California High Speed Rail Is In Big, Big Trouble - Part 1: Project Overview

[@carlsmith5545]

California is a very expensive state to do anything. Machinery, labor costs, building materials all cost 2 to 3 times as much than many States. This highspeed rail project would cost half the money in Pennsylvania, the Carolinas and so on. Still, hats off to you California...

[@SpencerHeckwolf]

It’s not much cheaper in Texas. They’re cut a lot of project connect because it high costs.

[@carlsmith5545]

@@SpencerHeckwolf Well i read that Texas just got the green light to soon begin construction on their highspeed train set running between Dallas and Huston. But, everything is big in Texas...lol!!!

[@SpencerHeckwolf]

@@carlsmith5545 they have the same issues as CAHSR. Land acquisition, NIMBY’s, cost disease etc, but to a little bit less of a degree. They are terminating the stations outside the downtowns to save money and time.

[@carlsmith5545]

Issues? Well ofcourse! Any mega project has issues no matter where the project is in the world. No mega project has ever been easy or cheap. Hell there's issues when it comes to building a simple house or a playground. There are always obstacles, criticisms, protests, and most of all, monetary issues. But those who do it and gets through it are hailed as the ones who defined all odds in presenting a great technological achievement. We will be watching and when completed, I will travel there to experience it, just like i will do for California, just like i did in Japan.

[@davidjackson7281]

@@carlsmith5545 Has Texas Central found a new CEO since the last one resigned last year? Have financing funds been secured? As a side note: It appears Brightline West may begin operations before the CAHSR test track.

[@ChrisJones-gx7fc]

I would say the best thing we can do is get the current 119 miles done ASAP, extend it to transit in Merced and Bakersfield to create a viable statewide travel option, and go from there. That way Californians can start experiencing HSR as early as possible. Once Merced to Bakersfield is done and trains are running, then we can reassess the value and viability of high speed rail in California now and going forward. If the continued support is there and sufficient funding can be found to keep building to SF and LA, then keep building. If it isn’t, then at least we’ll have something positive to show for all the efforts made and billions of dollars spent so far (currently $10 billion out of $25 billion allocated, with an additional $10 billion needed to finish the Central Valley line). A Central Valley HSR service is better than stopping now and leaving all the HSR infrastructure built so far sitting unused as monuments to what could have been. I would say also that despite the setbacks CAHSR has faced, it is still very much a worthwhile project that’ll greatly benefit California in the long run if we have the courage and determination to see it through.

[@LucidStew]

It's interesting to see you take this stance as I've always been more pessimistic in discussion about this. I actually think a total commitment now is the only thing worthwhile in the long-term. I think being stuck with Merced-Bakersfield would be a giant waste of $35 billion that could have been spent on far more productive things. If CAHSR is to ever make any sense, it has to at least connect Silicon Valley and Central Valley, but it's greater purpose is to connect areas that can truly make use of the paradigm and that is L.A. - S.F.(which will also ostensibly connect to L.V.) I'll talk about this at length in my next video, hopefully in a couple weeks.

[@ChrisJones-gx7fc]

@@LucidStew and I 100% agree with you. Just a Central Valley train doesn’t make long term sense, but it’s better than shutting down the project now and not even having that. That stance is in response to some naysayers’ cries to cut our losses and end the high speed rail project immediately. The current Central Valley line, and extending it to Merced and Bakersfield, gives HSR a foothold to expand from and allows people to start experiencing true high speed rail on American soil as soon as possible, which is still 2030 at the earliest. (If Brightline West begins its construction within the next year or two, there’s a good chance it will beat CAHSR to having the first operational high speed rail line in the US, but we’ll have to wait and see.) Getting to at least Silicon Valley is a must, and so would Palmdale for the Metrolink connection which eliminates the bus bridge over Grapevine that as we saw from these recent winter storms can be impacted by severe weather. This latest stance is saying to quit with the roadblocks, let CAHSR get the Central Valley line done ASAP so people can start riding HSR, then they can once again make their case for building to SF and LA for California voters and politicians both at the state and federal level. I say there’s a strong case to keep building to SF and LA, not just to fulfill the original promise but also because it makes the most sense in the long run. Building to SF and LA will take tens of billions of dollars more in funding, and CAHSR needs to have something to show for its efforts and the billions spent so far to justify spending several tens of billions more to reach SF and LA, and right now that’s the Central Valley. CAHSR, and Brightline West for that matter, are currently the best hopes for American HSR and its potential future here. I do believe SF to LA high speed rail will be a reality, ideally before 2040 but that’s only if the funding can be found soon enough. CAHSR has completed most of the environmental clearances, with the last SF to LA segment to be completed this year (LA to Anaheim in 2025), and getting future segments construction ready so work can begin as soon as funding is found. My gut hunch though is any more potential funding sources will need to have proof, like trains running and at least testing, before granting the tens of billions needed for future phases. Support for the project remains, with a majority of Californians still behind it, but that’ll have to remain strong for at least another decade plus if we are to see the entire SF to LA route come to fruition.

[@LucidStew]

@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Something of interest to you, I think.. Brightline has shifted their focus slightly to build all the way to Rancho Cucamonga in the initial go. (I found out when I was 99% done with the video) This is to appease investors concerned about terminating in the desert, but also they are apparently aggressively pursuing 2027 completion so that it is running beyond the Traverse Ranges with experience in time for the Olympics. They have a deadline for the environmental impact reports coming up on 3/31/23, so we should hear more shortly.

[@LegendaryRQA]

@@LucidStew I really wish the Olympics point was pushed more. If the goal was to get the entire project done by the Olympics, it would’ve been much easier to get funding for the project. For some reason, the decision was made to really push the climates side of things, which, in my opinion was a mistake, because Americans simply do not care about climate change. What gets them riled up is national pride and if you push the Olympics side of things, and say how we would’ve been in an embarrassment to the rest of the world, it would’ve been much more motivating to get the project done in time and would’ve immediately gotten the funding it needed. Also, it would get more people on board because you would be promoting how the whole state would be able to show up and watch the Olympics.

[@LucidStew]

@@LegendaryRQA Well, it wasn't ever going to be completed by summer 2028. When L.A. was picked for the 2028 games, projected completion of Phase 1 was 2033 and that was with the Authority assuming they'd get all funding in a timely manner. If L.A. had been a little smart, they would have gone for the 2036 Olympics, but this is kind of the problem with California. Right hand doesn't talk to the left hand. It's very much north-south, coastal-inland. Very seldom is the whole state working in unison politically.

[@BLAHBLAH1000shop]

Great video! Really interesting to think about the logistics of this. I've recently just moved to LA this year and am already SICK of driving. After driving through Vegas, I would KILL to simply ride a train to that city whenever there's an event. My visit to Japan has opened my eyes to how amazing metro and high-speed trains can be, so I can only hope America pivots to that mode of transportation.

[@LucidStew]

Oh yeah. I stopped driving through L.A. several years ago after taking more than an hour to move from Hollywood to the I-10 interchange on the 101 coming back from Santa Barbara County, and that's only about 5 miles. I also have had fairly rotten luck with connecting flights at Denver, to the point that time-wise a decent HSR ride from St. Louis to L.A. would have actually been faster than flying, which ISNT supposed to be the case for that type of distance(~1800 miles). HSR is definitely coming up as an alternative when the other modes get that bad. Unfortunately, it ain't cheap.

[@LucidStew]

@Malachai Carter Mind you I grew up in southern California and am no stranger to traffic. And, yes, my soul was crushed.

[@Neville60001]

@Malachai Carter, also, the more people taking a train, the less people clogging up an airpost and airline, as well as not clogging the buses too.

[@makeroftoys]

The train from SFO to my town takes an hour And costs about $10. It’s the same distance between downtown Shanghai and the airport …which takes seven minutes and cost less.

[@michaeljones7927]

Are you referring to their maglev ?

[@TuckaBuck89]

Gee a funding shortfall? In the billions? Who could have seen that coming? Only people who have seen local, state, and fed spending go wildly stupid the last 20 years. Elections make a difference.

[@LucidStew]

I think the surprising aspect is the extent of the shortfall. They're going to be 4 times overbudget and have only come up with enough money to cover about 3/4 of what was sold as the original cost.

[@Neville60001]

5:34- With regards to the issue of providing at grade separation for the whole network, what CAHSR is doing by _not_ having it everywhere is a good thing; not everything in a railroad has to be grade seperated, people understand a railroad crossing and know to stop when said crossing's lights flash, alarms sound and barriers come down (besides, grade seperation's quite expensive to build anyway.)

[@DRL1320]

s.e.p.A.r.a.t.e. A great educator pointed out to me decades ago: “There is ‘A rat’ in the middle of separate.” (I point this out because standard grammar and spelling help your audience focus on your message. Peace.)

[@snoopyloopy]

The experience of Brightline shows otherwise.

[@marcelmoulin3335]

@@DRL1320 Good point, David. I find half the comments difficult to understand because of poor grammar (or no grammar) and spelling errors. (A retired teacher here.)

[@QuentinLax]

Very informative video but I wanted to bring up something about the Kings/Tulare station. The local governments of Kings and Tulare county have approved a plan to construct a rail line connecting local cities to the CAHSR station. It’s called the Cross Valley Corridor, and I just think that this will give this station more weight in terms of ridership than maybe you thought. I’ll be honest, it’s still a lower population region of course when compared to all the others but I don’t think it’s insignificant.

[@LucidStew]

I'm aware of it. It won't matter. The area doesn't have the population or the density to support a high speed rail station. The Kings/Tulare station is also too close to the Fresno station to the detriment of the system and the efficacy of the Fresno station. Same for the Madera station.

[@PhilliesNostalgia]

@@LucidStewThen why are there French towns with a few thousand people that get TGV service? Hmm?

[@LucidStew]

@@PhilliesNostalgia Because they've been developing their system for 50 years. You could easily defer stations like Kings/Tulare for decades to save money and still eventually have service in the area.

[@JShrimpma]

@@LucidStew The french built the stations for political reasons too, but those high speed rail stations are tiny and aren’t not giant elevated structures with full length canopies like Kings/Tulare. See Meuse TGV station, it has a tiny ticket office and waiting room with 2 passing tracks, and it looks like a rural station, unlike what they’re building for Kings/Tulare. Another reason why the CAHSR is stupid expensive

[@LucidStew]

@@JShrimpma I guess they figure since its elevated on a giant viaduct anyway, they may as well put a station under it, thereby setting it up to be similar(and similarly expensive) to the other stations under elevated tracks. If you're a contractor, that's great! And the Authority is hardly a paragon of fiscal constraint. However, given the proximity to Fresno and present train station in Hanford that presently connects to Fresno, I find the Kings/Tulare station completely skippable.

[@lucaspakele3038]

LA County is, by itself, investing $100 billion to build out Metro. I think we can ask Los Angeles County to pay for their connection to the central segment. Get the Bay Area counties to pay for the Gilroy to Merced section. And so on. Ask Orange County to chip in if they want the train to extend south to Anaheim. Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Stanislaus can fund their section whenever they are ready to do so as well as San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego.

[@LucidStew]

I suppose you could do it that way, but I very much doubt it would speed up completion. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to put the responsibility on even more governments. Plus you're asking for those governments to spend quite a bit when you've already pointed out that they're spending a lot on their own systems. And all it takes to not get it done is for one to not do it.

[@Alejandro-vn2si]

I don't think they can do that and I do not know where the 100 billion dollars number you got comes from. From my understanding, Measure M is indifinate. I know they are investing a lot in transit due to Measure M and other 3 similar sales tax increases. However, beacuse its a proposition you have to ask voters for an amendment. I think LA should improve their own public transportation since that would eventually help CAHSR. From what I know, Link 21 (BART and Capitols Corridors Initiative) might actually help bring HSR to the Bay Area as opposed to LA bringing HSR. Personally, I think HSR will come to the Bay Area before to LA since the Bay Area already has a better public transportation system and the right of way that will be completed will make it more easier for HSR to be completed as opposed to LA.

[@snoopyloopy]

The line for LA-Anaheim is planned to be at least 110 MPH on two passenger-only tracks shared with Metrolink and Surfliner through Fullerton created by adding a fourth track from there to LAUS, then continuing on down LOSSAN through Anaheim. Also, although the official LA-SD route is via the Inland Empire, the need for new tunnels LOSSAN to keep tracks out of the ocean in San Clemente and San Diego county might lead to upgrading a decent portion of the route to at least 110 MPH when they are built. With the State looking to mandate zero-emissions trains from 2030 onward and CAHSR bringing wires to Anaheim, it seems like it will be only a matter of time before they are extended south after which someone will make the bright observation that they might as well just run the CAHSR trains themselves all the way to San Diego that way vs. waiting for the IE route to be built. Regarding Kings/Tulare station, that it's in "the middle of nowhere" is a golden opportunity to create a completely transit-oriented development centered around both the HSR station as well as the eventual cross-Valley train connecting to both Visalia/Porterville as well as Hanford and Lemoore. Obviously, those aren't the biggest cities, but it's also like halfway to Bakersfield and Fresno which will surely get some more love too.

[@LucidStew]

First point: it wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if the I.E. gets utterly screwed on this deal. I fully anticipate that one way or the other. I had a huge rant about that written into my original script before deciding it was too aggressive and off topic. Second point: let's call it a difference of opinion. No one will be convincing me Kings/Tulare isn't a terrible idea until UNESCO declares it a world heritage site. I didn't use the phrase "middle of nowhere". I think my presentation of the situation was very fair. It is being built in a field outside of Hanford. The map clearly shows there are cities around the area, but none are super close. I think its a perfect example of the paradox where some CAHSR boosters think using HSR stations to facilitate sprawl is a good idea. To me that sounds like the worst idea possible.

[@justsamoo3480]

@@LucidStewThose types pf stations are unusual even in Europe. Just look at the stations for Aix en Provence in France or Camp de Tarragona in Spain.

[@mattylite7]

Alan Fisher did a good job dispelling a lot of the disproportionate skepticism about non auto focused capital projects. This line is going to be built. It would be nice to see politicians realize that and help complete it in a reasonable time to give the US transit that is long overdue.

[@LucidStew]

I think it will definitely be built from somewhere to somewhere. I'm not real confident where those somewheres will end up being. But I would agree. Now is the time to stop dithering and find a solid way of funding it.

[@lonebeagle]

@@LucidStew Who is going to pay for this money pit? Everyone says that "It must be built", but nobody EVER talks about the source of the funds. The program is already billions over budget and it goes NOWHERE. I have friends in Fresno who joke about taking HSR from Merced to Buttonwillow!

[@LucidStew]

@@lonebeagle This is addressed in the 2nd part of this 2 part series and the right of way doesn't go to Buttonwillow.

[@lonebeagle]

@@LucidStew The joke from my Fresno friends is that nobody they know is going to ride the HSR "Train to Nowere" because it truly goes NOWHERE!!!! And how much will this train to Nowhere cost? And your solution is to dump even more money for a train that still goes Nowhere? Can you realistically tell us all how they're going to dig those tunnels south to the L.A. Basin???? You haven't even come up with a realistic plan to get it through the hills that separate the SJ Valley and Silicon Valley. Your answer is to spend more money and it will all work out in the end. Well the end is here. Just kill this gigantic boondoggle and cut our losses now. This project was NEVER realistic, it was never viable and it should have never been started.

[@LucidStew]

@@lonebeagle I see the punchline now. It doesn't go nowhere. The initial portion will go from Merced to Bakersfield. That will cost about $32 billion. How are they going to dig the tunnels? With tunnel boring machines. Yes, the solution is to increase funding because that is what the project requires in order to be completed. If it can be built for less than $130 billion or so in the next 20 years or so, it will be worth the investment. Of course the project was realistic. It's not like HSR doesn't exist elsewhere on the planet. This is a proven technology that runs on tens of thousands of miles of track in countries around the world. The thing that wasn't realistic was the cost. That estimated has been refined now to a much greater degree.

[@ezyryder11]

Good video, thanks! I am looking forward to the next one. Rooting for CA HSR!

[@LucidStew]

If you're rooting for CAHSR, you might not like the next video...

[@arandomcommenter412]

@@LucidStew you can’t do this to me, you know how much I sacrificed?!

[@UnReal31337]

Somehow, the Chuo Shinkansen Maglev in Japan costs half the price of CAHSR and is mostly tunnel bores.

[@LucidStew]

The Japanese project is currently estimated to cost about 25% more per mile. I have not seen a detailed break down of cost on either, but would speculate that it is due to land acquisition costs and extra cost dealing with freight ROWs that a nearly all tunnel system wouldn't contend with nearly as much.

[@AgathaWhispers]

Nice video - I first stared looking at the rail authority over 20 years ago. The plans that I saw did not use a piecemeal approach, quite the opposite. After 30 years of construction, the first passenger was to get a ride I like 2035 or so. I was pretty shocked. I think that the proposed funding was more of a sales tax thing - more like a pay as you go for construction. This approach seems hard as a lot of people funding the project would long dead when service began.

[@LucidStew]

Thanks. The number one lesson I'm getting looking deeper into all these projects is that the planning and environmental clearance alone take decades. So its like all the quaint, early cost estimates go right out the window by the time they get around to actually being able to build it. The original proposed funding was a 5 cent/gallon gas tax, or 1/4 percent state sales tax as an alternative. I talk about this in my What Went Wrong With CAHSR video and how in hindsight that probably would have been favorable from several angles.

[@christerman]

I have read most of these comments. I know you are not dummies. Phrases like "'train to nowhere" are not helpful. Eisenhower's Interstate Highway system was not popular with fiscal conservatives - "too much money!" The project cost ten times it's original cost estimate. Do any of you resent driving coast to coast on our Interstate Highways? I doubt it.

[@norwegianblue2017]

Very few people actually drive "coast to coast" compared to commercial trucking. Guessing most people prefer to fly if they are looking at much more than a 6 hour+ drive. That's where I draw the line anyway. Our railroad network for transporting commercial goods is actually quite good and it is, by far, the largest network in the world.

[@christerman]

@@norwegianblue2017 In re-reading my comment, I should have said: "Does anyone resent having this system that can get us by car anywhere in the country, but more importantly, allows for seamless transport of goods?" Yes, 6 hours is about it for me. Salt Lake City where I live to Vegas is plenty of driving for one day. At 85-90, 5.5 hours.

[@jasonreed7522]

"train to nowhere" reminds me of another transportation mega project even older and arguably more impactful than the highway system. Governor Dewitt Clinton's "Big Ditch", also known as the Erie canal that was completed in 1825 for a final cost of $7million then ($215million today, considering the labour was immigrants before labor standards and it was only 4ft deep by 15ft wide at first, no surprise that sounds dirt cheap for todays standards). By 1826 it had already paid itself off with toll revenue. In the first 20 years it took Buffalo from a megalopolis of 200 people to an actual city of 18,000. I won't list the full Wikipedia page of effects, but that canal is now called America's first super highway and is singlehandedly responsible for the growth of upstate cities and turning NYC into the objectively best port on the east coast since it linked the Atlantic to Great Lakes & mid west. (For a time NYC's import duties paid for the entire federal budget) The original intent was frieght but a lot of passengers took the canal as well, and the thing is even responsible for the Adirondack Park because deforestation risked filling it in with sediment, so the NYC millionaires decided to make a nature reserve to protect it in the earliest days of the environmentalism movement. Simply put transportation infrastructure precedes growth, development, and economic benefits. People will always say they are too expensive or not worth it, but a strategically planned piece of infrastructure with a proven technology can revolutionize your economy. And in America's increasingly service based economy HSR will be invaluable.

[@Inigo_The_Son]

Can't help but laugh at the HSR ending at the Salesforce Rail Center, since Salesforce has recently vacated their massive tower, the largest high-rise in San Francisco, and now the largest vacant building in the USA.

[@LucidStew]

I haven't heard anything new, but they might not actually dig that tunnel anyway. They're probably better off stopping at 4th & King permanently.

[@davidjackson7281]

@@LucidStewThey (MTA & JPA) claim they have secured 70% funding of the $6.7 Billion projected price tag. The tunnel isn't part of CAHSR funding. Building the new Transit Center was putting the cart before the horse. Do you have a new video soon (tomorrow)?

[@LucidStew]

@@davidjackson7281 Looking at Sunday(10/22) on the next one.

[@LucidStew]

@@davidjackson7281 Even though local transit is coordinating and funding, it's probably still not worth it. I've seen comments from several locals that 4th & King makes more sense in terms of connections. That situation might change if they tunnel from Salesforce to Oakland or something like that?

[@Inigo_The_Son]

I support the idea of high speed rail, especially on certain corridors. I also understand that this is difficult and costly in a country that was built around highways and automobiles. However, I am most concerned with local transportation plans at each terminus, which seem to be non-existent. It is almost comical to think that anybody described as a "planner" was involved at any level. The local rail lines in both San Francisco and Los Angeles have been horribly mis-managed and turned into rolling homeless camps. Even the locals do not want to ride these systems. A recent survey in Los Angeles revealed that an overwhelming majority of women are SCARED to ride public transit. LA County Metro ridership (buses + trains) peaked in 2013, and it has declined by 46.6% since, despite billions in additional taxpayer dollars. As with many cities, money is siphoned from buses to compensate for additional rail lines, and the net result is declining ridership. It is great that they are adding more rail lines, but if people cannot take a bus to reach the rail lines, then you have simply excluded potential riders The more they spend, the fewer people are riding. In San Francisco, they have stopped collecting tolls, so the trains are filled with homeless scum. Aside from the fact that free-loaders do not pay fares, they scare away all decent people. So, you step off this beautiful modern HSR, and your next step is onto a rolling cesspool? Welcome to San Francisco/Los Angeles, where trains only reach a small fraction of the area! One alternative is to rent a car, but I do not think there are any plans for rent cars at the train terminals. (BTW, This has always been a weakness for Amtrak, which generally has no rent car facilities at the train terminals. Several times I have considered taking Amtrak to visit my daughter in Ann Arbor. However, aside from the fact that a crappy train seat costs more than a first class airplane seat, and takes 30 hours longer, there are no rent cars at the Ann Arbor terminal. I would need to take an Uber to find a rent car, and another Uber on the return. You could not make it more inconvenient if you tried!) Ironically, Uber/Lyft have made it slightly more convenient, while Amtrak has done NOTHING. California has always considered itself a leader, so it is unlikely to learn from the mistakes of others.

[@LucidStew]

Not much I disagree with there. California is a bit of a mess. I kind of roll with the theory that politicians don't actual want to solve problems, they just want to keep the money coming in to "solve" the problem. One of the reasons I got into CAHSR was because it was supposed to run right by my house(no longer have that house, but CAHSR probably isnt getting there anyway). Any time I looked into taking a train somewhere it was always 3x more expensive and 3x as much time. So, the concept of speeding things up intrigued me.

[@CaptCovfefe515]

Hey Stew. I've become a big fan of your channel as of recent. Something I wanted to touch on is the ambitious travel time CAHSR is aiming for with Phase 1. They're looking to cover almost 500 miles in a little over an hour and a half. A comparable high speed rail line I can think of (that I've actually taken) is the Sapsan (Сапсан) train, which runs from St. Petersburg, Russia, down to Moscow. The distance is almost 400 miles and is complete in four hours, give or take a few minutes, with a few stations in between for some non-express routes. I don't know what trainsets CAHSR is planning on using when this thing eventually gets running, but regardless, I'll be curious to see how close they can meet their goal.

[@LucidStew]

The time requirement is 2 hours 40 minutes between L.A. and S.F., which is about 450 miles. The route is required by law to be designed to meet the time requirement. The train is also required by law to be able to cruise at at least 200mph, although they will aim for 220mph in service. There will be two L.A.-S.F. super-express trains daily with no stops between. Those are the only services that need to approach the time requirement. It's also debatable if an in-service train MUST meet the time requirement as the wording of the law is toward design and not in-service performance.

[@jonathanlanglois2742]

At that rate, Canada will beat California, and we're just in the request for qualification phase. The plan currently calls for a route to be built in the corridor between the cities of Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal - Québec.

[@KcarlMarXs]

Can't wait to ride. Hope it gets connected to Windsor-detroit-chicago too

[@MrAronymous]

Not "high speed" though, not even full electric..

[@jonathanlanglois2742]

@@MrAronymous The federal government has called for HSR proposals. They really did not have a choice in front of the pressure from the provincial and municipal governments. Theses are very popular government, and I don't see Trudeau daring to go against their wishes. They can end him with just a few words to the media. The population of Québec has very little political loyalty and Trudeau really needs Québec to hold onto power. We hold a lot of power over his political future and he knows it. My bet is that Trudeau will fold and cave into the pressure.

[@jb5music]

"California High Speed Rail Is In Big, Big Trouble - Part 1: Project Overview" Signed: Snidely Whipfuel Stooge Grinch

[@LucidStew]

I don't know what that means, but its funny.

[@TuckaBuck89]

At 13:30 or so. High speed rail saves 15 minutes v car.That does not include getting a ride to the train pickup, and upon arriving hailing a taxi, renting a car, or just walking to your destination, depending upon proximity, with your baggage. Sounds so good until one breaks down the actual times and costs involved. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of less drive time. Just wondering what studies and their results showed the frequency of various destinations. When and where specifically. Lived in Milwaukee area, took 40 minutes to get to train station, took about the same time as a car (105 miles) to get to The Loop (90 miles by train, there were a couple of stops), got a taxi, went to my destination, conducted business, a few hours later had to call for a taxi as my destination was not a busy taxi area, had to make sure I got back to the train station before the train left as in the evenings trains left for Milwaukee every two hours. I knew in advance the details. Usually opted for driving. One wonders- what justifies spending MILLIONS of Dollars Per Mile??? Only one answer- Hey, FREE MONEY!!! Politicians and greedy people came rushing.

[@LucidStew]

This is a generalization and of course an individual's travel times will be much more nuanced. Its worth pointing out in both the commuter paradise examples I give, transit connectivity at destination is VERY good, which would even things out, especially if you work road traffic into the equation. The main thing is really providing attractive options and right now rail in California is generally unattractive because its A LOT slower than driving in most cases.

[@javierpaz7954]

High speed trains through tunnels is a little uncomfortable. While the train enters the tunnel, it creates a pressure wave that you can feel in the ears. Not a big deal and it goes away quickly, but it may surprise you if you don't expect it.

[@LucidStew]

I recall at some point that they were going to rework the design for the tunnel entrances because previously they were planning to run underground at ~180mph. This was before some other decisions forced them to run the train faster in places. It's intimated now that they may aim for a 225mph cruising speed instead of 220mph in the Central Valley. This is to meet the time requirement of 2 hours and 40 minutes from L.A. to S.F. in Prop 1A. I have a bad feeling this will encounter realities that will make those practices unrealistic in service, though.

[@marcusnavarra8356]

The HSR trainsets will be pressure sealed. I found that info on page 8 paragraph 1 of this document: hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Final_EIRS_FJ_V1-08_CH_2_Alternatives.pdf

[@KcarlMarXs]

The project need to get built far enough that it's an "oh-well" on the mandated times. Fast tunnels may not pan out to be fast tunnels, but them being built is the major obstacle in addition to the central valley gap. (Drag it close enough to make sense to complete). I know this would have been more enticing to start the tunneling early and fill the the central valley gap, though and use that as the "oh-well"

[@snoopyloopy]

@@LucidStew I highly doubt they will regularly run any trains at 2:40 from LA-SF. It will happen a couple times as a PR move to prove it can be done, but they will quickly/quietly schedule the fastest trains from more than that.

[@LucidStew]

@@snoopyloopy I'm thinking similarly. I recall seeing a video a while back by a guy that was super knowledgeable about Caltrain scheduling, and it is apparently near impossible to achieve a hypothetical time in actual service. I've also read several times about HSR service being slowed because wear and tear on the system was untenable long term at extreme speeds.

[@somerandomguy7458]

Wish we could have some sort of gofund me and everykne could donate to CAHSR.

[@LucidStew]

Just to be clear, the project needs something like $100 billion.

[@somerandomguy7458]

@@LucidStew horrendously expensive. even if every single person in america donated 100$, it woud still fall short of the funding goals.

[@somerandomguy7458]

@@LucidStew I wish our government was tougher. this project needs legal immunity

[@carsonfran]

@@somerandomguy7458 Lol. what?

[@B_y1n]

I wish this project success. Also, I hope the line expands connecting Oregon and Washington State. L.A. to Las Vegas. San Diego to Phoenix.

[@LucidStew]

If that happens it will probably be a very, very long time.

[@B_y1n]

@@LucidStew HSR in France, Spain, Italy took decades to build but they followed through.

[@LucidStew]

@@B_y1n And that may very well be the case here. Although I think there is a good chance that after spending $75-90 billion on this, the public will balk at another $50-60 billion to get it from Bakersfield to Burbank. That will be nearly certain if ridership is low. Also, if you watch part 2 the point really of both videos is to say "look, this project is hurting and we need to finish it sooner than later in order for it to be a good deal." That's not to say that government wont continue a bad deal if given the chance.

[@christerman]

@@LucidStew :You probably have a better handle on this than me but here in Salt Lake City there was much skepticism about the light rail system that was proposed for the Salt Lake Valley back in the 90's. "Who would ride it?" The trains were almost packed from day 1. If you give commuters a safe, reasonably priced way to get from Bakersfield to LA in an hour or less, you will see packed trains.

[@LucidStew]

@@christerman I don't know about packed, but there is plenty of traffic between the two areas. Bus service between the two is robust. Make no mistake, I'm not arguing that connecting the two is a bad idea. What I'm saying here is that the state, politically, has been ambivalent about it, and if faced with a $50 billion price tag to do so, I don't think California will go for it. That is purely my opinion from my experience as a native Californian. Not impossible I'm wrong, and I would even say its likely the politics will change given enough time.

[@davidjackson7281]

This video presentation was excellent! You really did a beautiful and comprehensive report. Your tunneling informaton was the best have seen to date. I look forward with anticipation for Part 2. Rather than the piecemeal average funding of $1.5 B/year it needs to be adequately funded (though improbable) at $6 B/year for the next two+ decades to even have a chance of completing Phase One. Regardless, I remain 200% for CAHSR. I believe 'I' in IOS stands for initial not interim. Because of the many miles of slow blended track, numerous station stops, and the longer route via Palmdale the LA-SF trip will take at best 4hr40min (longer to Anaheim). A theoritical non-stop direct train with less than an optimal number of passengers, may do it with the pedal to the metal in 3hr40min. With simple math it is perfectly clear a 2hr40min trip is an impossible lie. It would mean averagng 195 mph over 520 miles where the top speed on 120 mles will be between 79mph and 110mph and at best only average between 75-80 mph.

[@marcusnavarra8356]

I have no idea where you are getting 520 miles from. The distance that HSR will have to cover from SF to LA is almost exactly 400 miles. 77 miles of that in NorCal will be at 110mph, and 14 miles in SoCal will be at 79 miles per hour. I don't feel like doing all the math for acceleration and deceleration, but that comes out to 2 hours 17 minutes. Unless the train will take more than 20 minutes in total to accelerate and decelerate, I'd say that their estimates are fine. Learn how to do math, my dude.

[@davidjackson7281]

@@marcusnavarra8356 Phase one is 520 miles from SF to Anaheim. sf-gilroy 80+ gilroy-merced 90+ merced-bakersfield 170+ bakersfield-palmdale 90+ palmdale-anaheim 90 = 500-520 miles. It will take three hours just from SF-Bakersfield alone, hopefully only decades from now.

[@davidjackson7281]

@Malachai Carter I redid the distance and came to 500 miles +/- 20 (the CAHSR maps say 500 miles). I stand by the physical fact the trip can never be done in 2hr40, etc. etc. even if funding for 58 miles of tunneling is ever secured decades from now. I voted for CAHSR and will always support it no matter how much, no matter how long but the voters, with the flawed proposition system we have, were sold a bad bill of goods and we are stuck.

[@marcusnavarra8356]

@@davidjackson7281 I used the carbon footprint calculator at hsr.ca.gov. It lists the round trip mileage between SF and LA as 802 miles. If you scroll down on the page I linked, that's where you find the info I'm referencing.

[@davidjackson7281]

@@marcusnavarra8356 The map there says 895. I do not see your number. There are a plethora of videos showing maps with 500 miles. Besides, the CAHSR information has always lacked credibility and played fast and loose with the facts. This mileage argument is moot since a person will have to be under the age of 20 before they have a slight chance to live long enought to see the project being completed and witness the truth that a 2hr40min trip WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE. That was my point and I am sticking with it. Believe what you wish. I do not care about self-serving carbon footprint propaganda. The amount of construction on this project will take an estimated 75 years of inflated ridership to recoop the huge carbon footprint due to construction.

[@MichaelSalo]

This project needs a do-over. Seriously, stop the work, rethink the options, and make a plan that can finish in our lifetimes.

[@LucidStew]

The issue is that since Prop 1A injected the idea into the state constitution and the vehicle code, it's going to be difficult to undo. Not saying its impossible... on top of that the scale of the project is fairly enormous no matter how you slice it.

[@etbadaboum]

Fantastic video. Thanks a lot!

[@HollywoodF1]

I’m looking forward to using this instead of going to the airport.

[@LucidStew]

It really would be a very attractive alternative to flying even if its a little more expensive. And I'd say that holds for all of the mid-range plus destination pairs between L.A., S.F./S.J., Bakersfield, and Fresno.

[@dustincjsaunders]

Could they get a Chinese or Japanese contractor and let them complete it in 4 years for much less money?

[@marcbuisson2463]

It won't happen. The US don't have the logistics, don't have the rail production, and have no construction company, machinery etc... at a scale large enough on its soil. Either ways, it would have to import either the entire machinery, or worse, the entire materials already transformed. Instead, they are trying to create their own public construction companies, with their tools. I do thinn it's the best long term solution. But yeah. They have nothing able to compete with even french Eiffage and Vinci in Europe.

[@etbadaboum]

Big problem is politics. SNCF was brought in, left infuriated because of them and choose instead Morocco to build a now functioning HSR line.

[@Guest-hv2qv]

No Way its going to be done by 2029, and the Feds just gave CAHSR its one and only payment of 3.3 billion, and not even a third is built. CA is bankrupt, where is the money coming from?

[@LucidStew]

🤷At the very least, it's a terrible idea to attempt to do something without a plan for how to do it.

[@Billblom]

While I love the idea of "real" high speed rail, the tunnels are going to drive the costs up by billions of dollars each. Trying to engineer a tunnel through a fault that will survive an earthquake? That is beyond difficult....And will require a lot of creating time at the engineering lab... Throw in the problems created by Russian Thistles migrating across the line, and you have real problems... (Tumbleweeds in other words...) --- Have one on the track, hit it, and watch it bounce up into the catenary to chew up a miles of wire rather quickly. The other problem: Power. Is the high speed line going to have its own generation, not unlike the early electrification on the North East?

[@5K00O]

America just straight up sucks when it comes to these types of projects. They’re really great ideas. I wish it would get done sooner so my relatives can experience it.

[@LucidStew]

Politics has complicated things considerably, but I also think we've waited too long to try to get this done and its becoming more expensive than it needed to be.

[@paulbellas8797]

We don’t suck at it. We built the Hoover damn in two,years. What has happened is we created all of these types of environmental,and regulatory conditions that require vast expensive and lengthy studies before work can get approved. These rules include lengthy public hearings in which portions of the project have have lawsuits filed that block progress. The alternative is to just kick people off their land and knock the tops off of mountains with no regard for anything. You choose but you can’t have it all.

[@norwegianblue2017]

@@LucidStew The Democrats have controlled California lock, stock and barrel for quite a while now and they had the full backing of Obama. It was their rodeo, and they blew it!

[@NoLifeStarCraft]

​@@paulbellas8797The Hoover Dam and public transportation are very different things. It was built over 5 years, not 2 during the Great Depression, so labor was literally the cheapest possible. Also, over 100 people died during its construction. I would not call that "good".

[@paulbellas8797]

@@NoLifeStarCraft some people just think everything sucks. Oh well

[@Bitterrootbackroads]

Bakersfield to Palmdale has to get through Tehachapi first right? I watch the live train cams in the area and keeping freight rolling is already a challenge. Love that loop thing! Is the more direct I5 Grapevine corrdidor really prohibited due to grade even with some tunneling?

[@LucidStew]

They're not going the I-5 route regardless of other factors at this point. The Palmdale route is environmentally cleared.

[@cowboycrook987]

as an IE resident i am hopeful for more transit options. with brightline west coming to rancho, i am so excited for what has been a long time coming. I'm hoping for a connection between CAHSR and brightline west. it would be a drream to go from my doorstep and get off in San diego or in SF. awesome vid!

[@LucidStew]

The preliminary route for CAHSR Phase 2 takes the train to Ontario International Airport. Some local government(not sure which one) is talking about building an underground people mover between OIA and the 8th St. station in Rancho. I honestly wouldn't hold my breath on CAHSR Phase 2. I genuinely don't think it will be built.

[@saintbyron5150]

You said it was a little tongue in cheek and not as professional, I thought it was actually pretty good. Thanks.

[@LucidStew]

Thank you and you're welcome! I tried to keep the information good and relevant. Had a little fun with the presentation.

[@davidjackson7281]

@@LucidStew Awaiting Part 2, soon?

[@LucidStew]

@@davidjackson7281 I'm working on it. Hoping for Friday, but wouldn't be surprised if I have to delay a week.

[@davidjackson7281]

@@LucidStew Thanks for the update. Best wishes always. The 3/16 Board Meetng video has not been released yet. You may want to view that first for more "bad" news such as the test track cost increasing from $18 B to now $20 B. What a project!

[@whatwhome6914]

You could have housed every homeless person in CA for one tenth of the cost of that rail system.

[@LucidStew]

Some would argue this rail system WILL house every homeless person in CA...

[@KRYMauL]

I know California is also extending region rail, so could they potentially pressure Brightlines to finish at Bakerfield. Then claim they are going to expand highway 99 to alievate highway 5 and use the money to invest in CAHSR?

[@LucidStew]

One idea I'd not thought of previously is that if the state can't finish CAHSR Phase 1, they could subsidize Brightline extending to Palmdale and then where ever CAHSR managed to get to. Brightline would be slower, as they're planning to average about 100mph to Vegas, but at least it would connect. I assume that having any possibility of happening would be contingent connecting to L.A. or the bay area. I don't know what that would cost, though. Like many things related to this concept, it seems like it would be a ways into the future if it ever happened.

[@KRYMauL]

@@LucidStew That would make a lot of sense, and would probably be how California will do the remaining phases. I'm sure there will be some public-private partnership that finishes the line.

[@LucidStew]

​@@KRYMauL I'm not even sure that's possible with Prop 1A in place, but if the idea where so profitable, someone probably would have already signed up for it and have it under construction.

[@KRYMauL]

@@LucidStew That makes sense.

[@michwashington]

❤ I subscribed because of this video

[@LucidStew]

awesome

[@MaxSnowDude]

we need deus ex machina COPMALA to fund phase 1+2 and grade separations across the project. it would be embarrassing to have at grade crossings for "high speed rail"

[@larryjanson4011]

just trying to go up the pass from Bakersfield. will be 10's of miles for bridges. and then 10's of miles of tunnels. then out of the pass down to the "high" desert. then after that the grade down to the smog city basin. again 10's of miles of bridges. kinda hard to build a way over priced toy train when millions already live on the land. O and were is all the power going to come from to run it? Ca is already short big time on that point. look at bart. during commute times the cars are packed, but the ONLY time it was in the black. was during a drivers strike. so every body stayed home, heck they even turned off everything. only then was the taxes enough to cover the bills. as the fair box never has supported the system.

[@LucidStew]

Bakersfield to Burbank will be a very expensive section. Power will come mainly from solar farms coupled with large batteries next to the route.

[@richardrose2606]

So let's bottom line this. Somewhere between 2035 and 2040 there will be a $25b high speed passenger train between Merced and Bakersfield. A train to nowhere.

[@LucidStew]

Roughly. It's more like 2030-2040 and $32-$35 billion. It IS possible they'll have trains running by the end of 2030 and stay on budget. I wouldn't say likely, but possible.

[@richardrose2606]

@@LucidStew Based on how this project has been mismanaged, I believe my projection is more realistic.

[@LucidStew]

@@richardrose2606 I'm also apt to think it will get done later than sooner. Cost will definitely be more than $25 billion, though. The Authority's lowest estimate is ~$30 billion.

[@PhilliesNostalgia]

It’s not a train to nowhere, these are cities and metro areas with millions of people, that could badly use this economic investment, and help further tie and connect the CV to the rest of the state. A train to nowhere would be connecting Elko and to Cedar City, UT to a 150mph HSR line. That is a train to nowhere, because Elko is a small-ish town next to I-80, and Cedar City is another small-ish town next to I-15. And with maybe only Ely as the other station

[@rl9808]

Not sure, but 12-14 years and no track laid? Have they even made any track?

[@LucidStew]

They're set to start laying track next year.

[@AdrianArthurBray]

Completing and running trains from to Merced to Bakersfiled will be a public relations disaster. No-one will ride it other than tourists i.e. train spotters. There just isn't the demand for travel between these locations, and Bakersifeld in particular isn't a city, it is a collection of suburbs. By the time you have driven 30 minutes to the downtown station,, parked, waited for a train and got on, you could be half-way Merced in your self-driving electric car. And nobody will be going to Merced anyway. The lack of usage and thus deepening financial hole will increase calls to cancel the rest of the project.

[@LucidStew]

That we're going to complete this from Merced to Bakersfield and hold it up as a triumph will be a minor embarrassment. I think a good rail spine can be a solid asset for this state, but I also think the ridership projections are absurdly optimistic, and as you point out that could have major implications once its running. And I agree, the project being abandoned with only Merced-Bakersfield complete is a real possibility.

[@snoopyloopy]

The existing San Joaquins service that this will replace is already one of the most-used Amtrak lines in the country with trains frequently selling out. The IOS will cut the travel time down by more than half (IIRC it will be about 1/3), making it the fastest way to travel in that corridor that's not a private plane. It also will provide connections to travel onward at either end, including direct rail connections in Merced and to bus at both ends and will run much more frequently than San Joaquins. While I agree that it probably won't have crush loads on the first day, all the communities along the route are growing and the State has passed a number of laws recently that really provide a great opportunity to truly capitalize to create good TOD focused on the train that can really change how people get around vs. the status quo in those regions.

[@LucidStew]

@@snoopyloopy First issue is that while Merced-Bakersfield seemed like a lock last month, now everything but the 119 miles of CPs 1-4 is in doubt. But yeah, I mean, cutting travel times in half can only improve ridership, I would imagine. Thing is...$35 billion to essentially upgrade San Joaquins is a lot for a result that is extremely underwhelming compared to completed Phase 1.

[@norwegianblue2017]

Only the California government could come up with such an idiotic master plan.

[@zakkattack1374]

Anyone here is jealous of china’s nationwide HSR system that makes the entire China looks like the NYC spiderweb subway 😀

[@matthewprather7386]

Despite how capitalism is supposed to competitively drive down costs, the US consistently overpays for all transit projects. Look around the world. This is the first thing that needs to get fixed. The other point missed is that population density often follows transit. Build transit with good stations and people and businesses will develop there.

[@LucidStew]

How is it capitalism's fault when a government decides to build something in a stupidly expensive way and then finds out that it ends up being stupidly expensive? Fair enough on the second point.

[@MichaelSalo]

CHSR is not an exercise in capitalism. Brightline would be closer to that.

[@edp2260]

I am a rail fan, but I am no fan of Calif HSR. Notice how they never mention how much the tickets are going to be? Let me give you a hint. I just purchased a ticket on the Eurostar train from London to Paris, at distance of about 240 miles. The price (the cheapest I could find) was $200 one way. For comparison, Alaska Airlines ticket from San Francisco to Los Angeles is $50. That is 1/4 the Eurostar price for London to Paris, and the distance for SF to LA is 150 miles LONGER. Even if you are going by yourself, it will be expensive. For a family of 4, you will be driving, of course. $1600 for the round trip is out of the question.

[@ploppill34]

High speed rail was a bad idea from the start and it’s a black hole of cost overruns for something that won’t even work😂😂😂😂

[@galyien]

Good luck on that fault line

[@rl9808]

Sounds like train fare will be hundreds.

[@LucidStew]

I would expect it to be similar air fare

[@lespaulranger]

Merced to Bakersfield hasn't been funded but rather an even shorter Madera to Poplar Ave segment is currently the one that is funded and being worked on. I guess building trains into centers of these central valley towns is really expensive and NIMBYs are there too.

[@snoopyloopy]

There isn't a check for it, but the Authority expects to be able to construct the whole of Merced-Bakersfield using existing sources of funding.

[@lespaulranger]

@@snoopyloopy that's simply false. they have no funding to go to merced or have even bought the land from madera to merced. there is no alignment even approved to go into Bakersfield at the moment either.

[@LucidStew]

@@snoopyloopy They are $8-10 billion short on Merced-Bakersfield and have phased the planning and construction of everything after CPs 1-4(single tracked). Further planning and construction is currently contingent on the federal grants that have been applied for, but not yet received. The Authority has not identified any other viable funding sources before 2030(extension of cap and trade funds).

[@lespaulranger]

@@LucidStew there’s also no environmental review or any approved route to go into the center of Bakersfield. Why do they need to go to the center of a town like Bakersfield? That’s not a question for me.

[@epicsnake21]

6:32 If you need some BART footage hit me up lol, I'd be happy to give you some footage. All I'd want is some credit in the description.

[@LucidStew]

Hell yes. My email contact is in the 'about' section on my channel. I'd credit in the video as well. The help would be very much appreciated. I'll definitely have a use for that in the future in my news videos and any special CAHSR updates I do.

[@epicsnake21]

​@LucidStew I'll upload it to Google Drive tomorrow, I'm glad someone can get some use out of it. I haven't had the time to put a montage together of all that footage yet on my own channel. I also have general Amtrak footage (Keystone Corridor and the NEC), and Capital Corridor footage if ya need it. I railfan way too much 😅

[@LucidStew]

@@epicsnake21 NEC in particular would be amazing. I don't have much of Acela Express or NEC regional.

[@epicsnake21]

​​​​​​@@LucidStewI have specific names for videos depending on what is in them (train type, location, etc). I'll leave a text document with the naming convention for you. It makes it easy to find videos of specific trains like the ACS-64s or Acela Express. I also use a tripod to make all my footage as stable as possible.

[@TuckaBuck89]

All completion dates for various segments seem to be at the earliest 2026, and mostly 2030 and beyond. Government ineptitude or feeding at the public trough?

[@LucidStew]

I'd put it down mainly to mismanagement and intentional deception with an eye on perpetuating the project by making it seem like it was going better than reality. Any portions that are now scheduled complete in 2026 were originally supposed to be finished the middle of this year. They don't really run into a funding issue until they burn through all of the bond money, and that's a couple years down the road. If nothing else materializes, their spending will be limited to the revenue they get from cap and trade(~$750 million/year). This actually just happened last year when the legislature held up some of the bond money while forcing the Authority to clarify and rework the plan slightly. You're also looking at two sets of completions. First is just straight construction of the right-of-way, track and systems on the first 119 miles.(2026) That part isn't serviceable. They need to extend that to Merced and Bakersfield to actually carry passengers. Construction of the extensions and completion of train set testing is what won't be done until the 2030s. They've always had 3-4 years scheduled for testing between construction completion and opening to passengers, so that hasn't changed much.

[@KcarlMarXs]

Ok, what now then? Without the funding, we can't start the tunneling.

[@KcarlMarXs]

In that respect, the rest of the project phase 1 NEEDS to receive significant grant/begin construction before full bakersfield-merced completion on a political/public relations account

[@LucidStew]

@@KcarlMarXs with any luck I'll post that video tomorrow. :D

[@crickrat]

What happens to a high speed trains operating during an earthquake?

[@LucidStew]

Depends where they are and how strong the quake is. I can tell you that for most of the major fault crossings(Calaveras, Garlock, San Andreas) the train will be above ground, although it will cross some faults while in a tunnel. The system is designed to automatically slow and stop the train during a significant seismic event.

[@Elizabeth-vh6il]

Why do you keep mentioning 110mph? 125mph or 200kph is the minimum speed to qualify as "high speed" rail in Europe.

[@LucidStew]

110mph is max speed in the U.S. with an at-grade intersection that is protected with quad gates. There are many places where CAHSR is designed to run through these types of intersections. Basically between Gilroy and S.F. and between Burbank and Anaheim. The system should be near 220mph most of the rest of the Phase 1 route. Overall the system is designed to average 175mph between L.A. and S.F.

[@sierranexi]

I work in Fremont CA where the city has completed an amazing network of bike infrastructure. And I never see any cyclists. Why? Because it's suburban sprawl. The perfect bike lanes still flop because it's not viable to bike 10 miles to work. Scale that up and the state is the same: doesn't matter if there's HRS to a few stations; most travellers will still want their car as it's not viable to get to a HSR station then fumble your way to where you're going three sprawled-out cities away.

[@LucidStew]

Right, we have zoning and planning issues we need to resolve first in order for changes in transportation mode to make sense. However, those can go hand in hand. For instance, if local governments know an HSR line or a subway line or whatever is coming through an area, they can zone in accordance to suit development when the transit project is done. There are ways of making that work better, though, like connecting to local transit so that more places are connected without needing a car. The objective, in my opinion, is to provide options. I own a car. I almost never use public transportation. However, it would be nice if public transit existed that would give me a viable option so I could then utilize it if that suits a particularly trip I'm taking. Regardless, given the extensive nature of the road network, most people will still choose to drive. Some people buy into the delusion that we could get rid of cars if we'd only build enough rail or bus routes. However, in places like Spain or France that have amazing rail networks, the huge majority of people still use cars for most trips.

[@hartfischer5509]

At best, it will be a 3h ride between SF and LA. Any 737 flight from OAK to BUR will get you there in 40 min, with 1h pre-departure check in. And the infrastructure cost of airports is a tiny fraction of what this train needs. And then there is Hyperloop, which is much slimmer in infrastructure, and 3 times as fast. No economically consciencious entity would build this, only the wasteful ridiculous government does.

[@LucidStew]

I think its reasonable to assume that 2h40mins wont be attained in service. 3h seems like a reasonable assumption. Yes, air travel is generally faster or at worst about equivalent, but a 3rd mode doesn't necessarily need to be as fast. Plenty of people drive when it's 2-3 times slower than flying. Hyperloop is unproven tech at full scale and speed. There's no reasonable means of knowing what a 500-mile full-scale Hyperloop system would cost. I think you're right on the last point. Any entity that had some sort of economic responsibility could not have chosen to build this. But sometimes it is beneficial for government to do things that private enterprise can't or won't.

[@DennisMerwood-xk8wp]

@@LucidStew Environmentalists, attorneys, politicians, greedy engineering firms and too many government agencies requiring permitting. China does not have these impediments.

[@erikhartog5340]

Lol stupid comment, very stupid indeed. "At best, it will be a 3h ride between SF and LA. Any 737 flight from OAK to BUR will get you there in 40 min, with 1h pre-departure check in." - Okay, but you haven't accounted for transits from and to airports, which are never in major population areas. 20% of flights are delayed, but that all of a sudden isn't relevant to you. High speed rail generally doesn't have this problem, because they are using dedicated train tracks which don't have to share space with freight train. "And the infrastructure cost of airports is a tiny fraction of what this train needs." - Bullshit, just the modernization of LAX cost over 14 billion dollars, just kidding, it's getting closer to 30 bilion. "And then there is Hyperloop, which is much slimmer in infrastructure, and 3 times as fast." - The hyperloop is just a shiny name for Elon Musk's attempt to stop this high speed rail link. It's a new technology that has so many downsides, you can write a whole book about it. It's not mass transit, it's nothing more than a pod which can only move a fraction of what a train can move. "No economically consciencious entity would build this, only the wasteful ridiculous government does." - Laughs in "just one more lane".

[@Wondwind]

Shocking

[@highvoltageswitcher6256]

👍🇬🇧🇺🇸

[@lassepeterson2740]

Why would anyone wanna travel between bad crime ridden cities really fast for billions of dollars ?

[@LucidStew]

In this video, the "billion of dollars" part is best explained in the chapter called "Why CAHSR is a good idea". As to why anyone would want to travel between the two really fast, one assumes the people in question are in one area, have some kind of business in the other, and time is not unlimited.