California High-Speed Rail Project: All You Should Know

- Book train, bus & flight tickets through the Omio: omio.sjv.io/Vy... and support our channel. Thanks.
- Support Railways Explained on Patreon: / railways_explained
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy cool rail-related products on our online store: railways-expla...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
► Railways Explained aims to establish a WORLDWIDE COMMUNITY of all RAIL LOVERS, WORKERS AND EXPERTS, by creating regular, entertaining and educational railway content of high quality.
► If you find yourself in at least one of these three groups, support this idea by SUBSCRIBING TO RAILWAYS EXPLAINED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- In this video, Railways Explained team discusses construction of a famous High-Speed Railway Line in California.
On a ballot measure, in what was called the Proposition 1A, with the support of 53%, the citizens of California approved issuing of 9,95 billion USD for what in the future should become America's first high-speed rail line.
Construction of Californian high-speed rail is actually divided into 2 phases. Phase 1, which refers to the 520 miles (837 km) section San Francisco - Merced - Los Angeles - Anaheim, and the Phase 2, which refers to the future line extensions from Merced to Sacramento and from Los Angeles to San Diego, with the total length of 280 miles (450 km). The whole project actually covers 800 miles (1287 km), including up to 24 stations, and design speeds of up to 220 mph (354 kmh).
The reason why this project is so special, is the controversy that follows it all the time. The decision to begin construction in the Central Valley (section from Merced to Bakersfield), the selected route, skyrocketing of the project costs, lack of funding, questionable profitability, poor management, environmental protection, endless lawsuits. The list is simly too long.
In any case, we think we managed to summarize all its important aspects in one video: history preceding the decision to begin contruction, the scope of the project, suitability of California for HSR, all the details around costs and funding, present status of works, profitability and our opinion on the future of the project.
Link for more details: www.buildhsr.c...
Enjoy!
- If you enjoyed this video, SHARE it with your rail-loving friends to help us raise our community, and of course leave your opinion in the COMMENT section and hit the LIKE button.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
► Stay connected with us on social media:
- Facebook: / railwaysexplained
- Instagram: / railways_ex. . igshid=k0tv5loew79e&fbclid=IwAR0Ix2jPPbcUwhArt_iym9vzKgvrUQaLLH_4JkhILyzyY_upCyxTf5qxcwA
- Linkedin: / railways-. .
#California #HighSpeedRail #Trains

[@thrownchance]

Somehow I find it very strange, that something like that "has to pay off". No one bats an eye, when building highways, but public transport has to be a profitable business.

[@blackhole9961]

Highways are more vital in America than trains. Trains basically do the same thing as planes but are slower and more expensive.

[@jasonreed7522]

@@blackhole9961 they are also massively more energy efficient than either of those options. And HSR would have economic benefits and for a government project all the economic growth means extra tax dollars which should be considered part of the profit. (The same as when Interstates massively boosted the exonomy in the 50s) Also, gas is $5 per gallon right now, trains can be directly hooked into the grid making use of all that solar Cali is building. (And if they build concentrated solar basically non of its components have to depend on imports, but i would expect many would be imported anyway because thats the point of trade) And cars and planes currently run on a finite supply of dino juice (technically its algea and sea creatures not dinosaurs) and have a hard time switching to anything else, and even if they use something like hydrogen from electrolysis that still needs electricity and a primary energy source. HSR is a good idea, Cali just historically is bad at managing any of its projects. (Like step 1 when they decided to build it should have been aquireing the cooridor as cheaply as possible, and then start construction from the ends and work their way inwards)

[@anneeq008]

Not to ignore the infinite waste tolerated by the tax payer (or forced on) through the foreign wars

[@_tsu_]

@@blackhole9961 tell me you're American without telling me you're American

[@johnburwell6609]

Being self sufficient as far as operational costs was one of the key selling points when the proposition was approved by the voters. It seems fairly obvious that this has gone out the window now. It also seems obvious that many of the commentators here either weren't alive, a voter, or didn't live in CA when all this was being developed and sold to the voters since knowledge of the process that was used is lacking.

[@johnburwell6609]

This is an excellent unbiased report on CA HSR. One thing though that was only briefly mentioned was that early on consultants from Europe recommended a different route. Instead of the current route along old Hwy 99 using the I5 corridor was recommended since the land rights were already in place. Anyone who has ever traveled along these routes knows that Hwy 99 goes right through some of the most productive farmland in the world, while I5 goes through mostly barren country. The latest report from HSR contractors identify the land acquisition as the one of the prime factors for delays and cost over runs. Of course politics early one was a big driver for choosing the route unfortunately. Personally if driving I prefer Hwy 99 over I5. It's slower but much less boring than I5. If HSR is ever fully operational I doubt I'll live to see it.

[@RailwaysExplained]

thanks for those details!

[@qjtvaddict]

They should give up and do I-5

[@joechang8696]

the local governments along 99 lobbied for that route even they already have Amtrack. They don't seem to understand the distance and traffic needed to justify HSR

[@jpg3702]

Placing stations on I5 may be cheaper but it detracts from some of the value by building outside of the city center. It would create more car trips, new development and not create long-term investment in existing city center, which takes away from the sustainability benefits. Sure it would be cheaper, but what benefit would be lost in the process?

[@johnburwell6609]

@@jpg3702 Perhaps but the original concept (voted on by the citizens) was HSR between the metro LA/SD area to the Bay area, not Fresno, Bakersfield, Stockton, etc. Those connections should have been added with commuter lines as needed later along existing highways that exist now. Very little ridership was and still is anticipated from the smaller towns along the east side of the valley. In a recent article in the LA Times the main contractors identify the land acquisition as the major factor in cost over runs and schedule delays.

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

America: believes they are the greatest country in the world Also America: Lagging behind in infrastructure, education, and healthcare

[@petrhajduk9955]

@@AndyGarcia-ns3iw How about Uber + HSR + Uber, I guess that would work for quite some people?

[@ianhomerpura8937]

@@petrhajduk9955 Indonesia does this with Grab and GoJek. They have terminals for ride-hailing services within railway stations.

[@SleepTrain456]

As a Californian resident (San Diego) who is interested in trains, thanks for the information! This will take a long time (if the public and the officials want it to happen), but if and when the California High-Speed Rail project is finished, I will be interested in riding on it! If not, I guess the alternative is more conventional rail!

[@commentorsilensor3734]

I check San Diego public transportation. Many tourist attractions are not easy accesdible by public transportation even from Amtrak station. Oh, I forget in US, public transportation means if you cannot drv e or cannot afford to drive, the train supporters will laugh at you. Trains outside New England are just toys for car drivers but not for transportation

[@Mister8224]

First, it won't be hi-speed, second, it won't be cheap, tHIRD, , it will NEVER go from LA to SF

[@skygge1006]

@@Mister8224 so how fast is high speed? I mean it does surpass 200mph so I figured that it would be high speed rail. The construction has already started from LA to SF so when it does get done although in a while obviously it will be finished. Also thanks Sherlock for telling us that it won’t be cheap. A real Sherlock Holmes here

[@Mister8224]

@@skygge1006 I really hope you get what you want & it is actually useful for its intended purpose.I think users will have to be patient & adjust expectations for this to be a success. I have my doubts, but, who knows, maybe it will work

[@skygge1006]

@@Mister8224 yeah I agree with you I was being a bit sarcastic rude about that. Sorry. I was just trying to say if it does get constructed it will mark all of what you said.

[@MrJimheeren]

it's honestly pathetic how bad the US has become at building infrastructure

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

Except that we've become really good at it.

[@MrJimheeren]

@@IkeOkerekeNews please explain because all major infrastructure projects I see coming from the states are either massive delayed and massive over budget. Building a railroad trough the valley of California shouldn’t be a difficult job. Or digging a tunnel for the LIRR in New York or just maintaining bridges and dams. Paris is doubling the size of his metro system in 15 years. Japan is building the next generation of super speed maglev trains. America is struggling to built a HST something the Japanese did in the 60s and the French 20 years later in the early 80s.

[@MrJimheeren]

@B Babbich yeah about that. Have you heard of this small company called Airbus. The company that makes more commercial aircraft then Boeing

[@MrJimheeren]

@B Babbich can happen. Basically the same aircraft. The most important difference is the airline you fly with

[@lours6993]

@B Babbich The European Airbus is the the larger supplier of aircraft now. Boeing and the US are in second place and scandal ridden.

[@redhorsereincarnated5040]

It's all about the land for the tracks. The more land claimed for public transport the better. Hundreds of years from now people will still be riding on these lines. The more work done the happier I am, even if I might not get to benefit from it in my lifetime, because it's for the future.

[@richiesquest3283]

If this was a military budget the money would have been found. Stop short changing your citizens and give them something they deserve.

[@noob.168]

people support that military industrial complex bullshit because they think they're being patriotic.

[@TheChadmania]

@@noob.168 I think it's patriotic to want public access to clean, fast, and cheap transportation

[@IkeOkerekeNews]

Which is what they are trying to do.

[@MacMyKitty]

Specially since California produces America's food...

[@hardToSignUpHere]

@Central Intelligence Agency I know, right? I am sure Equador will invade the US at some point.

[@mushieslushie]

Starting with the section they are is a joke. They should have done the LA to SD section. If they had actually done that in the 80s maybe the system would have be done by now.

[@jpg3702]

I think building in a less dense area is good because it will allow them to learn from mistakes. We have to remember it's the first project of its kind in the US and there will be some learning along the way. That learning should not come at a premium that would be there if going through densely populated areas.

[@mushieslushie]

@@jpg3702 But it serves no purpose. Makes way more sense to build the lines in the cities, that could be used, and then connect them later on. It's not the first of it's kind in the US, there are 2 high speed electric rail lines on the east coast.

[@jpg3702]

@@mushieslushie There is a big difference between those lines and an actual high speed rail line. If you look at the history of the bullet train for example, it was designed from the ground up on grade separations and goes at much higher speeds, much higher than the highest speed train in the Northeast. I'm not sure what the second line you are referring to, but if you mean the one in Florida, it's not considered high speed. In addition, there are a lot of engineering complexities of building in earthquake country vs the East Coast trains. Those trains are not truly HS rail and they are build on the same grade as roads, causing a lot of passenger delays, injuries and deaths.

[@Geotpf]

They did it this way for two reasons. First, it's the section that is easiest to complete. Not only is it less curvy and less dense, there were fewer lawsuits in this section. The rail authority won most of the lawsuits but it did cause a delay, so start in the area that had the fewest delays. The second reason was political and kind of sneaky. Basically, everybody knows the Merced to Bakersfield section is pretty much worthless by itself. If they started in a section starting in LA or San Francisco, it would be likely that the section they started with would end up being the only section built. This would also cause yet another NorCal vs. SoCal catfight over who gets that section. So, they started in the worthless section in the middle, preventing the north/south pissing match and also increasing the chance that the whole thing would be built, as it is hard politically to stop with just the worthless middle section.

[@hamydunn9183]

I believe it is a strategy. It is easier to build that section, in term of land acquisition and construction. Once that part is done, it is easier to overcome the political pressure to complete it. If it is started in LA or SF, it will never get a chance to start. But the sad part is, the project still could end up being unfinished.

[@brentduanefoster]

I have been a supporter of High-Speed Rail here in California. For as many people who live here, it would be a huge asset in the long run.

[@ultrasoft5555]

I am wondering if all those 12 lane motorways are profitable? And do they hold ballot measures before each motorway construction? I don't even dare to imagine the money and time they spent on building those motorways, it must have been hundreds of years and trillions of dollars.

[@blackhole9961]

The US built interstate highways in the 1950s but in today’s money costed $500 billion. This varies year to year but in 2020 the us spent a total of $165 billion all roads. They may not be profitable but they are way more of a priority because everyone depends on them and they do more for the country. HSR in California just to connect 2 cities costs $100 billion+ and the price is still rising. This doesn’t even add cost of maintenance and operation. It would essentially just be a slower and more expensive plane.

[@juch3]

@@blackhole9961 but you're also not accounting for highways maintenance and the upgrades they've done since the 50s

[@skygge1006]

@@blackhole9961 as stated in the video for the distance traveled it will be a faster form of transportation for the people by about 2.5 hours

[@NikanDragosysSerpenDra]

@@blackhole9961 yeah and getting to said airport and out, checking in, Security, boarding, problems with the MD80 or OLD 737-400 again, would waiting for luggage, and then getting downtown? takes 6 hours SFO to LAX, and look at china they have 78%of the total highspeed rail infrastructure in the world and it paid off, France and Japan has a similar density with cali right in the sweet spot middle, it will be profitable. But only when the the the entire SFO LAX HSR 350km/h corridor complete.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@NikanDragosysSerpenDra It will take the same time to get to the train station as it takes to get to the airport. Probably more, since the train stations won't be well-served by roads. As for Chinese HSR paying off, where do you get your figures?

[@fietsenOveral4650]

Long story short is that US doesn't have high speed rail because of 100 years of auto (and more recently airline) industry propaganda and meddling. Preceding the Federal Highway Act, there were 3 decades of lobbying and cultural manipulation. There's a privately backed HSR project in Texas, but Southwest airlines is funneling huge amounts of money to state officials to hobble it.

[@RailwaysExplained]

Good point..

[@TheBodiesInTheWaterBeckons]

America is the reason why, i'm very wary of Lobbying and i think such a subversive and undemocratic bs like Lobbying should be in the same category as Bribery and prosecutable.

[@ronclark9724]

Nonsense. The truth is America is too large for trains, even the US Postal Service chose to fly the mail more than 50 years ago. The day the USPS terminated the railroads mail contracts, that was the very same day the railroads killed their passenger trains. No longer do passenger trains in America have on their consists several to a dozen mail cars. There are no European high speed rail trains running from London to Tel Aviv or London to Moscow. Or for that matter from London to Warsaw, or London to Istanbul, much less to Belgrade. It is a 5 hour flight from London to Tel Aviv, it is a 5.5 hour flight from New York City to Los Angeles, a 6 hour flight from Boston. Notice no mention of Alaska or Hawaii. Any distance no matter how fast the train is beyond 3 hours, trains lose to the airlines worldwide...

[@junelawson5719]

@@ronclark9724 Maybe America is too small for a national network, but it has a high clustered development pattern that could easily suit high speed rail. California is a good example of one of these corridors, as is the whole north east of the country

[@loljewlol]

@@ronclark9724 Hawaii is separate by a fucking ocean and Alaska is close to Washington. Also, as technology continues advance, higher speed of train will soon increase (650 kph). And this nonsense of about the us too big is ridiculous, china managed to accomplish finishing railways in the majority of their heavy population region.

[@martinv.352]

(I am from Germany.) The reason for high cost of California HSR is the extensive usage of tunnels and bridges. From a worldwide point of view, the reason to build cost-efficient or non cost-efficient is not the landscape, it is the question of funding. With public money, there's no need to build cost-efficient. You can compare Brightline vs. CHSR in the U.S., and France and Germany in Europe. The first french HS line (TGV Paris - Lyon) has been 100% funded by private money, and it has zero tunnels even in very hilly landscape. In Germany, I know one case where a citicen initiative pushed a less expensive variant of a HSR section. To omit that the public money expires, indeed a long tunnel has been implemented in the neighbour section. I am totally convinced that in the Bakersfield LA section, where lots of tunnels are planned, a much cheaper route would be possible.

[@ykpr]

What you have write on the first HS line in France is wrong. This HS line has been funded by government. The only HS line in France funded with private money are Tours-Bordeaux, Bretagne - Pays de Loire. So only 2, and the last one is totally operate by national railway authority so no risk for private companies.

[@martinv.352]

@@ykpr More precise: The TGV Paris - Lyon line has been built and financed by the State company SNCF. But the money was not tax payer money, SNCF borrowed the money from the bank and repayed it via ticket prices. I am not absolutely sure, but I think to remember that the TGV Atlantique in the late 80s did so, too, and also the Lyon - Marseille extension. But all lines which are later built are mixed funded by tax payers and bank loan. The TGV east line which develops an area with much lower population has been founded 50/50, because SNCF said, it can only run self-economic if the cost is half of the actual cost. In my opinion, this method is highly expedient. The two projects you mentioned are not self-economic. This is only an arithmetic trick: It is founded by private money, but later the interest is payed by the tax payers. The main purpose of this method is to lower the National debt rate which is limited by the "Maastricht criterions" of the European community, which does not allow high national debts. Putting criticism about Germany into perspective: In Germany, it is not allowed to build complete nonsense. We have got a standardized public economic calculation method to prove the public benefit of a project, so not ervery project a politican whishes can be realized. But this method often gets outsmarted. From a theoretical point of view, the method should avoid non-cost-efficient lines, but in reality, it does not.

[@qjtvaddict]

The brightline needs to be rerouted to bridges too many idiots at the gates

[@jaredspencer3304]

I'm a Californian and have supported this project for 20 years. I hate that we're still probably another 20 years away from having the SF-LA line full operational.

[@RailwaysExplained]

Greets to California!

[@flakgun153]

20 years from now, it will still be 20 years away

[@lencrites7044]

I hear you, bro. A damn shame!

[@dasdasdawdawdawd9786]

In Germany we call it "fully on schedule"

[@the4fibs832]

Same here. I feel like I've been hoping for this project my entire life 😭

[@its_defe]

100 billion dollars, aka 14% of the us military budget of 2020

[@markuswendt4448]

I was thinking the Berlin airport is a terrible done project but this topped it by miles

[@TheEuronaut]

indeed.

[@Banom7a]

don't worry, there's still Stuttgart 21

[@siphotheguy1870]

Wow! This video is awesome. Can't believe Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed to do the voice over!

[@RailwaysExplained]

Can't reply now, but I'll be back...

[@Notthecobracommander]

This is what happens when it becomes about popularity and politics as apposed to just getting the job done. That's why brightline in fl was started after and will be running profitably whilst politicians are still arguing over who is to blame. I want high speed rail everywhere as it's a great idea, just please do it correctly. Follow japan's, frances and FL example.

[@qjtvaddict]

The brightline runs at 79 mph south of west palm beach

[@Adumzzinthehouse]

@@qjtvaddict He isn’t talking about the speed, he’s talking about how fast they get the job done.

[@hamids4550]

by the time they finish this, flying cars will be out - _ -

[@bigd6709]

or we'll be asking some engineer to beam us out...... my bet is the engineer

[@sociolocomtsac]

Seriously. I already saw human-scale drones flying people in the city for testing in Korea.

[@pushinp157]

High speed rails are a waste of money in the US, getting on a train that'll not only take up more time to get you to your destination but will be just as expensive or more expensive than a plane. Not even mentioning the design flaws of the track, it may not reach 200 mph. Building a multi-billion dollar train no one will ride is a waste of money and time.

[@DrZark]

@Xtrawuzzi I say both since they cant seem to get their shit together and get it done.

[@MissEldira]

And laws of physics will still be a thing

[@fdjw88]

massive infrastructure projects in the US were only built so that they can be used for war. the railway boom in America was during the civil war, when Pres. Lincoln realized that trains can transport a massive amount of troops to the frontline quickly and efficiently. the interstate was built because of the National Interstate Defense Act of 1953, to prepare for a all out war with the USSR. when all airports are destroyed, planes and land on highways. that's why in the US, no matter which interstate you are driving on, there is always portions of the interstate that are completely straight, and the reason for that is to help planes to land.

[@wibowopr952]

the aviation, oil and automotive industries in the US will not allow such projects and play lobbying with local authorities even if it can be completed, the HSR project will take a long time & drag on until the point where the HSR ticket price sold will be the same or greater than the airline ticket price

[@the4fibs832]

This is by far the best overview of CAHSR that I've seen. Really detailed and well done, thank you!

[@anonomia5535]

I somehow feel this project, even though I'd like to see it completed, was not a good start for high-speed rail in the US. As mentioned, the benefits barely outweigh the costs, even if you take a more comprehensive view of the concept of "benefit". A project like this probably erodes much of the support for future projects in other parts of the country. I would say upgrading the NEC to become a true high-speed line could be more successful already. In California, the route Los Angles-San Diego (around 200 km) also seems a more feasible option, although I would actually just go for a high-performance commuter-style railway there to be better able to serve the areas in between.

[@encinobalboa]

Benefit will never outweigh the cost. The contractor lowballed the cost and used engineering changes to up the cost to more than double the initial proposal. California taxpayers are on the hook for bond payments if HST revenue is insufficient.

[@eriklakeland3857]

@@encinobalboa and the land acquisition issues. CEQA is an environmental regulation which a judge ruled can be used on the state's own projects. So land acquisition disputes have been emboldened with the cover of environmentalism. Last I checked the rail authority STILL doesn't own all the land in the Central Valley portion.

[@anonomia5535]

@@encinobalboa Benefit does not equal revenue. Even with insufficient revenue, there could still be economic advantages. The main question is: would this project significantly increase mobility between the cities along the route? Because if people just substitute from cars and planes to trains (without more mobility), that would be an environmental win, but not an economic one.

[@encinobalboa]

@@anonomia5535 What benefit? Wasting scarce public resources that can be spend with greater result is better public policy. Build it and they will come is a hope, not a reality. People still need to rent cars at their destination.

[@encinobalboa]

@@eriklakeland3857 Correct. Eminent Domain costs are unknown. People will fight to keep their land and their homes. Courts will become involved and no doubt, the route will have to be adjusted. More likely, people will challenge the state's purchase price as too low which will lead to interminable delays as the cases wind through the courts. This is why freeways in urban areas are no longer being built.

[@lukec2576]

I like your opening chime....anybody who has ever used the train in Japan will understand!

[@Errr717]

"The rabbit sleeps in another bush" ... love it! Very nice report.

[@jermainetrainallen6416]

Great vid. Are you going to do a video on the HS2(High Speed 2) project in the UK?

[@RailwaysExplained]

Yes, this project is on our to do list. Stay tuned and thanks for support.

[@jermainetrainallen6416]

Thanks that's good. I'm looking forward to that video

[@jermainetrainallen6416]

@@davidnoelfranks1124 I'm pretty sure it isn't mate. Construction is well underway on the first phase

[@kevinh96]

@@davidnoelfranks1124 Nope, the first phase is already well underway between London and Birmingham, and approval has just been given for the next phase between Birmingham and Crewe. Now whether the Northern extensions to Leeds and Manchester ever get built, well that's debateable and I seriously doubt we'll ever see it go further North even if that phase does go ahead.

[@MikeWillSee]

Look who I found!

[@petrhajduk9955]

List of countries that managed to get HSR faster than the US (apart from the well known ones): Morocco, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey ...

[@Errr717]

China built something like 4,000 miles of high speed rail in 10 years. Of course, the CCP can put the rail anywhere they want. Assuming they went the I-5 route, it sounds like they would be way ahead by now.

[@Hans-gb4mv]

@@Errr717 4000? No, they built a lot more. They built about 18 000 miles in a little over 10 years and are still expanding.

[@Errr717]

@@Hans-gb4mv Yes you're right. I wasn't sure of the exact number and I was just trying to be conservative in my number. So anyway, it's amazing how we're able to build, what a 100 miles? and the Chinese can build 18,000 miles in the same period.

[@mirizid9667]

Indonesia and India will also complete their own HSR before California.

[@matthewivanjudeponciano1354]

Morocco - TGV Duplex Uzbekistan - Talgo Saudi -Talgo also Turkey - Siemens Velaro

[@jeffers.n]

They should’ve started phase 1 on a smaller scale. San Diego to Los Angles would’ve been the perfect plan. 1. It would’ve been quicker to complete 2. The cost would only be a few billion 3. It would’ve been profitable within 10 years 4. It would’ve built up my hype and demand for the rest of the rail to be expedited towards San Francisco. I think too many corrupt people had a say in the building process so at this point it will never be done.🤷‍♂️

[@dmnddog7417]

I completely agree. This would've been a much better in-place operating POC. However, I think that land acquisition in the LA - SD corridor is more expensive, and that may have played into the decision to start in the Central Valley.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Part of the reason they started where they did was to help a Democratic congressman win reelection by building it in his district.

[@californiamade5608]

No

[@compdude100]

Okay, so how would you have gotten the entire northern 2/3 of California to vote for it in 2008 if only the LA-SD segment was going to be built first?

[@TohaBgood2]

Nope. There was no way that the entire state would agree to pay for a project that would only benefit SoCal. I as a NorCal resident would vote against it even though I am a massive CAHSR supporter. Only someone who does not understand the intra-state dynamics within the state could propose such a thing. No local would ever see this as a viable course of action if they wanted CAHSR to actually be built. We have seen how this goes a bunch of times. SoCal gets their part of the project and immediately refuses to pay for the rest of the project. This type of rugpull is pretty much the norm for SoCal politicians. Even now the SoCal politicians are trying to kill CAHSR and redistribute all the money to local SoCal projects! This is viewed by the local voters as completely normal and even desirable. They claim that this is their local politicians "just fighting aggressively for the interests of SoCal". With this type of an attitude from one of the two main megaregions it is impossible to build a state-wide project starting in SoCal. In other words, if LA and SD want an HSR train project just from those two metros then they can pay for it themselves. I will contribute zero tax dollars to a project that I know will be halted as soon as they need to start building north from LA. I have zero reasons to think otherwise based on past performance of such projects.

[@saltyroe3179]

The project is big pork barrel. The right way was to improve the Coast Starlight route with grade separated dedicated rail. This way the route is shorter and on existing right of way. Run express trains from LA Union Station to San Francisco without stops

[@bigd6709]

Amtrak still shares a good chunk of rail with freight... and freight has priority.... current plans have shared lines... good luck cali...

[@LucidStew]

Very doubtful the California Coastal Commission would ever allow anything like that.

[@jwt1035]

I’m a native southern Californian, and voted for Prop 1A back in 2008. I was in my 20s then. It was promised to connect SF to SD. Why the hell didn’t they work on the section between LA and SD first? It would have benefited the most amount of people first and generated the revenue needed to fund the remaining section? Seriously, if I want to enjoy the benefits of HSR, I better leave America, because at this rate, I’ll be dead before it comes to fruition. Can you imagine, I voted for it in my 20s and won’t see it in my lifetime?! Meanwhile China has built roughly 10,000 miles of HSR since I cast my ballot?

[@BattleshipOrion]

Then go head & leave. Geographics, & taking a bigger bite than o e could handle is why HSR in Cali has ground to a stop. It's all mew infrastructure instead of upgraded pre-existing infrastructure.

[@BattleshipOrion]

And to add fire to your claim, the US is very independent. China, & the EU are completely. China can evict you from property because they want a train, here in the US, you land owner may be 1,000s of miles away. And in the EU, you get subsidized, something foreign to modern America.

[@TohaBgood2]

OK, I live in NorCal. How does your LA to SD HSR line benefit me or the millions of people living here? Why should my tax dollars pay for your train? Why should I wait and pay for decades before I see a train in my neighborhood? How about we build the first section in the Bay Area so that we can get some congestion relief here instead of in SoCal? We already like and ride trains more than you do down there. It would definitely be used more heavily if the first section were build up North. These are the kinds of questions there would be if they actually started building in the big metropolitan areas. By starting to build in the "neutral" Central Valley the project ensures that political pressures from the two big metros do not tear the project apart. This way we definitely get the central "spine" of the project. And if the big metros (reminder, I live in one of them) want the system, they will have to either build their own links to the statewide system or make the case so that the whole state agrees to fund the entire system. Yes, this decision was driven by politics. But as you can see by how the LA area politicians are trying to pull more funding from HSR Southward right now, this was the correct political calculus! It is addressing a real problem and has headed it off almost completely. You hardly even hear about North-South infighting on this project even though early on it was a big concern.

[@jwt1035]

@@TohaBgood2 Your first paragraph is really immature. I could ask you the same question: “Why should I pay for your section of track?” And the back and forth would go on endlessly. But let’s get real here, everyone is already paying and no one is receiving any benefit. As to why SoCal should get it first: because it would serve more people and would generate a return on investment faster, which could then go on to fund other sections of the project. Bay Area population is 7.8 million. SoCal population is 24 million. Of course there’s no reason why both sections can’t be built simultaneously and connected later. Would you be happy with that?

[@TohaBgood2]

@@jwt1035 I was merely voicing the types of concerns you would have to address and refute if CAHSR had started construction in one of the big metros vs in the Central Valley. It really reinforces my point that as soon as you say that this is immature you immediately proceed to tout your region and argue why it would have been the better choice. Can't you see that wherever we started to build the other region would bitch and moan endlessly and then the project would fall apart due to our traditional North-South sibling rivalry? The only way to ensure that the Central Valley "spine" was ever getting built was to build it first. This way we are stimulating the economy of the most depressed part of the state and practicing how to build HSR in the least challenging terrain. In the mean time, the rich coastal areas can electrify and build their local transit to meet HSR and connect to the statewide network. Everybody wins and we get a North-South HSR connection. There is no other way that this system ever gets built. All the other choices end with a partial system built in one of the metros or, best case scenario, two disjoint systems and no connection in the middle.

[@michaelsommers2356]

When comparing the travel times for air and HSR, why did you count the time getting to and from the airport, but not the time getting to and from the train station?

[@lepidoptera9337]

Because otherwise there would be no competition whatsoever. Not that there is, really. I live twenty minutes from the next small airport. I hop on the local plane and connect to a major international airport within an hour and then it's all the way to anywhere in the world. Rail can't do any of that.

[@jamaly77]

Because train stations are built in the city center. Airports are not. The fact that I have to explain this to you as if you were a small child is disturbing to me. My school kids aged 9-12 would have known the answer! What the guy above me said is just uneducated babbling. I don't think there's a point to explain this to Americans though. I personally don't really like to communicate with badly educated people from the US. Europe and Asia are the future.

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@jamaly77 You are assuming that the traveler's destination is in the city center, within short walking distance of the train station. This is not always the case. That you don't understand this is completely expected, though. I hate having to explain obvious things to people who think they are the smartest person in the room, or planet, yet who are in fact profoundly stupid.

[@ps7880]

I first heard the project 30 years ago, and I'm pretty sure that it will be (at least partially) completed in another 30 years. NO KIDDING !!!

[@Colokids1]

They need to bring in construction experts from Europe. The ones here want too much.

[@magneticB]

Japan or China if you ask me

[@hubertkraft2218]

But dont take the ones from the new Berlin int. Airport or your HSR will open in 2150 !!! :) :)

[@tilted4fun805]

Long story short... at construction costs somewhere in the range of $8.75million per mile.... it is no wonder there is little to no high speed rail being built in the US. Also if we diverted a fraction of our annual federal budget for things like the military to national infrastructure... we would be the envy of the world. Sadly too many politicians are dumb & or blind with greed.

[@davidcole333]

Sure, let's deplete the US military and see how that works out for the free world.

[@fleyua7176]

@@davidcole333 US bombing 3rd world countries is hardly free. No weapon of mass destruction was ever found too. Commercialisation war

[@spacetweek]

I'm afraid you're out by a factor of 10. It's $72 billion for 800 miles which is $90M/mile. However as the video explains that is good value when you factor everything in.

[@CTXDful]

German here, we did that, didnt realy worked out, and our HS rails are still nor Faster or Cheaper than to take a Flight (on longer Routes) and thats while most Train Tickets are Government subsidiesed (33-66% usualy)... Please first take a look at other countrys before you accuse others of being Stupid or Blind

[@CTXDful]

@@allgoo1990 Do you know what an Train Ticket for an HS Train will cost? People think that this will be their new way To make a Holliday Trip or to just comute to work... this is not what HS Rail is for, and thats why Prices for Shinkansen/ICE/TGV Trains are Hugely Expensive... so while People Defend HSR with every way Possible and Vote for it, i doubt alot of People in California will actualy use it more than once or twice a year, since usualy HSR is more expensive than a Flight or going by Car

[@battwann88]

Let me make a prediction now. I think it will be sooner for Malaysia to finish its high speed rail than for CA to finish theirs.

[@medzamedza9138]

Malaysia? With corrupt jokers running the country, HRS is a non starter, the contract to built it was just cancelled.

[@AndrewManook]

@@medzamedza9138 Worse in the US.

[@ianhomerpura8937]

Indonesia is 2/3 done with their 92 mile HSR line.

[@skiparkcityut]

The first segment they open will have insane operating costs and low ridership. Until they get either san Fran or la linked the operating costs will be hundreds of times the actual revenues.

[@ekleong8]

By end of 2020 China have 37,900 KM of HSR & end of 2021 it will surpass the world circumference of 40,075 km !

[@MrJohnojr]

Please do a video on the planned Moscow-Kazan high speed railway line due to open in 2023.

[@timlilijinsheng4070]

hold up...it's scheduled to open in 2023???

[@kennethroth6757]

Or do a video on the high speed rail from Los Angeles to Los Vegas Nevada

[@Mirz-ei6tg]

Greetings from a railfan from Malaysia.I have suggestions for future vids 1.ECRL(East Coast Rail Link)-Malaysia 2.Singapore MRT 3.Jakarta-Bandung HSR-Indonesia 4.Moscow Metro

[@RailwaysExplained]

Thank you. Greets for Malaysia!

[@route55qatar]

@@RailwaysExplained Yes, Metro around the world is good idea. But I think we have many projects to talk about before touching that topics.

[@sek153]

too bad Malaysia - Singapore HSR is off the list

[@aliwakanda7327]

The last comparison of the cost of the HSR to the military spending is just too savage

[@matthewgoodman7588]

Really shows how unbalanced many of our priorities are.

[@fsruiz64]

I think these kinds of comparisons are what more of us need to understand that the money exists. It’s just what we as a society allow government to prioritize.

[@the4fibs832]

Should have compared it to the cost of the Iraq War - over $2 Trillion. Stunning.

[@aliwakanda7327]

@@the4fibs832 and that was before the inflation🥶

[@the4fibs832]

@@aliwakanda7327 😵christ

[@christopherschuch5328]

Can you imagine if it takes longer to finish then the transcontinental railroad? To those who don't know, the transcontinental railroad toke 6 years to build.

[@NikanDragosysSerpenDra]

INCOMPARABLE.

[@Park_Place]

To be fair, the railroad companies didn't exactly prioritize the lives of its immigrant workers so they could get it done quickly. That's not to say CAHSR should take decades, either

[@rudilapa6569]

Awesome and relatively fast overview of the project. Thank you!

[@michaelliu3678]

I will have no chance to see it will ever finished in my life.

[@DelimiterFrameworks]

:(

[@shuaige3360]

In a bit more than 10 years China built 38.000 km of high speed train tracks (train going at 300-350 km/h... or 200-220 mph if you prefer)... and in 15 years they will reach a total of 70.000 km... and guess what, there is never delay in China infrastructure project, they usually even finish them in advance. Wake up USA!!!

[@richardf7223]

I work on this project...we are getting there.

[@shuaige3360]

@@richardf7223 in 2033? Or 2038? While USA will manage to build one high speed line... China will have build 70.000 km... LOL

[@stormboyx707]

Other countries around the world, build skyscrapers in just a fee years because they work 24 hours a day with three shifts throughout the day. Besides that, mostly everyone is in agreement with the projects and therefore there is no real political division.

[@sirobin171]

Thid is all absurd, there are many entities that are against high speed rail, mainly airlines and the oil industry. There is no reason that this costs so much. This is the work of (corporate buffoon) big money interests making this as hard as possible.

[@dwc1964]

Thank you for this. I've been watching this since 1996 and the reason the project is taking so long and costing so much is the deliberate, well-financed obstruction by anti-rail interests from the start. And then those same obstructionists howl about how the project is taking too long and costing too much! There is nothing accidental about this, and it says nothing about the inherent viability of high-speed rail. As noted in the video, SF-to-LA is one of the busiest air corridors in the world; I-5, US-101 and Hwy 99 are also quite choked with traffic. And with the population centers in the Central Valley growing rapidly, connecting them all via fast, efficient rail should be a high priority for decarbonizing transportation and countering suburban sprawl. No other mode of transportation is required to "pay for itself"; everyone recognizes them as public goods, as the infrastructure upon which the profit-making elements of the economy rely & are therefore expected to pay for. HSR should be no different.

[@sirobin171]

@@dwc1964It’s pretty clear to me this is the airline industry as well as oil and gas interests interfering very deliberately. They know that once people try the train it is game over for them. A flight might only take one hour and cost the same but two hours ahead at the airport, add 30 minutes on the other side and suddenly the train is faster. There is also more legroom on trains, the airlines have stuffed people in their planes and made things ever more uncomfortable year after year to scrape a nickel out of us. Not to mention every ridiculous extra fee these corporate goons can come up with. I really look forward to seeing the airlines get kicked in their proverbial nuts when trains really take off in the US. It will happen, it is just a matter of when now. We have Brightline down here and it is really awesome, if trains are like Brightline elsewhere they will succeed. I admit I wish Brightline was electrified, still some work to do on our politicians here. Thanks for your response to me, I do appreciate it.

[@JohnRinNoHo]

@@allgoo1990 A tax funded railroad is not free market.

[@JohnRinNoHo]

@@allgoo1990 The construction costs are financed by taxes, there is no one investing their own money and there are no private owners. This is not a free market, neither are most roads.

[@JohnRinNoHo]

@@allgoo1990 ? Most freeways are financed by taxes, in a free market they would be financed by tolls and fees.

[@stevecallachor]

Roads don't pay for themselves, everyone uses them for free..................why then should trains be profitable???? Stavros

[@indialove6999]

stop that commies' speaking'

[@dukeoflakeshore5805]

​@@indialove6999 The question is reasonable and necessary! It is typically communism to forbid speaking!!

[@lochinvar50]

Why does it have to pass through the centers of Bakersfield and Fresno. That's where heavy infra costs are occurring since they have to reconfigure everything based on the grid of the cities. Why not just build stations at the periphery.

[@michaelliu3678]

I took the first high speed rail from Tain-Jin to Beijing at the speed of 320 km/hour., and now they have 30,000 km of high speed rail in operation/services. US has so called the “bullet train” from Modesto to Bakersfield, Ca. at speed of 60 mile/hour and won’t be finished till 2025. We keep saying that we will past them soon?

[@Mister8224]

Please, China is the best? Go live there & see how you like it. How many 100s of millions in China would and will come here if they could.

[@jamaly77]

​@@Mister8224 Not many. You're watching too much American propaganda.

[@TheRailwayDrone]

This video is an absolutely perfect explanation into the American way of doing things: Spend more money on wars, and less on improving the lives of its own citizens.

[@shoheikomatsu954]

Why the intro reminds me of train arrival in Tokyo station😂

[@IThinkItIsTimeToPlay]

It's the same sound haha I alreayd thought so too

[@radiojunk8865]

I like your "Train Melody" for vid opening. JR East

[@palaniswamyp9037]

It is an infrastructure project.so calculations of profit or loss need not be done.

[@ifmbm332b]

Maybe we should ask the 60,000 homeless people in Los Angeles if they can think of another use for 85+ billion dollars. Have you seen Los Angeles recently?

[@inyourphace1690]

One very important factor about train travel in the US that people rarely mention is crime. Riding a train from LA downtown, through Bakersfield, Merced, etc and arriving in SF downtown dragging a luggage, you'd be delivering yourself as free welfare to the Ghettos. It'd be a reality show how many times can I survive the hood. LOL

[@agntdrake]

The Caltrain corridor map at around the 15 minute mark is slightly incorrect. It looks like you followed BART for part of it, and then switched to the Caltrain corridor close to SFO. Caltrain does not go to Daly City, and more closely follows the Bay.

[@blu0065]

The inside California news that I've been mentally curating (red flag for opinion right here) is that a lot of the construction done for the California high speed rail is to support the construction executives. The same can be said for the homeless housing proposition.

[@blu0065]

Also, it's bullshit to think that a high speed rail would be self sustaining when even Amtrak (nationwide rail) and Metrolink (commuter rail in LA) are not

[@DS.J]

Any chance to do one about Rail Baltica project?

[@RailwaysExplained]

This is a great proposal. Rail Baltica is the largest Baltic-region infrastructure project in the last 100 years. So we can say that easily meets our criteria for mega rail project. We will put this on our to do list.

[@DS.J]

@@RailwaysExplained This is great! Thank you.

[@Napsteraspx]

I get that it seems strange that the state built the route thru the central valley first since there is a lower population, but I think that is precisely why they are building that stretch first. Lower cost to build over farmland than to move whole neighborhoods to build a rail line.

[@davidwalker7732]

they did that so there would be a substantial amount of funds sunk into "the train to nowhere" and what a shame to abandon the project...we might as well finish building despite all of the cost overruns we have already encountered.

[@Aiasmor]

no it's because the Central Valley demanded the rail run through their cities even though it's not reasonable because they have such low population.

[@mattevans4377]

To put how bad American railways are, using the numbers in the this video, I estimated that the average speed between San Francisco and LA.....was under 40 mph. To put that in perspective, UK intercity trains (which we pretend are high speed trains for some reason), are roughly double that. Hell, the car average speed on the route is about 1.5 times faster. Sure, investing in intercity trains wouldn't beat the plane, but add in some luxury, and maybe people would choose the slow route, just to enjoy the service. It would be a start.

[@kimberlygila3604]

High speed rail should be public private partnership like the space program is. san Francisco has beautiful sales force transit could start high speed rail or could start at cal train and travel thru central valley to Los Angeles and Las Vegas needs high speed rail from las Vegas to San Francisco and las Vegas to Los Angeles.

[@gemmahudack6182]

I'm fine with public-private ventures in some aspects. Although I do have an issue with the Salesforce Transbay Center, mostly because there will never be a legal political demonstration there and the fact it's named after a company. Ideally, I think mass transit systems should be nationalized but in certain scenarios a public-private partnership could work

[@Mister8224]

Will the SF trains have bathrooms, or just do it like they do in town?

[@ChinchillaBONK]

If technological progress in terms of public transport infrastructure were a civilization game, USA looks doomed to be lose the game only reaching the normal modern era while other civilizations would be in the future tech era.

[@enduser8410]

I wonder why they decided to start building in Central Valley rather than the SF or LA to SD metro areas. Then again it probably wouldn't have been palatable to voters statewide if it stuck to one or the other, and putting in Central Valley probably helps that already neglected area. I also wonder how that LA to Las Vegas route under that private company is going.

[@LinoGuzman]

Well they chose the Central Valley because it’s the most contested area as it’s not necessarily “neglected,” but rather the vast amounts of land is actually farmland privately owned, so it has to annex and build up from scratch areas of boarding. Which is plain annoying that it’s taking this long but oh well

[@fresmarco78]

If you think acquiring land rights here to the Central Valley was difficult and expensive and stupidly long trying to get people out of their land in San Francisco Bay area and or the LA to San Diego corridors good luck

[@LinoGuzman]

@@fresmarco78 you know surprisingly land is much easier to aquire and obtain along these major cities as most land there is actually public land being used or "rented"

[@KrishnaDasLessons]

They were going to build in SF but budgetary issues came in and they weren't able to do it. The problems with this entire project is mostly property acquisition and a serious lack of federal financing, (can be blamed on the Republican senate during the Obama administration and the Trump administration.)

[@megaboz42]

It wasn't the original plan. The Central Valley segment is what was settled on after years of business plan changes. Before that, it was going to be downtown San Jose to downtown Fresno. Before that IIRC they wanted to start in San Francisco. Each year the "Phase 1" part of the project reduced it's scope as it became clearer costs were skyrocketing, funding was put in question and problems were encountered. For example by going from Bakersfield to Merced they could put off figuring out how to best cross the coastal mountains and what is surely going to be a very expensive part of the system. The limited money available before the last change meant we might have seen a segment completed in the central valley and another segment connecting San Jose to Gilroy but no connection over the mountains to link the two together.

[@ChrisJones-gx7fc]

When Japan completed its first high speed rail line in 1964, its opening was timed to coincide with the Tokyo Olympics. I just think how incredible it would be if California could do the same and aim to complete the LA to SF high speed rail line by 2028 so its debut could coincide with the LA Olympics. In 2028 the world will have its eyes on the US and California for the Olympics, and they could provide the ideal backdrop to show on the world stage that high speed rail can and will work here.

[@blaydCA]

It should be completed by 2128 IF they spend extra for the rush job

[@jmslmonteiro]

It's incredible: in Brazil there is nor one quilometer of railway to transport people!

[@secrets.295]

My prediction is the Texas HSR will be completed before California despite the fact the project was only launched last year

[@Satorusan24]

US is too much depending on airlines industry than high speed train technology.

[@EkainMunduate]

Very interesting, thank you!

[@Andrewjg_89]

A high speed railway for California and West Coast of the USA might as well happen.

[@cxa340]

Your estimation of the time needed to fly between LAX (all airports) and SFO (all airports) is way too high - total door to door time is more like 2hrs since the flight is less than an hour and it takes very little time to get to the airport, get through security, and walk to a boarding gate. Also be prepared the same security needed at the airport will also be needed at each train station - you will not be able to simply walk on the train without going through a TSA security line as well. The costs of this train are just too high, and it will require government subsidies every year just to operate (as HSR in Spain, Germany, France, and Japan also do). With a ticket cost comparable to an air ticket, and with a system requiring tax money just to operate every year, this boondoggle will never be able to recoup its cost and will always be a financial drain on the state. Airports are self-funded and require no tax money to operate, and there are no tax subsidies to air tickets either.

[@RailwaysExplained]

How far from the airport you have to live and how far from the other airport you have go, in order to make door to door time less then 2 hrs, in this particular case?

[@cxa340]

@@RailwaysExplained Going downtown LAX to downtown SFO - using the filed city codes so LAX includes BUR, ONT, SNA, LGB and SFO includes OAK and SJC, depending on where you are and where you need to go you have multiple airport combinations that can service you, planning on arrival at the airport 30 mins before departure. In the case of rail you would have only on origin location and one destination location so the door to door tile could be much greater if you are outside of the downtown core.

[@tjejojyj]

The comparison with spending on the Afghanistan was well made. You didn’t address the problem that the current design can’t match the 2h 40 min travel time. Also it will only reduce the increase in congestion. Extra transport capacity is required for growth. How can we reasonably trust any of the projections in the CAHSR business plan when they have gotten everything so wrong? IMHO. They should have built an Los Angelas to Las Vegas line first which would have been easier and allowed them to evaluate larger projects. The revised project looks like a fatally flawed compromise.

[@RailwaysExplained]

Thank you. We maybe did not explicitly mention that 2hrs40min will hardly be possible, but we did mention that some decisions will definitely result in longer travel times, such as the decision to share some segments of line with conventional rail. Regarding, CAHSR business plans and data inside, yes, it's true that that should be taken with (at least) grain of salt. :)

[@tjejojyj]

@@RailwaysExplained thanks for your channel.

[@Mister8224]

Let's see, where would u be after 2 hours 40m. If u think u would be ANYWHERE near destination, u are delusional. 1st of all, when or if this train would be completed, measuring time & speed is likely to be measured in a different kind of units. By then, time travel might be possible. What century are we talking about?

[@ReaverLordTonus]

I said the same thing, LA to Vegas would have been a better test of both the technology and the process of implementing it. If they built it and offered regular service they would get plenty of travelers. Especially on weekends as it would be faster and more comfortable than driving as well as cheaper and easier than flying.

[@ToddKeck98]

I swear my country will get its high speed rail finished first before this project ever completes Phase 1.

[@Salamander220]

What country you in

[@qjtvaddict]

The USA is a banana republic

[@ianhomerpura8937]

Presuming you are from UK, is this HS2?

[@nischaymiglani2617]

Even India will get its first high speed rail in 2023.

[@napoleonibonaparte7198]

America has a lot of potential for HSR, and it is a waste that they don’t do this.

[@andessmf]

I don’t think foreigners understand how extensive the areas of San Francisco and LA are. There are 3 airports in San Francisco, and it will take you .5 hours to drive from San Francisco to San José in good traffic. From LAX to Disneyland is about 1 hour in good traffic. There are 5 airports in the LA basin, and that does not include San Diego. You can manage to go around the Bay Area with public transit, but no LA due to the distances involved. The Central Valley of California is not a place with a lot of tourism.

[@emypena]

It will get more funding by making it Stealth Fighter train.... capable of delivering conventional and nuclear weapons.

[@sureynix]

Build that train! Build that train!

[@carlsmith5545]

I sure hope that California builds this high speed train with the movement of tectonic plates in mind. I would hate to be traveling at 2, 3 hundred miles per hour on a train and an earthquake hits...

[@skygge1006]

Hopefully they keep the Japanese style in mind

[@badhrihari1705]

Never heard of this! I like this long video

[@RailwaysExplained]

That's why there's a channel Railways Explained. We are glad to have enabled you to learn something new today.

[@gequitz]

This is the best explainer I've seen for California high-speed rail. Thank you. Liked and Subscribed.

[@ddream777]

Now I am betting 600 to say Afghanistan is getting a H.S.R. before California.

[@asantaraliner]

6:53, 21:19 Serpong, South Tangerang City, Banten Province, Indonesia

[@saifulanam1]

Nice information about railways in US. So far, I only know Amtrak there

[@RailwaysExplained]

That's why there's a channel Railways Explained. We are glad to have enabled you to learn something new today.

[@saifulanam1]

@@RailwaysExplained thank a lot

[@GyacoYu]

I really like the Amtrak Montreal service.

[@LucidStew]

The big wrinkle is that a California referendum isn't just a public vote. It's an amendment to the state Constitution. Things like the 2hr 40m L.A.-S.F. time table and the demand that the project be financially self-sustaining are baked into the Constitution now, and not so easily altered. The system blending decision was not cost saving, it was purely political. You have to consider that of all the progressive projects and ideas in California, this one probably has the least support. Local opposition in the bay area and L.A. basin would have made dedicated ROW in those areas nearly impossible, and the CAHSR Authority had to capitulate to that reality. Because of the time restriction between L.A. and S.F., this doomed the train to the necessity of running 200mph+ in the extensive tunnel network that is required. No other HSR system does this. CAHSR will do it for 57 miles. Because of the air resistance that builds up at those speeds, the tunnels need to be wider to allow the air to pass around the train more freely. Bigger tunnels means more expensive tunnels and that is where the vast majority of cost increase has come from. Your conclusion that the project can really only be funded by the federal government is correct. The problem is that once California's current funding runs out, you have around $60 billion of expense left, and about $500 million a year coming in from Cap-and-Trade. Apply 2% inflation to $60 billion, and you have $1.2 billion. So the dilemma is not only that if the project is not completed on time, the state by itself doesn't have the money to build it. The problem is that the state doesn't even have the money to cover inflation and can therefore never build it without additional funding. The fact that this is one of the least popular progressive ideas in the state comes into play there, because the likelihood that Californians would pass another bond measure is not great. He's the problem with the whole idea that this project is going to have a big impact on the state: California has about 13 million daily surface road commuters. Max capacity of CAHSR at any given point is 125,000 trips/day. Even at the extremely rosy CAHSR Authority ridership estimates, you have 40 million yearly trips compared to about 4.7 BILLION yearly trips on the road network. It's a drop in the bucket. Also very important is that the train is passenger only and does nothing to reduce freight traffic, which is currently an enormous burden on the road network. On the environmental end, the impact is minimal because again, we're only reducing road traffic by 1%. Additionally, by the time this project could ever hope to be completed, new combustion passenger road vehicles will no longer be available for purchase in California. The statewide road vehicle fleet transition to electric will already be well underway. Self-driving cars and investments in making the road network smarter will have FAR more impact on road traffic than this train could ever dream. Which goes back to the original purpose of the project: it's cheaper to build the train than to attempt to expand various airports around L.A. and S.F. indefinitely. Every other reason that has been concocted around this project is simply to try to bolster the image of a project which is massively behind schedule and massively overbudget.

[@Sam-cz2bz]

I doubt this will ever happen , because the whole infrastructure is falling apart.

[@jasons5916]

If your goal was HSR between major population centers in CA - LA, SF and SD the track plan shown in the video is way out of whack. It should go up the 5 from SD, not way out east on what I guess is the 15. Then it should go up the 101 to SF. You can then connect it to Sacramento along the 80. I don't think anyone wants to go to Fresno, Bakersfield or most central valley areas. I'm sure people living there would like another way to get to SF, but IMO that should be a separate rail line. But the worst is that line from LA to SD. The original line goes to Anaheim, so just keep going south along the 5. There is a lot of traffic along that route and even though it takes forever to drive it on a weekday, IDK if HSR going all the way around LA before going to SD is going to be faster.

[@markovianparallaxdenegrate7116]

I love the V/Line footage from victoria

[@kevinweber5129]

It’s ridiculous that they can’t plan and build this one line in 7 years. That’s bureaucracy at work. It should be half done.

[@Truth-of-the-matter]

It's the same tired run around here in the US; we have plenty to spend on the DOD but when it comes to infrastructure suddenly we are short on funds. While I don't think its necessary to connect the whole US via high speed rail I would like to see larger cities be connected (Like LA to SD, LA to Las Vegas, Dallas to Houston and so on). If we can build and operate 10 aircraft carries (among thousands of military vehicles) what is our excuse on connecting major cities and insuring that larger cities have reliable and modern transit options besides cars? While I like cars it would be nice to have the option to hop on a modern train to go into downtown or other parts of city.

[@beckettfitz1982]

Fares should be less than $2 each way. Fares are too expensive already in the U.S.

[@zo62]

california is one place that this would be adopted if the time to travel holds up, by that time of completion we all be dead

[@charlespendleton9731]

Oh, another thing. Passenger trains never turn a profit. They're all subsidized by the governments in which they reside.

[@scienceehal2596]

As soon as the video started, I understood why California is lagging behind compared to Texas. I thought, "What the heck.

[@3506Dodge]

Big parts of this will never be built. Other parts may be used in some way eventually, but the whole plan will never be realized. America's deep investment in roads and the nature of america's economy and politics make it too difficult for states to do things like this on their own.

[@billdobbins8372]

By the time that it is done everyone in California will either be billionaires or homeless

[@JH-zu6kj]

Great video! Amtrak Joe will change something!!

[@eriklakeland3857]

Good to have a train "foamer" as president. However, I fear this project is toast when it gets to the more difficult areas. All the land acquisition lawsuits, abused through state environmental regulations, will multiply in more populated areas. The terrain gets far far more challenging outside the Central Valley.

[@oromedenep]

TEXAS will have the first HSR in the USA....and made by a PRIVATE company

[@staycgirlsitsgoingdown2]

That’s never gonna happen, it’s so expensive for a route so short. It’s gonna get the go ahead, dosnt get funding, and ends

[@yeungscs]

i came back in feb 2022 after they announced another 10 billion for this. "Will it ever be completed?"

[@kforrester3904]

Great video, but us Americans are much too stubborn, and once more people hear about the actual total cost it will definitely never be completed in my lifetime at least.

[@mikegaskin5542]

"Amtrak Joe" Biden will soon be President and Democrats control Congress. It will be completed.

[@route55qatar]

@@mikegaskin5542 Mmmm Lobbyist control both parties. How many period Democrats have been there during this period of this project? As mentioned in the video, not before 2035.

[@goomy02]

Yep. And that's why the full cost of a highway is never disclosed to the public

[@victorteo4783]

Great question: will it be completed? When will it be completed?:

[@tayyirawashahtrawasiay5837]

California High-Speed Rail: Will only work inside a Hollywood studio with great CGI team Even than it will be late

[@expiredmilk....8917]

Been waiting for this one, keep up the good work!

[@RailwaysExplained]

Thanks. We will do that 😊

[@yttean98]

well done that is what a docu. should all about lots of info and that would you keep busy for many hours in making this video.

[@blankname5177]

Public transportation should not be aim at profit. It should care mainly about whether it serving the people who needs it the most.

[@blackhole9961]

Profit kinda scales the usefulness of a product based off the consumers wants/needs. If it’s not very profitable it probably doesn’t or won’t serve very many people in the first place.

[@MudhaffarAdhwa]

Correct, the socio-economic benefits usually outweigh the costs

[@blackhole9961]

@@MudhaffarAdhwa how will it outweigh the costs if it racks up a huge debt because of its expensive nature AND would have little ridership, thus becoming a burden to everyone else. Seems like the socioeconomic benefits aren’t there. This train would still lose to the plane in speed and costs.

[@MudhaffarAdhwa]

@@blackhole9961 my comment is more directed towards people who reject transport infrastructure projects due to them being unprofitable sometimes. I'm speaking more generally and not just California HSR. I don't know much about the California HSR project so I can't really comment on it

[@blackhole9961]

@@MudhaffarAdhwa I can see if they are unprofitable but provide other socioeconomic benefits that outweighs the costs. But if it’s just plain expensive and has little benefits then there’s no need for it to be built. High speed rail on the dense north east corridor is a way better choice.

[@Rah2005]

I really appreciated that you mentioned it's less about this project and more about creating a network. Paints a clearer picture.