What Went Wrong With California High Speed Rail And How Can Other HSR Systems Avoid Those Mistakes?
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- Looking at the history of errors related to the California High Speed Rail project and how those might be applied to other aspirational high speed rail lines in other parts of The United States of America. I've done about 40 minutes of video on California High Speed Rail in the present. This video mostly looks at the history of the project and explores some ways the concept could have been approach differently that would have been more productive. This is the first part of a multi-part series on the Federal Railroad Administration's high speed rail corridors. This is the California Corridor, which is synonymous with California High Speed Rail at this point.
Regarding the subject of this video, YES I already know that due to stipulations in Prop 1A that the train has to run through certain Central Valley cities. The direct route between L.A. and S.F. is purely hypothetical and would not happen practically at this juncture. Same with the reordering of construction on the current plan.
0:00 Introduction
0:19 Origins
0:56 Intercity HSR Report Findings
3:04 Critique Of Those Findings
4:35 CAHSR Whole System EIR
5:11 2008 Business Plan And Prop 1A
5:43 Critique Of Prop 1A
8:11 Funding Problems
10:23 Hypothetical Scenarios
10:45 Build It In A Different Order
13:00 Direct Line LA to SF First
15:12 The Present Dilemma
15:40 Conclusion
15:52 Future Videos
16:20 Outro
1996 Intercity Commission High Speed Rail Report
transdef.org/HSR/Altamont_ass...
2005 California High Speed Rail Authority System EIR
hsr.ca.gov/programs/environme...
Topics:
California High Speed Rail
Cascadia Ultra High Speed Rail
Federal Railroad Administration High Speed Rail Corridors
The Case For High Speed Rail in the United States
pre-CAHSR studies
San Diego
Inland Empire
Antelope Valley
Central Valley
Pacheco Pass
Panoche Pass
Altamont Pass
CAHSR Phase 1
The Grapevine
Los Angeles
Bakersfield
Modesto
bay area
CAHSR Phase 2
California Proposition 1A
CAHSR Business Plan
Federal fundings
Cap and Trade
San Francisco
Anaheim
Gilroy
Burbank
San Jose
Sacramento
Bakersfield
Fresno - Věda a technologie
I think whichever US high speed rail project was first was going to encounter these or similar problems. California being the first means it’s the one all others will learn from. CAHSR has also learned from its early mistakes and will apply those lessons going forward, starting with the extensions to Merced and Bakersfield.
Chances are good Brightline West will be the first to start operations, if they stay on their schedule for construction beginning this year and service starting in 2028.
I agree that California HSR needs to get a route up and running ASAP, and what’s being built is the Central Valley portion so let’s get that done. Merced to Bakersfield is the initial segment and establishes a foothold for CAHSR to expand from.
Also, CAHSR’s route is only 440 miles between SF and LA (470 includes to Anaheim). That means an average speed of 166mph. By comparison the fastest Shanghai-Beijing HSR service averages 181.4mph.
The Central Valley portion connects transit in both ends of the state earlier, providing greater statewide benefits sooner. If HSR began in either end of the state first, it would have left out the other half of the state.
The sooner CAHSR is funded, the sooner it’ll happen. My gut hunch is CAHSR will receive the funding it needs to finish Merced to Bakersfield, but it won’t receive any beyond that until it gets revenue trains running to justify what’s been spent so far and to make the case for more funding to expand to SF and later LA.
It may end up being Brightline West that helps save CAHSR, as having a successful operating example of HSR should give a major confidence boost to other US HSR projects, including California’s, and therefore more funding for it and others to complete or start their own HSR projects.
I think some of the problems were foreseeable and poorly managed. Others, you're naturally going to run into issues cutting your teeth.
As expressed in the video, I believe Central Valley was the wrong place to start. Yes, starting on the ends leaves some people out. But the intention is to connect them eventually. Conversely, starting where they did leaves almost EVERYONE out. Now, that's fine as long as everyone gets connected eventually, but the project is hanging by a thread at the moment because of these decisions.
By map its a little more than 450 miles from L.A. Union to Salesforce, so lets call it a wash. Either way the point stands. Can you find a faster train? Yes, but I didn't say it would be THE fastest.
The impact on statewide travel will be minimal compared to the amount of people it could have moved otherwise if they'd started on the ends.
Merced-Bakersfield loses money. This is projected in the CAHSR business plan. That's hardly going to be a motivator. Essentially what they're going to do is replace San Joaquins for people already using San Joaquins.
@@LucidStew to CAHSR’s credit, they have been performing better since those early mistakes. Land acquisitions have gotten smoother, and so has planning out the extensions to Merced and Bakersfield by having all necessary land acquired and utility relocations identified and completed prior to construction starting. Those lessons will carry forward to the eventual SF and LA extensions.
The Central Valley was chosen for a number of reasons, including like you mention the initial federal funding requirement that they be spent there. The deadline to spend them by also led to problems with awarding construction contracts before having all the land to build on, and CAHSR still only has 96% of the land needed for the initial 119 miles, with the remainder expected to be acquired over the next couple years.
The Valley also provides a place for trains to be tested at high speeds, something that can’t be done in urban areas. I’m all for upgrading existing rail like what’s being done with electrifying Caltrain, and believe the same should be done for Metrolink as well. But we voted for a high speed train, and that’s what’s being built. Having slightly faster commuter rail be the initial segments, while benefiting more people, would not have been high speed rail. Then going over the mountains presents its own sets of challenges, and there’d be no guarantee CAHSR could have found the funds to achieve that just as there’s no guarantee they will now.
Yes in hindsight, things could have been done smoother early on. But rather than keep pondering what could or should have been, let’s just focus on what is now and get it done. The California HSR project remains strong, completing structures and guideway and making things happen despite past mistakes and constant opposition.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Yes. Fund it and get it done! Go California!
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc I think organizationally they have righted the ship and finally managed to come to terms publicly with the dilemma in the Central Valley. At the same time their pace of construction is nothing to be admired. Also, they've yet to lay bare the reality of the whole project. That may be coming in the next business plan or two and then the project might get into some truly serious trouble.
The purpose of analyzing what they did wrong is not rake them over the coals, but rather to apply it to what other nascent projects are considering and doing. This will be very good information to have once Brightline West or Cascadia HSR advance and we analyze those.
@@LucidStew In a word, Cal HSR was a project pushed to start working pre-maturely. Land acquisition should go first, whichever route is chosen.
It blows my mind that Spain built its entire HSR network for substantially less than the projected cost of this one project
Critics of CA HSR know nothing about the EXISTING California intercity rail and feeder bus system. HSR is vitally necessary to connect what are, effectively, two separate systems. There is so much demand for NorCal-SoCal rail transportation, Amtrak California (CalTrans) operates overnight buses on both the Tejon Pass and Coast routes.
Theoretically, all CAHSR needs to really do is link Metrolink and Caltrain. They’re already doing it with Caltrain by going as far as Gilroy then sharing the Caltrain corridor to SF, so they could do the same in SoCal. Build HSR as far as Palmdale, or even Lancaster, then electrify and double track the Metrolink AV Line and share it to LA for earlier SF-LA service.
Given the lack of enthusiasm to fund the entire project, sharing Metrolink tracks and improving its service with electrification for the AV and other lines, could be what gets HSR to LA sooner and possibly at all. I calculated nonstop SF-LA HSR trip times with that arrangement would be under 4 hours.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc - Soledad Canyon is no place for time-competitive passenger trains. A trip from LA to Palmdale takes about 2 hours. The proposed HSR route, on the other hand, would make the area much more accessible than today.
On the other hand, the existing BNSF could be upgraded from Merced to the Antioch area to 110 MPH (or a new line added next to the old one), and there connected directly to BART. That would provide a much faster ride from downtown S.F. than today.
@@pacificostudios that 2 hour travel time is with all stops, nine intermediate between LA and Palmdale. Metrolink at one time ran express trains with only three intermediate stops that were 18 minutes faster. So reckon 3 minutes per stop, which means nonstop would be 1 hour 33 minutes, and with electrification and upping the speeds to 110mph where possible, like in the San Fernando Valley, could probably get that down to under 90 minutes.
Perhaps more importantly though, SCRRA owns the entire AV Line, meaning it would be easier to electrify than a freight-owned line. They’re already increasing capacity with more double tracking and want to run more frequent service, every 30 minutes to Santa Clarita and every hour to Lancaster.
CAHSR needs a dedicated route to the Caltrain line via Gilroy, as once that’s done and it can reach SF it’ll be faster than driving between LA and SF, even with the bus bridge to Bakersfield, and provide a fast connection between Silicon Valley and the Central Valley. Getting over Tehachapi gets HSR to SoCal, connecting with Metrolink which between the two would take roughly the same travel time between LA and Bakersfield as the current bus bridge does, 2 1/2 hours including time to transfer at Palmdale.
Sharing the Metrolink tracks, just as they’ll be sharing the Caltrain tracks, saves costs, improves the existing rail line with faster, quieter, and cleaner commuter rail service, and would get HSR to LA sooner. They’d share the AV Line until their own HSR tracks are completed.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc - No matter what, the bus from Bakersfield option is as fast, if not faster, than routing trains over Tehachapi Loop or even just Soledad Canyon. Routing buses to Newhall or maybe Santa Clarita is a good alternative to avoid traffic between Newhall/Santa Clarita and Los Angeles. However, no practical upgrade between Newhall and Burbank is going to significantly dent the current Metrolink time of 53 minutes from Los Angeles to Newhall.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Train stops do not significantly affect average passenger train speeds. The best evidence is the 40 miles from Oceanside to San Diego. Amtrak takes just under 1 hour, while Coaster, with four more stops, takes just over 1 hour. Schedule time for Coaster is exactly 61 minutes, 58 minutes for Pacific Surfliner. However, the difference is negligible because there is about 10 minutes padding built into the schedule for both trains, especially southbound on the Surfliner. I have often arrived in San Diego on the Coaster from Oceanside in less than an hour.
I try to always take Amtrak, but that is because of the onboard food option and the electric power and tray table at every seat. The extra luxury keeps me coming back, not the difference in speed.
If completion of CAHSR fails, it will be primarily because of the sheer number of people who want to see it failing, and will do their best to undermine and underfund it. With them in mind, it's a miracle that building work continues at all. The biggest enemy to HSR in America, is Americans and their anti transit culture. If you posses that, then it's very easy to fail at building HSR. The reason why Brightlighe has made some progress in Florida, it's mainly because it's not HSR and their compromises and work with existing track and limitations reduces their challenges. Though any useful train is useful, so better than no train, I suppose. You'll incrementally get there, if America changes mindset.
Generally, though, if you don't have the most favorable political climate for a thing, it would help to not make a mess of it if one hopes to retain the political will to finish it.
@@LucidStew but that mess hasn’t all been CAHSR’s fault. It hasn’t had the level of support needed to get things done faster or have the funding to, and the mistakes made early on didn’t help its cause and therefore it’s painted in a negative light by critics which is then repeated in much of the media. So the question then is how do we shift the narrative back toward a more positive one. We shouldn’t ignore mistakes of the past, but we also shouldn’t allow them to define the future.
High speed rail remains a worthwhile project to keep building and complete, and CAHSR remains committed to making that happen. They need better than lukewarm support and piecemeal funding to make it happen, so it’ll take continuing to promote the positives of this project and high speed rail in the US as a whole, not just to the public but also political leaders with the power to control funding for it, and for it to be louder than the naysayers’ repetitive and often outdated criticisms.
It's not just, or even primarily, a matter of organic mass support/opposition - it's a matter of a very few, very wealthy people and interests that oppose the very concept of HSR and mass rail transportation in general, for a variety of economic and ideological reasons. That lot immediately launched a bunch of baseless lawsuits against the project, all of which were ultimately defeated but served their intended purpose of draining funds and forcing delays. That lot are also behind the massive public relations machine constantly churning out anti-HSR propaganda, mostly via astroturf means (i.e., designed to simulate organic mass opposition; I have some personal experience with this in other contexts).
This would have faced _any_ HSR or rail-modernization plan, and any alt-history/counterfactual scenarios need to take that into account.
@@dwc1964 so I wonder if those same groups will try going after Brightline West for the same reasons
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Some of them will - anyone making money flying people between L.A. (or anywhere in California) and Vegas, anyone making money catering to road-trippers, and the ideologically anti-rail people all still exist, and the latter are particularly thick on the ground in that region. The fact that it's all private will mute the "trains are communism" takes somewhat, but there's plenty of other bullshit to sling.
I'd like to see the Feds invest in Amtrak and start purchasing right of ways for dedicated passenger tracks between SD and LA.
LOSSAN has been talking about adjusting their alignment for a while now since parts of it are going to be swallowed by the sea. I'm not sure where passenger tracks would go, though. Anything by the coast is a tough proposition.
Almost the entirety of the rail line between LA and SD is owned by a public entity, the only part that isn’t is the BNSF Southern Transcon mainline between Redondo Junction (just south of LA Union Station) and Fullerton. Fullerton to the OC/SD County Line is owned by SCRRA, who operates Metrolink, and from there to San Diego is owned by NCTD, who operates Coaster. SCRRA also owns the entire Antelope Valley Line to Lancaster, the San Bernardino Line, and the Ventura County Line as far as Moorpark. I believe they also own the tracks between Riverside (from where it splits from the BNSF mainline) and Hemet.
200-220mph design speed was the right call, thats the standard for new lines throughout the rest of the world and a must to get travel times down.
the feds putting such strict time deadlines while the authority got bogged down in 8 years of lawsuits was really something that needed to be changed by 2013 or 2014.
Public votes are a requirement to get basically any amount of money from the public in California. Blame the late 70s for that.
having SF to Gilroy and LA- Anaheim done has little benefit without the larger system
the IE route is going be insane compare to upgrading the coast line to 110-160mph, the central valley segment is far more useful than it
Really the state should have started and learned from upgrading the coast and surf line to 110-125mph in the 90s then used that experience to do the true high speed line down the central valley later.
Well said. I (and many others) think there is nothing wrong with the current design of the Cal HSR. I believe if another referendum is called, the California people would rather pay the rest of $80bn and have it finished than leaving it as-is between Merced and Bakersfield.
@GDR Riley the coast route needs to be moved cause of problems from landslides and sea level rise, HSR would have if it were possible, but the coast route is doomed.
@@victorbobier3416 the coast route in a few sections in threatened by issues but for most of those locations 101 will be as well so the state will make an effort to protect both. The coast line isn’t doomed it’s incredibly important
200-220mph is definitely at the upper end. It's impressive speed, for sure, but it limits route choice (curve radius) and the rising operating costs (energy, wear, train maintenance) can become an issue as well.
Love the CAHSR content! Very informative!
I think it's good that CA was ambitious. Someone had to bite the bullet and do HSR first in the US. I really do hope that the mistakes of CAHSR help other US systems to move faster. Edit: Altho maybe a shorter trial segment would've been a good starting point
This will be the last big one for a while as I feel like I've covered the subject from front to back at this point. I will continue to monitor it month-to-month in the Stew's News videos though, and might make longer-form videos if there are major developments.
@@LucidStew That makes sense. Thanks for all the great videos!
Shorter trial segment where? That was the political problem back in 2008. The voters in the Bay Area wouldn't have supported it if it was only built in LA and vis-versa. And the Central Valley voters wouldn't have supported it at all if they hadn't been told that the train would run through several of their cities. The whole reason the I-5 route was not politically viable was that there are no cities along the 5 north of the Grapevine until you get almost to Stockton. It would be a good place to run a high speed train if you just wanted speed, but the people pushing high speed rail knew that they needed to generate at least the illusion that there were potential riders in order to sell the idea to voters.
Another problem with the "trial segment" would have been purchasing land for the right-of-way. The SF Bay Area is so built up that there is no way to purchase a new right-of-way, there is no way to come up with the finances necessary. In fact the plan has always been to somehow upgrade the current CalTrain rail system to allow for the upgraded trains and higher speeds, despite the fact that no HSR can run above about 70-75 MPH over ground level tracks that cross streets on a regular basis like the CalTrain tracks do. (its an old Southern Pacific freight right-of-way that the company willingly sold after San Francisco stopped being a freight transit hub.)
I have no idea where they planned to put in the LA station and tracks, but if you've ever visited the area you know that there are no good spaces to plant a new right-of-way and build tracks. They'd have to purchase lots of individual lots and then build the tracks and if you think the NIMBYs of Southern California would let that go without a huge court battle..... well..... I have some beachfront property in New Mexico for sale cheap. :P
Nicely done. You pointed out the original problems were political. However, I disagree with how you recommend starting at the end points with large population centers, and then working on San Joaquin Valley section. Once the Bay Area and Los Angeles Area got built, the politicians in both large metro areas would torpedo any building in the Valley. Look at how the metro areas have already taken vast amounts of HSR money for their own projects. For that matter, look at how many secondary projects are being funded by HSR money. The lack of train/transportation infrastructure that needed to be upgraded has cost more than the actual project. Within City of Fresno, there have been 96 grade separations made, per the City. Why weren't these done over the last 100 years? How much has gone toward LA's Union Station change from pull -in pull-out to pull through? I believe the electrification of Cal Train also received HSR money. How long has Cal Train been around? The fact is HSR has funded numerous projects, alot of them in the metro areas.
The bookend work amounts to about $2.3 billion compared to the $31.5 billion they're planning to spend in the Central Valley. The wealth has hardly been spread around. And conversely, its equally possible the project won't get out of the Central Valley once Merced-Bakersfield is done.
@@LucidStew Building from the Central Valley guarantees them won't be left out.
@@onetwothreeabc Cool, what guarantees the rest of us wont be left out?
@@LucidStew There is no guarantee. Central Valley gets the guarantee because they are less developed and they need it.
@@onetwothreeabc Have you ever been to the Inland Empire? How about the far north of the state? Owens Valley? The High Desert? There is nothing special about the Central Valley in terms of poverty or lack of development in California. While we're at it, why doesn't the Sacramento Valley portion of the Central Valley count? I honestly don't get the fixation on this stretch of the San Joaquin Valley.
Mostly agree with you. The biggest lesson learned is that the government needs to own most of the land to build a new right of way.. So much money was wasted on lawsuits on this project.
And I think they knew that. It's just that they were pressured by the federal grant requirements. When you combine that with the bond restrictions, they NEEDED that federal money to be able to do anything because they didn't have the Cap and Trade funds coming in at the time.
NIMBYs are indeed the bane in American society.
I never understood why they absolutely needed a homerun-Why did the train need to run at 200mph? They could have had a very good line that topped out around 125 or 150mph, establish a population that uses the train, and then upgrade the rolling stock on 200mph track or upgrade the track to 200mph. Saving money. I also don’t get how they just ignored the recs of so many other HSR boards like Renfe, SNCF, and JR, and now complaint that the first phase is going to cost $96 billion, with no funding in site for the rest. Planning isn’t even done for the LA section
There is a California political ego where our politicians like to throw around the idea that we're the Xth largest economy in the world and a world leader and blah blah blah.
There is absolutely no reason to skip all the Central Valley cities. Whatever you save in construction costs you lose after by having a line that skips all the intermediate population centres. No, a second parallel line would not be built and you know it.
My thoughts EXACTLY.
Just so I'm clear, you're saying that the Central Valley portion is going to pay for itself? Because ridership out there is about 900k trips a year. At $33 billion, you're looking at $37/ticket on top of the fare and 100 years to pay that down. This is just a thing I'm throwing out there. I personally wouldn't do that. I'd skip most of the southeastern San Joaquin Valley. I'd build a spur to Bakersfield then connect with San Joaquins between Bakersfield and Modesto. That would be almost free and save at least $10 billion. The reason to skip the Central Valley cities is that its not worth the expense and its not worth endangering a project to provide service to less than 10% of the people you intend to serve.
@@LucidStew "you're saying the Central Valley portion is going to pay for itself?"
No, I'm saying the I-5 route makes less money than the Central Valley route.
"I'd build a spur to Bakersfield then connect with San Joaquins between Bakersfield and Modesto."
And as I said, that wouldn't happen. HSR spurs rarely happen and duplicate routes never happen.
"its not worth endangering a project to provide service to less than 10% of the people you intend to serve"
We live in a world where one of the factors that got CAHSR funding was that it would regenerate the Central Valley.
@@LucidStew So as you see, central valley people won't agree with any plan that does not pass through the central valley. That's how politics work.
According to some people, public transit programs is meant to provide mobilities to underserved communities rather than making profit or "pay for itself".
@@lbsc1201 Are you talking about the federal funds? Because that has amounted to 4% of the estimate so far.
I think the best thing they can do at this point is get the central valley section running and then make damn good shuttle services from the metro regions to the terminating stations. A high quality bus shuttle from Sacramento, the bay area, and LA to the train with relatively seamless transfers and a single ticket would at least get some usage out of the track. It could be slightly faster than driving (probably less than an hour faster). CAHSR just has such a bad reputation, if they can get some sort of service running it will make it easier for people to agree to funding it further.
As far as I understand, this is the current plan. There is discussion about building a cross-platform transfer station at Merced.
However, I don't think it's finalized yet.
By the way, the San Joanquin Amtrak service has a pretty seemless transfer service from rail to bus at Bakersfield.
It would certainly behoove them to coordinate with some sort of express bus service to L.A. I'm not sure what impact Merced-Bakersfield will have overall. On paper it would cut about 2 hours off the trip between Merced and Bakersfield via train, but then again you have to change trains. whatever/bus/train/train/whatever sounds like a pain, but people are doing that right now without the benefit of the HSR leg. But anyway, they're going to hook up with ACE and Amtrak at Merced, so there will be plenty of options on the north end.
@@LucidStewCAHSR says 90-100 minutes faster, so actually it’ll be 80-90 minutes travel time vs the current 3 hours. SJJPA will operate the interim HSR service between Merced and Bakersfield while CAHSR focuses on construction over Pacheco Pass to Gilroy and SF.
With up to six trainsets available, my guess is they’ll all be local trains with 4-5 running at one time and 1-2 on standby as backups. They also won’t be hitting 220mph, but still be achieving relatively high speeds. 80-minute travel time for 171 miles is an average of just 128.6 mph.
The interim HSR service will add another transfer between LA and NorCal, so bus to Bakersfield, HSR to Merced, then Amtrak or ACE to the Bay Area/Sacramento. The potential cross-platform transfer at Merced should only be about 3 minutes between one train arriving and the other departing, so it shouldn’t be much of an inconvenience.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Geez, let's hope they run at least one express. That would be a public relations disaster if it ran that slowly. Btw, what's your source there? I want to check it out. I have the SJJPA 2023 plan. I just haven't gotten a chance to dig into it.
@@LucidStew I hope they can run with a top speed of 220 mph. After all, this is how the right of way is designed.
As an Australian it's interesting to see what's going on in California and over here. At least California has got something started, whereas in Australia the only high speed lines we have are imaginary. One of the many sticking points in both places seems to be the mountainous/hilly terrain. This is a real head-scratcher for me. France and Japan, the twin birthplaces of HSR, are both mountainous. And the new members of the HSR club, Spain, Italy and China, are also mountainous. So, why is it that English speaking countries seem unable to deal with hilly terrain when thinking of or planning HSR?
Our main problem in California is that the design of the system combined with the Proposition that was passed to built HSR dictate that the train must travel through those tunnels at an unusually high rate. This demands the tunnel diameters be larger due to increasing air resistance that builds up. The train has to drive through that, but it also creates a pressure gradient for passengers, not unlike air travel, that can be uncomfortable. Bigger tunnels = bigger $$$
@@LucidStew Aha, thank you for the clarification. So, if a more reasonable in-tunnel speed was acceptable (and the whole project was less dependent on federal funding), the whole project could be built faster and cheaper then?
@@jdillon8360 It's a little more complicated than that. The cruising speed and minimum times between cities are actually baked into the state constitution. They made some decisions to run 110mph shared track in the bay area and L.A. metro area portions because its cheaper and more doable. This forced the high tunnel speeds that drove up the price for those. There's basically no goldilocks way to do it because its so restricted legally. It HAS to be fast and it HAS to be expensive. But with the tunnels specifically, that's why we're having such a hard time.
@@LucidStew Got it. So dedicated tracks in metro areas of the bay and LA would mean lower permissible speeds in the tunnels.
@@jdillon8360 yes, higher speeds at the ends would mean the middle could be a little slower.
Another great video that really helps to understand the project much better! Thanks!
Are any of the reports you reference available online somewhere? Could you throw links in the description?
I put the 96 Commission report and 2005 CAHSR Authority EIR links in the comments. I only know of the 94 Caltrans report and a broad description of its contents from other sources. The 2008 business plan is no longer available online as far as I can tell. Luckily, I saved a local copy back in the day. You can probably get that by making a public records request through the CAHSR website. I'm not sure if I'm within my rights to distribute that and I don't have a good, secure way of doing so anyway. It's not THAT different from the 2012 plan, though, which you can still get from the CAHSR site regularly.
Informative video. At 10:47, I'm actually shocked you didn't account for the lawsuits that would have taken place had those initial routes you suggested been taken. Lawsuits add to the cost of infrastructure projects. Burbank airport was one of the entities that generated a lawsuit.
I still find it curious as to WHY people keep leaving out the central valley in infrastructure construction, especially given how Fresno is one of the more growing cities in California. Focusing more on coastal cities instead of incorporating the Central Valley cities is partly why those cities aren't as prosperous as the coasts.
I also think one of the things you fail to mention is this whole "Buy America" rule. The U.S. has no experience building true high speed railways. The result of "Buy America" has led to things being more expensive as well as to take a lot longer than they would had that clause not been in place. That clause needs to be gone (as far as high speed railway construction is concerned) until America has the actual experience in building these things. And on top of that, the Biden administration made it harder to get waivers from this clause. It's easily allowing this country to get in its own way. Wanna know why Desert Xpress didn't get off the ground? Well here's your answer.
We can complain about costs and relitigate the past all we want, but rail infrastructure projects are inherently expensive and typically late, and until this country changes some of its ridiculous rules and clauses, we will continue to run into these issues.
A good book to read: How Big Things Get Done by Bent Flyvbjerg.
I mean, its just a reordering of what they already plan to do, so they're going to run into that one way or the other. As the Authority likes the point out, they haven't lost a lawsuit yet, so there's no reason to believe any lawsuits involved in other areas would prove especially difficult.
The case for building eastern Central Valley later than sooner is pretty clear in my mind. It's turned out to be inordinately expensive, not that many people live there, and the ROI isn't good. Notice I don't say in the video ANYWHERE that eastern Central Valley shouldn't be built. I find it really odd people are so averse to the idea of simply not building that FIRST.
I didn't get into other restrictions because they're basically ubiquitous and there's not much hope of changing them. You're never not going to have environmental review. You're never not going to have these somewhat insane priorities in place compared to getting a thing done. The Panama Canal days are over. All of that should have been accounted for, so it should be no surprise its in the price tag. But even that, that's not an enormous factor beyond some delays. The contracts on CPs1-4 tripled because those companies needed to be compensated for things taking way longer than they should have because those segments were started before they should have been.
My viewpoint is that certain things were beyond the Authority's control and were fairly predictable. What they did have in their control was not starting before they were ready to start. That they screwed up badly with major consequences, possibly for the entire project.
I've seen Bent Flyvbjerg on video. I didn't really hear anything I disagreed with.
@@LucidStew ...and there's not much hope of changing what CAHSR has started. Yeah, this will obviously serve as a "lessons learned" for other high speed projects in this country. But the simple fact is, California was the FIRST state to attempt this so there were bound to be problems. But if we're going to make videos on what they "could've done," we need to be completely honest about that, as well as the obstacles they've faced, and how the state and federal government, and citizens with lawsuits contributed to the product taking place now.
I appreciate the feedback on items I may have missed. What I don't appreciate is the implication that I'm lying with this "we need to be completely honest" bit because my opinion doesn't align with yours.
@@LucidStew You inferred that statement from what I wrote. I didn't imply anything obviously if I'm saying "we." I'm talking we as a society. Again. All I'm trying to get you to understand is if you're going to make videos litigating the past, then give people ALL the information to help us make informed decisions. You want people to watch your videos, you should be able to take criticism just as you're expecting CAHSR to do.
I think you have an unrealistic expectation of what is going to be in these videos. There is no such thing as a lack of editorial bias. I can't and will not be able to provide ALL of the information for you. If you view more sources you will get a broader perspective. I can only provide you with mine. I have given you my honest opinion in this video, and I did not exclude any information in an effort to deceive. I simply found it not worth including. It is entirely possible I missed a point here or there that I would have liked to make and that is why I do appreciate the feedback.
amazing video, thank you so much! ive been wanting a good analysis of the calhsr- couldn't find it anywhere.
Honestly, the problem that HSR experienced was that they didn't hire any engineers from Europe or Asia and listen to their experiences with the technology. It was more of we know our engineers and we will figure it out ourselves! The single biggest problem encountered was the many change orders submitted to the authority, as well as the promises of building infrastructure projects before they even built the track systems. Honestly, the infrastructure promised was a way to get more counties to support the project. As has been stated by others; California is the first too attempt HSR, so every future project has to study what was done correctly, what should've been delayed until later, and what should have been scrapped from the outset? I think it was hubris of the State of California Legislature to give HSR a blank check; they should've had achievable goals set on paper! About the only thing that I agree with Governor Newsome on is establishing the initial operating sector, then continuing future extensions once the wrinkles have been determined and corrected!
Great video but I think one key challenge I have with your argument is CAHSR is a government project, not a for-profit business. “Return-on-investment” is measured differently. The people making a living building the tracks and bridges are the also the “investors” and “stock-holders” for the project. Starting in the Central Valley is generating valuable political capitol which will ultimately benefit the project.
CAHSR may not ever become profitable but that’s not the point of government programming. It will be successful if it’s getting cars off the road, generating jobs, and improving quality of life for rural economies with booming populations.
What political capital is being gained? And the project is required to cover its operating expenses by law. The initial investment being covered is not a concern, but it must break even at minimum year-to-year.
Broader benefits are great, but even they have a cost which does not make sense at some point.
@@LucidStew There are voters and lawmakers that live in the Central Valley - quite a few actually - and they tend to lean further right than the coastal regions.
Nearly all of the counties along the I-5 corridor voted in favor of Prop 1a while more than half of the Central Valley counties voted “no.” Shutting them out of the project’s benefits for the next decade would only have entrenched them in their opposition. We need everyone on board for this to be possible and it’s obvious that the major coastal cities are all in - catering to them would just deepen the political divide.
I never said the project didn’t need to break even, I said it does not need to turn a profit because government projects are not the same as publicly traded companies and have different obligations. Even so, can you imagine if we wrote into law that the Interstate Highway System had to break even year-to-year? Drivers are not expected to help the Interstate Highway System break even any more than the average taxpayer yet CAHSR riders are required to do so by law. I think that’s ridiculous and imagine it was a compromise for the sake of the project much like the chosen route.
@@acuritis Prop 1A and subsequent polls have shown that neither Central Valley nor Republican support are required to build this. More damage is being done to the project by "shutting out" the parts of the state that actually voted for the thing and will receive minimal benefits from CAHSR for a long time. We don't need everyone on board to do this. Democrats have an 80% supermajority in the state legislature and control every major state-level office. The only thing needed is Democrat support from L.A. County and the bay area, which is what got the proposition passed.
If it can't lose money by law, then its a for-profit venture. They also plan to use profits from San Francisco to Bakersfield operations to help finish the rest of Phase 1. And although its many decades away, profits from Phase 1 would theoretically pay for construction of Phase 2.
While it is not accounted exactly, many indirect use taxes and fees(gas, oil, tires, registrations, etc.) exist specifically to build and maintain roads, especially in California.
Even the initial projection of 8 years to build a 500 mile system is underestimated. Think about it, there are around 50 miles of tunnels in phase 1, and is going to be built with an organization with no tunneling experience. In Los Angeles, they built a regional connector tunnel that is 2 miles long and took 9 years (keep in mind that LA Metro have decades of tunneling experience). Not to mention there are countless other factors slowing the project down.
That 1996 commission was making some assumptions that could not come true. They thought the ROW was going to be grade separated and fenced in its entirety. They were also working without any time requirements, so they assumed the mountainous regions would be approached in such a way that they would minimize tunnelling. They also liked Altamont Pass, which would have been less tunnelling than Pacheco. But yeah, 8 years was still amusingly optimistic in hindsight.
Regional tunneling had utilities to move and Times Building foundation to work through. So not much the same as tunneling through open desert ranges.
Right now HSR and the construction contractors are waiting on things to be moved that HSR doesn't own like a canal, power lines, tracks to be moved that are owned by the BNSF & the Union Pacific, etc, etc, etc. Plus there is the matter of Tulare Lake and the water from the rains and of course the snow melt.
Lots of small grants have been applied for plus one near $3 Billion for construction.
Some would say when are the tracks going in and I say when the land has been bought and has nothing in the way of the tracks being laid. The tracks need a place to go, since except for Caltrain and Metrolink the other railroads between San Jose and Burbank are 100% private property which includes their tracks, the land the their tracks sit on, and of course their trains.
San Francisco to Gilroy already exists. It’s called Caltrans. So the Central Valley first idea is best because otherwise most the money would go to the LA area and northern cali wouldn’t like that.
I think you mean CalTRAIN. It's not true that most of the money would go to L.A., not sure where you got that. L.A. is set to be built last. In all likeliness it is L.A. that will not be liking the current arrangement as the chances of this even getting out of the Central Valley are low.
The main reason why brightline is successful is because they build right next to interstates and they do not have to worry about purchasing land from individuals thus driving up the cost also going through the mountains requires a lot of expensive construction to make it happen because drills that would be used to make the tunnels are very expensive as would be any reinforcement needed to stabilize the tunnel if needed they would have been better off running it next to the interstate even if it was longer it still would have been cheaper California will run out of money before they finish the whole project
Merced is not "nowhere." It happens to be the home of the fastest growing UC university. But that's not something the media tells you because the oil companies bought them off.
UCM = UC Middle of nowhere XD.
I spent four years of college at UC Merced. The city is definitely growing and becoming quite the college town. Plus Merced is the ‘Gateway to Yosemite’ with Highway 140. Once ACE Rail reaches Merced it should expand even more as a potential Bay Area suburb.
Being university town, it would only be used between semesters. Even then the many parents would be taking them.
Merced is one of the fastest-growing UC because they are always accepting applications and, for the most part, the least desirable UC.
@@paul-hp1pi I spent 4 years there and loved it. And that was before all the new buildings going up over the past seven years since I graduated. What makes you say it’s for the most part the least desirable UC?
IMO you can go faster along the I5 route from LA to SF since there is maybe two useful stops between LA and San Jose. Stop after getting through the Angeles mountains and at Gilroy. Central Valley route stops at half a dozen cities/towns, which requires slowing down and speeding up for stopping and ~3-5min at each station for ppl getting on and off.
Thank you for revisiting the LA SF CAHSR routing. I think it needs to be clear that other routes both shorter or nearly as short with much better interest such as coast routing are still open for future HSR planning. CAHSR has been cited as creating nearly no institution knowledge with consultants being in charge of other consultants. This means it is not a good source of learning and future knowledge. Railroads are better planned and implemented by railroad companies that expect to profit from them. Many railroad ventures in the past have gone bankrupt although many recover and that illustrates the difficulties railroads have. CAHSR for all the wrong reasons started in the Central Valley. One of main reasons was the Central Valley was not considered to have engineering challenges allowing non railroad construction firms to be hired during the great session of 2008. There are engineering challenges and they appear to have been ignored with the result it will not be a 220 mph running railroad except in some easy to implement sections.
The CAHSR planning documents give as reasons for not going through the Grapevine mountain area as not being able to build high speed railroad tunnels through it and difficult tunneling situations when China HSR construction is based on tunneling such as this. The read through of that report analysis revealed lacked of commitment to tunneling and was simply stating typical tunneling difficulties and then for no good reason making the tunnel non HSR. Before eliminating a good routing from the candidates many attempts are tried to find solutions for difficult tunneling situations with people brought in from far and wide. There is nothing in the report that suggests any endeavor to implement the Grapevine HSR tunnel as would be typically expected.
The route millage between LA and SF through the Central Valley has been listed at 520 miles in the CAHSR report I read. I haven't seen 470 miles before as the route distance between LA and SF. All of the route miles were conceived to be the fastest HSR with slowing for station stops with the specification listing 400 kph or 249 mph. The specification list 1.6% being the maximum down grade slope for top speeds with significant speed restriction for going down slopes over 1.6%. The actual concept plans for the CAHSR have many sections with slopes over 1.6%. It's almost like they didn't read their own specifications.
Trains behavior for Chines HSR with a design speed of 400 kph is typically running at 350 kph with 400 kph being used to maintain schedule. This is likely the intent with CAHSR. The more direct route of 370 miles between LA and SF with the fastest HSR with a normal top speed of 220 mph 354 kph typically 2/3rds the running normal top track speed provides a fairly assured travel time giving an average of 146.6 mph or 150 mph. For 370 miles that gives 2.5 hours. It should be a bit faster, but not worse.
With longer 520 mile route and relatively slow at-grade crossing sections and suspect overly steep down grades common meaning speeds of 125 mph it starts to appear the CAHSR SF to LA might be taking times well over 3.5 hours and possibly 4 hours. That basically eliminates it from competing well with flying the route. Now for living in the much more affordable Central Valley and commuting a few times a week into LA the CAHSR might be a dream come true! On the SF end it might have similar behavior, but with San Jose being the main terminal because its great population of high tech high paying firms. San Jose is at or near the northern end of true HSR which might be just fine for a lot of people.
The most desirable route for attracting passenger travel would be the coastal route. This also provides access to difficult, but highly desirable areas people would like to visit, live and work with fast access to LA. Following the coastal route all along the coast is what would be the most attractive. The HSR study just followed existing freight trackage that turns away from the coast north of LA. That is also what the Central Valley HSR routing does, it is typically only a few miles from existing freight train trackage. It's worth spending an extra few miles, something around 20 - 30 miles, to allow for the much more attractive sea shore routing over the shorter Grapevine I5 routing, that would take people to a lot of desirable sea side areas. This sea side route requires civil engineering challenges. Difficult, but still able to be done by competent firms in small time periods given the resources they need.
There are engineering changes for HSR getting out of the Central Valley into LA and those have not been resolved. What makes HSR a relatively modern implementation is the advancement of engineering that can take on its challenges that were not considered feasible in the 1960s. California appears to be trying to build one of the fastest HSR implementation in the world with a insufficient kit of engineering development and institution knowledge and no deep inclination to have it.
CAHSR is government project and the history is that these projects eventually get built, but it could be many decades and never be completed fully. If it is close to 4 hours travel time to LA and SF it would be expected to largely not compete with airlines, but as a 2 hour connection from the Central Valley to LA and SF it should have great benefit. A coastal route with sea side views would attract a lot passengers and the stops along the coast could allow a large population and tourist increase to those areas unlike the farm lands of the Central Valley.
The coastal route of the Southern Pacific Railroad (now Union Pacific) between LA and San Jose is totally unsatisfactory for HSR because of frequent sharp curves and steep grades. Only a small portion of the route is along the Pacific Ocean. I doubt most of the residents of San Luis Obispo would want their lovely city to grow because of HSR. Your coastal route proposal is a fantasy. SORRY
Why didn't they plan to go over the Grapevine? Is the grade an issue?
I would guess three reasons. Since eastern Central Valley was the plan, you don't gain much over the Tehachapi route. (different story if you're going up the west side) The Tehachapi route comes out of the mountains next to an existing rail ROW. Lastly, Lancaster/Palmdale placates L.A. County.
Brightline West will connect to Antelope Valley anyway, then Rancho Cucamonga. So you're right - no need to do that first.
Perhaps I’m missing something but I always felt that they should have had phase one just go straight down the middle of I-5 through the Central Valley for the most part. It’s mostly straight and clear of major obstacles. Also, That way you skip a lot of land acquisition and other ROW issues. Make it so phase one has maybe one or two stops in the valley and maybe have a phase two or three branch off at Bakersfield and follow whatever it is they are trying to do now. Probably should have just focused on upgrading and building out the San Joaquin’s to compliment it. I think they were just trying to drum up as much support as possible from all these cities and in the process created a monster that sunk them financially way before they could send off the first train.
They should buy Siemens dual-mode Airo trainsets and run through Amtrak and ACES from the Bay Area and Sacramento to Fresno and Bakersfield to get service up and running this decade.
The trains they buy will be the ones with power cars on each end, which is the right type for California's mountainous terrain, plus the trains need to go as fast as 250mph. ICE trains can go up 4.0% grades, though the standard is 3.5% in Europe which might be the Siemens Velaro which is supposed to be able to do 220mph or 350kph.
@@victorbobier3416 Brightline West is going to avoid tunnels and go up to 6.0% grades. So even Brightline West is planning to push the envelope.
i think the biggest problem for it falling would be maintaining the tracks. they should definitely hire some train architects/technicians from japan so they would know how to work the on the tracks, since they would have experience working and maintaining the Shinkansen line.
This is one thing that doesn't get mentioned enough. How much is it REALLY going to cost to operate and maintain when express trains have to run at 220mph for half their route?
@@LucidStew I find it interesting that CAHSR has nonstop travel time estimates for all the segments of SF-Anaheim, except for Fresno to Bakersfield. Combined they add up to 2 hours 9 minutes, meaning Fresno-Bakersfield has to be 30 minutes. Given those cities are 111 miles apart via CAHSR's route, nonstop trains would have to be running at 220 mph the entire time on that segment.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc I think they were talking about 2h 37m L.A.-S.F., which would mean really pushing it in some unexpected places. The geometry between Bakersfield is absolutely massive, so that may very well be the case. I know they want to go through the stations very quickly on express trains outside of the shared track areas. I have an older CAHSR technical doc that goes over acceleration rates. If I'm reading it right, it will take a little more than 7 miles to go from 0 to 220, so they probably want to slow down as little as possible once they get there.
@@LucidStew Prop 1A said sub-2h 40min, which is why CAHSR is aiming for 2hr 39min in their travel time estimates and are engineering their system so nonstop trains can make those times.
Trains will be on a viaduct through pretty much the entirety of Bakersfield. CAHSR is adding sound barriers to places within cities like Bakersfield and Fresno so trains can maintain a high speed through them, along with the passing tracks at stations.
CORRECTION: L.A. to S.F. is more like 450 miles. That puts average speed for 2 hours 40 minutes at 169mph, but the overall point there is unchanged as that would still be one of the fastest trains in the world and many factors will make that 2h40m difficult. Thanks to Chris Jones for pointing that out.
Google says the highway distance from LA to SF is 383.3 miles. The route is mainly milage on I-5, then I-580 ( over Altamont Pass), and then up I-680 to Oakland, and over the bridge to SF. If I remember correctly, the Southern Pacific's rail route through the CV to LA was 470 miles. It went across the lower Bay from Newark to East Palo Alto on a long bridge, most of which (though abandoned) is still there. Their main passenger route was the Coast Line.
@@michaeljones7927 Sorry, wasn't clear again. Who knew distances were so difficult? The 450 correction here is for the amount of track CAHSR will use to get from LA Union to SF Salesforce. I stated it was 470 in the video. I originally took the 30 miles to Anaheim off the official 500 and forgot about the 20 miles to Merced.
It's supposed to be 512 miles total. 90 miles from San Jose to the Wye at Chowchilla for example.
They really do need to scope out what the rocks in the tunnels will be like.
It went wrong when the politicians convoluted the initiative to meet their political goals. It’s been downhill since.
It was very clear at the time the project got rolling that the initial goal was to get the Central Valley parts of the line set up because they'd be the easiest and cheapest. The assumption was that once the HSR was anchored with the Central Valley, voters and legislators would have no choice but to help fund the rest of the project. The idea that it could have just started "anywhere," like in LA, is... totally out of touch with the political reality that the HSR project was already in a tenuous situation and there was the assumption that getting all the required rights-of-way and spending the kind of money that would have been required to clear a path through LA would have been impossible, in which case the whole project would have been doomed. Not sure what sources you're working with, but at least from someone who was there are the time this whole narrative was quite clear to anyone who was interested!
The real pressure to start in the Central Valley came from ARRA because the project was desperate for funds prior to the state legislature funneling 1/4 of Cap and Trade to the project. This is because Prop 1A stipulates that no more than 50% of a section be funded by the bond. Therefore, the first roughly $18 billion spent by the project tacitly needs a 50% match. Until the ARRA grants they had $0 and could not build anything. The ARRA grants required that they start in the Central Valley.
The idea that its cheapest and easiest, and trying to build an unstoppable momentum are factors, but you're missing the most important part for someone who was there at the time.
Your assessment of the situation in L.A. and other "end" areas is misinformed. By the Authority's own estimates, Anaheim to Burbank and Gilroy to San Francisco combined will cost about half what Merced to Bakersfield will. BTW, my source on that is the CAHSRA 2023 Project Update, since you're interested in my sources.
The other routes and ideas in the videos are hypotheticals and not meant to be taken as something that could or would have happened. I apologize if I wasn't sufficiently clear in the video.
Cal HSR currently hire 10,000+ employees. If we assume everyone's salary+benefit package on average is $100k per year, the human cost alone is $1bn/year.
They only employ about 1,200 people.
@@LucidStew High-Speed Rail Hits Historic 10,000 Jobs Milestone
California High-Speed Rail Authority
@@LucidStew czcams.com/video/kL7aRVtJaKo/video.html
@@LucidStew "It's not a job... It's a Career!" says one worker.
@@onetwothreeabc That's a political statement. They're either estimating total jobs generated by the project or counting job-years.(pretty sure its job-years) They publish the amount of people they're employing every month in the F&A Report. I'm not just pulling 1,200 out of thin air.
..and we still...
CA HSR is going great. We're only six years from making rail competitive with air and driving for the first time since the 1960s. Cutting off more than 1 hour from the time between Merced and Bakersfield is extremely important.
They need to find the $8-10 billion first. The longer it takes, the more that amount grows. Even still, rail won't be competitive. It'll be more attractive than current, but the vast, vast majority of people will still drive or fly.
@@LucidStew just over a million people rode the San Joaquins in 2019, and just over 710,000 riders in 2022 (up from 434,000 the previous year). The San Joaquins are the 2nd busiest Amtrak route in California, and the sixth busiest in the country.
So ridership is there, especially when part of its route becomes one of the first true high speed rail lines in the country, which should attract even more riders to experience that. It’ll be faster than driving between Bakersfield, Fresno and Merced, and about as fast as driving between LA and Merced.
Indeed, Chris is correct. An indication of how much ridership CHSRA expects is that -- merely by finishing the HSR line from Merced to Bakersfield -- there will be 36 trains daily between these points, rather than the current 24. At that point, we're pretty close to one train an hour, despite having to take a bus from places like L.A. Union Station or Newhall.
@@LucidStew - Your comment shows that you don't understand engineering economics. "Inflation" does not make anything "more expensive," because -- income generally rises in relation to expenses. What inflation really does -- from a social perspective -- is encourage business-related borrowing, and thus spurs economic growth. That's why the Federal Reserve tries to keep inflation about 2% annually.
@@LucidStew - Also, speaking as a transportation engineer, I expect rail will take nearly 50% of the market between NorCal and SoCal after HSR opens to Merced. Ultimately, air travel will be effectively nil in that corridor, especially as fuel prices rise in excess of inflation.
All the ballot measures have confused me so much I have decided a hard no VOTE from about 2010. I voted for it and an authority to run it GO! Now I just want it to go away. THEN they put out the brightline plan and I KNOW WE WERE SUCKERED!!!
Your #2 plan...direct route via I-5 is far more logical. Too bad they didn't choose that one. You're going to end up a HST through the central valley not connected to LA or SF. Likely won't be a big seller as far as ridership.
They really, genuinely need to close the gap between Bakersfield and L.A. to unlock the potential of that Central Valley segment and it just seems so far off, both in time and funding... Merced to Bakersfield will be better than what exists, but if that's all California can manage that would be tragically comical.
@@LucidStew Forget Gilroy, Palmdale and the 3 tunnels of 55 miles. One drect Grapevine route and a few tunnels from Bakersfield to Burbank. Upgrade the ACE Altamont route and maybe extend CAHSR from Merced to Manteca. Though the alignment is cast in concrete, the population and commute projections are a fantasy.
"30 Minutes to Disneyland!" That's how you sell the service.
Really only from DTLA though. You start getting up north and you're talking about 6 hours travel time round trip. Day trip from Bakersfield would be pretty realistic, Fresno maybe.
I don't think you can complete Gilroy - Merced section with 30 bn dollars... There is not even an engineering design for the tunnel.
I'm just going by the estimates in the 2023 business plan
I wouldn't worry much about that tunnel in Pacheco Pass. It is so shallow, most of it could be built by digging a trench. The main reason for its existence is to quiet environmental complaints about impacts to a canyon that has a divided highway running through it already. The NIMBY's really pulled the wool over the judges' eyes, unless they bribed them.
CAHSR’s 2023 Project Update Report shows an estimated high end cost of $16.76 billion for Carlucci Road (west end of CV Wye) to Gilroy ($2.6 billion to finish the CV Wye so $19.36 billion total). The base cost for Carlucci Road to Gilroy is $13.63 billion, and the low is $10.32 billion.
The high end estimate from Gilroy to San Jose, which is extending electrified Caltrain tracks to Gilroy and sharing them, is $8.73 billion, and from SJ to SF is $6.41 billion, which I’m pretty sure includes the light maintenance facility at Brisbane. That combined with the estimated cost for preliminary design and bookend investments makes the total estimated high end cost of $35.51 billion. The base cost is estimated at $27.87 billion, and the low at $21.18 billion.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc We're talking about only Gilroy-Merced, I was going by the base estimate and made it a simple number for presentation. 15 + 15 = 30
@@LucidStew well then it should only be $13.6 billion, not $30 billion. Add in the CV Wye balance of $2.2 billion and that’s only $15.8 billion. Gilroy to SF totals just under $11 billion more.
Doing anything other than the current plan was never politically feasible. The nature of funding and appropriations in California requires supermajority support in the legislature. Without inclusion of the San Joaquin valley, it's not going to happen. Getting a majority vote by referendum was easier than getting the appropriation through the legislature. It's only been since then that political reforms have even begun to address the dysfunction in the California constitution.
However undesirable delegating project improvements to the San Fran and LA metro locals was, you were never going to make it politically feasible to start in one area or the other. Getting voters to demand to connect to an operational system in the Central Valley, the third peg in California regional rivalry, was the only shot at making the project politically feasible. If there is anyone to blame for this situation, it is the Obama administration and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi for not using the political momentum of 2008 to appropriate major federal money on the basis of infrastructure building, climate and energy independence; key planks of the Obama administration's campaign. Deploying equal support to the projects proposed in Florida would make it an easy, non-partisan sell.
Never is a long time. The political landscape changes. It's difficult to say what will happen in the far future. Sure, if you wanted to get something done in 2008 to have a line running by 2029, you MAY have needed compromise. It's debatable how important the San Joaquin Valley was to the concept. However, as we've seen, the compromise reached was also fantasy. A real proposal at the time, faced with the true cost of the project, would have bombed horribly. So just lie about a more direct route to get it passed in what alternate universe. Easy.
I commented on the wrong video earlier. I had no idea how badly they screwed this up, it's almost criminal
Things probably would have gone tremendously better if politicians on various levels allowed the project some latitude early on and didn't try to control it so closely. That's the ultimate irony of it going badly and now needing oversight.
The Authority has its hands tied pretty badly by Prop 1A. Since the newer management has turned things around a bit and has been a little more forthright, my views and theirs are starting to align. The main thing is that if anyone wants this built, we have to get real about funding it.
To get more private funding, CAHSRA should partner with brightline
They have already in a way. They both want to connect to each other at Palmdale. However, I think private investment realizes it is daunting getting CAHSR there. Much easier for Brightline since it's open, essentially flat desert from Victorville to Palmdale and the route is already set.
@@LucidStew The partnership with Brightline is dependent on weather CAHSRA will ever reach Palmdale. The authority and Brightline may also do a partnership at Union Station.
Also, I think the reason that Brightline got 3.75 billion from the feds is probably because of the fact that they have demonstrated a good path to get projects done. The CAHSR project had a long history of delay, delay, delay (which is probably the reason they didn't get funding).
At the same time, the republican support is getting more sour as time goes by. If the democrats lose in 2024, the authority is screwed.
@@wiz553 At the same time, it looked bad under the Trump administration. Might not be fatal, but a bit of delay. I think the greatest danger is losing support from Democrats. Because, yeah, Democrats are for this, but Democrats are also for a lot of things in their districts that they'd rather see the money go to. That's one of the problems with starting in the Central Valley and not getting out of it quickly.
They have DB to run the trains and price the tickets. DB runs ICE HSR trains in Germany.
@@LucidStew When you lose support from the democrats (train friendly party), that's how you know your project is really messed up.
The question is why are they building so much viaducts and bridges for grade separation in the supposedly cheaper Central Valley leg when HSR could be in the median in the 99 Freeway. They are wasting a lot of money on acquiring farmland when they could more cheaply be constructed by adding more lanes on the 99, thus widening the freeway median. This project is over budget because it is badly designed.
@@malachaicarter4338 Vast stretches of 99 are straightaways. So it’s impossible to widen a curve at grade for a freeway project? It can only be a viaduct? You’re an idjit.
I don't think the median of SR99 was ever considered, but that was before the 'HSR in the median' craze. Another thing to consider is the other restrictive issues with Prop 1A that I didn't enumerate. They dictate that the project consider basically everything from retaining farmland to the most minor environmental issues before building it cheaply and efficiently. A good example is the rule where Prop 1A forbids the building of a station between Merced and Gilroy. This is directly aimed at Los Banos, which is a city on the far west side of the Central Valley right where the CAHSR route is supposed to enter the Pacheco Pass tunnels. Supposedly the environmentalists didn't want sprawl induced there by the train. However, no issue inducing sprawl on the east side of the valley. I have to believe though that lobbying from Fresno played a large part in that because who in their right mind would move to Fresno as a train commuter to Silicon Valley when Los Banos is an option?
The curves on freeways like 99 are designed for cars going 70 MPH. Minimum radius increases by the square of velocity. Following 99 would require tearing through neighborhoods around the highway at every curve. You get an impression of what following 99 would mean near Wasco, where the highway and BNSF follow each other, and CHSRA carves a big sweeping curve through the area before lining up with CA 43 heading south to Shafter.
@@pacificostudios People have driven much faster than 70 MPH on highways. Try to make sense. Besides, I already said they can more cheaply fix the curve to accommodate HSR than do expensive viaducts. They just don’t have the money to finish anyways. They only have $10 billion and they need $30 billion to finish the Central Valley leg. LOL.
@@finned958 - I have a civil engineering degree, so I can clear up your misunderstandings. During perfect daytime conditions and with good tires, and maximum superelevation, it is possible to safely drive a 70 MPH highway at about 15 MPH over advisory speed, or 85 MPH. We call superelevation (e) and lateral friction is (f) and we sum the two together when setting design speeds on highways.
But remember that safety includes having sufficient visibility around horizontal and vertical curves to be able to stop safely when the road ahead is obstructed. People driving 100 or 130 MPH or whatever on a normal highway, especially at night, are not driving safely, even if they are sober.
As for Grand Prix drivers, they have perfect cars, high friction and short life tires, the drivers are world class experts with zero distractions, and racetrack banking is often much steeper than a conventional highway because no one is expected to walk across one. None of that applies to you racing your WRX on the 5 freeway at midnight.
Now for trains, the speed at which a train will actually overturn and crash is significantly higher than design speed. One reason is safety, but a more important factor is passenger comfort. Unlike a driver in a sports car, train passengers need to be able to stand up and walk around while the train is in motion. They might even be eating food from a plate and drinking beverages. This is another reason why trains require large radius curves to go fast, even at speeds of 40 to 60 MPH, much less 220 MPH.
You don't need a civil engineering degree to understand this (but it helps). There are many good videos on CZcams about high speed railway engineering.
We in Ca NEVER wanted this boondoggle. This was pushed through by daddy governor big bucks and he and his pocketed the bond money and we're still dont want this.
If we never wanted it, explain the Prop 1A vote results
The plans mentioned at the end should have happened. Methodical and looking at the future instead of vote buying.
A bit of fantastical indulgence on my part with the two lines running on either side of the Central Valley. What I would do personally is leave the east end of the Central Valley out of the project between Bakersfield and Modesto and continue to have that serviced by Amtrak San Joaquins service.
@@LucidStew The HSR line can connect with BNSF at Madera. Don't build to Merced. It's a waste of money.
@@michaeljones7927 I wouldn't! Nothing from me between Bakersfield and Modesto. 😁
@@michaeljones7927 HSR trains can't use BNSF or Union Pacific tracks as they are private property and between the HSR row and either the BNSF Tracks or UP Tracks, HSR is having the contractors build a wall in case of a freight train derailment or collision, so using the railroad property can't be done. And both the BNSF and the UP said HSR can't use their privately owned tracks.
Ways CHSR went wrong:
1. Decided to build it.
2. Did it in California
In 50 years, rail will be a cute bit of history that kids will mock.
@VIM Mentors what will take its place?
@Malachai Carter I'd ask you to keep it civil and not insult people in my comments, please.
@@LucidStew Self-driving electric ride shares. No more last mile (+) problem.
@@malachaicarter4338 The obsession that some men (ever notice it's ALL MEN) have with trains is so extreme that it has all of the hallmarks of being a fetish.
fetish. n. an inanimate object worshiped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.
Railroads built the United States. PERIOD.
It makes me so mad that CA has turned this into a dumpster fire. I'm sorry, Antelope Valley does not need a route right now. You start in downtown LA and stop in SF with only minimal stops. I'm in my fifties, and I have no hope of this being accomplished in my lifetime. The fact the High-Speed Rail Authority tries to shin up this turd and tell us that Bakersfield to Merced is feasible is laughable. This only turns off the public for high-speed rail!
That's the biggest danger, imo. We get Merced-Bakersfield done, hold it up, say "look what we did in 15 years for $30 billion", California becomes a laughing stock, and there goes any funding for the rest.
@@LucidStew but you gotta take into account the factors that delayed the project early on which have since been dealt with, both those within and outside CAHSR’s control. All the lawsuits by opposition can’t be ignored when looking at the timeline and increased costs of the project.
The continued delays and exponential cost increases are no doubt frustrating, especially for a project that should be a serious game changer for California and the US. But when Merced-Bakersfield is done and the first trains are running, don’t just blame CAHSR for how long it took and how much it cost. You need to also look at who tried to stop it, delay it, and in doing so added to the increased costs.
Those early challenges are over and shouldn’t impact future construction, and lessons learned early on will be applied going forward. Things should go smoother from now on.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Litigation should be expected and planned for. There is nothing an entity can do to avoid getting sued over the wording of legislation. I mean, I do mention that the project was horribly mismanaged for 7 years. I suppose that includes being unprepared for lawsuits.
I feel like people want to put the blame elsewhere, but to me not anticipating litigation is yet another failing by the Authority. I probably could have included that.
The HSR organizations CAN lessen lawsuits over eminent domain. That was the implication in pointing out the 6 mile radius curves and why pushing the service speed is an issue.
I don't see how you can say the early decisions won't impact future construction. They're going to blow through all the money building the easiest part. It was supposed to cost less than $7 billion. There is no money past 2030 and they might not even get Merced-Bakersfield done by then. How does that not affect future construction?
@@LucidStew maybe it won’t, but they should be able to do a better job handling it so it’s less of a problem than it was early on, since they now have the experience to deal with it.
"You start in downtown LA and stop in SF with only minimal stops." Then don't use state's public money. Just tax the residents of SF, SJ, and LA each $2,500 and get it done.
California: Let's build a Hi-Speed Rail in a straight line cutting through everything in between without stops and have people living in New York and Chicago pay for it.
There are stations where trains will stop between SF and LA. Also the amount of funding they were asking for from the feds (16 billion) would be roughly equal to 53 dollars per American citizen. High earners would bear more of that cost but let's not act like this is bleeding the rest of the country dry.
And by doing it you get a massive amount of tax dollars back into the economy which will allow those costs to be repaid slowly over time.
And doing it will also give you a valuable case study and argument to complete other such corridors all over the US, at the end of which you'll have a fundamentally better transport system for the whole country.
@@michelangelobuonarroti4958 California's economy is larger than Spain. Why can't they just pay for it? Tax dollar will come back to California mainly and pay for the HSR.
5c gas tax is a great idea to begin with.
@@shitfuckmcgee8611 "the amount of funding they were asking for from the feds (16 billion) would be roughly equal to 53 dollars per American citizen."
As an American citizen, I don't mind to chip in $53 for the project. However, I don't want to commit to further cost overruns.
We could say the same thing about the Northeast Corridor, but we don't.