California High Speed Rail - Where Are We Going?
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 07. 2024
- Hey everybody! We are back again today with the next stage of CAHSR content! This video will focus on where the project is headed in the near future! The Merced and Bakersfield Extensions are the main focus today, so get ready. Feel free to comment down below any suggestions you have for topics you would like me to cover!
This video was much more manageable to make, and I plan on trying out different formats as time goes on. I will be taking any feedback provided to help me improve my content!
Merced to Madera Project Section Animation:
• CAHSR Merced to Madera...
Feel free to join the Discord Server to help participate in research or chat!
/ discord
If you would like to support me on Patreon, I have set one up as well!
/ amperebeep
Thanks for dropping by!
Fantastic update! Thank you for your work!
Incredible video. You've given a masterclass on providing informative, factual information about this project. So refreshing to see a video from someone who knows what is going on. Can't wait for the next one. Thank you.
Thank you so much! I will do my best!
Thanks for the update! Keep em coming :)
7:07 “Friant-Kern Canal“, pronounced ‘fry-unt. (From a former Fresno County resident.)
thanks for useing my broll, much apreciated
There's a lot of contingency fat in the timeline. Both station construction & Merced & Baker. sections could start construction 6-9mths earlier. Hopefully, we'll start to see some reductions in the timeframe from hereon rather than delays.
CAHSR is extremely careful with timelines. I think they want to show some on-time and on-budget completions timed with the first train tests to boost public support for the project. It's sad that they're leaving room for delays, but I think that that is perfectly understandable.
Now we just need to get them the money!
Their timeline depends on future, yet-to-be-approved funding. What can you expect?
Apparently, CAHSRA's strategy is to self-perpetuate its existence without an esprit de corps mission of expediency by retaining a large reserve which is currently about $3 billion. They won't ever risk exhausting the reserve in order to protect its existence and survival against slow, delayed or no future funding.
@@onetwothreeabc Of course, I understand that they are being cautious. I'm just making the pt that there is some opp to advance a couple of obvious project components. Around $25B of IOS funding is currently identified, so a shortfall of a few billion. There is scope for CHSRA to adjust some of the funding pipeline esp in relation to C&T income.
On the C&T side, it is fair to expect higher annual income for the rest of the decade. Previously, most auctions were undersubscribed due to oversupply of allowances given that the 2020 carbon target was achieved 3 years early! We will have to see what the settlement prices will be in the coming years but it is expected to increase further continuing the trend of the last 2yrs. This is esp so with the annual cut in carbon allowances having increased to 5% from the pre 2021 3% and after the new Scoping Plan in Nov 22. Since Nov, subsequent auctions in 2023 (Feb, May & Aug) have been fully subscribed underpinning the big price increase. Aug settlement price is 100% higher than the price was in Nov 2021. The settlement price is also expected to increase in the next few years with impending tougher emission regulations. Thus, with an increasing settlement price offsetting decreased allowances, we can still probably expect a min $1B-$1.2B C&T annual ave for the rest of the decade. In a few yrs, it is reasonable to expect that Sacramento will announce that C&T will be extended beyond 2030.
legendary analysis!! so glad i was recommended this channel on reddit
Another good informative video. Very exciting stuff to see the official timeline of 2030 for service in the 171 mile segment. I was thinking they were only shooting for the 119 mile piece.
Once they start testing the trainsets that will be a huge boost for the project.. People might not be able to ride it before 2030, but seeing the train go by in person at 220+ mph is going to be almost just as awesome as riding it. I can't wait
I hadn't thought about it before, but I'm getting just as excited of scheduling a trip to see the testing. In my mind I kept thinking 2030 at the earliest, but now I'm excited about just seeing the train blow by me too.
Maybe you can figure out and recommend where the best vantage point would be to view the trainset testing. Thanks
There may be plenty of free rides during the "testing stage" for those in the elite ruling class and embedded media who have theIr well-deserved special privileges. Rules for thee not for me.
@@davidjackson7281 That's a good point. I wonder if they'll ask for volunteers to ride the test trains? Sign me up. I have to admit it's exciting, but a little scary too. I might be happy with just watching at first 😊
@@mrxman581250 mph would be scary good.
@@davidjackson7281 Once dynamic testing is completed satisfactorily & the FRA signs off, then it is reasonable to expect some pax test runs. Of course politicians who funded it & the media who are needed to publicise the good news to the public will need to be on those initial test runs. As well as workers & their families who built it. However, you should expect some gen public opportunities too. You'll get your opp.
@@yappofloyd1905When might I plan on making my reservation? Will that be on the 119 mile segment or the 171 mile segment?
I expect the funding phasing will get shifted around some as they see who applies and for how much year to year. I'd say try and get it all by 2025 at the latest given how towards the end projects who got design money will then be looking for construction money.
I'm so excited for the future of this channel!! One thing I'm especially looking forward to: recaps of anything interesting from CAHSR board meetings. I stopped watching them because of how repetitive they tend to be, but there can sometimes be diamonds in the rough that don't get reported on in general-audience media.
Please do put your studies first though. Don't set your future on fire to make a couple thousand train nerds happier each week. We understand if you need to study for finals!
Do you think with the completion of the Interior portion of CAHSR, that would allow the LA and San Fran portion to be accelerated?
I definitely think that it would help. The sooner we get the extension to SF built, the sooner we can have private investment in the project.
Actually, I enjoyed your video; I would appreciate it you can show more of the breakdown of funding. As well as possible projects; that have, or are very close to being completed. As the CA HSR website currently doesn't have a drone operator whose able to give videos showing what progress has been completed on the target section from Madera to Bakersfield. Actually, Drone Zone Flyover, was doing videos but all videos have been commandeered by websites hostile to HSR even being completed. These sites on CZcams are constantly being hacked and videos deleted; claiming that HSR is merely a financial boondoggle!
I would very much appreciate any Drone Operator in the target section to start making their own videos, showing what projects are currently being constructed and which projects have been completed!
God I hope we can get the small billions needed to start the la SF sections.... I can't wait until 2033 to start construction...
ugh i know we really need billions to start digging now
If the project was better funded right now, I think they could’ve prioritized the Merced to SF portion as they’d only really need to tunnel through the coast range and build up to San Jose. Then the Caltrain would only need to be electrified by then. That way the projected could have at least opened with a connection to he Bay Area ready as well.
@@alex30425Fifteen miles of tunnels through the Pacheco Pass will be an easy peasy piece of cake. Meanwhile there's always the ACE train as a great connect'ng alternative.
@@davidjackson7281 Certainly a lot easier than the monster tunnel under the Grapevine that you constantly advocate for, bud. If you're going to troll then at least be consistent with your trolling.
The Altamont has too many NIMBYs. Deal with them during your ACE upgrade problem and maybe you'll get some CAHSR services at some point. But the rest of us aren't waiting for you all to deal with your problems or paying for it.
I think SF is well prepared to let high speed trains roll into the city quite soon, with their Caltrain electrification and stuff. SoCal and Metrolink on the other hand...god help us.
It look Caltrain years to electrify the 80-something miles between SJ and SF. I hope they come up with a system to do the HSR faster. Surely there must be a more efficient way.
There is a definite advantage to being able to work 24/7 on a construction project because you don't have to duck all those d**n commuter trains.
@@danielcarroll3358 will it really be 24/7 tho? This isn’t China where the government says “work 24/7 and like it or else”. They only do 24/7 when it’s a huge emergency like the I-95 collapse or the 405 carmageddon thing.
We could just fund the electrification to Gilroy or even to Salinas from Bay Area money via a ballot measure. We're the ones who will benefit the most from that section of the line. Plus, this could be folded into the expansion of the Capitol Corridor that is planned to get high quality near-HSR rail for the entire region from Monterey to Sacramento.
The section between San Jose and Richmond is planned to have 110 mph speeds and the section from Vallejo to Sacramento 125 mph speeds.
Way better off upgrading the ACE route than the Capitol Corridor. ACE has more riders on a shorter route. Most importantly, it will bridge the huge disconnecting gap between Caltrain and CAHSR. The expensive and lengthy construction of the Pacheco Pass route may be many, many decades away.
@@davidjackson7281 Dude, what are you talking about? The Capitol Corridor has at least 4x the ridership of the ACE every year!
Why do you keep making crap up? For the love of god, just look things up before saying things! What is wrong with you?
Damn protogens
CAHSR still has miserable PR. The construction updates are sporadic and tell almost nothing about what is happening. It took them a year just to finally decide to show which projects on the interactive map are completed and still most of the pop-up descriptions on that map are out of date. Most people worry about the extra load on the electrical grid (the whole system is solar self-powered). There is no place to visit that lays out the whole system plan for interested voters to see.
I mention this because bad PR is a time-tested way to fail. It was a key element in the failure of the superconducting supercollider in Texas to get enough funding to finish. I tried to go see it once with my family and there wasn't even a visitors' office. And then after the cancellation, they were surprised that no one knew much about the project.
I'll bet that most people think about CAHSR as a political contest rather than as a transportation project. They shoudl hire all of you CZcams correspondents to make official videos to replace the overproduced, mindless stuff they release now.
CAHSRA has never really respected the public's intelligence and ability to reason. They expect to public to blindly accept what the "experts" dictate like in all one-party rule autocratic governments.
@@davidjackson7281 More nonsense anti-rail propaganda from you. CAHSR is required by law to not only release its decisions to the public and how they were arrived at, but also to hold public consultations with the constituents. Just because you wanted CAHSR to run via Altamont pass next to your house and didn't get your way does not mean that CAHSR is somehow the devil.
Just let it go. ACE is planning to increase speeds and electrify on the Altamont. If you actually care, then help your community raise money for that project. That's it. That's the solution. CAHSR is not going to switch to the Altamont. It's more expensive and has more NIMBYs than the chosen alignment. It also does not require a new Bay bridge. There was no way that CAHSR chose the Altamont unless it never crossed the Bay to SF. That was made illegal by Prop 1A.
Some surprise here. I did expect the line to go further south from Shafter before going east, taking the 7th Standard Road. In general, I think following the BNSF south into Bakersfield, with a station close to the current Amtrak sttaion would be better.
Track and system choosing will be interesting. While a balastless track would be state of art, I can't see them choosing such a system considering the lack of know how in the US. Signaling and train protection will be most likely ETCS. Siemens is the obvious front runner for train delivery, with a factory in California, and their models are all designed around that system. It is also proven and tested at the required speeds for this line unlike other PTC systems in the US
Things have to happen faster on this. 2028 for the first trains delivered and begin testing on 119 miles, while meanwhile Brightline West, if all goes right for them, will have begun service on their 218-mile route between Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga. If Brightline West can really go from nothing to revenue trains in five years for $12 billion, what’ll that say about CAHSR taking three times as long and costing nearly three times as much?
CAHSR has to aim higher, and push to get Merced-Bakersfield ready for service by 2028, and begin construction on the San Jose and Palmdale extensions so they’re done by 2033. They need to make the case that LA-SF HSR is still very much worth doing, and that things would happen faster if it was funded more, but look at the current state of the project.
8 years since construction began, 15 since voters approved it, and it’s still 119 miles in the Central Valley (plus Caltrain electrification and other rail improvements in the Bay Area and SoCal), with no timeline for reaching SF or LA. That’s due to a number of factors by both CAHSR and outside forces (namely opposition doing all they can to delay construction then make the case it’s taking too long), but it doesn’t help disprove the false narrative spread by critics that this project is failing.
It’ll take some serious continued PR by CAHSR to increase wider public awareness and support of the project’s efforts, and show why we should still be excited about California high speed rail. I think part of that will be making it the first in the country that people can ride, and that means launching Merced-Bakersfield service in Summer 2028 which should still be achievable, but it’ll take a massive effort and amount of cash to make it happen.
Maybe while there is still time with the current federal administration the Biden mafia could be recruited. They have been very successful securing funds. Seriously, thanks for another nice op-ed piece. An immedeate $11 billion FRA grant may make 2028 almost possible. But to be done by 2033 would require conservatively another $40-50 billion infusion.
CAHSR could have a difficult challenge gearing up a workforce to get it logistically done by 2033. Though I would love to see the tunnel work started yesterday. Not to split hairs, but what about the Burbank extension needed for a 2:40 trip. That's atleast another $20 billion and a decade to build. Regardless, I remain 199% in support.
A couple of pts. Construction period thus far is more 6 yrs not 8. Major construction didn't really begin until mid 2016 & then we need to subtract 1 yr for Covid. In relation to BLW, as you say 2028 if all goes well. BLW is unlikely to start major construction by the end of the yr as they state. Mid next yr seems more likely. BLW def won't complete it by 2028, 2030 min is more realistic. They will encounter probs & delays as BLF did & every major infrastructure project does. Lastly, that $12B will def rise to at least $14B-$15B in a couple of years. 2030 opening is still good if achieved.
CHSR and Brightline West are very different, don't confuse them. Brightline West will hit their maximum speed for only short sections. The I15 alignment creates many locations forcing the train to run slow(er). Their cheap space cramped option; (in the median between the Interstate carriageways) does not leave sufficient space for BW to fully double track their railroad, even if rider numbers eventually demands it. The BW alignment only leaves the I15 in a couple of places, as this will cost BW serious $$$. They will spend those $ only where needed to achieve their desired journey time. A high speed railroad could be built to do RC - LV quicker than BW, but BW have done the math; they know how much money they need to spend to achieve their business objectives. While BW will be a commercial success, and be a superior travel choice, it is not high speed rail in the conventional sense.
@@peterrobinson6872 I agree with most of that (their estimated travel time means an average speed of 100.6 mph, compared to 128.6 mph for CAHSR’s interim CV service). However, 186 mph for BW does make it high speed rail (anything above 155 mph), even if it only achieves those speeds in a couple places.
I do hope BW can achieve 2028 though, and that their pace of construction helps push CAHSR to accelerate theirs, which means getting them more funding to do so. It’d be great if there could be two operating examples of US high speed rail (three if counting Acela) by the 2028 Olympics. That should be a national goal driven by pro-rail legislators, especially the current administration.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Brightline West will be about as HSR as the Acela is. There will be zero HSR miles on the California side which is about 2/3 of the route. There will only be a couple of sections with 150+ mph potential on the Nevada side as the right of way descents into the valley that Vegas sits in. But even there the uninterrupted HSR sections will be very short and just outside of Vegas. Is there even any point in speeding up to HSR speeds just before your terminus station?
The people criticizing the Acela don't seem to think that short disconnected sections at HSR speeds are real HSR. And this with the Acela sitting at 125+ mph for more than half of its route, which is considered HSR by EU and international standards on upgraded lines. Brightline West will stay around the 110 mph range for a majority of the Rancho-LV route. A if they ever somehow extend to LA over Metrolink trackage that drops to less than half the route!
if I lived there I would have a problem with the stations, but before you think of me as a NIMBY and want the project halted for that redesigned, I would want them to "finish the damn thing" then come back, lay the tracks, reserve the land then come back and fix the things that can easily be fixed, a platform can be turned into a station with lesser headache later than halting the project until this goal is met.
but, just remember a platform is fine but if it includes level grade crossings, they will need either the cars to go under or the rail to go over and yes that will prevent headaches in the future, especially when they want to automate the line which will be inevitable.
Noise, I don't care about, they can put up sound barriers after the fact, and then there's the blight... construction gear is temporary, rail is beautiful, trains are sexy... bring in the beautiful hotness.
This sounds reasonable, but unfortunately going back to restart work is always by definition more expensive than just doing the whole thing in one go. I understand that this is not what you want to see, but they are bound by their budgets. If there are obvious ways to build something cheaper with no direct negative impact then they will try to do that.
With how little money they are getting it's extremely dangerous for them to stop. At this point, CAHSR is like a shark. If they stop moving forward or even a little sideways they probably die. It's very important to keep the momentum going.
3:58 why not building a roundabout at the Robertson boulevard interchange?! It much more efficient.
340 miles may take 93 minutes and the slower 100 miles of the urban blended track would take 67 minutes. For a theoretical total of 2:40. That is the "legal mandate" trip time from Prop 1A that CAHSR is suppose to achieve. i'm personally skeptical.
Didn't CAHSR win a court case about this specific issue indicating that they were not legally obligated to meet the specific time stated in the original Proposition?
You are a concern troll trying to undermine public support for this project so that it can be cancelled. Of course you're "skeptical".
Also, Prop 1A was passed in a literal statewide referendum. That makes Prop 1A not only a state law, but also a constitutional state law. It is in fact illegal to break that law as was tested and confirmed in several court cases specifically about CAHSR and countless times in relation to other ballot measures.
@@mrxman581That's news to me as the saying goes. Since final completion seems so, so, so far away, it's for me age-wise perhaps a moot point unless I live to see a hundred. lol.
Apparently the cruising speed will have to be a steady 220 mph for 340 miles to meet the 2:40 trip time.
what's the total track distance?
@@ThomasBomb45440 miles from SF-LA. There are 20-30 more miles to Anaheim and 30 miles of opposite direction track between Madera and the Merced Wye which equals the system's 500 total miles. Someone has convinced me now that the trip is 440 miles +/- 10?
South of Gilroy would have to average 195 mph to meet that trip time. The route is mostly being built to 250 mph design & 220 mph operational standards so that is within spec, but it would be close especially since the approach to Los Angeles Union Station is slower.
They have shown that they are interested in running express trains that only stops in SF, San Jose, & LA rather than SF-LA nonstop so reality that you or I could ride will probably look like 2:40 + the time to stop in San Jose. That decision honestly makes the most sense to me is worth the few extra minutes rather than blowing by San Jose.
The Central Valley track is designed for a 220 mph cruising speed and a 250 mph maximum design speed. And there are other trains that cruise at that speed without issue for close to a decade now. The overall route average for CAHSR will be some 10-20 mph slower than other lines. Perfectly doable and literally what the system was designed to do. This is one reason why some of the construction was so expensive.
@@TohaBgood2 Excellent points, as usual.
Should of built Sacramento to SF connection first. Would have changed the public’s mind.
That's a completely different project. That's the Capitol Corridor modernization. It will have 110 mph speeds down the East Bay, and 125-150 mph speeds from Vallejo to Sacramento. But that's literally a completely separate regional project that's mostly happening in the Bay Area. CAHSR is mostly focused on connecting the NorCal to SoCal. Inter-regional rail links are not CAHSR's purview. The locals have to fund and build those themselves.
@@TohaBgood2 chsr dont plan to make a sac chsr extension and have no trains running from sac to sf with only trains from sac to la and sf to la. the plan is for some chsr trains coming from sf to go north at merced rather than south towards madera and on to bakersfield and these northbound trains from sf will continue to sac on the future planned sac chsr extension. So you will be able to go from sf to sac direct on one chsr train. The capital corridor does not go to sf it goes from sac through fairfield then over the benicia bridge to martinez and on south to santa clara county where if you wanted to get to sf you could then switch to caltrain at san jose diridon station but switching to bart/ferry before then by a bus connection would be faster. The chsr will go to diridon station ofc to connect to the capital corridor if thats something someone wants.
@@Matt-ne6de Two things, 1. The Second Transbay tube is being planned to allow Caltrain to serve the northern part of the East Bay via SF and for the Capitol Corridor to be able to serve SF.
2. The Capitol Corridor is planning to separate from freight rail by switching to the Coast Subdivision south of Oakland and moving all the freight train to an Eastern Alignment North of Richmond.
Eventually they want to electrify the Capitol Corridor and speed it up to 110 mph in the East Bay and 125-150 mph from Vallejo to Sacramento. So there will be a direct SF-Sac HSR link via the upgraded Capitol Corridor. The idea was always to make the CC a type of Northeast Corridor for California. Lawmakers always loved having HSR trains to travel from the Capital to the main business center in the state. So the parallels with the NEC are kind of perfect here.
what a shame.
Won't be completed in my lifetime. I remember being in Jr high and they said we would be able to go to college in big cities. Here I am in my 40's and my oldest going to college next year and it not even close to completion. It is a joke, could have put half the money for a high speed rail to las vegas and it would be done in 5 yrs and profitable.
Billions (that you don't have) to go from Merced to Bakersfield -- who cares? All that farmland that the track crosses -- are the owners going to give the right to cross their property? The track route should have just followed the 5.
You won't get billions of Fed fund if you follow 5.
No, the track is going right where it should. It's about time that transportation and investment was focused on the Central Valley as this area is CONSTANTLY left in the cold in favor of the coastal cities.
You know how eminent domain works, right? CAHSR first writes a check to the farmer for fair market value. If the land owner doesn't like it, CAHSR takes them to court. Either way, they get the land eventually.
@@philscherer1605 The only issue with that process is that it is deliberately allowed to stretch almost forever if the landowner has access to enough money for legal fees. This is exactly that type of arrangement that the anti-CAHSR Republican dark money groups exploited early on in the project. They funded a ton of these unwinnable lawsuits in order to block key land parcels so that CAHSR would have to either spend a ton of money impeded by the crucial gap in the construction site, or to design/build around it at great expense.
So, yes, what you are saying about eminent domain is true. But what that process amounts to is potentially deadly or at the very least extremely costly delays to the project.
@@TohaBgood2 But CAHSR learned their lesson. They now plan the route, obtain the land where heavy construction must be done and then let the lawyers get the rest while construction continues.