agree it would be nice to mention impact such as CO2 saved, which would also be quite transparent since it is based on ridership forecast, substituting vs new riders assumption, and CO2 emitted by transport mode. I am also okay with including some highlights of the Authority's economic benefit analysis, but only with qualifiers. Such headline numbers are by themselves quite meaningless without further detail, since there is no clear methodology that enables people to interpret what these numbers mean. For example, I don't think the numbers take into account the economic benefit from spending the same money on some alternative, such as increasing the rest of state expenditure by that total amount.

If we can get a nicely referenced paragraph on that, perhaps making it the last paragraph of Background may be a good spot. Then we have "what they want to do and why" in that section, and "how they want to do it" in Plans, construction, and project status. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 13:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I had actually been putting together something like that, and was thinking about where to put it. Just added it to the Background section. Shannon [ Talk ] 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful contribution with the new section, I cannot believe that current driving/transit times have not been mentioned yet!

The only comment I have is low priority, but I'll state it here for later. We could refine the heading of this subsection: Instead of Statewide planning and impacts, we could perhaps come up with something broader since it describes the intentions behind the project -- much reduced travel times, housing, CO2 -- more than emphasising specific plans such as the California State Rail Plan mentioned at the end. Maybe just Statewide impacts? But then it does not quite reflect the fact that this all is an intention rather than a realized or proven impact. The cherry on top would be to harmonize the vocabulary to align & contrast with the first subheading in that section, Legislative context. But currently I have no idea how to do either. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

You are doing the Lord's work

The revised draft is looking very good! Nice work. Don't hesitate to be WP:BOLD and swap it in for the current version when you are happy with it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Controversies/Setbacks section(s) vs Budget/Finances section

I like the new division to focus on opinions on one side and more specific critique on the other side. The only thing that is left out of place is the subsection Legal challenges , which I moved there temporarily. Now that I am writing the section Budget and finances, I am struggling with the issue that finances are strongly intertwined with setbacks such as legal challenges or engineering mistakes: It's hard to describe the chronology of increasing cost estimates without mentioning why. But maybe that could offer an opportunity: Rather than focusing solely on financials, we could make it a section called Finances and setbacks?

Seeking input as I'm not entirely convinced myself. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, a single section describing budget and project setbacks should be doable, and it would keep the article's structure cleaner. In the parts discussing controversy/criticism, my thought was to focus on the opinions and reactions of individual politicians, advocacy groups, journalists, etc., rather than the setbacks themselves, which are uncontroversial facts. So that should work well. Shannon [ Talk ] 04:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to summarise the current state: I think we managed to separate things nicely. Though at this point, the Finances and setbacks section does not talk about legal challenges. The reason is that there are hardly any sources on specific impacts of lawsuits. They certainly added a lot of risks, but I could not find anything on e.g. specific delays: Did John Tos and Kings County vs. CHSRA hold up construction? If land acquisition was delayed, are there sources on further impacts? E.g. Kings RIver viaduct being delayed?

I still think it would be nice to incorporate the legal aspect, especially since (i) "CAHSR beleaguered by lawsuits" is such a common perception, (ii) the plaintiffs usually drop the lawsuits or there are settlements, (iii) I don't think the Authority is being compensated for any delays caused, which seems a bit bizarre to me but worth pointing out if true.

But at the end of the day, I do not feel very strongly about whether to include legal challenges or not. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shannon1: If I could burden you with another "task": I am quite unfamiliar with the other Californian projects you suggested, such as the Bay Bridge or Sepulveda lane expansion -- I am a poor soul living along the NEC, hoping that California will set off a HSR boom across the country. So if you feel like writing the cost comparison section, you are most welcome to do it! Otherwise, I may get to it at some point, but it would be purely based off your links and some adjacent internet research. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

Putting myself on a lay reader’s shoes, the article can still require a bit of detective work to understand what is going on. Let us make it easy on the readers. Let’s tell them «what is actually being built; that for which we have a proposed service date», clearly separated from «the rest, that is only in a planning and design phase (if that much)»

I therefore suggest restructuring the article as follows:

a) IOS

b) Everything else

So, in the intro, we’d introduce the overall project in one or two sentences. We’d then qualify it by saying that whereas the whole project is in a planning and design phase, what is currently being built is the IOS. Then we would describe the IOS pretty much as it is in the intro right now. Next, in the intro, we’would add the rest of what is already in the intro about the whole project.

The article would then have a first section on the IOS alone, followed by all the other sections as currently in the article.

Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I personally think the current structure of the article makes the most sense from an organizational standpoint, though I agree with you that it wasn't immediately clear what the IOS is. I rearranged some of that section to clarify at the beginning that the current IOS is Merced to Bakersfield. Shannon [ Talk ] 19:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@XavierItzm: It's helpful to keep in mind the questions you posed, and I'm going to further streamline the introduction later today to address the biggest confusion and misperceptions people have (myself included before I started digging into it):
(i) What is being built at the momentl (ii) how much has been spent so far, (iii) when is it supposed to be done (iv), and how much will the whole thing cost?
These are probably the most relevant to the general audience.

I'd also say we stick to the current top-level section structure, the reason being that the project was conceived with Phase 1 in mind, so a lot of things only really make sense in the wider context, and more pragmatically to avoid duplication. But either way is not going to be 100% elegant, and I agree with your assessment that IOS (achievable reality) vs Phase 1 (sadly more of a pipe dream) should be distinguished much more clearly. So ideally, once we have roughly finished content for all sections, we do a complete pass over everything focused just on this.

Many thanks btw for starting work on adding citations! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Just restructured a bit more, which should hopefully make the distinction more clear --  Implemented DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Images on Construction Progress

Another big piece of confusion in the public debate is: "Why has not a single mile of track been laid?" Besides the perennial issue of delays (sadly), most people likely don't understand that (i) civil construction of grade separations and guideway is most of the work, in terms of time and costs, and (ii) a lot of big structures have already been built.
Here, I think adding a gallery of pictures would be helpful, in order not to use an undue number of words just to explain something that can be visualised quite clearly, and that is also not specific to this project. I like the one with the Fresno River Viaduct in Plans, construction and project status -> IOS. So I'd propose adding to the existing one some more, such as the Wasco viaduct below, a grade separation that was built recently, and also one site where there has been no change at all for two years due to outstanding utility relocations.

The Wasco Viaduct, under construction in 2020. A BNSF freight train is passing underneath the future pergola, which is required by BNSF to accommodate vertical clearance for its double-stacked container cars.

Finished viaduct in 2024.

Of course in general, we should be careful not to overload with too many images, especially if it goes towards being WP:FANCRUFT. But here I believe some measured visualisation is quite valuable to help convey the objective state of the project. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Another big piece of confusion in the public debate is: "Why has not a single mile of track been laid?" Besides the perennial issue of delays (sadly), most people likely don't understand that (i) civil construction of grade separations and guideway is most of the work, in terms of time and costs, and (ii) a lot of big structures have already been built. Here, I think adding a gallery of pictures would be helpful, in order not to use an undue number of words just to explain something that can be visualised quite clearly, and that is also not specific to this project. I like the one with the Fresno River Viaduct in Plans, construction and project status -> IOS. So I'd propose adding to the existing one some more, such as the Wasco viaduct below, a grade separation that was built recently, and also one site where there has been no change at all for two years due to outstanding utility relocations.

These images are great! I question the need for verbosity on the top caption. Suggest trimming to: «The Wasco Viaduct, under construction in 2020. A BNSF freight train is passing underneath the then-future pergola». XavierItzm (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll keep it here for now, and will move it to the draft when "both sides" are ready. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Civil construction on the IOS (so I don't lose the links)

• 
  Cedar Viaduct in Fresno, completed in May 2023
• 
  Construction of a grade separation in Fresno for car traffic to pass over freight and high-speed rail lines (2024)
• 
  Conejo Viaduct under construction, leading future high-speed trains over BNSF tracks (2024)
• 
  Another car overpass with existing freight line and future high-speed tracks in parallel (2024)
• 
  Rail viaduct over SR43 under construction, similar design as the Cedar Viaduct (2024)
• 
  Construction site for another rail viaduct, awaiting utility relocations (2024)

(Sub)Section "Setbacks on the IOS"

This (sub)section is under active construction and very chaotic (not unlike our favourite IOS itself), and hence will see an inflow of unarranged snippets and segments -- not all of which will survive. Besides those, there are a few things and sources which are relevant, but either I have not made up my mind yet on how to best tie those in and I don't want to lose the links, or I do not currently have an active subscription to quote passages from the main text body. This text here will be edited as things progress. Feel free to suggest things, or if you have active subscriptions atm, help your fellow out by finding relevant quotes!

• Land delays and payment delays to small businesses: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/some-small-businesses-say-high-speed-rail-has-cost-them/2153188/
• CP 2-3 contractor bidding low, then realises approach does not work: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/that-winning-bid-for-californias-high-speed-rail-is-it-too-low/383737/ (also need source for later on, when design indeed was revised)

DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The NBC Bay Area article is freely available; The Atlantic’s can be read here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150329164600/https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/that-winning-bid-for-californias-high-speed-rail-is-it-too-low/383737/#city-maker-embed-code-bottom
Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A nit

In Rolling stock: Train design we explain the trains are double-heading: with engines at the front and rear, there is no need to reverse the trainsets. This, BTW, is standard operating practice in all high speed rail from Europe to Africa to Miami (Brightline).

And then we have this under Blended corridor investments

In Southern California, the Link US project plans to reconfigure Los Angeles Union Station from a terminal to a run-through station, increasing its capacity and eliminating the need for high-speed rail, Amtrak and Metrolink trains to reverse out of the station.

One understands the Agency’s need to make it appear as if current investments elsewhere are proceeding towards a glorious integrated HSR future, but come on, no CAHSR trainset will ever need be “reversed” out of anywhere. HSR is bi-directional by nature. This is why we speak of “trainsets” and not of “wagons & locomotives” anymore: these sets are now pretty much fixed for the duration… into a bi-directional trainset. XavierItzm (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That was me. As a former frequent rider of the Amtrak Surfliner who endured many a 20-30 minute wait at Union Station that could've been a 2-minute stop, I may have put too much emphasis on how big of a deal it is... Shannon [ Talk ] 02:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If a station is not the terminus on a line, making it a run-through station does increase capacity, even for high-speed rail: the train engineer does not have to walk from one side of the train to another. This sounds like little time saved, but it can add up for busy hubs and reduce timetable reliability. The main advantage for run-through stations is capacity utilisation for tracks and switches before the station, which is halved. For European stations, this is actually a big deal since that is their most pressing bottleneck, and the motivation for recent projects in Germany: Stuttgart 21 or the planned extension of Frankfurt main station. In terms of CAHSR discussion, it is probably too much detail to analyse these use cases, and at the end of the day it's sounds to me more like an annoying liability for the Authority's budget (rather than sth they are able to use on the IOS) DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Section "Political Perspectives"

Seems in good shape to me; the last subsection "Public opinion polls" is still marked as in-progress though. Unless we'd like to add more content (I made a causal suggestion somewhere to add Vincent Fong as opponent, but that's more a "should we...?" rather than "we should"), and if everything is ready from your side, we can mark it as ready for review. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Section looks good to me, except the following, which is not “Public opinion polls”. I don’t have anything against the text or the source, it’s just that it doesn’t belong under this heading.
«Dan Richard, then-chair of the authority, said in an interview with James Fallows that he believes approval levels would increase when people start seeing progress, and trains start running.»
XavierItzm (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I commented out that line for now. Pretty much looks good to me as well. Shannon [ Talk ] 19:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

, and section  Implemented DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Mentioned references

Finish Line?

Hello friends! It seems like our rewrite is nearing the finish line -- we still have some work ahead, but nothing major for any given section. Hence I'd like to ask you for you opinion on whether now is a good time to announce on the main article talk page that we will drop this in the next few days. Both to solicit review-style feedback for improvement before sending it into out the world, and to prepare everyone mentally. Totally fine if you think it's better to hold off with this a bit longer!

Also, I have never been involved in such a top-to-bottom rewrite, so I'm curious to learn how it will work in terms of logistics. Ideally, we would move this article to preserve this talk page and the edit history, but so should it for the existing article. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Might be my conservativeness speaking, but I’d announce it after we have no more visible comments/yellow or other color paragraphs on the page. You don’t want these to be grounds for an attack on the quality or readiness of the revised article. Also, I have no experience in article mergers or whatever it is called when two histories are fused. Sorry! XavierItzm (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't say there's a need to announce it on the talk page at all until immediately *after* you make the swap. The article's issues have already been extensively discussed on the talk page, there's been a template in place announcing a major restructuring for more than a week, and generally, we should be WP:BOLD. Of course other editors will make tweaks and changes, but it's easiest for them to do that when the newly rewritten article has already been put into mainspace. The collaborators here are experienced editors and I'm confident what you have written will be up to Wikipedia's standards. The only thing that I'd recommend is including the following text in the edit summary: "For attribution, see User :DracaenaGuianensis/Sandbox_1" to ensure that future editors know specifically where the content came from. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I also lean towards maybe soliciting more feedback first, considering the article's contentious editing history. I have a feeling the swap is going to be a bit messy. There's still a good bit of work to do here before it's ready, anyhow. Shannon [ Talk ] 01:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Addendum - I watch the main CAHSR article and I have noticed that User:Robert92107 is still systematically reverting pretty much every edit made by other users. In the interest of not starting an edit war, any ideas? Shannon [ Talk ] 20:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean, eventually editing against consensus, as he wants to do, simply becomes disruptive editing. Examples #1 and #4 seem particularly applicable. If he continues to edit against consensus, then eventually he could be taken to WP:ANI and blocked from the page or topic. But that's hypothetical and getting ahead where we're at. I still support a WP:BOLD swap followed by a talk page announcement + tweaking/discussion. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

100% agree with Ganesha811 (talk · contribs). The new article is looking great right now! XavierItzm (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The writing is now officially devoid of any yellow marking, yeaaahyyy! Further improvements discussed in this talk page, like minor adjustment to maps or including some more images, can probably be done in the main namespace.

Thank you all for your comments and encouragement! From my side we can migrate it over, what do you think @Shannon1:? I think you as a major contributor should feel comfortable with the draft version before we attempt the migration.

In terms of logistics and keeping the edit history somewhat clean and comprehensible, I would propose doing it one go, replacing each extant section as a whole with its counterpart here (as far as there is an equivalence). After this is done, dropping a topic into the talk page mentioning what has been done, with a link to this sandbox for edit history, and then nature will take over :) DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks mostly good to me, there's still work to be done for sure but further edits can be made in mainspace. I'm still dealing with the last few maps, but no need to wait for that, I'll get around to it later. My only nitpick is that it's somewhat on the long side, at 12k words of readable prose and 191 KB total pagesize - it could be worth going through again and paring down just a little. Shannon [ Talk ] 20:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did my trimmings already, so feel free to give it a scrub! I am admittedly biased in this regards, as everything that I have written myself feels too important to go :-) I'll probably initiate the move tomorrow evening or the day after. (Don't want to be too pushy with this -- the room for improvement always feels endless, and at some point it's helpful to make a cut)

We should probably include a clear summary of the prior consensus in the talk page announcement, as I don't feel like immediately having to revert changes à la "as reported in the April 2024 board meeting, the CM/GC contract for company XYZ and NTP-3 were issued by staff member ABC ..." DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Migration to main namespace  Completed.

We can still finish some discussions here, such as for maps or including images, and you are ofc always welcome to comment or chat here. For other things, I'd love to see you in the main namespace! DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Maps

@Shannon: I noticed your proclivity and skills for creating maps. In case you happen to have the time, would you consider making one for the section "Setbacks on the IOS" -> "Underestimates"?

In particular, it's about a map to explain where CP1, CP2-3, and CP4 are situated, and the future Merced + Bakersfield extensions. There is a figure on page 16 of the 2024 Business Plan showing 119-vs 171 miles, but not the CPs and it did not label SF & LA on the minimap. Some other official maps with the CPs are just aesthetically displeasing. Further, I thought it may be very helpful to have a map that can be edited easily, particularly once the Merced and Bakersfield extensions start civil construction; + having a common design theme shared with the maps for regional connections would be fantastic. But no worries at all if not since it's a bunch of work!

Lastly, I wonder if you could slightly change the colour mapping for the two maps on CAHSR connections North and South, to match those in the respective transit line logos. (And maybe even include the logos in the legend if it wont be too cluttered.) For example:

• Caltrain: the red in
• ACE: one of the purples in
• BLW: the radiation yellow in
• San Joaquins: the beautiful Amtrak blue

and residual lines in black. Then, the CAHSR route can be made more salient with a distinct colour in or the California state flag. If you'd like to take this on, I could also help with making a list of colours in hex code. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

(1) Regional connector maps: I could definitely create a map detailing the Central Valley section. The colors I can change. On the northern map, the San Joaquins had to be a different color to distinguish it from the Capitol Corridor which is also Amtrak. But I could change it to the light turquoise in the San Joaquins logo. All the maps I've done here are in SVG format, so if you download Inkscape you can easily edit the colors as well. Shannon [ Talk ] 21:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I downloaded Inkscape and clicked around, but it seems like I am not the right person for this... DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Shannon1: Unless you are already working on this, I have figured out the basics of Inkscape editing and can do the colour re-map over the next few days. I have also done some editing on the "big" map on current project plans and status, as per my suggestions below, but lack knowledge for a few necessary operations (e.g. making a dotted legend key). I'm not quite sure how to discuss progress and feedback on this, as it's probably better not to spam Wikimedia with every iterative version of it. Btw, I think Robert is being a bit rude about it, though I can somewhat understand his mood given that we replaced the entire article. But I do hope you are not dejected by his comments, as your contributions to the maps are absolutely pivotal for the quality of this article. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good - I’ve been working at fixing the main map and should be done pretty soon, but it would be great if you could do the alterations on the connection maps, as I haven’t had the chance to get around to those. Shannon [ Talk ] 06:55, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Colour remap for maps on future regional connections  Implemented, I chose to mark CAHSR with the yellow hue from their logo, so it will be very salient to anyone looking. Downside: it would be better to have a black silhouette around the yellow line colour, for contrast against the background -- but I did not figure out how to do that (yet). DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I can add a silhouette around the yellow, no worries. Shannon [ Talk ] 23:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(2) Infobox map: After further consideration: I think the infobox image should be a map, to more immediately show a context to the reader, as on the HS2 article. Probably a simplified version of the map currently under "Plans, construction and project status", showing just the locations of Phase 1, Phase 2, and IOS, minus the various different planning statuses. I may edit that planning status map to more clearly indicate the different project sections (not sure how, but I'll think about it). And then a map of the IOS alone for "Underestimates" showing the construction packages. (The San Joaquin River Viaduct pictures could be moved down to somewhere that's lacking images.) Shannon [ Talk ] 00:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I fully agree with the map; it would be nice though to have the two current images below as a side-by-side, like they often do for articles on cities. Not sure if there is precedence for this in transportation though DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

 Yes, agree that an HS2-like map is superior to any random photograph of any of the many impressive structures along the 170-mile IOS.

An observation: this map reads “Interim Initial Operating Segment” Alas!, this is language not used anywhere else in the article w/r/t the IOS. Whereas we all recognize the IOS is a temporary (and embryonic) placeholder for a much larger network, we don’t call it “temporary” nor “interim” nor anything else. We call it the IOS. Shannon1, may we abuse your patience and ask you to consider this? Thanks in advance, XavierItzm (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not too big a deal. Editing vector files is a pretty quick process. Shannon [ Talk ] 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Shannon1, the revised map looks great, thanks! Yes, include Brightline West… but if I may quibble, nobody’s building the Palmdale connection anytime soon! I mean, Wiki says “while not ruling out the Palmdale expansion”, which is as iffy as all get out. I would dash-line it, at best. The next sentence on the Brightline wiki also says, whimsically: «Later phases may include extensions to Phoenix, Arizona, Salt Lake City, Utah, or Denver, Colorado», and I don’t expect you are about include these on your map! XavierItzm (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Changed the High Desert Corridor to a dotted line. I still think it should be included; as far as we're concerned, it's at least much further along than CAHSR phase 2. Just last year the FRA awarded a grant for corridor planning and development, so things are happening to some degree. Shannon [ Talk ] 23:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

For the two CAHSR connector maps, one other suggestion: Changing the note in the legend from "dotted" to "dashed", as it appears to be more dash-y than dot-ty :) DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Comparable high-speed trainsets by the shortlisted bidders

Current in sandbox

Proposed modifications

(3) Map on project status: Here is an updated version of the new map you made (i.e. the preferred baseline), for project plans and status. Some adjustments I made were: (1) labeling and grouping of objects, to find them in the editor and make future editing easier (2) Colour re-map for contrasts, although I may have overdone it a little in terms of sharp colours (3) Slight simplification to focus on IOS vs. non-IOS in Phase 1, and to reduce number of colour keys. I did not yet figure out (a) how to make a dashed key in the legend, and (2) how to make a denser dash for pre-construction segments. Perhaps it would be nice to distinguish between civil construction and track and systems -- that would add back one colour key though DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 12:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@DracaenaGuianensis: I just updated it based on those suggestions and slightly simplified the map legend. Also slightly increased font sizes and line thickness for clarity. It may take a while for the cache to refresh. Hopefully it is clearer now. I'm not super keen on differentiating track and systems or any other type of contract, as you also indicated, that would make it more complicated. To the lay person I think it's enough to show which sections are under active construction and, eventually, which sections are ready for trains to run on.Shannon [ Talk ] 20:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, especially with getting the dashing right. My views on track and systems are now fully aligned with yours -- consolidating is better. Imo the map is ready for shipping to production. There are still some conflicts with Robert's new points, but for those remaining issues I am in favour of the choices made here, such as including a timestamp and Phase 2 options. Not sure if we need to type up the reasons for sticking to this.

If we want to iterate on this once more, I would do some cheerleading for the proposed colour scheme on the right. I had experimented a bit and found that version to be most effective in terms of balancing the following two considerations:

Which colour mapping (i) ... provides the clearest contrast? (ii) ... let's people guess the meanings of colours, without looking at the legend?

In particular for (ii), I propose (pre-)construction to be orange, since people associate that with construction (I did not quite hit a proper construction-style orange, it turned out more red-ish for some reason). People associate a measured green with something complete or functioning, so I'd propose using that for finished sections -- maybe I'm too sensitised from my line of work, but it just feels slightly unintuitive that green is "in the middle" of the work sequence. The IOS simply needs some brutally radiant colour like in either of the two versions; the reason I tried neon green is because it evokes a feeling of progress, for abovementioned reasons :-) The current neon-yellow works very well too. Though I would suggest increasing the width to make it veeeery salient, because the IOS is the main focus of the article for the foreseeable future and we want people to immediately recognise what's up with it -- though I fervently hope we can write about tunneling in a few years!

Anyway, these were my usual two cents. I could implement these suggestions very quickly and without problems, now that you have taken care of the more involved issues. It would just depend on your opinion, as you may have had a reason for choosing the current colour scheme. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

There's no particular reason for the color scheme, I was just using the colors from the old map. I just updated the file to show the environmentally cleared sections as orange, and the non-cleared sections as red. I also deleted the optional Phase 2 stations to reduce clutter while keeping the different alignments so it's clear the final path hasn't been determined. I'm now wondering if the same should be done on the map in the infobox. There's no evidence as to which alignment would ultimately be chosen, if and when it ever gets built, and I wonder if arbitrarily choosing just one would qualify as WP:OR. Shannon [ Talk ] 17:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks great! Made some final adjustments including colour palette as per above, labeling and ordering of metadata for future editing (visible only in SVG editor), and changing the background colour of the legend box for contrast equivalence (to avoid optical illusions). I'll be bold and make the swap in the main article now because the baseline is good, and any further file overwrite can transmit automatically.

Good call with the infobox map. For the legend label, perhaps: "Phase 2 (route options, TBD)"? To ensure that the reader who has not read any of the prose yet understands that only one of the Phase 2 SoCal options will be built, not all of them? DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

(4) Alternative alignments map: File:CAHSR_map_alternate_routes.svg needs a little update on Brightline going from Las Vegas to Victorville in solid, while retaining the High Desert Corridor in dashed. Since my competence with Inkscape is limited to clicking on colours, I'll just drop it here. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert's Disruptive Editing

@Shannon1:, @Ganesha811:, @XavierItzm: I am seeking advice on how to deal with Robert, and I am going to extremely blunt here, because the situation is dire. In the main namespace, he keeps doing edits which are close to being disruptive. Some are clearly in violation of guidelines, others are what I shall call "weird". Some are ok. These "weird" edits seems innocuous and he calls them "clarification", but given the flow of the text, it just decreases quality in writing, such as by adding logically empty qualifiers, or removing a lead phrase that sets the reader's expectation for the paragraph. I reverted him in three instances lately: one was due to a factual error on his part which I had to explain at length in the talk page (as usual, he does not read comments properly before offloading his rants), one was a clear violation of policy (WP:EL), and one was a "weird edit" as described above. I don't want to keep reverting him, both given WP:OWN and a cynical suspicion on my part that he is trying to coax me into an edit war, especially if it's the borderline ones. The problem: If his tiny "weird" edits accumulate, I fear that the quality of writing will decrease significantly. Can we do something about it? I don't have unlimited time, nor the nerves to babysit this article ad infinitum. To me, it looks like an issue with him (1) refusing to engage with basic WP-guidelines, (2) an issue of WP:COMPETENCE in understanding any conceptual TP debate + how to write for a general audience, (3) editing for the sake of editing, and (4) some dose of hubris in terms of what he perceives as his own informational advantage – an attitude which he has been displaying a lot in talk pages. Apologies if I sound like I'm venting, but it may be helpful to address the root cause of certain issues with the former CAHSR article. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately, if you think this is disruptive editing, the right thing to do would be to raise the issue directly with him on his talk page. If that is unproductive, WP:ANI would be the next step. Bear in mind that diffs would be necessary to make a convincing case, but my read of the situation is that other editors are likely to agree with your perspective here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the weird little edits reduce quality but I think you’ll have a hard time convicting as of now. Patience is needed until a firm casus belli arises. Unfortunately, that editor did, over a 1+ year period, completely transform the article that existed before his appearance on scene, and his edits were both small and large. I foresee a repeat, unless people keep eyes on the current version. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think there's more than enough to open a case at dispute resolution.

Has shown a constant misunderstanding of the original research policy regarding primary & secondary sources, has been informed about this multiple times by other editors, but hasn't changed their behavior.

Disruptive editing policy #1, #4 #5. Has been warned numerous times over a long period of time by other editors.

Along the same vein, Tendentious editing policy #6, #10, #13.

Edit summary policy: "be careful of what you write in edit summaries. Inappropriate edit summaries may be used as evidence against you in behavioral complaints." Shannon [ Talk ] 15:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your input! As Ganesha noticed today, Robert went on an editing spree again (this time the train derailed completely), so order had to be restored again. In turn, Robert proceeded with an angry rant on the TP where he accused me of all sorts of things due to the revert, even though it wasn't even me reverting it...

At this point there is little hope of converting his passion for and general knowledge of CAHSR into a helpful contribution, and there is increasingly toxic behaviour.

So it seems like all of you agree that a talk page notice would the last attempt at solving the issue constructively. I'm a bit tied down at work these days so if someone would like to do it, you are welcome to go ahead!

If the TP notice does not help, it seems to me like WP:ANI is the right move? We could also well try with WP:DR, but since he keeps committing rather clear violations of guidelines, I'm not sure if dispute resolution adds much to the open discussion on the main article TP beyond yet another outside opinion. DracaenaGuianensis (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting down some policies from WP:CON, since Robert is filibustering the talk page + for potential future reference:

• "Tendentious editing. The continuous, aggressive pursuit of an editorial goal is considered disruptive, and should be avoided. Editors should listen, respond, and cooperate to build a better article. Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."
• "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DracaenaGuianensis (talk • contribs) 04:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)