What Would It Really Take To Finish California High Speed Rail In 5 Years?
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 07. 2024
- A response to a recent industry panel titled "What Would It Take To Complete The California High Speed Rail In 5 Years?". Here's a copy of that panel: czcams.com/users/livehiyH4bWg...
Sadly, this panel did very little to address the question and consider the idea seriously.
I attempt to take on the responsibility the panel dodged: to look at what would really need to happen. I'm considering 3 perspectives of completion of CAHSR: what is possible, what is practical, and what is likely? I do this because the industry panel focused mostly on what was possible when not spending time touting the project. Do we want to get this done? What part? And how soon? These are questions that will continue to confront California as the project limps along, attempting to do something profound: build the first true high speed rail line in the United States. In the process, the project hopes to create one of the quickest and fastest high speed rail lines in the world.
California High Speed Rail is a watershed project that may determine the ultimate direction of true high speed rail in the United States. If it fails, that could seal the fate of other projects. If it succeeds, there would be a genuine example for Americans to ride and consider.
Free footage from Pexels.com and Pixabay.com were used in this presentation. Both are free video resources and generally quite good. Check them out.
Topics:
StreetsBlog
StreetsBlogSF
Moon landing
Trancontinental Railroad
Chinese HSR
U.S. Civil War
Credit Mobilier Scandal
Buy American laws
NEC
Northeast Corridor
Amtrak
U.S. House of Representatives
CAHSR Phase 1
Initial Operating Segment
Interim Operating Segment
Bakersfield
Merced
FSP
FSP National
Federal State Partnership for Passenger Rail Program
CAHSR Phase 2
FSP NEC
Tunnel boring machines
Environmental impact - Věda a technologie
Don't be so hard on California folks, the federal portion for Cal High Speed Rail so far is only 15%. Yep California has been stuck with 85% so far. But for new interstate highway construction the federal portion is 80%. Plus the federal government has not built up the infrastructure for a home grown high speed rail construction industry. But if we put high speed rail into the interstate transportation corridor (formally the highway) program with a real national commitment it would be different. Also we need higher speed regional rail, which is essentially most of Brightline East some rail can be run along side freight rail a lot of it is not all curves like the FEC rail ROW that hosts Brightline. Finally we need to rethink and significantly revamp environmental impact studies, not tweaking but going back to its core purpose with an iterative approach where we improve on our experience to make it more efficient.
It's more like 30% of expended. The 15% number comes from the amount the state has obligated itself. The disparity comes from the state very wisely obligating itself to spending while lacking a plan to properly fund it. Can't say I blame the federal government for being hesitant.
@@mrxman581 I could be A LOT more biased against it. I'm actually still for the project just barely. How much more biased could you get FOR it?
This is not something that needs to be accepted. It's math and I'm able to calculate from figures on my own. If you'd like to see where this comes from, look at the latest F&A total project expenditures report. 15% is one perspective. 30% is another perspective. I explained how both work in my post. Not sure what your problem is.
I don't think even China could do phase 1 & 2 in five years if they were given the opportunity. The terrain alone would make it a massive challenge, let alone getting the materials. As China has been the world's factory for decades, they have supplies that the US lacks. As you mentioned, a lot of our issues is that we haven't built up the industry, therefore we are starting from scratch. We need whole concrete and steel factories just decided to HSR and getting the supplies it needs. I don't think the average person realizes just how big this project is, and how we don't have the infrastructure to actually support it right now.
It reminds me a bit of an old article I read about almond farmers in CA moving to the South to grow Pecans instead as the land and water was far cheaper. Almost every one of them returned to California as the infrastructure wasn't set up in the South. You need skilled workers who know how to plant trees correctly, how to harvest, plants to process and sell the products. All of that matters, and CA has it, the South does not. It's the same with infrastructure. You need to build it all up.
Good news is that it's happening, and we are going to come out of this project with a lot of lessons learned that will help us in the future. I do see HSR becoming a national issue and the US will likely reach a point where it heavily invests in it... we just need to get the infrastructure up first, as well as a successful initial project to show the world how great it can be. I see California and Texas (if Amtrak comes through and helps fund it), as the backbone of the US becoming interested in rail again.
Yeah, CAHSR isn't really the part that gets done quickly. It's the beginning of the process, learning to build it quickly. If the momentum carries the concept through, 20-30 years from now there might be a HSR boom in the U.S. if the money and demand are there to support it.
Also I would say that building fast really isn't a priority for CAHSR. The project seems far more focused on things like "equity" and environmental justice.
@@LucidStew Agree with the points here. People just need to be patient and wait for Cal HSR to be finished in the next couple of decades. Eventually it will be finished.
@@LucidStew we forget that it took us 22years (1956-1978) to build i-5 in CA even though we followed the route of another existing highway for a large portion of its route, had immense amounts of state and federal funding support, it had less or even no environmental regulations to satisfy (in comparison to CEQA today), etc, etc,
Also some of that stuff that CAHSR is "far more focused on" like "equity" and "environmental justice" when using power of "eminent domain" matters...we didn't care about that stuff as much or at all when we built our freeway systems in California (and the rest of the country) and we are still paying the socioeconomic prices for their decisions/choices...it decimated certain communities and most of those choices were intentional at the time so as to spare other communities...we owe it to ourselves to learn from those mistakes and try to not repeat them...we will just have to make new mistakes we will need to fix in a generation or two, 😆
@@LucidStew I don't get the hate for CASHR. It's public money so of course their standards for environmental and social concerns have to be higher than with private capital. But just because that's what their youtube channel is focused on doesnt' mean the it's the whole organisation's main focus. If you watch the meetings they are almost entirely talking budget and that's what's holding everything back. Of course their focus is building fast, everyone involved wants to get this thing done.
You make a good point. One other thing to remember is that the interstate system we know and love (or hate) today basically originated in California. As much as people love to hate California, that state has basically set the standards for our country for the past 100 years, and hopefully with HSR, it will set a new precedent for transportation investment for the next 100 years.
Despite all that stands in the way. I know California is up to the task. They are decades ahead of every other state. Once they’re done they will teach the other states what to do.
It really depends what state you're talking about and in what terms. The NEC main line between D.C. and Boston has been electrified for about 30 years, although it obviously has some legacy issues to contend with. Amtrak has been running regional rail at 125mph for almost 40 years. Texas Central Railway, in terms of the process, is about on par. They're behind on financing and political support, and obviously construction since they haven't started. Brightline West is also about on par in process, and could catch up rapidly on construction. Other projects, yeah probably at least 10-15 years of catching up to do. Various agencies have been moving steadily, but very slowly since the 90s. Although, CAHSR Merced-Bakersfield will be in the 2nd round(counting Acela as first) with BLW and maybe TCR(if they can get their act together). That said, other agencies are already learning from the CAHSR process. CAHSR is mentioned many times in WDOT Ultra High Speed docs.
@@LucidStew The New York-Washington part of the NEC was electrified by the Pennsylvania Railroad in the 1930s, with assistance from the federal government. Amtrak came into existence in 1971. It has made numerous improvements to the electrical distribution system over the past fifty years. I doubt that the existing catenary could accommodate trains operating at speeds of 186 to 220 miles per hour.
If California teaches what us all they've learned, & the rest of the country follows their lead, we will cease to exist as a country.
Seems like a pretty even handed assessment. I think honestly it’s hard for any one state (even one as big as CA) to overcome disinterest on the federal level.
The US is just not a public transit country and even the cities that are relatively good (nyc, Chi, dc, Boston, Philly, SF, etc) have serious issues with maintenance and expansion and more or less are coasting based off of previous decades work.
Personally after living car free for 5 years I just gave up, but I’m still rooting for CA HSR. There’s a hypothetical world where it’s the start of something big for the US.
There is something to be said for consensus building, but we don't really do that anymore. Part of the issue is the decision to go it alone. Another part is extremely poor planning in regards to the cost and funding it. It's not beyond California's capability. We're very fond of repeating the mantra that we're the 5th or 6th or whatever largest economy in the world. The political will within the state is lacking.
CAHSR won't finish in 5 years, but the keystone of the project was and always was the new corridor through the transverse range from Palmdale to Bakersfield, tying the state's separated passenger rail systems into one. The feds forced them to start in the central valley, but that was already covered by the San Joaquins, which will still along with ACE tie together the HSR backbone to the Bay Area network. The missing link, though is and always has been connecting LA to the valley.
So you're arguing that the highest priority should be to build the high speed rail line from Bakersfield to Palmdale next? If that's what your contending, I think you're right. That's more important than extending the line from Madera to Merced. Could the ACE and San Joaquin trains transfer passengers at Madera, instead of Merced?
I don't think Bakersfield-Palmdale does close the link. The train from Burbank to Palmdale takes nearly 2 hours. That plus HSR to Bakersfield would be slower than a bus between Burbank and Bakersfield currently.
@@LucidStew the current Metrolink takes 2 hours from LA with stops, then 23 minutes estimated time from Palmdale to Bakersfield on HSR plus time to transfer at Palmdale, so the overall journey time would be as fast or marginally faster than the current 2 1/2 hour nonstop bus ride on I-5.
I’d say the most crucial segment of the entire project is Pacheco Pass between Merced and San Jose. It’s the one that’ll unlock most of CAHSR’s promised benefits. Once that segment opens it’ll allow HSR trains to reach SF, providing not just a much faster connection between the Central Valley and Silicon Valley, but also faster LA-SF travel than driving. I’ve estimated, based on CAHSR’s predicted travel times for Bakersfield to SF, that total journey would be under five hours while driving typically takes around six hours.
Getting across Pacheco Pass, namely the 13.5-mile tunnel, could very well be what ultimately makes or breaks the project. Plus once it opens, demand should increase to get HSR to SoCal, at least Palmdale if not LA and Anaheim. Ideally both the Pacheco Pass and Tehachapi Pass crossings would get funded simultaneously, but more than likely it’ll only be enough for one. As I stated above, Pacheco Pass has more potential benefits than Tehachapi.
Crossing Tehachapi first would close the passenger rail gap between SoCal and the Central Valley, but only marginally improve the overall LA-SF travel time, and if something happens where funding gets pulled after only one pass is completed, leaving Palmdale to Merced, the total LA-SF travel time would still be slower than driving. Reaching LA to complete LA-SF HSR makes HSR faster than flying when comparing total travel times.
@@LucidStew I should clarify: Bakersfield to Burbank, not just Bakersfield to Palmdale (and they never had to go through Palmdale, but the secret vision is that the High Desert Corridor would create a PPP for the LA-Vegas link and because they need High Desert votes in LA county, so there's some Measure A/R/M sales tax money to throw at the project in the long term).
@@LucidStew There is one other major source of potential revenue. In 1980, California passed Prop 4 known as the Gann Limit. If state spending grows too much, they have to refund taxes. It hasn't been an issue until recently but there was a windfall and Gavin Newsom "sold" the mandated tax rebates as his "inflation relief" - taking credit for doing what he had to do anyway. They don't have to rebate the taxes, though, if they put it into capital. So that's $5-$9 Billion over two years. This year, they are putting it into a program called TRCIP - in SoCal, it will fund LAMetro expansion, but in NorCal, it's going to go to BART operations. BART has bloated overhead (too high salaries, too high pensions) and the reality is it needs an operating funding diet and if all this money wasted on BART's operations in the TRCIP fund was redirected to HSR capital, they could accelerate the project.
Wow. This was actually more optimistic than I was expecting. Mark Zuckerberg could pony up the $8B.
Yeah, me too. I surprised myself.
damn, imagine if we... you know... just asked nicely for him to fork over the money.
@@PrincessJennaTheHusky2149 CAHSR gave them $700 million to do it.
That’s only for Central Valley Part. Need $80B to get it to go to LA. Not realistic anytime soon
@@tomfitz3324 where'd ya get $80B? that number sounds a lot steeper than i've seen.
I think its completely unrealistic but if we got CHSR done by summer 2028 it would be extremely useful (for the Olympics).
We need some type of legislation to skip the 40 environmental lawsuits, only an idiot would question whether or not an ALL ELECTRIC rail system is a net good for emissions. Cost disease kills.
A federal environmental impact state goes far beyond gaseous emissions at the source in terms of what it is concerned with. There are lots of site-specific concerns like drainage, flora and fauna impacts, endangered species, impacts on people and properties nearby...
Or people can just stay home and watch Olymipics on TV without using a train.
@@onetwothreeabc true, but when the world tuned in to the 1964 Tokyo Olympics and saw the Shinkansen for the first time, I bet you pretty much all of them were blown away. The Shinkansen sparked a revolution in train travel and was the start to high speed trains around the world. Same could be said for California and Brightline West doing the same for the US, showing a national as well as global audience that America at long last has true 186mph+ high speed rail.
We do have the Acela, with a top speed of 150mph which it only hits for a short part of its overall journey. Brightline West and CAHSR will both go faster than that, and be two of the first true high speed rail systems in the Americas. That’s huge, and should be a goal worth pursuing.
@@mrxman581 done with tracks and systems yeah, ready for the first trains. Hopefully the Merced and Bakersfield extensions are well underway, if not nearing completion.
Given train procurement is just now starting, it’s a good chance the first trains won’t be ready until 2027/28. I know the track & systems procurement was delayed due to lack of funds, and I’m pretty sure it’s the same case with the trains. So even if all the infrastructure could be done in five years, the trains wouldn’t be ready for service by then.
@@mrxman581 I’m familiar with their videos. Very well made.
If CAHSR funding to complete Merced to Bakersfield by 2028 could be tied in with Brightline West's federal funding request, and if Brightline West really can pull off starting service in five years, then we could potentially have three operating examples of high speed rail by the 2028 LA Olympics. New Acela trains on the NE Corridor, Brightline West and CAHSR's Central Valley segment.
It would be a symbol of national pride, in the spirit of Japan unveiling the Shinkansen at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics, and show under the global spotlight the Games shine on the host country that America is finally catching up with true high speed rail. It should therefore be a national priority, especially for the current pro-rail administration.
The issue through the FSP-National Grant is that there are A LOT of other routes eligible for that. That extends to ANY intercity passenger rail. You combine the $8 billion CAHSR needs with the $3.75B Brightline wants, and there's very little left.
I didn't want to get TOO political in the video, but ALL of this money is borrowed and the national debt is enormous. Potentially we're working ourselves into a situation of pretty badly spiking inflation in order to spend our way out of a recession whenever it comes around. On top of that, the entire world is highly leveraged, so it's a bit of a house of cards.
@@LucidStewIs the $8 billion CAHSR needs in addition to the current FRA grant request of $3 B?
@@davidjackson7281 No, current request is part of that.
@@LucidStewThat's good news. Thanks. Politics aside, getting $8 B in FRA grants over the next 5 --10 years seems reasonably possible. Hopefully more.
@@davidjackson7281 The FSP grant program is only a 5 year program, so its difficult to say what would happen after that. However, if the recent past(like ARRA) is an indicator the money will probably be available over 7-15 years for a leading program like CAHSR.
I should note that first rail is supposed to be laid in 2025. Remember that it is a test track first, and only later intended to carry passengers.
Show some Ambition USA!
In Austrian we are Building 3 Tunnels over 30 km and are a 9 Million Country.
It might happen. We'll have a better idea at the end of the year when the federal grant funding is announced.
i didn’t take the panel as them actually believing ca hsr could be built in five years. it was more so a thought experiment in a world where we didn’t have a braindead federal government, nimbys, and freight rail companies. good video though! it seems possible to finish the bakersfield to merced segment early given insanely good luck
although i wouldn’t say that air travel is better in the u.s. it’s just way more subsidized.
California sure gets shafted by being such a huge state
CAHSR has gotten a pretty big percentage of the "national" portion of the various intercity passenger rail funding bills in the last 15 years, but yeah, big imbalance in favor of the NEC. I think its more a symptom of intercity passenger rail being underfunded as a whole. Then its kind of like "well, the NEC is where the passengers actually ARE..."
@@LucidStewHow many Senators represent the states from Portland, ME to Richmond, VA? That is why the NEC gets priority, why Amtrak still exists on a starvation budget, why the LD trains are Amtrak's stepchild.
No, California gets what they deserve, as their EPA rules, extensive corruption, crippling taxes, punishing union rules, government cronyism, hostile environment, defunded police & rampant crime make this type of project impossible.
@@mrxman581 Saying low taxes & California in same sentence is ludicrous. Combined taxes there are eons higher than anywhere else. You would think California residents would contribute more to federal taxes on the population alone. Feds are coughing way more than average back to the once golden state though than other states. Just look at federal government funding of alleged HSR.
Quit patting yourselves on the back. Your state is a disaster & the destruction is accelerating. Interesting to hear videos like this, sounding like everythings good in California, ignoring what has happened since Newsom's far left crap became law. One party rule has accelerated the destabilization & dysfunction, & anarchy is a real possibility.
My thoughts on high speed rail comes down to two things. Try for "Higher Speed" rail (Basically Below 150 MPH). Mostly 110 and 125 MPH track. As I understand the original the law that originally created Amtrak. That Amtrak would take over freight rails Mandated money losing passenger service as long as freight rail gave priority to Amtrak passenger trains. Basically enforce the original Amtrak agreements to make sure Amtrak trains run on time. Then spend money wisely fixing bottlenecks, and developing higher speed sections that go 110, 125, 150 MPH. The emphasis should be on sustainable train service. Basically day-to-day profitable, so during times of low funding, the service won't be cut.
Right, but we cant do that with CAHSR. The train is required to make certain times between stations, and some of those times require average speeds north of 160mph. I'd also arguing that the piecemeal improvement approach is going to take a LONG time, and there is an opportunity cost compared to building something much better asap.
What would it take, a miracle sadly. I our country could make it happen. High speed rail would make mobility in this country better and would bring us together even more. Thanks for another good video.
@@artandarchitecture6399 the issues is the areas that are too short to fly too long to drive. Short haul flights hurt the environment unnecessarily.
I recently went to a Caltrain electric train show (showing off their Stadler's) and they had a CAHSR booth and I asked point blank "will I be able to go from SF to LA by rail in 15 years" she smiled at me and said "... possibly..." and that kind of worried me a bit. I'm wondering why they don't just get multiple companies to do different parts of the system at the same time. Yes it costs more right now, but then 5-10 years from now you're no longer paying for it and more important you're not paying for the inflated cost of building so it probably will be cheaper.
One of my biggest problems with the CAHSR Authority is that they've been doing this public dance as long as I can remember where they try to prop the project up by putting out as much positive information and as little negative information as possible. You know, like a sales pitch rather than a government agency that's supposed to be beholden to the public.
The bids for the current construction packages are pretty old, and they've not started working on a new section since 2015. As to why they don't expand to new areas, they don't have the funds.
How'd you like the Stadler KISS compared to what Caltrain is using currently?
@@LucidStew Well my experience with the "old trains" is mostly with the really old ones with the gap in the middle so the conductor can check tickets on bottom and top levels at the same time and making the top level less effective, I only was on a bombardier coach once and that was late at night after a Giants game and it was quite crowded at the time so don't have a super big feel of it. But the bombardier style was light years ahead of the older style, and the Stadlers felt kind of the same, not exactly a huge improvement from what I remember but WAY better than the older style. The train stayed parked and didn't go anywhere so I can't say if it felt smoother or quieter on board. But everything on the train felt sterile, which is a good thing, as it feels like you can hit the whole thing with a pressure washer if you need to clean anything deep down... although you probably can't because each seat had electrical outlets which is great. There were a few seats on each coach that tables and I really didn't understand the need for those as a commuter train as I'm sure those seats will be occupied just by people who want to chat with each other as opposed to actually using the tables. Ditto with the one toilet on board, it felt out of place for a commuter train, perhaps it's an ADA requirement? I was surprised when I got to the "engine" of the train too, as it felt like any other coach except for a tiny compartment at the end for the train staff to drive the train. Overall I have high hopes for electrified commuter train, even if the electrified part was probably more to do with CAHSR sharing tracks in the future, I'm not sure if the train will be run faster, but not having a big diesel loco to pull the thing it definitely should be quieter.
In comparing other countries that use HSR modern automated machinery vs US old-style construction cranes that take forever it seems like...In the US there's no hurry to finish anything. In Southern California on the 405 there was an bridge expansion to accommodate 2 more road expansion and the construction steel columns that was dropped there for the project has been sitting there for over 2 yrs and nothing done. The bridge expansion probably would have been done over a weekend in another country.
The issue has always been the lack of planned funds...if they could get the money it could be done
You can say that about anything that isn't some new, unproven tech, though. The lack of planning on the funding was a major oversight on the part of everyone involved.
@@LucidStew "The lack of planning on the funding" was a design, not an oversight. They want to con money from Fed and private investigators from the beginning, though it did not work out.
Funding is one thing but the crazy amount of red tape is just ridiculous. There should not be as many restrictions when building important infrastructure.
@@erichchan3 the only thing stopping phase 1 being built completely in 5-8 years is money...the EIR and such are mostly complete or close to being completed at this point...
The differences between being done in 20-30yrs and 5-8 yrs once the route is known is purely financial IMO
I work in Real Estate development and the mantra in my profession is that you can only ever have 2 of the following 3 things - pick which one gets impacted:
- you can build something quickly (Fast),
- you can build it for a lower price (Cheap),
- you can build something well (Quality)
But you can't build all 3...which 2 you pick means the 3rd will be impacted heavily...you want something Fast and Quality, you will pay a premium...you want something Quality and Cheap it's gonna take longer...you want something Cheap and Fast, you have to sacrifice Quality...
This doesn't hold true necessarily for infrastructure projects because they take so long that you can't save money by doing it slowly since the time is so long that it actually increases costs due to high staffing needs and impacts of inflation over time to the cost of things...
@@LucidStew I am not disagreeing...but this is the nature of large intra state infrastructure projects that are not national priorities...they take a long time to stand up because they take a long time to haggle over funding...
I know they have to finish phase 1 first, but I think adding the Merced to Sacremento portion would be a great way to make the system usable. The land is mostly flat, so no tunneling is needed, and they could improve the existing Captiol Corridor line to add a fairly efficient connection from Sacramento to the Bay Area.
I don't think there is any requirement that Phase 1 be built first. In my video about where CAHSR went wrong, I talk about them possibly building to Sacramento before the connection to southern California. I really think that would cause a southern California revolt, though. The L.A. area is already pretty lukewarm about it if the L.A. Times is any gauge.
@@LucidStew The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century approved by the voters as Proposition 1A on November 4, 2008, requires that any expenditure of bond proceeds for capital costs in corridors other than the Phase 1 corridor would not have an adverse impact on the construction of Phase 1 of the high-speed train project. Funding for the corridor from Sacramento to Stockton to Fresno is allowed but on the chance it is approved by the legislature if would lead to possible additional lawsuits.
@@mrxman581 Hey, I realize this is 2 months old, but I did not see it until now due to not being notified properly by YT about comments. I have you in the same video accusing me of bullshit and blather. Tone it down if you want to keep posting on my videos. You're not going to treat me or anyone else in my comments section with that sort of disrespect. You're more than welcome to disagree if you can manage to be civil about it.
maybe if ppl made bets on when HSR would be finished instead of sports
Don't forget about endless night mare in camping outside the town home in many counties in the land of America dream
In 5 years? Well that’s easy, every environmentalist and lawyer in CA would have to be obducted by Aliens and returned in 5.1 years.
The bizarre part is that its the environmentalists that are calling for suspension(or at least minimization) of environmental review to get HSR built faster. Lawyers love it either way. 😁
@@LucidStewif the federal cant fund the project why california gov plus los angles and san francisco cant fund this project? I mean that project is in california plus they are the one who benefit from chsr.
@@mcthorwmalows I ask the same question, and I really think the state needs to take more responsibility for getting the project done in a reasonable time frame. I say that as a Californian, but I also say that with an inkling of why California politicians are not really interested in that.
I think the best way to make California High Speed Rail a reality is to try to convince Brightline West to take over the project. Brightline has great rack record and I have confidence in them to have a much better team to execute and complete the project
You mean like pay Brightline to build it?
4:35 sounds like the hostages in your basement broke through the soundproofing
something like 7 different times in the video. I'll have to do something about them.
India built 93km viaduct so far with 250+ km of Pile & Pier work done. 19 Girder launching machine with
8 "full span" Girder launching machine are working.
We actually have political opposition to viaduct here, so you're not going to see a lot of it.
Would have to get rid of prevailing wage regs from the Federal gov to hire and train locals
Another thing I noticed is a lack of skilled workers. I would quit my job this instant, upend my life, if I got into an apprenticeship to build the HSR.
They have an apprenticeship program. Maybe you should look into it.
Where do you think "Valley to Valley" - the step between the IOS and Phase 1 that connects SF/Silicon Valley to the Central Valley would fall in terms of cost and feasibility?
I also think 5 years isnt very realistic for anything past the IOS. Maybe you could do the same analysis but for 10 years?
10 years mostly depends on the timing for the federal funding, although I think if they're close the state will close the gap. The problem after 2030 is that CAHSR no longer gets a portion of Cap and Trade unless this is extended. The state really needs to figure out what it wants to do after Merced-Bakersfield is complete. This will require a much larger commitment. I don't think this idea of the federal government suddenly assuming 85% of funding will come to pass within 20 years at a minimum. Because of that I'd say its 50-50 on connecting S.F. and its probably going to be 2045-2050 if it happens? Of course a lot can happen in 20 years. That's just my view from the present.
@@mrxman581 SF is the obvious first choice. Most of the route from Merced to SF, the CalTrain corridor, is already built and electrified. The only major project that remains is the Pacheco Pass tunnel.
Meanwhile, Bakersfield to LA is not yet fully environmentally cleared, has way more tunneling, and has more urban areas that will need new track.
If we accept that the current trickle of funding will only allow for one segment to be built at a time, we need to stop trying to make LA happen right now.
One tunnel vs many tunnels. North Cal is in better position.@@mrxman581
California can be its own nation and list as its highest priority and massively fund it with California budget. Don't wait for the Fed. The money won't come in 100 years.
It really can't. The precedent for this was set during the Civil War.
@@LucidStew It's more likely than the Fed fully fund Cal HSR.
Jan 6 was the start of the 2nd Civil War...more to come. Plus the rest of the states hate Cali.@@onetwothreeabcTexas has fired the first volleys of Illegal immigrants at us.
3 more years san faansisco to Bakersfield then another 15 years to los ángeles
1 yr to Merced. 2 yrs to Bakersfield. 5 yrs to San Jose. 7 yrs to LA. 9 yrs to Sacramento. 11 yrs to SD. 21 yrs to SF.
So three questions came to mind:
1) Why not prioritize phases that go through major cities so commuter and HSR are upgraded?
2) Can/should additional funding come from the private sector?
3)Is the State able to secure funding abroad?
1) The Obama Administration ARRA grants came with stipulations that they had to start in the Central Valley.
2)There is no private interest.
3)See #2
Let's see, the overall length of the CalHSR is 520 Miles (840 Km) and the Interim IOS is 171 Miles (275 Km). The Jakarta-Bandung HSR is 88 Miles (142 Km) and it began construction in 2016 and will be opened in 1st of October 2023. Going by that calculation, the Interim IOS should be completed in around 14 years.
13:08 Congress has been looking at permitting reform. I think completing the environmental reviews is more likely than you said in your video, due to this possible permitting reform
We're talking about 5 years here for everything, not just NEPA. Even with reform, you're looking at 3-5 years from where they are now on Phase 2(essentially the beginning as they haven't even done a Tier I analysis there)
Informative and entertaining
Great content as usual Stu (stew?). Here’s my thought. Maybe you can help us visualize it. Partner with Brightline on phase 2 ahead of schedule. That looks like, assuming Rancho cucamunga by 2028-30, continuing in the 15 median down to San Diego and in the 10 corridor to LA. Partnering looks like CAHSR uses its pre-existing right to build in the corridor with Brightline doing the construction in exchange for the right to operate in it and right to develop stations and commercial/residential around the stations. Brightline would also build out the High desert corridor. CAHSR would shift focus from currently planned next step of Valley-to-Valley to instead build Bakersfield to Palmdale in order to link up with the High desert corridor. Building this out would give the ability to take high speed rail from San Diego to either Las Vegas or Fresno. Brightline could run trips from Fresno or SD to Las Vegas and CaHSR could run from Fresno to San Diego.
The medians of I-15 south of Foothill Blvd. and I-10 are not available. They're putting express lanes in there. The HDC is not Brightline West's purview. That is being built by L.A. and San Bernardino County with dedicated taxes. There is nothing special about Brightline West's ability to build things. CAHSR's main problem is that it is needlessly fast and complex due to the design requirements in Prop 1A. They CAN'T build a budget version of HSR like Brightline West will attempt to do.
True there’s nothing special about Brightline’s ability to build faster. They “may” build faster because they are building in a median and therefore don’t need to acquire land or negotiate with utility providers and they are sticking to the median and are fine to go slower. One advantage we have seen though is that Brightline and CaHSR got 3 billion each. I don’t think a full 6 billion would have gone to CaHSR had Brightline not been participating and also they are bringing additional investor money. My idea was to get additional money from Feds and private going to Phase 2 before the current plan of somewhere between 20 years and never.
True also that we would need legislation to allow focus on phase 2 at all prior to phase 1 completion and to allow slower speeds. I would advocate for that though. The slowness of build is mostly in utility relocation negotiation, dealing with railroads, and land acquisition. We see how fast things can happen when California already owns the full right of way. Personally I would put trains in the express lanes and let the car people advocate for lane expansion if they like.
@@ronridenour243 CAHSR is $80 billion away from even thinking about doing anything with Phase 2
@@LucidStew my point.
Thank you for proving that this will never ever be finished
My present opinion is that completion of Phase 1 is less likely than not. If one were to extend the time scale of the conversation from 5 to 15 or even 25 years, the conclusions are a lot different. The SFStreetsBlog live panel just chose a really dumb timeframe to discuss.
One thing id be intrested in is once the first line from bakersfeild to merced is build how fast we could pivot toward LA. I think while not realistic if brightline wanted to invest in the southern extension in exhange to run on cahsr lines could be an intresting concept.
I don't see it based on their track record. Their business model is connecting large metro areas to tourist destinations. Budget on Brightline West and Brightline Florida is similar and Vegas and Orlando have similar tourist numbers. What are they going to get from CAHSR that would justify anything close to that if they can get to Rancho Cucamonga on their own? Besides, Bakersfield to L.A. Union, you're looking at something like $50-60 billion.
@@LucidStewDo you agree with everyone that the wrong alternatve route to LA would be the Tejon Pass?
@@davidjackson7281 No, I think that would have been the better way to go, but it basically can't be altered at this point.
@@LucidStewWow, that seems disappointing that CAHSR hamstrings itself with inflexibility. Nice to know you agree about the route. The Tejon Pass alignment would shorten the route by 40 miles and make more likely a possible 2:40 trip.
Let it go. The route is now set in stone.@@davidjackson7281
I like that the footage @ 5:57 is in Canada and not the US. 😂
Can't help but think what a great channel you have created.
Could San Francisco to Palmdale with federal funding be a more optimistic approach?
Than Phase 1? Yeah Palmdale-L.A. is about $25 billion, but in the time frame its still an enormous stretch.
New leadership in sacremento!
As Indonesian, I can say 5 years is achievable if the government fully support it and land acquisition going smoothly, Indonesia HST done in 7 Years, so definitely US can do it faster if they fully committed
You're talking about 90 miles of track in 7 years versus almost 500 here.
@@LucidStew I mean, Indonesia is not that wealthy compared USA, you guys spend more than 700 Billions dollars for military, it will be wild if they can't fund High Speed Train Project. Hell, you guys spend way more money for your highway compared to this High Speed Train even with cost overrun.
@@LucidStew and also Indonesia on that 7 Year's, the actual construction time were 3 Years, the other 2 Years were only doing land acquisition another 2 years it was because of pandemic, we even postpone to build HST Station into the city centre of Jakarta because of how long the land acquisition are to make sure even if the project met with cost overrun it will not too much (which it end up happening from 5 Billions initial budget to 7 Billions due to extended period about 2 years)
Ignoring for the moment California's uniquely contentious internal fiscal politics, should California receive back from the Feds the same as it sends TO the Feds, these big projects would get done with much less BS. According to the 2020 Census, California had just shy of 40 million residents, 11.95% of the total US population, and a net provider to the federal budget. Meanwhile, the combined population of the 21 least populated states (excluding 6 territories and D.C, who have no voting representation), most of which vote red and receive more federal budget money than they contribute, with a total of 42 senators (California: 2) and 50 House representatives (California: 52). California thus has only 54 Electoral College electors, while these states total 92 (D.C. has 3). In the case when no presidential ticket receives 270 or more electors, representation gets even more wildly skewed: each state has one vote in Congress to decide who wins the POTUS race; therefore these states carry 21 votes, 42% of all votes, while California gets just the one for 2% of the total vote despite representing one in eight (11.9%) US residents.
Between the wild fiscal politics within California and the heavily skewed Congressional, Electoral College, and auxiliary POTUS selection representation, there is little chance California will ever be able to pull off the infrastructure feats that it would otherwise easily accomplish. We have the money, just lack the will and federal influence. The recent replacement of the Bay Bridge (Treasure Island to Oakland segment) cost $6.4 Billion, and the replacement of the Cypress Viaduct (1.6 miles long) in Oakland after the 1989 earthquake cost $1.2 Billion.
Undercounting California's population during the last census hurt the state in both representation and federal funding. In fact, California and New York lost House seats by margins easily accounted for by undercounting due to the scare tactics and manipulation by the sitting Administration, the large numbers of working homeless, and the variety of temporary pandemic effects on demographics.
I'm not advocating any sort of breakup of California; BUT if the state were already its own country, such projects would already be built and expanding, more like in Europe and Japan. Even as part of the US, a California split in half meridionally into coastal and Sierra states, projects also would build out much faster, though such would exacerbate the coastal state's net payer status regarding the federal budget, and further skew the poor representation since the west half is far more populous and blue.
Where are the tech and construction behemoths and billionaires that could easily afford to invest in public-private partnerships with enormous gains to be made (whole books could be written on development opportunities)? Oh yeah, they're registered in Delaware or North Dakota, or they offshore entirely to tiny island countries. Such are the effects of greed and short-sightedness, that they ignore opportunities to create economic booms that could make them even wealthier than they already are. Mine, mine, mine. Very American.
It is also almost impossible to speed up the construction of tunnels. While under open sky, you can work on all the structurs at the same time, with a tunnel the amount you can do in parallel is limited to two ends. Unless you dig a shaft, buy 4 additional TBMs and work yourself from the middle to both ends. Very expensive, very complicated.
That's why it is very staggering that there is no progress in getting the tunnels to SF and LA on their way
How long may it take for CAHSR to build 55 miles of tunnels and at what cost?
If anyone has done boring from the middle on this scale, I'd like to see the video of it. That has to be extremely impressive. These machines are absolutely mammoth. You WOULD think they would have one by now and start working through the backlog. Especially when they still were projected to be in the pink on Merced-Bakersfield. But now, with the $8-10 billion deficit... there's just a lot of uncertainty.
@@davidjackson7281 Minimum construction time will be set by the longest tunnel. For the part between SF and the central Valley, there will be two tunnel with twin tubes. A short one with 1.6 miles and a long one with 13.5 miles. Expected construction time for the short one is 2-3 years for the long one 6 years. Costs for that section about 5 billion.
Between Bakersfield an Palmdale , about 10 smaller tunnels will be build. They will take around 2-5 years. I have no number of costs for them.
Palmdale to Burbank is a different beast. That will be about 30 miles and would take about 16 years. to build. No construction cost given but it would be above 10 billion. No final route has been chosen on that part of the route
@@pirazel7858Thanks for the great reply. Sounds like on average or as a best case scenario: two miles of tunnels per year at $333 million per mile. Too bad the project does not have $5-10 B annually for 10-20 more years versus $2 B annually for 50 more years.
@@LucidStew$200 million of the $3 B grant request is for the design work for the Pacheco and Techachap Passes. Perhaps those studies are necessary to determine what the engineering and construction costs will be before CAHSR could begin tunneliing. As shocked as we were when the project's cost escalated there may be a forthcoming tunnel shock.
Freight rights of way are more focused in the FLATTEST route to keep energy consumption down ( aka spiral routes ) . Not the shortest route needed for HSR . .
Occasionally, though, the flattest route is also pretty straight.
I to be honest love HSR, but bet this project will never be finished. And this is primarily because of two engineering challenges they have yet to really address. And that is how to get the system through two different mountain ranges.
There are really only two ways trains can transit from Southern California to the north. That is along the coastal route where the passenger service in use today travels, or through the mountain route through the Tehachapi Mountains and come out near Bakersfield. And as is obvious, they have chosen the mountain route for this line. And at this time, that route is only open for freight because of the Tehachapi Loop. A spiral helix all trains must pass through at no faster than 23 mph. This was built back in 1876, and is still used to this day.
And they will face the exact same problems crossing the Diablo Range to get to San Francisco. To be honest, that was one of the dumbest choices they could have made, as the logical route would have had it instead go to Sacramento, then travel to the Bay Area from there. It would have made a hell of a lot more sense for a pilot program to simply upgrade the Capitol Corridor to HSR, and that was actually one of the original proposals.
I have been watching this for years, actually. And not one time have I ever heard them actually address how they are getting over the mountains. Until they can resolve that issue, this will always be a dead program.
I don't currently think they will finish it either. My best current bet is San Francisco to Bakersfield and Anaheim to Burbank, with no connection between. Possibly also Merced to Sacramento.
Once Bakersfield to Madeira is completed the system will be handed over to Amtrak. Completion of entire system is a pipe dream
Stew: Great presentation ... and depressing when it comes to the regulations (which ARE needed IMHO) and the cost overruns. I swear if we had to build the Giza Pyramid today using the Egyptian tools, manpower, and supply chains of the time, it would take 1,000 years ... and wouldn't get completed! It took the Egyptians supposedly between 30 - 50 years.
And with whatever we are being told/promised, I still don't have a warm/fuzzy feeling about the survivability of ANY segment of the CAHSR infrastructure when it comes to having to deal with San Andreas Fault ... issues.
Thanks again for your insights.
The route only crosses the San Andreas at one point, above ground up by Palmdale. Of course there are many other faults to be concerned about. If there were a major earthquake, with significant lateral movement, the affected section would probably be closed until it could be re-engineered for speed. The rest would likely be back up and running immediately, very quickly, or as soon as they could inspect any portion actually affected.
Even underdeveloped countrys are getting high speed rail or at least have a good train system, shows how far the US and North America in general has fallen behind.
What Would It Really Take To Finish California High Speed Rail in 25 Years?
I fixed it for you. It's going to take 25 years, at the earliest, before a person can board a high-speed train in downtown San Francisco and exit from it at Union Station in Los Angeles. That's our reality.
Wasn't my premise. In an earlier video on the subject my prediction was that they won't finish Phase 1
@@LucidStew Phase 1 will likely be finished but no sooner than 2033 (10 years from now) but as we know, it will provide service from nowhere to nowhere. Perhaps private companies can step in and build the remaining segments. As a result, perhaps there will be competing train companies using the same track such as Spain has on their high-speed rail network. I keep reading your title page as Stew Dios. Is that a curry beef stew? I'm vegetarian.
@@Urbanhandyman 2033 is off the table. The last scheduled completion year they had was 2034 and that was abandoned. They do not bother to predict when it will be done now.
It's Stewdios, like studios.
What it would take is a MIRACLE. California High Speed Rail = Biggest Boondoggle Ever. They should have run down the I-5 right of way and they'd be halfway there already, but all the medium sized cities (Fresno, Bakersfield, etc.) along SR-99 wanted a piece of the pie and a station. I haven't even started with all the environmental BS that they want to go through.
The environmental reviews are nearly done. Palmdale to San Francisco is finished. The rest will be done in 2025.
If Cali wants a high -speed train, tell them to have a garage sale.!
I hadn't considered that funding option. 😂
I’d love to see California high speed rail completed in time for the Olympics in 2028
It's been almost a year since that video was put up. They still haven't laid a rail down.
supposed to start later this year
In other words, when it comes to major rail transportation projects in America, we can't do it. So much for that "can do" attitude that purportedly exists in this country.
No we can, but we need to do the leg work and build the proficiency for it. Pace for that will be measured outside of wartime.
If you live in California, think about if you are willing to be taxed $2,500 in order to finish Phase I Cal HSR.
@@onetwothreeabc We're taxed for other shit that barely benefits us. Our transportation system is shitty so I am more than happy to be taxed for THIS as it would be a direct benefit.
@@LucidStew well given how this country is divided almost everything, and makes EVERYTHING into politics, it is clear we can't.
@@TheRailwayDrone Good start! Now convince your neighbor to also support the Cal HSR and be taxed $2,500. If everyone in Cal pays $2,500, you got the money for Cal HSR.
Tunnel Boring machines are just one tick on the chart... The BIGGIE is making them capable of crossing a fault line that is known to twitch every few years... If the San Andreas decided to shift 8 or 10 feet in the middle of the tunnel, what would happen?
It crosses the San Andreas above ground, but its a good point. One huge uncertainty, even with the geotechnical surveys, is what they're going to run into while boring. California is seismically active. The project does cross other active and inactive faults below ground, and the landscape is still very petroleum and gas rich.
Research Central California Traction. Its rail line is just sitting there unused. Has no towns that it passes through between Stockton and Sacramento. Very long tangents. Could be used for HSR. Jointly owned by UP and BNSF. Check this out, but don't publish your results. Don't let the freight railroads recognize the value of this "little treasure" for HSR development. Discreetly reply to this comment.
This may very well be the plan of attack if they can ever get to Phase 2. I don't know that I'll live to see it, though... I wouldn't be opposed to reordering things(I even proposed it!). I think extension to Sacramento before Bakersfield-Burbank is probably a more efficient use of funds.
Probably $250 billion, 150,000 people working 24 hours a day all year round. In just environmental review, this would never happen. The vanity project that it is today will already cost $150 billion+ by the time it finishes in 2040. California could have paid for the entire thing with their own budget money because they ran surpluses for decades, and told us how successful they were, up until people started fleeing in droves and blew a $24 billion budget deficit in 2022. It's understood that projects which happen in the US under public funding are regulatory captured and the amount of corruption, bribery, and backroom deals that happen generally turn everyone off to the government spending just about anything. Look at NYC with its subway construction. There is no longer an economic argument that can be made for constructing the California HSR project anymore. It will never produce the returns in economy anywhere close to what it cost to build. There won't be business travelers, because they can just use Zoom/Facetime or video conferencing. It will only be tourists or visitors using the system. And this will drive up housing costs in the central valley cities as people will move out of LA and SF. California is beyond backwards when it comes to long term planning and has become a model of how to destroy a state through draconian laws. For the same dollars they spend on the project they could build a ridiculous amount of public transit in all of these cities.
The number one threat to this project, in my opinion, is people thinking about all the other things that could be done with the money. That hasn't been such an issue because things have been going fairly well economically for the last decade, and the Cap and Trade skim is under the radar. However, if there is a downturn, I think this voice gets a lot louder.
That's why my general point of view has been if we're going to build this, we better hurry up and do it.
As to the ultimate cost, I can really only go by the numbers presented by the Authority and the track record so far. Because of that I tend to keep the speculation fairly conservative. However, in my video talking about what happens if the current pace continues, I put the whole project at ~$225 billion and done around 2100, so we're not far apart.
@@LucidStew That is a fair point and right at the end, what happens in an economic downturn? That is the real question. Record inflation and cost of living increases. People & governments will be looking to trim down their budgets. Granted, I think we both know that construction will probably wrap some time around 2050 and it will probably still cost somewhere around $225-250 billion.
I do like train services, I just wish that for the people that wanted the service, they stepped up and put their dollars where their mouths were and then kept and eye on the spending. That way someone in Vermont who gets no benefit from the line can look at California and say, "Hey look at what they did, they really proved to us that the state of California could afford to build a project they wanted with no federal tax money from other states." The current funding model for public infrastructure projects is entirely too dependent on Washington DC to get anything done and I really don't like that.
@@Da__goat That's why my general thought is that the best way to handle federal funding is to spread the wealth around. Maybe Vermont has no need for HSR, but they have other transportation infrastructure related expenses that need fulfilling. Bridge replacements, grade separations. So if California gets $2 billion for CAHSR, VT gets $35M for their projects, etc... independent of that, the states WOULD need to take responsibility for big projects like that. That really hasn't been the case for a while.
Who’s here after CA HSR got $3 billion from the FSP grants
I'm pretty sure the $3.07B figure includes the $202M in CRISI grants they got, but we'll likely find out for sure on Friday. The FSP grant bodes well for the completion of Merced-Bakersfield, but I don't think it will be completed any earlier than planned. The progress on CPs1-3 over the next 2 years will go a long way to informing when Merced-Bakersfield will be done. My money is currently on early 2032, but if they can manage to stick to construction schedule, it could be earlier. Right now they're aiming for end of 2030. CP4 slipped a little, but maybe they can make it up as they've already shifted work almost entirely from that section.
@@LucidStewYeah, we'll see on Friday. CP4 is incredibly close to being done though. I think they only have one 400 ft canal relocation or something like that.
I will get rid of anaheim station and jsut left Los Angeles as the terminal
Maybe we just need to convert the interstate highway system 100% tollway. The system isn’t profitable and fuel tax hasn’t been updated since the early 1990s.
The legislature just raised gas taxes 7 years ago with yearly increases that account for inflation. If the goal is to make the middle class people poor, utterly wreck traffic on surface streets, and cause a mass exodus of the state, sounds like a good plan.
@@LucidStew Great response. There's still hope for California.
We're clearly thinking too small. HSR to Hawaii is the next logical step. Personally, I'm rooting for the interdimensional wormhole.
Seriously though, I was surprised that the Merced to Bakersfield segment had any shot of completing by 2028. I support the buildout of the whole system, but I kind of considered it a foregone conclusion that we wouldn't get any trains running for another decade.
I think you can expect to see trains running between Merced and Bakersfield within a decade. Are maybe eventually Merced, Fresno, and Bakersfield will grow to become the largest metropolitans in Cal before the SF-LA link is built.
Yeah, they basically just need the money. Up until they concluded that they didn't have it earlier this year, it was planned to be done in 2029. Based on recent performance, I think that 2029 target could have been met under the assumption that didn't have to worry about timing on the funds.
@@LucidStew If Merced-Bakersfield cannot be finished, this project is dead-dead. I don't think Cal Gov would like this to happen.
@@onetwothreeabc The more intriguing question to me at the moment is what happens after 2030 because its so wide open. What happens in the next 7 years is at least partially clear.
@@LucidStew After 2030, I think the construction will stall for a while. It will then depends on the public reception of the operating Merced-Bakersfield route. The best cast scenario for Cal HSR is the public loves the project, and the Fed ride this public opinion and pledge to fund ALL high speed rail projects in the US with 30-40% support. (Something like Japan did where the nation fund 1/3 of Shinkansen).
ONE RaI it is a HIGH speed rail get the complete rail San deigo to sacremento🎉 then put down the other rail and bore the other side tunnel bridges would had to to be made for twin rails
I know they haven’t put down a single piece of track in over 12 years. Have they even made any track?
They _just_ approved the contractor that will _design_ the track layout. When I say just, I mean like _today_, June 26, 2024.
hsr.ca.gov/2024/06/26/news-release-california-high-speed-rail-authority-approves-contractor-moves-design-of-track-and-overhead-electrical-systems-forward/
1) Environmental laws are mental has to more with delaying the projects than protecting the environment 2) California progressive government realised that they can milk tax money this way. China/Japan can build highspeed rail across the US for the same cost 3) highspeed rail will reduce travel by car and flights, cutting down time, polution. This transport is not meant to make direct profits but to create new economic opportunities. having said that, the cost has been raised so high that even a $200 journey cost will still return losses 4) Japan is building a freakin maglav for lesser cost than California's bullet train. That is a real shame
on #3, its actually in Prop 1A that CAHSR must turn an operating profit.
@@LucidStew operating profit is expected, basically covering the energy cost, maintenance, and human resources. But total return of investment is not reasonable to assume
@@saturo_nipon Right, and there is no expectation of that in the law either. I think that's the case for most publicly built infrastructure.
The costs no matter cus we already spend and we have money on the floor so we have to keep going
Clearly the cost matters because the cost is the main thing keeping it from getting done quickly.
An act of God.
13:58
I view high speed rail in this country as a complete non-starter. China may be roughly the same size as the US, a lot of the area in quite mountainous with no a lot of population, which means that is population is concentrated in a much smaller area, which makes rail more viable. Until a couple of decades ago, China did not have a large number of cars either, so the populace had to use trains. That is not the case in the U.S. We also have a much more developed air transport system. Try to build a high-speed rail link between say Chicago and Orlando.
Also, California does not have an adequate electric power system at present, and wants to get rid of all gas-powered vehicles. It has to deal with that infrastructure problem as well, which is also going to be very costly. Where is that money coming from and how long will that take? There are some other issues that California has to deal with in competition to the high-speed rail project. I suspect that electric power has a higher priority.
CAHSR would progress better were the state and the feds to both equally invest $2 B per year which is affordable.
How much is CA in debt?
California has a rainy day fund of about $23 billion currently, but is expected to run deficits in the $30 billion/year range for the next several years.
California has an economy the size of the nation of India: I don't understand why the state government can't come up with enough money. I guess just lack of political will?
The project is something like political quicksand, as far as I can tell. I think if the project manages to regain its footing, it will be safer to support whole-heartedly. I think that's the idea behind the Merced-Bakersfield initial operating segment. By replacing San Joaquins service with that through the San Joaquin Valley, they're guaranteed ridership, so it will be impossible to point to that and say no one is riding it.
@@LucidStew you might want to recant your quicksand metaphor.....QUICKSAND IS USUALLY FATAL.
@@michaeljones7927 Why do you think even Democrats are avoiding it? :)
@@LucidStew Dems avoid it because they are SURVIVALISTS. Republicans avoid it because they are ideologues opposed to infrastructure projects, except for highways and airports.
India purchasing power is 13 Trillion dollars....INDIA is 50 times cheaper and affordable than all countries
**TBM** STANDS FOR
**T** ITANIC
**B** OWEL
**M** OVEMENT
Nay glimpse of hope for the US rail infrastructure disappeared a long time ago.
You've became so divided and extreme that it seems that you're unable to build large projects as those require cooperation, central planing and the ability to fully commit to them, especially with funding.
Stop comparing yourself to Chine, as you're unable to look beyond your rivalry and prejudice (many of their advantages over you have nothing to do with their regime), look at Europe and Asian countries (apart from China) and you'll find out it changes nothing.
Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Finland or south Korea build transport infrastructure for a lower costs than China, and those are democracies with strict environmental and labor safety laws. Spain is has the lowest costs for HSR with the second largest network (after China, first per capita), and it's one of the most mountainous country in Europe.
To build a good HSR network and good local and regional public transport systems you need to do what you did in the past, pass a federal law that will fund this just like you did in the past with rail (although built by private companies they were financed by public lands extensive public lands grants and subsidy bond) and the interstate highways but you just cannot do this anymore.
You also need to nationalize the existing railroad infrastructure, another thing you're not likely to do.
Maybe you should g back to basic and start improving and extending regular local and regional systems, than move to intercity and interstate with HSR in mind (when possible).
The Mayan Train took 3 years and with US propaganda 948 Miles Hello!!!!! Sacramento to Los Angeles there are 359 miles
To be fair the Tren Maya is more like class 6 rail and CAHSR is near cutting edge as far as wheel on rail traction goes. The landscape also isnt exactly apples to oranges. This is one of my criticisms of the project. If we'd aimed a tiny bit lower, things probably would have gone more smoothly. Although I think they still should have aimed higher than Tren Maya. More like 185-200mph max, 140-150mph average.
Cap and trade isn't really state funds. we should just ramp fuel taxes higher or ideally start a VMT tax to start funding transit projects here.
Gilroy to SF costs are estimated at 11B which is insanely high not including DTX. Even the low of 8B is insane. We can cut costs by buying the ROW from UP cutting the need for tripple tracking and being smart in other ways.
The state could easily find 2-3B a year from highway funds if it wanted to
If Cap and Trade isn't state funds, then what is it? I'd move before allowing the state to track my mileage. You want to drive even more people out of the state and make the project even less likely? That's a good step.
I agree there are state sources by which the project could get done sooner than later, but that's not the topic here. You're certainly not going to get that amount of state funds just to build Merced-Bakersfield. The project is hanging on by a thread as it is.
" We can cut costs by buying the ROW from UP". Try again. UP will NOT sell you their rails.
@@LucidStew Its funding from private sources offsetting their carbon footprint. It doesn't go into the states general funds
VMT tax is likely coming even if it doesn't fund transit specifically. It has done well in a number of tests across the county, most of them just required you to report your odometer not using some GPS tracking. It is the only way we can have a user tax for non gas/diesel powered cars. VMT with a weight multiplier would be even better and I believe a current bill is studying it.
That state money would almost certainly go towards getting each end going but I could also see it split in 1/3rds to get the IOS finished while starting on each end
@@onetwothreeabc UP will absolutely sell the coast line and likely Stockton to Yuba City (old WP main). They don't use ether for much of anything and have agreed to let the state run as much pax service as they invest in capacity. I'm sure they'd be even happier if we found someone to take over local freight
@@gdrriley420 So why don't California own those lines already?
REALISTIC ASSESSMENT, but one that most of your subscribers don't want to hear.
I came out more positive about Merced-Bakersfield than I thought I would...
I want to hear.
California spends about $20B on highways every year, so $106B is only 5 years of highway spending
There are 12,000 miles of highways in the state and they crumbling badly enough as it is. You're not going to divert the entire budget, but I'm sure California can think up yet another tax.
Too bad those pesky airlines are not interested in reducing emissions... 🤔 I mean the state could say put some money down (for some shares) or we'd tax you anyway...
who is buying the shares and being taxed? it's unclear.
the guy who lead the massive chinesse effort to build it conent whide high speed system a so quickily was extremely corrupt.
Question.. Say a trillionaire wanted to donate the endtire bill privately, their only demand would be 247 construction, who would the money go to and is money the only prob?
Money is not the only problem. You have barely competent management, insanely invasive government oversight(due to formally crap, bordering on corrupt, management), and scope creep(although they now have an Inspector General/see insane govt oversight). The anonymous trillionaire would have to give their money to the state of California and watch it float into the ether.
@@LucidStew sooooooo realistically thoes in control would choose not to complete the project which was approved by the state?
@@LucidStew also do u no why this project was approved n broke ground without the land being 100% acquired?
@@JOHNSMITH-dc6lr The only funding the project initially had was the Prop 1A bond($9 billion directly to the project). The bond stipulates that no section of CAHSR can be built with more than 50% bond funds. So, the bond is meaningless without another funding source. Obama administration comes along, says you can have $2.5B, but you have start in Central Valley and meet XYZ progress requirements. They were going to miss the progress requirements if they didn't start right away. This was before the state started funneling Cap and Trade money to the project, so it was either do that or nothing. Nothing probably would have been better in the long run, but that's hindsight talking. Beyond that, they really didn't need to have ALL the land acquired as long as it was acquired in time to build to schedule. The issue was that they started building sections and then DIDN'T acquire the land in time.
@@JOHNSMITH-dc6lr My personal belief is that the politicians and unions are in no hurry to finish anything and are just fine with it sucking up public money for decades.
Really? They intend to build a railway with an acronym that is an anagram of CRASH?
The Chinese high speed rail program is way overbuilt. Most of the lines will never pay back the cost to build them. But that's the Chinese system: keep people working instead of protesting on the streets. That's a lesson that California should learn: say CAHSR kept people employed, but it is no longer needed and JUST SHUT IT DOWN.
What would the bill come to in that case?
Actually having a continuous source of projects is a good way to reduce the cost of said projects that's part of why China and Spain can build so much so quickly for so cheap
$11 billion at the moment. They've sold $5.5 billion of the bonds. Bond service is essentially the same. Call it $17 billion obligated at the moment.
@@IndustrialParrot2816 How exactly connecting all major cities in China ''way overbuilt'' ? because is losing money ? - do this right wing capitalist who only think about profit think Airports are not subsidised ? - they think Interstate highway make money or something? always need to see the bigger picture.
Infrastructure itself has a welfare nature and promotes economic development. Who asked you to make money from infrastructure?
@@postahundredcommentsbutonl4408 I think this gets missed by anyone demanding the government do things that pay for themselves. One of the possibilities of government is that it can do things that don't need to concern themselves with immediate return. Or it can fund things that have more esoteric returns. It's not a business. If this were the mindset for everything, we wouldn't have a National Park Service. Not only is that a national treasure, but it has inspired countries around the world to likewise set aside natural areas for conservation and preservation. What is the price tag on that?
The way I see it, if the Federal Government can break strikes for the rail companies, their boards of directors can be hunted for sport. I forget where I was going with this.
Maybe you were going to suggest hunting the politicians as well.
CAHSR.....Grab a ticket on the train to nowhere.
Might get somewhere in about 10 years. Would be nice if it got somewhere outside of the Central Valley by then.
What Would It Really Take To Finish California High Speed Rail In 5 Years?
Ignore special interests and red tapes. 🤣😂
Even then, good luck.
Since it will only go from Modesto to Bakersfield, it will need enormous subsidies to stay in operation. Not sure how many folks need to take a train in that corridor. Driving Hwy 99 would probably be faster and cheaper.
The USA doesn't need high-speed rail. If California wants it ,let them pay for it.!!!! I'm still trying to figure out how Cali is going to fill that new huge resevoir they are building.
You might be interested to learn that highway traffic is more or less flat lining in the U.S. and the segment of intercity traffic that is growing fastest is rail. So while I think it can be strongly stated that the U.S. doesn't need HSR as much as other countries, to say it doesn't need it at all isn't borne out by the data. This demand will only increase over time because the population will continue to increase while both the interstate highway system and commercial airport networks are near build-out.
Concerning the Sites Reservoir, the state possess a huge system of pumps, canals and tunnels that connect the reservoirs on the west side of the northern Central Valley and the Sacramento Delta. The objective of the thing is to hold excess water in wet years, like the one we just had. It won't be filled by natural flow alone. However, this is currently the case for many reservoirs in the state.
Your cars are the reason why the US only have a quarter of the chinese population but makes twice carbon footprint than China per capita. China is only the biggest total carbon footprint because they have 4x your population and the west moved all their manufacturing there.
@@rap3208After four decades of the brilliant one-child policy China's population is imploding, thankfully.
Also worth remembering, California pays more to the federal government than it receives from the federal government. If you want things to be “fair” California should get more from the federal government. (I’m not advocating for this just pointing it out)
The speed that they are going is going to fail in five years
America needs to make up its mind then work hard to get this project done. The amount of industries the project will bring back to the country will be extremely helpful. They can help the nation build a high speed train network and manufacture so many other stuff. This is what the government should be doing to win the competition with China. Bitching about China for everything they do won't help America.
No. Eta 2050
Why all this hating on a infrastructure project that unites Californians? Sure it's expensive, but where is all the complaining about the constant buildup of the military? America is trillions of dollars in debt because of constant upgrading of the military to fight and overcome the equipment that we have sold to other nations.
I do videos about high speed rail, not military spending. I'm one person. I can't cover every topic in the world. In fact, simply covering this topic on a weekly basis in this format has proved beyond my physical capability, so there you have it.
Beyond that, it's a specious argument. Someone can't complain about one thing unless they complain about everything you have a problem with? Can I get a list of all the things I need to complain about and all the things I'm not allowed to complain about until I've complained about the list of things I'm supposed to complain about?
Also, the idea that this "unites Californians" is not borne out by the facts. It's supported by maybe 53-54% of the state and I'd argue that is highly skewed by most people having no idea about the state of the thing. Which, I suppose brings us back to "why the hate"(your words not mine). So that the populace can be aware and make decisions accordingly.
@@LucidStew Very well said, Mr. Stew. Your channel and several others are devoted to high-speed rail, but many of the comments are best characterized as extreme politics, both left and right. I want to hear an intelligent discussion of the feasibility and desirability of passenger rail service, and especially trains that operate between 110 mph and 220 mph. I wish the ideologues who want to bitch about defense spending would do so elsewhere. We can afford to procure both very fast trains and sixth generation fighter planes. And we can afford to build both improved highways and new rail infrastructure. All transportation spending on infrastructure is stimulative, and therefore beneficial to the economy.
@@michaeljones7927 I agree, although I'm fine with people complaining about it. I don't have any demands people conform to some orthodoxy. I generally don't. :) As long as we can talk without attacking each other, works for me.
The comparisons with the nuclear thread that pushed US to go on the moon is for me not good. The nuclear threats was way less likely than the global warming. And the GW could lead to make LA or even SF not livable in the next 10-15 year.
I am very surprised that even you the transit advocate in US seem to not take fully the scale of it.
In Europe, some HSR project are debated because studies shows they will not make change in the overall carbon footprint. But this project is a carbon footprint killer as few ones exists in the world.
So my point is: i don't know how likely is to finish it in 5years but I really doubt that it will be ever finished if not within 10-15 years du to the start of climate change
The world was not that far from full-scale nuclear war several times in a 30 year stretch, with 1962 being a particularly close call. Not sure where you get L.A. or S.F. being unlivable in 15 years. Some would say they're already unlivable, but this has nothing to do with the temperature of the planet. The overall environmental benefit of the project is vastly overstated.
This video is very negative about the project list think more on future and forgot the pass
The video is about the future. The next 5 years. The past informs the future, as it is what got us to the present. Forgetting the past is a blunder.
I don't care how much it costs. I want to ride that damn train. I don't even have anywhere particular to go.
You spend a lot of time explaining high-speed rail plans, and then you explain why those plans are impossible. How about explaining some possible stuff?
I have 15 other videos that relate to what's possible with HSR in the U.S. Do some research before you make accusations.
Well, now I feel sad. Before, I thought I was just a pessimist and high speed rail in my life time wouldn't happen. But I voted yes because I want it to happen someday. Now, I see that it will NEVER be complete given all the variables. I guess if I want to ride a train that is "high-speed", I better pack my bags and leave the country. Unless Brightline West comes through...
This is just the 5 year example. As it stands, there is a pretty good chance Merced-Bakersfield will happen, probably in the 2030-2035 range if I had to guess.
The starter line will probably be finished within about 10 years and the full thing should be finished by 2045
@@IndustrialParrot2816 I'd be surprised if Phase 1 were operating by 2045, but its a lot of times for things to change.
@@LucidStew I imagine that the push to build HSR and public transportation is only going to grow stronger in the coming years
@@IndustrialParrot2816 We're at a bit of a crossroads right now. The next 5 years or so are going to be very influential in what happens after that. There are a number of projects in very early stages, but if CAHSR and BLW go badly, the others might stay in the early stages.
The Chinese can build it better
By Stealing Land 🌚
The United States is committed to net zero GHG emissions by 2050.
Doing this will require several changes, but among them are:
A) replacing most transport within cities with some form of electrified mass transit
B) replacing most air transport with electrified surface transport.
I don’t know whether the US will go with a simple ban on medium distance flights as France did, or simply allow emissions-market mechanisms to do the work, but either way there is no way that flying a medium distance journey will be a practical option in 2050. This has to be the national and state perspective. Flights are out: how are people going to travel 700 miles or 1000 miles in 2050.
Yeah, that's not happening, but that's usually the case with political rhetoric.
@@LucidStew so do you think the US will meet the target by some other means or just not meet it?
Hydrogen will be the commercial aviation fuel of the future. Sorry to disillusion you regarding your prognostication of the demise of air travel. It's not going to happen. And I say that as a train enthusiast. HSR can divert large numbers of air travelers in the right markets if the elapsed time is less and the FARE IS COMPETITIVE. The real issue is....should government provide an operating subsidy to HSR, in addition to a capital subsidy. My heart says yes....my brain says no.
@@darynvoss7883 not meet it, of course.
@@LucidStew well that's shocking, I never thought I would see the day that the US wouldn't live up to its ideals.
Biden could go on TV, announce a high speed rail plan for next 10 years, make a speech, with a map. I think if he did it, maybe people would go along, but it's hard to know for sure. That's what it would take, but he's unlikely to do this, so oh well. We lose another decade.
Oh, and I'm not sure if you've done this yet, but you should cover the Tren Maya project in Mexico. Maybe falling behind Mexico might cause Americans to reconsider.
The politics of it is tricky. If Biden personifies it, then I think there would be a target on its back.
Like in the video, I think the best case scenario is if somehow Congress comes up with a way for everyone to get money. Money from Congress will come in regardless, just nowhere near fast enough to finish in 5 years.
Right now I'm only covering American subjects. There are a couple of motivations behind that. One is to educate myself because I'm not a train guy and there is a lot to learn about the subject. The other is to keep my scope manageable, which it is currently. This will evolve over time as, at one a week, I'll start running out of video topics sooner than later. There has been talk of connecting the Texas Triangle to Monterrey, Mexico and I've also talked about Toronto, Canada in some of my videos, so those may eventually be feet in the door to expanding internationally. That's some time away, though. Probably next year at the earliest.
@@LucidStew HSR is going to be a Big-D Democrat issue anyway, it's like NPR, NEH and Amtrak. If Republicans take control, HSR is dead, I'm pretty sure. The only hope is now, with Biden(my take). I'd say the other advantage of the 'BIden HSR speech' plan is that he can show this big map with all kinds of lines intended for the future, so it's technically for the entire country -- but then a lot of that stuff gets built way way in the future, but the short term the money goes to the projects that are feasible now. I believe the original Japanese HSR plan was like this, and had all kinds of routes that still haven't been built even now, 60 years later.
@@cathrynm Republicans already have control of the House, so HSR is DOA.
Political will. Cut 10% of the huuuuge military budget and we could have HSR everywhere AND give every poor kid a private-school quality education. Crime would fall and we'd blow Germany and Korea out of the water in terms of education. But noooooo........ keep em dumb, in cars and on 10-lane make-work freeways.
Are you a dummy who drives a car?
Cancel this thing and learn from this. Don't do anymore projects in California.
CA HSR was already designed impossible by not doing a simpler approach in the highway medians instead of expensive viaducts in unacquired ROW and re-routing freight trains and intersections. Instead of spending $33 billion in Central Valley section, spend $12 billion instead.
China is a poor example especially when you look at all the shortcuts especially their lack of rigor in building their HSR. Their safety record is horrific. The corruption is massive. Much money is actually diverted into greased palms and crooked contractors.
My thinking is finish the Bakersfield to Los Angeles section so at least Brightline West can one day link from Victorville to Palmdale stations for a Las Vegas connection. This will at least give the HSR a purpose and reason to use it for the Central Valley residents.
With the deterioration of San Francisco, there won’t be a Silicon Valley left. No one wants to visit a homeless colony.
I think overdesign was the first problem, but that's a symptom of a government project. I'm sure the politicians and contractors involved have no issue with the Central Valley section coming in 3X overbudget.
Next up after that section is probably S.F. to Gilroy. Doubtful on L.A. as Bakersfield-Burbank is the most expensive part of the project.
I agree completely that CAHSRA should build south to Los Angeles first, but why couldn't the Authority enter into an agreement with Brightline West to share ownership of the HSR line between Palmdale and Los Angeles. I don't know if Fortress Investment Group would be interested in a 50-50 deal, but it should be initiated by CAHSRA as a way of getting into Southern California ASAP...at half of the estimated cost of building the tunnel under the San Gabriel mountains. Better yet, persuade Metrolink to join the partnership from Palmdale to LA, with each of the three parties having a 1/3 interest. This way Metrolink could provide high speed commuter service from Lancaster and Palmdale to LA Union Station, allowing it to avoid the twisting, obsolete old SP line through Soledad Canyon. Brightline West would benefit greatly by going directly to LA Union Station, avoiding the Rancho Cucamonga transfer to a slow moving Metrolink train.
I think the three agencies should form a special construction agency like the Gold Line and the VTA, to start the Vegas to DTLA segment. Design the non-High Speed solution first to get the gambling public buyin, develop a grass-roots movement for HSR.@@michaeljones7927
@@mrxman581 That was not how I described over engineered.
@@mrxman581 What you described was not what I said regardless. You’re gaslighting by referring to the 5 freeway route and feeder lines.