California High Speed Rail Is In Big, Big Trouble - Part 2: Show Me The Money or Electric Boogaloo
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 07. 2024
- Recent events relating to California High Speed Rail have prompted me to put this together. This is a continuation of Part 1. You can find it here:
• California High Speed ...
That one was about the project. This one is about why CAHSR is doomed. Just kidding. Not really kidding, only a little. California High Speed Rail has some major funding issues. The California High Speed Rail Authority also has a chronic problem with delays, cost overruns, terrible estimates and schedules. All of these factors are creating problems in different combinations. I discuss this.
The presentation of these is a little tongue-in-cheek in response to many YT content creator pieces that have been uploaded by people who assess these types of things in order to make a video, but otherwise know almost nothing about it. Things like the guy counting money every time money is mentioned are intentional. I am taking the information seriously. I am NOT taking the presentation of it particularly seriously.
Apologies for the low-tech approach on some of the graphics. I'm not one of these million sub infographic channels with a production team doing this for a living. It's just me making videos as a hobby. VO was a little rough. Forgive me. I have a very loud and unforgiving living environment, so I had to rush through it a bit.
I used Pexels.com for the vast majority of the video footage. Great little free stock footage site if you're looking for such things.
Adding chapters for your convenience:
0:00 Introduction
0:45 Will CAHSR Receive More Funding?
1:18 Scenario: No Additional Funding
2:56 Scenario: Project Receives More Funding
4:05 Funding Beyond Merced To Bakersfield?
5:05 Scenario: No Funds Beyond Merced To Bakersfield
5:35 Scenario: Funds Beyond Merced To Bakersfield
5:48 Funding For Silicon Valley To Central Valley?
6:11 Scenario: No Funds For Silicon Valley To Central Valley
6:32 Scenario: Funds For Silicon Valley To Central Valley
7:30 Build What They Can Fund
8:09 What Is Likely To Happen? Merced to Bakersfield
9:04 Worries about Silicon Valley to Central Valley
10:32 Bakersfield to Burbank: The Biggest Problem
11:20 The Depressing Prospects of a Piecemeal Process
11:36 The Even More Depressing Prospects of Phase 2
12:17 The CAHSR Funding Crisis
13:09 Why Phase 1 Will NOT be complete by 2034
14:40 Most Likely Real Cost of Phase 1
16:36 Why And How California Needs To Take Responsibility
17:08 Where Can California Possibly Get The Funds?
19:06 Summary
19:20 Top 3 and Bottom 3 Scenarios
19:46 Outro
California California High Speed Rail CAHSR Anaheim Fullerton Norwalk Los Angeles Union Station Burbank Hollywood Burbank International Airport Palmdale Lancaster Bakersfield Tulare Visalia Fresno Merced Gilroy San Jose San Francisco bay area
A few things you did not address regarding operating costs and train speed:
1) The guaranteed large annual shortfall running the trains from Merced to Bakersfield since there would not be anywhere nearly enough passengers to pay for it.
2) That a very large portion of the Merced to Bakersfield will NOT be high speed due to the Authority's decision not to fund the required barriers separating the HSR line and freight lines.
3) That the annual shortfalls and lack of high speed will result in the legislature tiring of the millions needed and ending the entire project and handing the built infrastructure to Amtrak or another 3rd party.
Man, I just want my train.
That'll be $80 billion. :D
@@LucidStew Ok.
You mean that you want your children to have this train. Right?
@@soal159 I want my train in MY walls
I'm a young one so I'm fairly confident I will at least live to ride th Central Valley segment. Of course time isn't promised to anyone but I have hope I can at least get that far as long as I take good care of myself.
I expect teleportation as in Star Trek will be the preferred means of transportation by the time HSR is nearing completion. The HSR Authority doesn’t even have all the right-of-way they need to complete the section they began in 2014. One of the biggest obstacles they face is having to share large parts of their construction corridor with Union Pacific and BNSF. You will never encounter a worse construction impediment than a railroad. And you should see all the freight lines they will have to relocate once they get to Burbank. Even if they get the tracks built they won’t be able to drive at HSR speed between Burbank and Anaheim. Same story between San Jose and San Francisco. This project is actually dead, but it won’t fall down for years yet.
The Silicon Valley portion there at least has a clear way forward, but the section between Burbank and Anaheim seems very challenging. However, given the recent news, it looks like BNSF(possibly hinting at a similar agreement with UP) is going to allow 2 electrified tracks in their ROW as long as they can use them as well.
I’m sure the railroads will allow HSR access to their ROW in exchange for millions of dollars, just as they have throughout the Central Valley. The problem is that they won’t allow any work to occur that delays or just slightly inconveniences their operations. They are a big part of why project construction has been so delayed. I really appreciate your site though and will look forward to future posts.
@@dfgalvin Right. They'll bend a little. Look at the work in downtown Fresno. They agreed to have their tracks moved temporarily. Sounds like it will be an inconvenience to the CAHSRA, maybe a big one. Given the track record, delays and cost over runs wouldn't surprise me, but I don't think its insurmountable.
They were stockpiling the materials for that shoofly when I was there in 2017. Is it finally about to start?
@@dfgalvin I have a snippet of it in my latest video. czcams.com/video/AKLykY-1Wrk/video.htmlsi=ZflBmRHiOcdmKFJY&t=272
Option 4: Use existing tracks and upgrade to speeds of 100mph. This would drastically reduce costs. Kinda what brightline and Europe is doing currently. Slower but eventually built.
Most likely scenario: Caltrain picks up heavy lifting from Gilroy. No need to build all the way to downtown SF. Same idea with LA's Metrolink.
But then that wouldn't be California High Speed Rail.
@@LucidStew don't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. 100 mph is still faster than a car and no traffic.
@@7skanderbeg ok, but what you're talking about is not CAHSR and this is a video about CAHSR.
@@LucidStew I agree with you by the strict definition this is not HSR. But your video is about how CAHSR won't get built because of the high cost and technical challenges of going +160mph. If the main goal is to connect two metropolises and reducing our carbon emissions, then lowering the speed might get us there. Better something than nothing.
@@7skanderbeg Yeah, I mean, if you're talking about what could happen if/when CAHSR tanks, it still definitely makes sense to have a viable north-south transit connection between L.A. and S.F.. I think the state could do better than 100mph within reason, but then I also don't know what the state's appetite for funding that will be if CAHSR goes bust.
CAHSR really needs to identify a consistent revenue stream or else Phase 1 won't even be completed by 2100 😢
Gas tax is the only viable way. And trust me, having just lived in Missouri for a year, where gas is $3/gallon, I hate saying that.
@@LucidStewouch, I'm happy I bike.
11:10 the most Ironic thing is that from my understanding, the Cal HSR project was started as trying to find a way to bridge the passenger rail gap between Bakersfield and LA, realizing it would be insanely expensive, and realizing the only way it would make financial sense to spend that much money on bridging that gap would be to go all out and build a full HSR line.
The HSR discussion in California and the U.S. goes all the way back to the 60s when the Shinkansen opened and countries around the world thought they needed to play catch up. In that regard, California was talking about it back when Jerry Brown was governor the first time. However, one of the first related studies was the one for the southern mountain crossing between the L.A. basin and Central Valley, so that may be true in terms of the current implementation.
I think 99% of Californians are very excited to get HSR between the world reknown metropolises of Fresno and Bakersfield
If the Central Valley route wasn't chosen and instead priority was given to SF-Fresno or LA-Bakersfield, the other major metro wouldn't give the CaHSR enough momentum to build the project on the other side and absolutely wouldn't have given enough momentum to connect the two separated halves. Building the Central Valley route via the SR-99 route is basically the only option that would maintain enough momentum to connect both California major metros. I'm so sick of this narrative people have about CaHSR's Central Valley route and that it's *still* brought up, like people are observing something new. Just admit you're completely ignorant about route planning and shut up.
@@kopshi If ever finished from Merced to Bakersfield their will be the initial ridership just to see how it is, then ridership will drop off to a low number. But I'm sure the state will hype it for as long as it takes, or California has a government change.
I think there are two other decently viable sources for funding that you didn't mention: Local/regional sales tax measures & leasing track slots to other operators. I think that if push really came to shove, Bay Area and LA region could take up at least some elements of what is planned for HSR e.g. in situations where they overlap with the existing or proposed local/regional rail and fund the HSR portions too. This probably will be most realistic in the LA-Anaheim segment where there aren't THAT many roads left to grade-separate before the entire corridor would be physically ready for the fourth track and the planned 125 MPH operations. Also, the Bay Area interests have previously been at least open to locally funding some of SJ-Gilroy and I'm sure stuff like DTX could be rolled into the proposed ballot measure.
The second likely won't be an option for awhile, but I can see two scenarios where they could lean on leasing space or providing trackage rights in exchange for additional investment. One would be to Brightline West. I have seen this floated many times before, but it's always on the assumption that BLW would be going to LAUS via Palmdale so they could maybe be leaned on to pitch in on that effort. However, I think that the potential for them if not pitching in, at least leasing space through Tehachapi would also be on the table. Even before it reaches SF, I can see pretty decent demand for BLW to run at least some trains to Merced to catch traffic and transfers from NorCal. (It might also be possible to coax the State of Nevada to contribute some or assist in securing grant funding as their State Rail Plan envisions connecting the Reno/Tahoe and Las Vegas metros via a "C" connection using existing rail services in the Central Valley.)
The other shared user would be fast freight e.g. Amazon Prime. With all the warehousing infrastructure going up in places like Fresno, I can see a case for Amazon and others to make use of HSR to get at least smaller packages to the major metro areas for their same- or next-day delivery services. They could either do entire trains maybe hourly or even stuff something similar to a large sack on some trains passing by every hour or otherwise as needed. Also, in later years once more parts are built out, it could be useful to replace the short hop flights that the likes of FedEx and UPS make to their bigger regional airports that then forward everything on to Memphis or Kentucky.
This isn't really another source since federal funding was already mentioned in the video, but it is a less obvious candidate which is to look at the Infrastructure Law (and any future federal funding efforts) as it pertains to other types of infrastructure, particularly rural broadband. One of the things CAHSR is supposed to do is provide backbone infrastructure to bring broadband to underserved areas of the state. I have not kept track of how or whether they are meeting that objective, but that could be another source of revenue, though still federal. Similarly, they could lean on some of the renewable energy funding to build/fund the power supply. Nevertheless, as you've laid out, they obviously need to make use of every cent they can get their hands on so the only real question is will they go after those too or just stick to more traditional transportation-focused funding opportunities.
I did ignore anything to do with operations just because they really cant afford to wait to get something operational that they could actually make money on. They really need to money like now. I like the idea of local chipping in, but I just don't see it because its in too many counties. I think that would be most likely in southern California since its going to take FOREVER to get anything going here. At the same time though, I think southern California is kind of over it, so I don't know that would actually happen. I really do think it needs to be a big, broad source that pretty much everyone in the state can either embrace or reject.
In terms of fast freight, I'm not sure how competitive that would be because Amazon, UPS, FedEx, etc already have a lot of express air freight set up. And again, it actually has to get between two places freight companies give a crap about in some amount of time the helps the project. San Jose has a lot of land set aside for distribution, but I think they might need a dedicated station from freight. I mean, it could be super cool, but we're also kind of trying to avoid the problem of freight and passenger being on the same track. Although, you may have stumbled across a use for the Kings/Tulare station.
California already has the highest sales taxes in the country. LA County is already at 9.5%. No way a sales tax hike is going to fly. Nor should it since sales tax is one of the most regressive taxes there are.
The only question is how many more billion will be wasted.
Unfortunately, probably a lot. This is a gigantic pork project. I didn't even get into the 'environmental justice' craziness where they've done things like buy new buses for school districts or paid for a new community center in Chowchilla. Yet another reason to not extend it for decades. I can totally appreciate the angle that we shouldn't do it as well. I've been in that camp. My basic stance at this point is 'now or never'
I will be surprised if it ever happens.
I used to live in Riverside and was looking forward to riding it from there. Then I concluded that probably wouldn't happen in my lifetime. Then I concluded that probably wouldn't happen at all. I'm still on the fence about Phase 1. The next few years will be crucial to whether or not this ever gets out of the Central Valley.
So basically CASHR SF to LA is a pipe dream.
Could be. I would say moreso, at this point, that its very expensive, potentially still worth it in the long-term, but no one wants to pay for it.
The California High-Speed Rail business plans for several years have suggested selling a concession for operating trains on the Initial Operating Segment after a government agency operates trains on the segment for some time to build ridership. This could provide an additional revenue stream for construction
Yeah, I'd assumed they do something like this because the Authority can't lose money running trains. I'm not sure how that works with an interim case or what even happens if they DO lose money. It's kind of like the time between stations question. If they're a minute slow, then what? Probably nothing? Anyway, I don't know if that will be worth anything on Merced to Bakersfield because the line is projected to lose money, but it is an interesting possibility for the federal government back-dooring money to the project. Still, probably a tiny amount.
Everything I’ve seen from CAHSR says the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, who currently operate the Amtrak San Joaquins, will operate the interim HSR service between Merced and Bakersfield. Current San Joaquin service will terminate at Merced, connecting with HSR and ACE at a shared station in downtown Merced, and proceed north to Oakland and Sacramento. My guess is this will be a permanent arrangement (which if so does make me wonder about the proposed Madera HSR station, which isn’t being built or funded by CAHSR, since that’s supposed to be a station people can transfer directly between HSR and Amtrak San Joaquins).
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc yes, I agree about Madera being a puzzle (though might as well leave it in as a stop). What they could do is reroute San Joaquins to a more eastern alignment south of Fresno that goes through cities like Porterville and reconnects with Bakersfield that would then provide additional connectivity directly to HSR.
Really interesting video. Thanks for all the info. Sad to see it taking so long 😔
Would be nice if we could get it back on track ::rimshot::
Brightline West may actually be what saves the day here. That's going to be completed before CAHSR, and it's going to see lots and lots of use. People hate that drive (especially the drive back), people hate Spirit and Frontier, people hate that wait at Harry Reid in the parking garage Uber/Lyft pickup zone, and people know they don't need a car in Vegas. Your egress from Harry Reid can be longer than check in at John Wayne or your Metrolink connection from Anaheim. I think Brightline is going to be a great success and boost enthusiasm for CAHSR completion.
Yeah, a few years of good BLW service could definitely help out CAHSR in the PR department. We'll see which gets something running first. I'm not real confident that Brightline will be able to pull that off in 5 years and the CAHSR Authority is finally getting their act together, so something like 2031 looks possible for Merced-Bakersfield if they get the funds they need.
Impressive if they do. The BLW should be running before Palmdale to LA Union is complete, and that's the toughest part of phase 1. BLW doing well will do a lot to wither the nay sayers.
@@VulcanLogic If BLW is started in the next 10 years, it will be done long before CAHSR reaches Palmdale.
BLW is still asserting that construction will begin this year for what is now a $12B project & have it open by the 2028 Olympics! None of this is realistic. IF they can start work by mid 24, an end of 2030 completion seems much more realistic. Also, expect that $12B cost to rise further to the $14B-$15B range.
Would it be possible to generate funds through real estate? Maybe monetizing the land around potential stations?
Yeah, I left out private sources completely because they've been nowhere to be found to date. The original idea was that the project would get about 15% of its construction funds from private sources. Private money isn't out of the question, but will probably show up later than sooner, which of course doesn't help when the project is short NOW and needs A LOT of money.
They are already doing that, and basically all that needs to be done once the main corridor is finished is to connect it to the other place. The SFO to Merced corridor is probably going to be shared with Cal Train and maybe BART, and the Bakerfield to Palmdale corridor will likely be completed last once everything else is completed.
Yes, this is Brightline's business model.
@@snoopyloopy Not just Brightlines, but some of the most profitable rail companies in the World aka Japan Rail.
THIS. Imagine the demand for condos and retail next to a station like fresno or Merced that could get u to the bay within an hour. Legit could easily generate massive revenue. Heck even kings/Tulare would be seen as a “cheaper” option to Fresno and would have big ridership if there was a housing project attached to it, rather than be in the middle of nowhere.
Many major league sports teams are now attaching entertainment districts and housing to their stadium projects because it’s much more lucrative than having massive parking lots. Now imagine CA HSR using what is normally “undesirable” land next to rail lines and turning it into districts/housing. That’s billions being generated by station developments and im sure private firms would be interested if their investments in real estate near stations were guaranteed to fund the connection to the bay, Brightline in Palmdale and eventually LA
"A couple of generations away to get from SFO Bakersfield"!?!? What happened to a bullet train from SFO to LA like we were promised? 50 years was mentioned in this video. Well before then we will have airplanes and cars running on sustainable electricity, hyrdrogen and sustainable fuels. So why the need for a 19th century technology railroad? Scrap it now and use any new funds on transit, EV charging stations and sustainable energy generation. SCRAP IT NOW!
If it were properly funded it would be constructed much more quickly, but of course thats the dilemma.
Proposition 1-A originally said the cost for the whole project would be $33Bn. Until the last year, there was minimal inflation so $33Bn in today's dollars would be maybe $45Bn. Almost $30Bn. has already been spent and we have what? Some real estate and concrete work in the San Joaquin Valley. What does this tell us? Either the managers were totally incompetent, or more likely, $33Bn. was a "bait and switch" number to get the ball rolling, hoping everyone would love it enough when partly completed to vote for a lot more cash. Well, it didn't work. The route 99 thing screwed it up as well. No-one living in Merced will ride it to Bakersfield or vice versa and if they start running trains on that route, the usage will be pathetic (other than railway enthusiasts), further undermining the case for completion. Those are among the least public transport friendly cities in CA. So "fully funding" it today would mean guaranteeing probably $150Bn up front. Not with my CA tax dollars, and I doubt whether many other people, other than train enthusiasts, will go for it either. The project is dead.
@@AdrianArthurBray I can't find a total anywhere in the political literature, but I would agree it was understood around that time that it would cost $29-33 billion and with inflation that would be about $45 billion in 2023 dollars. They've actually only spent about $10 billion at this point. For that, you get a 119 mile segment that is about half constructed. The managers were fairly incompetent. The state audit exposed this. They were forced out and replaced. $33B wasn't a bait and switch. There were 2 different studies that led to that conclusion. However, those are based on some assumptions that became politically impossible when they started to plan the implementation in earnest. This then caused some other decisions that exploded the cost. What I will say is that the CAHSR Authority did willfully conceal the reality of the project for a good 8-9 years and now we have a better idea of what's going on. The service of the Central Valley cities is in Prop 1A. No one had any choice about that after Prop 1A passed. Right now that area is serviced by Amtrak San Joaquins Service. That is one of the busiest Amtrak routes. There will be a decent amount of people riding the train when it opens, considering where it will run.
I don't see a way it costs $150 billion unless they don't finish until 2050 or so. That's not impossible, though, if they keep going the way they are. In fact, I'd say its fairly likely. If they had all the money right now they could probably get it done sometime between 2036 and 2040. I'm not saying its in good shape. I'm only a few more years of bungling away from being on the same side of the fence. The reason I made these videos was basically to let people know its now or never(or 2100 for twice as much)
@@LucidStew I agree with all that. They seem to have "deep sixed" the original cost estimate. You are doing good work.
11:20 SF to Bakersfield. San José to Bakersfield maybe the finish of the CAHSR if it ever gets that far. SF to San José now looks abandon for true HSR. Cal Train has just electrified the section between SF and San José. It has a lot of slow curves that look better suited to 60 mph than able to take 110 mph and they'd need a new alignment for 220 mph HSR.
It doesn't appear CAHSR can with the current design realistically do 2 hours 40 minutes as quoted for CAHSR between LA and SF. To do that the train would need to travel near 220 mph over the entire route with very fast stops. The SF airport gets people close to SF, which makes flying between SF and LA fairly practical. CAHSR might make the Central Valley into a commuter neighborhood for Silicon Valley. The CAHSR from San José south would allow mega commutes for high level Silicon Valley employees into the Central Valley a few times a week. San José to Gilroy, 32 miles, has a lot straight sections, but is largely single track with at-grade crossings it might be augmented with elevated 220 mph HSR or per design preferred 400 kph rail.
The reality of HSR is it cost an incredible amount to build and a lot to run. Amtrak federal subsidizing is incredibly small compared to the subsidizing that typically takes place with running HSR. Paying freight railroads to upgrade trackage to 110 mph passenger track speeds and maintain that is small compared to the cost or running HSR and those freight tracks still make money off the freight they carry. Some freight corridors might be upgraded to completely grade separated and sealed to allow speeds much higher than 110 mph. HSR tracks likely never make money.
They decided a while back that the entirety of Gilroy to S.F. will be blended sub 110mph. They gave Caltrain $700 million for the electrification. It's still going to be $5 billion, but speed isn't really a concern there. Constitutionally they only need to design it to be able to get between S.J. and S.F. in 30 minutes.
What California HSR needs is its own specific revenue source, rather than scrounging all these funds from different sources.
I think California HSR should have built LA do San Diego first, there are more people and could fund the rest of the project.
You seem to forget that the Federal Government's deficit is so high right now, that it won't be able to pay for Medicare and Social Security in the not so distant future. And California is in the red, too, to the tune of billions of dollars. And then there's the unfunded pension liabilities that the State has absolutely no money to fund.
And right now where I live in L.A. County, the sales tax is 10.25%! Sales tax is the most regressive tax of them all. It hurts the poor and low income residents the most. There isn't money RIGHT NOW to pay for all of the social and health care programs in California.
You expect that the taxpayers are going to want to fund a transportation system that people living today will NEVER USE? The Japanese built and utilized their HSR in a generation. In California you talk about 2050. Just give it up, this is a White Elephant of historic proportion.
The federal government has run a deficit for the last 50 years. This is the norm. Things still need to get done. OASDI and Medicare are funded by their own payroll taxes, they don't have anything to do with discretionary funding. It's made fairly clear in the video that the state would need a new source of revenue to fund this and that a sales tax probably wouldn't work.
As I see it, California taxpayers have 3 options:
1) kill the project and own the country's most expensive Amtrak right of way
2) let the politicians continue to milk this, doubling the price and causing it to take 3 times as long to finish
3) fund it properly with a new tax and get it done in 15-20 years.
This is all expressed in the video.
@@LucidStew "Fund it properly with a new tax..get it in 15-20 years."
Why don't you just wish for the tooth fairy to leave $150 billion underneath your pillow? I'm a California taxpayer, I've lived here my entire life. I'm now retired. My grandparents came here from the old country at the beginning of the last century, so my parents also spent their entire lives here making a living and paying taxes. What's with you people who are eager to spend other people's money on vanity projects and pie in the sky delusions?
Your number (1)--killing the project now would save money in the long run given that the originally planned HSR from SF to LA will never be built. And even IF it were built, it's not going to have nowhere near the ridership that we've been sold in the past. It will NEVER become a vital transportation link between Northern and Southern California--i.e., it will never be like the Tokaido Shinkansen in Japan which carries north of 400,000 people a day.
Number (2) will never occur because there is no way for politicians to come up with another $100 billion over the coming decades, especially when the long term economic prospects for the State are currently going down the toilet. California already is one of the highest taxed and least friendly business states in the country. Big companies are leaving left and right. The cost of living in all of the major metro areas makes it impossible for the vast majority of people to buy a home.
And you haven't even addressed the actual NEED for this HSR project. What is the need right now for the current project, i.e., what unmet need does a HSR system solve for the citizens of the San Joaquin Valley? If a system is made connecting Silicon Valley with the San Joaquin, who is going to ride that line? In 20-30 years will there be any need for long distance commuters? There are absolutely no guarantees that the Silicon Valley will be the economic engine that it has been for the last 50 years.
Let's just face the fact that the tunnels through the San Gabriel and Tehachapi Mountain ranges are never going to be built. So Southern California will still be cutoff from Northern CA. And this will cost taxpayers how much money?
You have absolutely no realistic solutions and at the end of the day, there is absolutely NO need for a HSR in California. Just last weekend (Memorial Day), I drove from the Antelope Valley to Clovis which is north of Fresno. It took 3 hours--I visited a friend for the day and returned home for a 12 hour day. Let's imagine that the HSR rail system stopped in Palmdale/Lancaster and I took it to Fresno. How would I get to Clovis if someone wasn't there to pick me up? How much time would I really save?
The dreams of successful HSR in America are nothing but fantasies for rail buffs. HSR has never worked here and Amtrak is a complete failure. It's just a function of geography.
"Cal in the red too, to the tune of billions of $".
Last year it had the highest surplus of any state at near $100B. The $22B deficit this year is close to the $18B financial relief package given out in last year's budget.
A surplus will return in a couple of years.
More State investment should be made into the proposed Tri-Valley Rail connection between Merced and the Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Could this be upgraded to 100 mph and partially duplicated, so the high-speed trains could be hauled by diesel locomotives? Nearly every other country that has built high speed rail has had a regular speed rail system that could provide connections. These are limited in California because freight companies control most of the network, and are unwilling to make available any new slots for the San Joaquins. A Tri-Valley Rail connection appears to be the only hope of ever getting viable passenger numbers on the Merced-Bakersfield section, and there doesn't seem to be any State funding allocated to its improvement. At the Bakersfield end the only option appears to be bus and park-and-ride connections. Nevertheless a bus connection could still be attractive if it was a comfortable one-seat ride from Bakersfield to BART at Dublin/Pleasanton.
Stuff like this is why I support the project. Its ironic and simultaneously fitting that Bakersfield to L.A. is the weak link in both CAHSR and north-south transit infrastructure. Bridging that gap would improve transit times tremendously and make it a viable option for a lot more people. If the highway is the only way to get between the two, I think most people would rather take their car over a bus. If we replace that with transit, the connections at destination need to exist so you don't end up needing your car once you get there via rail. To your original question, I've not heard any plans for towing CAHSR trains. They're setting Merced up to be a major transfer center. IF Phase 2 were ever completed, that would run up to Sacramento with stations in Modesto and Stockton which would be able to interface with east bay transit a little better.
There actually have been plans for an initiative to build an entirely new 150 MPH electrified passenger-only alignment through Altamont to host ACE and Valley Link. For HSR, it is presented as an alternate option for SF-Sacramento travel but it obviously could be used by CAHSR too if it really came down to it.
@@neutrino78x
I'm not saying we should spend $100 billion on a statewide project to improve local transit. I'm looking at the system holistically.
Yes, as a thinking being I'm able to recognize and appreciate viewpoints other than the one I support. My basic argument is that this is the last juncture this project makes sense. Clearly you disagree toward the no build side. ok. But I'm also recognizing, or rather stating that if it doesn't get done in a timely manner if will likely never get done, and of course that would be bad in terms of bridging north-south gaps.
@@neutrino78x I will tell you this once and only once. You're not going to call anyone's opinion "stupid" in my comments if you want to continue putting your opinion in them.
@@neutrino78x I tried to be civil in warning you, but for some reason you felt the need to press it, so sayonara.
Merced to Bakersfield is flat and no tunnels. But it seems that they are stopping at Madera with the Fresno river Viaduct and lark st bridge being the most northern the infrastructure seems to go. I guess the Chowchilla Wye and the train to Merced is part of the Gilroy to Central Valley section.
Merced and the Wye are considered Central Valley. Construction Package 1 of the 119 miles they're building now ends on the north end of Madera at Ave. 19. I probably left the Madera station out in some graphics because its not clear what happens with that if they don't make it to Merced.
Would it help to sub contract the tunneling to experienced foreign entities such as Swiss, German or Japanese companies?
Sure, but its a massive undertaking. If I remember correctly, they have a total of 58 miles of tunneling, and something like 16 different tunnels to bore. And these are large diameter tunnels, btw, because they want to run through them at very high speed. In addition to all that, the terrain is seismic and California is full of gas and oil fields that complicate things further. That is a major logistical ask inside of 11 years even if an organization is expert.
@@LucidStew there is no oil and gas fields cahsr will have to compete or even think of. Oil and gas isn’t sitting right below the surface. Those fields are thousands of feet deep. Great video but we don’t need the fake news.
I don't think it's allowed to have foreign workers to work on this project.
@@onetwothreeabc yes it is. Don’t think next time. Just do the research before you make false statements.
@@YoMommaHouse. Where is your research paper published?
Great breakdown once again!
It would make more sense to complete the southern leg from Bakersfield to Union Station first, but the idea to tunnel through miles of mountains makes no sense. They should study routes into the high desert to Victorville and go down to Rancho Cucamonga and then to Union Station, which would parallel the routes of Brightline West to Las Vegas. Use existing ROWs like Metrolink. Finishing the southern leg first would allow HSR to achieve ridership since the Central Valley residents would be interested in traveling to Las Vegas instead of Los Angeles.
The very first Initial Operating Segment was supposed to be Bakersfield to Burbank, believe it or not. But that has changed several times over the years. At this point the route is set and isn't going to change except in fine detail.
Is it just me or do other people think that CASHR should haven taken advantage of the median of major highways for ROW, I think it is a huge missed opportunity because the state literally owns the land. I also think they can do a better job with the architecture at the San Joaquin River viaduct.
In my mind the route debate is over and we have to live with those decisions now. I get a healthy amount of skepticism in my Brightline West video comments about the concept of using a freeway median for HSR. I think we'll get a better idea of how that works out if/when Brightline gets around to it as they'll more than likely be the first. Although, as I think about utilizing freeway ROW in the future, I'm concluding that needing to use eminent domain to claim the land bordering a freeway is probably far simpler than claiming a diagonal line a couple hundred feet wide that divides hundreds of peoples property in half without direct access between the two parcels.
I've also found the CAHSR structures lacking. Actually I think they're downright ugly. That San Joaquin River viaduct arch is tiny, pathetic, and plain. It's a monument to cost cutting on a vastly overbudget project. That, I think, they might be able to do something about some time in the future, though.
And California wants to pay repartitions also, they should use that money for the CAHSR.
A major uncertainty over the longer timeframes mentioned in this video (2050-2100) is the stability of institutions. Even assuming we're still in recognizable shape as a nation by that point, CAHSR as an institution may well not be. At some point, the durable asset is the right of way - the continuous, gently curving tube of space working its way through the countryside and a few cities - and the way it gets used might be hard to predict!
Yes, exactly and another reason to get it done sooner than later. Usually when I think of things changing in a way that don't benefit the project I focus on technology, but there are so many things that can change in the span of 60 or even 30 years. And one problem with the right of way being the main asset is that there is a lot they've yet to acquire AND a fair chunk is ROW that is owned by freight that they will use by agreement. But by the same token, we have these rising voices calling for the nationalization of the rail networks, so it is a fluid and interesting thing to consider.
@@neutrino78x I think you underestimate how far to the left things are going to swing once the boomers manage to die off in significant numbers. Plenty of young people that are politically actively embrace communism and would be happy to see the means of production nationalized.
Another scenario: Brightline West completes its entire section, and expands to Palmdale and LA Union after. Noticing that there is still no sign of CHSR completing anytime soon, Brightline takes matters into their own hands and builds their own line from LA to SF on the I-5 right of way.
LAUS from Palmdale or Rancho with any expediency would be a ton of money. CAHSR is looking at $20-24 billion for Palmdale-Burbank. Now, I will grant you CAHSR plans to do this in about the most expensive way possible. The Rancho route is really funky and doesn't look easy to expand.
More likely current RR right of way up grades to 110MPH. Which is basically Florida BL
Total shift of attitude. Create commuter rail linking 119 mile to Burbank-union station (sorry Palmdale ). Create Tejon Ranch stop at base of grapevine before entering grapevine tunnel. Tejon Ranch would become new city. Fresno-Bakersfield-Tejon Ranch would become commuter corridor. Get Boring Company to do tunnels. With a development style mindset might be able get private funding (lol) with a ticket tax as an anchor. Would lower cost of living in LA and increase Central Valley activity. Tejon Ranch development would also fund.
I also went wild with some alternate histories in my 3rd CAHSR video, including bypassing Antelope Valley
This should be up and running in a few months! Can't wait!
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter stealth fighter project: "Nobody can suck as much money out of the taxpayers and deliver a product that doesn't perform as claimed like me!"
California high speed rail project: "LOL,... Amateur!"
The biggest thing is getting a high speed train running ASAP. Right now that’s 2028 for testing on the current 119 miles. Once people can begin riding the trains between Bakersfield and Merced sometime between 2030 and 2033, that could very well incentivize greater investment from the feds and even private sources to get HSR to SF ASAP, and once that’s done then to LA and Anaheim. I do feel that California will need to have high speed trains running to show for its efforts and the billions spent thus far in order to justify tens of billions more.
There is growing advocacy and support for US high speed rail, namely among younger generations, and as those move into the positions of power while the older generations move out, namely at the federal level, then support for greater funding of US high speed rail will likely continue to grow.
Having a first example of true high speed rail, be it CAHSR or Brightline West depending on when they begin construction and get trains running, should give a major boost in confidence that it can work here. Having that should help increase federal funding for US high speed rail projects, including California’s. High speed rail is a new and unfamiliar concept here, so once there’s an example Americans can experience on their home soil, it should help increase public support for US high speed rail.
The reasons why the Central Valley has taken so long is both on CAHSR as well as on opposition. CAHSR made mistakes early on such as handing out construction contracts before having the land to build on, which was rushed in order to meet a federal deadline for funding it received. They’ve also gotten much better at assessing all the project costs and the work that needs to be done, and going forward will break each section into smaller construction packages starting with the extensions to Bakersfield and Merced. They’ve learned from these early mistakes and have worked to get more efficient in construction which will be carried forward into all future project extensions to SF and LA, which should make things go faster. But like you pointed out how fast this gets done ultimately depends on funding, which there’s never been a steady source of.
The two most important segments of the entire project are the Pacheco and Tehachapi Passes. Once HSR reaches San Jose and Palmdale, it can reach SF via the shared Caltrain line and connect with Metrolink to LA. There’s big incentive to get HSR to the Bay Area, like connecting Silicon Valley jobs with affordable Central Valley housing, and maybe tech companies there could help fund that segment. Once HSR reaches SF, there then should be increased demand in SoCal to get HSR to Palmdale, LA and Anaheim ASAP.
I do believe that HSR can reach SF and LA by 2040, but it will depend on not just finding the funds but also maintaining the majority public and political support to make it happen.
When they finally came clean on Merced to Bakersfield and admitted they were $8 billion short, I have to admit I was kind of surprised by it. Even *I* did not think the project was in that bad of shape. That's basically what prompted me to make these videos because I don't think most people realize how bad the situation is. I can see scenarios where this gets easier, but because the Authority has so consistently fallen short my general approach is to believe they will continue to do so until proven otherwise. Because of that, I'd say odds of S.F. to L.A. by 2040 are probably 1:1000 at best. I solidly believe best case scenario for the project at this point is S.F.-Bakersfield and Burbank-Anaheim roundabouts 2050, and even that I rank as fairly unlikely. I just don't see the federal government filling in the blanks short of some massive interstate highway equivalent. Not saying its impossible, but from where we stand now doesn't seem likely to me.
@@LucidStew and that’s what it’ll take if we’re to seriously catch up with the rest of the developed world in high speed intercity travel. Massive federal funding equivalent to the Interstate highways.
I’d be curious to see a video like this of your take on the Brightline West project, which currently estimates to have high speed trains running between Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga by 2028 for a price tag of just $8 billion.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc I'm actually working on one, but it probably wont be as in-depth. I planned more on discussing the route and what speeds and times might look like. My understanding is that they're also held up on funding and its kind of the same thing, private investment waiting on federal funding and vice versa. We'll see. They might get both after the Hesperia to Rancho Cucamonga section clears environmental review. The thinking is that investors will find Rancho to Vegas more palatable than Hesperia to Vegas, which doesn't sound like an unreasonable conclusion.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc To your first point, I see major issues with a nationwide system, but there could definitely be benefits to several regional systems. I might also make a video about that.
@@LucidStew yeah a nationwide system would be very unlikely, beyond just geographically, but there are a number of corridors where HSR would be very effective. LA to SF is a huge one, as is LA to Las Vegas, Portland to Vancouver, BC, and a Midwest network radiating from Chicago to cities like Indianapolis, St Louis, Minneapolis and Detroit. I’d also see an ‘Eastern Triangle’ linking NYC, Chicago and Atlanta.
My idea is as follows: Extend Amtrak's SJ from Bakersfield to L.A., by the way of Mojave, with a shuttle to Barstow for the SWC, As well as shorten the SacramentoBakersfield SJ to just Stockten as a shuttle.
I’m from Madera, so I’ll be one of the first people to try it out. I can’t wait!!!
But will you ride it daily in the future to help with the dollars needed and keeping the ridership up.
Thank you for your nonpolitical research. The Amtrak handover seems the most logical since the built infrastructure has to have some use. For all the money spent, the state could have built a decent passenger line through Tehachapi pass and connect LA to Bay area by slower Amtrak trains. The trip would be about 7-8 hours but shorter than some forms of transport. The high-speed project is a joke, California geography is not like other states. I likely will not live to see this finished.
Of course everyone has bias, but I find that most of the information on this subject either comes from rail fans or people who outright oppose the concept. My perspective is more from someone interested in infrastructure. However, these videos are a political statement in the sense that I think this needs to be committed to now if we're to build it. Otherwise, I think its better not to build it. At the same time though, I think the political momentum will keep this limping along until Merced-Bakersfield is complete.
I think for the ~$32-35 billion they're going to spend to get this train from Bakersfield to Merced, we could have built a fine higher speed line averaging 125MPH that would have gotten us from L.A. to S.F. in about 4 hours. This would be 6 hours faster than now and a single seat, so yeah we kind of dropped the ball on that one.
Unfortunately, I share your view that a finished Phase 1 looks to be a very long way off unless there is a major change. But, things may change dramatically politically in 20-30 years if the country can weather the financial difficulties we'll be facing in the 2030s
I feel like consulting with a foreign HSR operator might be really beneficial for CAHSR, because they would have building expertise that the authority simply doesn’t have. This could potentially keep the cost low and it could be potential source of funding if we let that foreign operator operate the HSR phase 1. It would also mean the purchase of their local rolling stock.
The options for that are fairly limited though, because CAHSR already refused an offer from SNCF (rightfully so), Spanish RENFE is already investing in Texas Central alongside with the JR corporation and heavy Chinese investment in American infrastructure is highly unlikely.
This leaves us with Trenitalia, which has had huge expansion internationally with operating high speed trains in France, Spain and the UK and in addition to that there were plans for Italians to help building HSR in Iran, however due to geopolitics this never happened. The drawback with Trenitalia is the fact that Italy no longer has domestic rolling stock manufacturers, however Hitachi Rail is still quite connected to Italy, plus joint Italian and Japanese investment would be a big plus
Another and much more likely option is German Deutsche Bahn (DB). I hold this opinion because the Velaro trainsets have been plastered all over the renderings and in general Siemens has great relationship with Amtrak. DB has also expanded internationally with Arriva providing fairly questionable service in the UK and The Netherlands. They are also investing in the development of Egyptian HSR and in North America they are investing in Toronto’s regional rail. The only drawback with DB is that they have built very little infrastructure in the last few years and the few projects they did execute have kinda flopped (im talking to you Stuttgart 21).
A wildcard pick could be South Korea with Korail and Hyundai Rotem, however they have never really exported their technology.
DB has been under contract for years as the system operations consultant. Spanish contractors Ferrovial and Dragados are building CP 2-3 and 4.
About to watch another great CAHSR video of yours. This one should be quite elucidating.
I mean, you talked about "political posturing" in the first video, but it's obvious that the budget funding is also "political posturing" waiting for them to battle it out to see who wins before funding the "winner" and the local areas.
At least one side will get done, IMO.
I like your point. I think that's likely the case IF the money is there AND its a priority. It looks nearly certain that CAHSR is going to get some more money. Like I said in the video though, that's really not adequate. They need TWICE what they applied for in federal grants this year and they need that amount every year for almost 20 years, so its a whole other level of political commitment.
@@LucidStew True, and the longer it drags on, the more expensive it gets.
In some ways, it's like running on a treadmill as construction costs inflate the longer it is delayed so they can't catch up with the funding.
I do think it makes most sense to do the southern end so they can tie it in to Brightline, perhaps.
Given your overall pessimism about the project based on funding, it is important to consider other potential options.
Assume the IOS to Merced does start service by 2033. I'd suggest there's an 80% chance by that date - it will be much clearer in 3yrs. There is still the option to forego the Merced to San Jose section for now & instead build the much cheaper & easier Merced to Sacramento section by say 2035 (assuming EIR done by 2028). If Bakersfield to Palmdale was also built by 2035 & Brightline West was up & running by 2030ish. Then all that is needed is High Desert Cortidor section to be built by 2035 & there would be a 680mi Sacramento to LV via Palmdale HSR corridor by 2035.
That would provide an excellent POC for the public to support the cost of building the final Phase 1 sections to LA & San Jose.
There are massive problems with those ideas. 1) The support for Prop 1A was from the bay area and L.A. basin. If you try to build this everywhere but those places, that's probably the best way to kill the project dead. 2) Price for Palmdale to Sacramento is about $43 billion more than they have. Also, I doubt Brightline would be motivated to connect to Palmdale if it doesn't mean BLW trains at LA Union or Hollywood/Burbank at the very least. Lastly, there is not any chance they could build all of that in 12 years. Absolutely zero.
@@LucidStew Yes, there would be an issue with Prop 1A but that can be potentially be addressed by rearranging the Phase 1 timeframe. 2) we really can't say what the cost of Merced to Sacramento would be as a detailed costings haven't been done. Its around 110mi, less than $20B seems a reasonable ballpark figure based on the IOE plus inflation 3) BLW would not ultimately negate the extra pax to LV from Sac & CV given the extra revenue stream. Also, BLW is not currently planning on LA Union initially so that seems irrelevant.
4) yes the timeframe is ambitious so it would likely be 2-3yrs later. However, a timeframe from 2025 to 2035 does apoear doable given lessons learnt by CHSRA re land acquisition, EIRs, design, tenders & construction methods. Lastly, the fact that there has really only been 4-5yrs of actual construction on the IOS thus. The obvious caveat is litigation slowing the process.
The main point is that there are other possibilities that can be considered & your pessimism re a delayed IOS completion & a 2050 ultimate timeframe is ignoring potential for change & other solutions to speed up overall progress. Plus the fact of Cap & trade $ & other imminent funding to complete the IOS as I mentioned. For the Board in the context of funding uncertainty and the reality of the ignificant expensive of the San Jose & LA sections, this possibility & others could be considered. Even if it is most unlikely.
@@yappofloyd1905 Sure, there are other possibilities. I don't think anything you've mentioned so far is realistic, though.
I previously mentioned that the C&T $750m- annual ave is underestimated in respect of your suggested $8B-$10B shortfall for the IOS. C&T is most likely to be higher for the rest of the decade in the $1B-$1.2B annual range given higher C&T settlement prices.
The June Board mtg has updated that the C&T for Q2 May is an est. $244m. C&T should deliver about $1B for FY 22/23 after $1.125B in FY 21/22.
(C&T was $4.5B in 21/22 & on track to be $4.1B in 22/23)
@@yappofloyd1905 For clarity, *I* am not suggesting an $8-10 billion shortfall. The Authority is and I'm relaying that. I've read several articles lately related to California's inability to hit its current climate goals without restricting allowances, so I wouldn't necessarily count on those inflated amounts continuing. Regardless, it's not enough money to build everything you're talking about and the Authority doesn't have the organizational ability to do it in 12 years anyway.
If you overlay California over Italy then this project would be equivalent to a national project.
Yes and Italy has already built a national network at about half the cost
Know when to hold ‘em; know when to fold ‘em…..
"it's now or never..."?
@@LucidStew I got the tiger by the tail, It's plain to see.
Japans shinkansen railway costed WAY MORE then it was going to but now people admire it as the best high speed railway. So therefore this will succeed. The cost really doesnt matter. Also a lot of the bridges have been completed. Most of the project has already been enviormently cleared with only 120 km left. Its pretty obvious you dont know how transit works and its people like you why high speed rail hasnt happened in the US yet.
I've heard the "Shinkansen was overbudget" and "it doesn't matter what it costs" arguments before. Shinkansen was not 300% overbudget, not even close. I dedicated 40 minutes of video to explaining why it absolutely matters how much it costs. You have a sentence in your favor. I'll take the 40 minutes of video.
If you think I have a misunderstanding of transit, please feel free to enlighten me. The accusation serves me no purpose. I voted for it and pay taxes that support, so its interesting that its people like me that are to blame. If I'm the enemy, having now made 15 CZcams videos about the subject with a collective 115,000 views due to my interest in the subject, then HSR in the U.S. is in a lot of trouble.
@@LucidStew the shinkanen was 300% over budget. In fact.. If we put that into todays money that would be worth a lot more in todays money. Also the 680/800km is already enviormently cleared.
@@uzin0s256 It was not. The estimate for the initial Shinkansen was 200 million yen. It cost 400 million yen. In order to be 300% overbudget, it would have needed to cost 800 million yen.
Just use buses that identify as HSR trains.
High speed, self-driving buses not impossible in the mid-future, I suppose.
If there had been no politics just pragmatics, what would this route actually look like? And how much cheaper would it be?
More direct would be north with I-5 to Pacheco Pass, or crosses over to Salinas Valley and parallels U.S. 101. That cuts about 60 miles off the route. (~410 vs. ~470). The big issue is if you're trying to get there in 2h40m, the longer route needs to average 175mph. Shorter route would be 154mph. Longer is a VERY fast average for HSR, among the fastest in the world. 154mph is much more typical. I-5 into the Central Valley would a long, challenging stretch. It's hard to say what the cost difference would be without a study. I'd just be guessing. Angle 2 would be same alignment, but more realistic time requirements between stations. If you relax 2h40m between L.A. and S.F. to 3h15m on the current alignment, you also average 154mph. Now you can run slower in the tunnel sections which means three possibilities: 1) smaller tunnels(cheaper) 2) a steeper grade that requires fewer tunnels(also cheaper) 3)both. Again difficult to pinpoint how much cheaper without a study, but it definitely would be cheaper. You also have all of the cost of the "excess" stations. As designed the system could have 12-15. It really only needs 3(DTSF, S.J. Diridon, DTLA). Even if you went overboard and added stations at Anaheim, Burbank, Gilroy, that's still half as many.
@@LucidStew that's very interesting. I don't know California but it seems to be sensible what they did as far as hitting a lot of population centers this way but I agree they could've easily relaxed that target time even all the way to 3:30hr it would still be so much more attractive than dealing with airports and TSA. Kind of strange that they didn't do this my guess is it would have saved many billions and maybe made this more viable to go through. Maybe a little bit of ego here from the Cali gov officials that they wanted one of the best HSR lines in the world with this sort of avg speed. Also why would you live in the damn desert and pay those income taxes lol, maybe they should've left them stranded after all
with just pragmatics, it never gets built. This only happened by convincing central valley residents through politics.
@@neutrino78x TSA wait times and boarding though factored in looks a little different, doesn't it
@@neutrino78x Idk man, due to new FAA rules they won't even let you through the TSA if you get there later than 45 minutes pre flight even at small terminals so that's the minimum there. Airport parking is a nightmare and you're gonna need to show up hour fifteen early minimum. Then the boarding sucks so bad that's 15 minutes of torture trying to cram into the little tube. Ive been to Europe many times, i much prefer HSR. You get large tables, a dining car, larger chairs, super easy boarding and no security checkpoints. I'd jump on a train for anything that takes under 4 hours personally before i even think about flying. The ground trip thing though, what exactly is the definition of that. Of course you're not gonna take a train for a trip that takes 30min to an hour by car so that source you send me doesn't say much of anything as far as i can see. I'd look at flights vs trains. Europe has dirt cheap flights and also bus rides yet a lot of people still take the train. It is tough here though because unlike the EU we don't have good transit for when you get out the actual train station. On a sidenote I'm hoping for electric VTOL planes that can handle 2-300 miles range and can takeoff from basically old parking garages.
A 1% sales tax is an answer. No one wants it - they want others to pay for it.
That would definitely do it. Of course, now the state budget is a mess, so... CAHSR is pretty much at the bottom of the recipient list.
@@LucidStew Would you support a ballot issue to raise the sales tax for the train? It would be a great chance to see if the 2008 bond issue still has support. I liked when you said sales taxes hurt the poor - they do - but won't the train help the poor? If this drags on forever, all we'll have are graffiti easels and homeless shelters. Think what we could have had if the money spent already was used to fund LA to Bakersfield Amtrak TRAIN service.
@@mattc3696 I would not. I'd rather see the legislature do their job and raise taxes without a popular vote. I think the referendum system has been badly misused in the last 30 years and needs reform. A more proper use of the referendum system would be a proposition to overturn Prop 1A and undo the project. I do not currently support that, though I made these videos because I genuinely think the train is still a good idea, but we're reaching the threshold where it starts becoming a bad idea. So we need the legislature to turn things around before overturning Prop 1A becomes a good idea.
@@LucidStew Our legislators have left THE MEATY DECISIONS to the voters because they have no guts. You know as well as I do the 1% tax would fail miserably - because hopefully by now the voters realize our government, controlled by Newsom and the democrats, is incapable of managing rest stops, let alone HSR . ( I mention rest stops because there were none open from SF to Bakersfield on SB I5 yesterday. None. )
Some funding source info that you didn't explain. 1) Cap & trade funding isn't a fixed $750m. Some years it will be closer to $1B & even more post 2030. So your estimates for the post 30s period are too unknown atm to be referring to a 2050 date. 2) CHSRA applied for $1.2B in Fed funding last year for Merced section, didn't receive it in the January round. However, likely to receive in the next round this year. 3) CHSRA will be applying for a few billion more Fed funding in coming 2 years. Likely to receive at least $2-$3B more in this time period.
And yes, a small sales tax for mass transit in general with 50% allocation to CHSR would be great.
Just use eminent domain and build like the Chinese. IMO probably worth it.
They are using eminent domain. They don't have the capability to "build like the Chinese", the Chinese HSR industry is 40 years old. U.S.: 8 years. Also, speed of construction is not a major concern for these agencies
This entire project is just a big slush fund. It should have been cancelled years ago. California has a deficit from 2022. That is not going to improve in 2023. This will be a permanent drain on the budget moving forward. None of this was ever financially viable
I escaped from California in 1993. I keep getting reminded about why that was such a good decision.
Instead of a gas tax, perhaps California could tax shoplifting. That seems to be a growth industry.
I am more optimistic than you although I acknowledge all of the challenges that you mention. I think we figure out a way to get part or all of the Central Valley portion done and trains running and once people see trains running that will create a momentum to connect to the Bay Area segment and we will start to see different parties commit themselves to solving the other problems both logistical and financial to connect most or all of it. That may seem like pie in the sky but hear me out. The thing that this very thorough and thoughtful analysis does not take into account is that it is not feasible for California to continue to depend on cars and planes for our long-term long-distance commuting. It just doesn't pencil out. It doesn't scale logistically and it isn't feasible environmentally. Every year as we continue to grow and need to move we are going to see that projects like CAHSR are the only way to square that circle. I think if I-5 did not exist and we needed to build a multilane freeway from scratch to connect the Bay Area and the Metro LA Area it would get built in a decade or less and no one would question the cost. They would just lobby to get the pieces together and get it done. Inevitably that is what all large infrastructure projects need. I say get it done, as much as we can, as fast as we can. Thank you for a very thoughtful and well done video.
I'd say the biggest problem with your point is that California is in fact not growing.
@@LucidStew You are correct that California has not grown LATELY but from 2010 to 2020 California grew by nearly six percent, about 2.4 million people. The recent contraction is slight and aligns with the covid pandemic. But even if we are to decide that California will remain population stagnant for the foreseeable future I would argue that our current traffic saturation between cities is already untenable in the long term. We simply cannot continue to send millions of cars down the road. Brightline West is financially possible because the I-15 parking lot to Las Vegas is dumb and there is a better way to get from point A to B. Anyway, I enjoyed your video and appreciate all the work you put into it.
@@georgemandigo3857 My general thought when looking at transit in California holistically is that it must hinge on the political reality that freeway expansion in the state is coming to an end. Whether or not anyone agrees if its money well spent, more freeway lanes will soon not even be an option as a solution to traffic, so I'd argue that must come from somewhere else. Personally, I think A LOT more attention should be paid to making the existing road network more efficient. We have some very dumb roads in this state. I think making those smarter would be a better investment. However, part of the holistic approach is also creating viable options for simply never using a car, and this north-south connection that CAHSR represents is a very important piece in that puzzle. It's an expensive piece for sure, but I think once its in place the knock-on effect will make it greater than the sum of its parts. Ultimately we don't want a small improvement over terrible. I think we'd all like to get where we're going in a reasonable amount of time with minimal stress.
If only money grew on trees. Maybe there should be a check against the public voting for something that is impossible so we don't spend billions of dollars completing a train in the central valley that benefits no one.
In general I have an issue with the referendum system in California because its original intent was to allow the public to overturn things they didn't like. More often than not now it is used to put things in place that certain interests can't or wont get past the legislature. At a minimum this project probably should have a required a business plan BEFORE it was voted on. But realistically something like this is the business of the legislature and we shouldn't be voting on it directly.
If we just contracted the whole thing (design, construction, rolling stock, graft, corruption) to China this thing would have been built by now at a much lower cost. Plus hopefully the hard working Chinese (both blue and white collar) that would come over here to build the train might like it here and decide to stay and greatly contribute to the betterment of our state.
A property tax increase of just 0.43% in LA County would fully finance the Bakersfield to Union Station (LA) segment according to the new cost estimates. With that increase, LA County would still have a lower property tax rate than Texas, New York, and many other states.
If the Bay Area can be counted on for the same, we can finish Phase I before the end of 2030s and get people on CAHSR.
Good luck messing with Prop 13 on private property. I still say if education is going after Prop 13 commercial property money, other interests have little chance of seeing any of that.
This is a real shame. And opponents of hsr will use this as an example of why not to build hsr at all, as they drive on interstates funded by the federal government (interstate act)
The federal government has incentive to fund a system that exists in every state and connects 48 of them. The federal government also decided to build that system of its own accord. CAHSR is a state project, run by a state agency, that will only service the state where it exists. It's an important distinction. I point it out in the video as well, because its part of the reason the project hasn't gotten much in the way of federal funds and probably won't, at least not to the tune the CAHSR Authority is hoping for.
If only the federal gov. had the funds to help such revolutionary infrastructure projects in the US...
Federal Gov: *Dedicates 75 Billion to a country that has nothing to do with us*
There's enough money. The federal budget is over $6 trillion. The question is if there is enough money for HSR, and more specifically for HSR in one state which will not benefit any other state. That's going to be a hard sell for politicians that would rather see the money go to THEIR constituents instead.
@@LucidStew I'm well aware there's more than enough in the Federal Budget as you've previously mentioned. If the project is ever completed and put into operation with a successful economic outcome, other states could take advantage of it's precident by asking the fed to support similar projects that would supplement and create room for economic growth. With all the recent division this administration has created, politicians have lost sight of our nation being one and it's sad to see things that are a matter of economic/societal benefit being politicized.
@@dannjrad2109 Not really. Texas and Florida are the only other singular states in the union that have more than one metro area large enough to support an HSR system. Florida already has Brightline doing passenger work. The issue with Texas Central currently isn't monetary. Other opportunities do exist and some are getting money, like Acela service. However, Acela serves 9 states and is a genuine interstate service. It makes much more sense for something like Acela to receive federal money rather than CAHSR.
The Japanese built the Tokaido Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka (310 miles) in 5 years. That trip took 3 hours on the fastest express service (limited stops). FIVE YEARS! From 1964 to 2012, the line carried 5.3 billion passengers. In 2016 it carried 452,000 passenger a day! Japan's economy depends on their Shinkansen system. Japan isn't California. In California there are fast and safe highways and everybody owns a car.
California HSR will end up being a gigantic waste of money. Nobody in the San Joaquin Valley is going to use it except for maybe State Prison employees who will commute the State Prison in Corcoran.
The HSR between Berlin and Nürnberg (and Munich) was about 10b Euro with some of the longest Tunnel and Bridges in Germany.
CAHSR is an epic scam
As mentioned in the 2 episodes some of the choices required by Prop 1a have increased the costs significantly. In addition for some reason rail projects in the US are several times more expensive than similar ones in non English speaking countries, not just HSR.
However by making smarter choices with less ambitious goals Brightline West is expecting to build the 200 mile LA metro to Las Vegas line for about $10B with is about 1/5 the cost per mile of CAHSR
Man this stuff is just embarassing. Even Spain has a world class high speed rail network. I guess we have a world class military, different priorities I suppose. Meanwhile they're taking car lanes out and focusing on pedestrianism while having subways in mediterranean cities. Why even live in this silly country anymore? I guess Florida, Texas and Nevada is showing some hope but still is so car centric for the most part and still has a long way to go. Meanwhile even in those states life is just so expensive nowadays. We're supposed to be a government light republic yet we're the opposite. We drove speculation in homes and regulated building away so now homes at the very layer are so unaffordable that the labor costs are increasing so high that it's yet even more cost prohibitive to build stuff. We have bountiful land, largest oil and gas reserves, huge labor force, one of the largest countries in the world, prime agriculture, used to have the largest gold reserves even, and what do most Americans get for it? An oversized refrigerator and 11 aircraft carriers.
HSR makes the absolute most sense in the U.S. in the I-90 corridor, but the challenge there is that route is old and the area is built up, so its $$$ to convert it to true HSR along the majority of the route. Acela DOES run at 150mph over a portion of that route. The west is a little more wide-open, but the vast distances are better served by flight in a lot cases. In my opinion the rust belt and the eastern plains are ripe for an HSR system because most of those cities are about 200 miles apart and there is very little between them. And that area could definitely use an economic boost. Also the Texas triangle is perfect if Texas would get its head out of its butt and plan further than 10 years down the road. I don't think a nationwide network is all that suitable, but a few regional HSR networks makes sense to me.
@@LucidStew personally i really dislike flying short routes so I'd choose HSR for up to 4 hour trips but i take the point. I'm really looking forward to the Vegas line although it terminates a little early. The following is of course silly but if there were HSR sleeper cars going all over the country I'd totally travel that way. You don't waste the day travelling and arrive rested. In Europe and Japan they have really nice sleeper buses which are great. I'm guessing you dislike Hyperloop, what are your thoughts on it? They are making progress on the newest boring machine are hiring electrical engineers in Austin specifically for the Hyperloop and keeping not a full vacuum but lower pressure seems a lot easier in a tunnel. Their machine is supposed to be optimized for a soil type common across the US so I guess they're only gonna really nail it for certain routes if they do
@@ryccoh I don't have any issues with the idea of a Hyperloop system, but its completely unproven at an industrial scale, which makes it a terrible choice if you're already facing technical and funding issues. From what I've read about it, it may not end up performing very much better than regular maglev trains, which would render the additional investment of the tube pointless. Basically it's an interesting idea, but its just not there yet.
@@LucidStew I don't disagree with your first point at all. Surely there are some governments for which a cheaper but riskier bet may be the right choice but not all. I'd argue that if tunnelling is cheap enough it can offset costs over land based transportation systems which can then be used to cover the additional complexity over a train. In the end maybe the answer is actually a train underground provided the tunneling cost savings would be comparable to what SpaceX has been able to do. Land in some regions is very expensive and it opens you up to a lot of legal opposition from many different groups. The legal opposition over many years alone is a huge amount of cost. Now let's compare Hyperloop to Maglev. The Japanese Maglev travels at 600km/h. This is substantially faster than HSR. Finally Maglevs aren't cheap but where Hyperloop is trying to be cheaper is by cutting down tremendously on the expensive coils along the track by only having acceleration coils in intervals while managing levitation with air bearings. As far as the "tube" if you're underground you may not need any tube. You need to install concrete rings regardless for structural support and tens of meters of soil might be enough to hold low atmosphere
@@LucidStew I think you meant I-95
I-90 from NY or Boston to Chicago would still be a reasonable corridor but it does not have the density of the NEC.
And now please calculate how much a ticket would have to cost per mile to cover the capital costs alone. This is financially simply not viable. Even Japan Rail had to be split up after building Shinkansen in order to make capital costs remotely viable.
They haven't updated their operating and maintenance costs in a while, so this is based on old data, but best I can tell the average ticket price would need to be about $80 for a completed Phase 1 to break even. It would take about an additional $40 per ticket over 80 years of operation to pay down the initial capital expense. It will likely never be paid for completely by the ridership, but we don't expect this of other transportation forms either. The thing is: this isn't private enterprise. The only thing that matters really is if the operating cost can appear to not be negative from the Authority's perspective. There is no requirement that the train repay its initial outlay.
@@neutrino78x That's average price for any ticket of any kind, not between L.A.-S.F. I never said they can't subsidize the ticket. The Authority can not operate at a loss. They are ways around that like hiring an operator that then takes the loss. e.g. Amtrak.
It still baffels me, how you guys achieve to explode a 200km train route - through a flat area nonetheless - to 30 billion+ dollars. We just opened a 60 km route for about 4 billion in germany, and more than half that route goes through tunnels...
Btw: Why is nobody talking about just electrifying the remaining "old routes" from and to downtown SF and LA and just run the trains over those until the new routes are build?
$30 billion is the 170 miles between Merced and Bakersfield. Part of the reason its so expensive is that they started building before they owned the land. This tripled the initial contracts. The 119-mile Central Valley segment was initially supposed to cost $6 billion.
There is no passenger rail route that runs directly from L.A. to S.F. The closest is the Amtrak Coast Starlight. This takes about 10 hours. Given the cost of improvements to the line between Chicago and St. Louis recently, improving this line in the same fashion would probably cost around $3 billion and you might knock off 75 minutes?
@@LucidStew Ok. So you are saying, even though there are rails through the central valley they are in a state unfit for modern passenger service, and investing in them to even support electric trains is halfway the cost to just building the new route anyways? That is a valid reason not to do it...
@@sethanix3969 The VAST majority of passenger rail routes in the U.S. are on rights of way owned and controlled by freight rail companies. This tends to complicated passenger service and limit speeds. The route cost of CAHSR is a significant factor in the overall cost. Mismanagement is a big factor in costs initially exploding, but it seems like they have a slightly better grasp on that problem at this point. Passenger rail was heavily in decline until it was nationalized under Amtrak in the 70s. As a result, freight has been dominant in the U.S. for some time, so we have a somewhat unique situation that we need to find a way out from under. CAHSR specifically has requirements that are actually part of our state constitution. These include a top speed of 220mph and 2h40m travel time between Los Angeles and San Francisco. So, even if doing something like using the existing freight ROW the entire way was practical, it wouldn't meet the requirements. This is why all of the Central Valley track has to be in new ROW.
This plan is poorly executed. If California really wanted upgraded rail service between Los Angeles and San Francisco they should have given up on true high speed trains and instead used the Brightline model of upgrading the existing line used by Amtrak. Remove as many grade crossings as possible, see if some curves could be improved for faster service and include longer sidings for freight traffic or double track where possible, and electrified the route so the trains could accelerate faster and run faster in the mountains north of LA. This could most likely be done for around what is being spent on just the first section of true high speed train service. If the trains could then average around 100 MPH you would get faster service at a much lower cost but still provide a service that would be attractive compared to driving and although not time competive with flying would still offer a superior dependable service.
There seems to be a common misconception that what exists is competent enough to be somewhat easily brought to competence. It is not. The Coast Starlight is the closest thing to a Los Angeles to San Francisco passenger train and it takes 10 hours to get from L.A. to San Jose. Using the recent work on the Amtrak line between Chicago and St. Louis as reference, upgrading Amtrak between the two would cost several billion and you'd be lucky if you knocked more than 90 minutes off the trip.
While I agree that CAHSR has aimed too high, if the goal is fast service between the two areas, the freight ROWs don't cut it.
@@LucidStew Higher speed but not true high speed service can coexist with freight trains. As you noted speeds on the Chicago to St. Louis line have been improved and more upgraded speed is planned. It did take longer than expected but just like the California high speed many new signal and grade crossing systems needed upgrading and some new systems failed. However most problems have been worked out and now can be used on other upgraded mixed passenger and freight lines. You noted the slow time the current Coast starlight takes currently takes to cover the run. One reason is this line has such a slow speed is the lack of upgrades to the line and having to go over the mountains north of LA. That’s why I said major upgrades to the line would be needed including electrification to get higher but not true high speed train service. Here on the east coast we have a very successful high speed service, the ACCELLA EXPRESS service. The rails used are also used by local commuter trains as well as some limited freight train service which is electrified between Washington, DC and Boston , MA. While this too is not true high speed train service it is very successful and according to Amtrak makes a profit. So I still feel upgrading the existing line would have been the better choice.
I think you're looking for something that sounds like a good idea, but wouldn't work out if you actually tried to implement it. If we're going to compare the NEC to the current route between L.A. and the bay area that fair because they're about the same distance, but you'd need to remove Philadelphia and New York because central California is not very populated. There's a reason train service works in the I-95 corridor. It's densely populated enough to support it. Even still, Acela only averages something like 68mph. If you look at Brightline's implementation in Florida, they're under 80 about 1/3 of the way between Miami and Orlando. They're under 110 another third, and then able to get up to 125 on dedicated track. They're going to average 80 mph on a relatively straight, relatively flat ROW. You're not going to get those results in California, let alone 100mph. You might be able to average 68 if you dump enough money on it, but that's still almost a 7 hour trip.
When Europe did it in a fraction of the time and cost per mile.
why cant we just pay the japanese or spanish to build it
They charge more. If anybody has the know how and can do it at a low cost its the Chinese. but that is not happening for obvious reasons.
They would have the same problems in fact it would be even more expensive
@@somerandomguy7458 wouldnt it be cheaper to have fbi agents constantly monitoring chinese workers
if the limiter is also access to labor, im sure the us could issue some temporary visas
@@Sam-gs7yb isnt spain at like 20 million per km?
There is a Vehicle Mileage Tax(VMT) in the works to subsidize public transportation (including rail). In essence, drivers will be taxed out of their cars and onto the train.
I'd honestly leave the state before letting the government track my mileage. Then again, I want to leave the state anyway.
There's a simple solution not mentioned: cancel the whole thing now. Use this money for dams and reservoirs. All the water from this year's snowpack is going to flow directly into the Pacific ocean.
I do talk about the scenario where they don't get any more money and finish what they started. The only money you could spend on something else is the cap and trade money for the next 7 years(~$5 billion). The bond money can't be spent on anything but. The ARRA money has already been spent. Basically they're going to be able to finish the guideway and structures for the first 119 miles no matter what.
@@LucidStew plus cancelling now would do a lot more harm than good. It would mean all the construction and disruptions so far, as well as the roughly $10 billion spent so far, would really be for nothing. And as you said, the funding CAHSR currently has available, like Prop 1A funds and Cap & Trade funds, was earmarked for HSR and can’t be spent anywhere else.
As I’ve said before, the best thing to do is get the current 119 miles done ASAP and extend it to Bakersfield and Merced to connect with transit to LA and the Bay Area/Sacramento. Then we can reassess the project’s merits and if it’s still worth the tens of billions of dollars more needed to build over the mountain passes. CAHSR is getting the extensions to SF and LA ready for construction so it can begin as soon as sufficient funding is found, with priority going to reaching SF first and then LA and Anaheim. An SF-Bakersfield HSR train, with the bus bridge to/from LA, would be very competitive with if not faster than driving.
I have and continue to be a strong advocate for the entire SF-Anaheim CAHSR project and how transformative high speed rail can be for California as well as the greater US, just as it has been and continues to be around the world. It’s long overdue here, and so far California is the only ones making it happen.
Maybe it would be cheaper to build the HSR out in the ocean along the coast .
And any other nation could have built this at 1/4 of the costs.
Not necessarily true. Britain's HS2 is more expensive per mile and slower.
@@LucidStew Yeah, the cost of HS2 is utterly mindboggling, it makes CAHSR look cheap.
@@compdude100 I was really surprised to find out it will be slower. That was the part that kind of blew my mind.
So everyone care now about trains for the cost but absolutely no one criticizes nor protest the cost of widening the road, building a highway, renovating roads with no adequate infrastructure for pedestrians. SMH.
Yeah, it's a false dichotomy and nothing you said is true. Plenty of people have a problem with freeways. It's why its nearly impossible to build a new one in California. I've been following this project since before 2008. I've had an interest in it and the cost of it as a California taxpayer for over 15 years.
@@LucidStew bro have some awareness. We are a minority 😢. This is not a popular channel, and improving mass transit is not a popular idea. Look at how they view public infrastructure projects vs private inefficient project like the Elon underground project. I am grateful for ppl like you, I am glad but I wish there certainly more of us to improve problems brought by focusing primarily on car infrastructure.
@@LucidStew in other words today the majority opinion for car infrastructure is deemed necessary even for widening a road. Meanwhile, creating a new public transit network is met with way more criticism.
This project deserves criticism. It's something of a shit show. The question really is how to pull it out of the abyss. In order to do that, one must first admit there is a problem. Cheerleading isn't going to get this done in any reasonable amount of time.
This is not what the people voted for.
Unfortunately a big part of the trouble is that this IS what we voted for. They built way too many restrictions into Prop 1A that more or less demanded it be a very expensive system. Where we got fooled was the real cost($125 billion) as opposed to the cost we were sold($32 billion).
If they had gone with hyperloop I think the amount of enthusiasm for the project would be dramatically greater and I think that would ease the burden of funding the project. I acknowledge that the initial planning/testing stage would take longer since it's still under development. But I think the idea of being the first to have a running hyperloop system could have taken the project to completion where this project seems to be largely unpopular and petering out.
I think if the state had aimed a little less high, a lot of the current problems wouldn't exist, so I'm not sure if aiming even higher would have been the right move.
hyperloop isn't real in the sense that it doesn't exist anywhere. it's never been done. it'd also be even more expensive, and it would be *LESS* likely to get funded, not more. cahsr is not "largely unpopular", ppl are just pissed that it hasnt been done yet and have lost hope and become disillusioned. they do not have faith, bc there has been much spent but no service yet. hyperloop isn't real. it's more expensive, and its slower.meanwhile spain has far reaching networks to even medium population cities, and much of europe and asia has fas fast bullet trains. nobody has "hyperloop" because its fake, not real, a myth, a lie.
@@LucidStew Nah, you haven't seen the what ballooning cost looks like until you start messing with rich people. So far the cost over run is mostly legal and that's with farmers suing. When the rail starts to mess with people with more money the true pain will begin.
@@unholyrevenger72 Nearly all of those parts they've already capitulated to at-grade and as slow as local politics desires.
and power it with fusion reactors; how is that view of the inside of your colon?
One solution might be to demand reparations from Mexico for CA's economic support of a major chunk of the Mexican population...