I Half expected to see you here. Hello!

Cool seeing you here, yes let’s keep on moving!

Nah, this is California. We all know they won't do that.

@@Token_Nerd We’re already doing it, unlike every other American HSR and “HSR” project out there. CHSR and the Acela are still the only two games in this town. All the others keep running their mouthes but California is the only state actually building actual, honest-to-goodness HSR in America.

Thanks again for your CHSR explainer! It was pure greatness on your part! You’re the only rail KZfaqr to not jump on the CHSR hate bandwagon! Glad you exist! Also, “MerKed”!

Glad to see at least someone recognizing that the high costs come from the very design changes the local communities requested! You see people on here all the time that demand more expensive changes in one sentence and then complain about the high cost in the next. They really need to decide which option they actually want. It can either be built right or cheap. You can't have both and some cake to go with your choice too!

@@TohaBgood2 Some news (tabloid-like) articles incorrectly assume that CAHSR is doomed and points to some decisions that may seem terrible on paper but are the only practical option to keep the cost as low as possible. Those articles incorrectly assume that new track is being built for the entire line whereas in reality much of the construction of HSR is modernizing and adjusting existing tracks and right of ways. I can say that the NYMTA is even further behind than the Bay Area and California with its almost century old systems that do not support automatic train operation, but then the MTA dug itself into a hole in the 1990s and 2000s while California did not rely much on private debt to get its projects completed. If anything, track modernization is an important step in building any new railroad infrastructure projects.

@@Awesome_Aasim I find it hilarious that they have switched to this meme now. In the past, some of the same or very similar tabloids were complaining that CHSR chose the "blended" system approach for the bookends in the SF and LA areas. On one occasion I actually caught the same author complaining first that CHSR would be too slow at the "blended" bookends, and a few years later that CHSR would be too expensive because it's "completely" grade separated everywhere. I don't even know how to react to this any more. At this point I'm just assuming that this is paid propaganda and that the authors of these articles just use a list of bullet points from some organization that paid them for the article in one way or another. I've worked with corporate PR and marketing. I remember being extremely surprised by how easy it is to plant a news story in a supposedly reputable publication if you knew the right people. I honestly think that this is exactly what is happening here. Grift!

​@@TohaBgood2 I think they miss the point. California is aiming for reliable and dependable, not mediocre. They want people to get out of cars and trucks on I-5 and US-101 and airplanes flying between San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego and actually ride HSR to and from these major cities and the Central Valley. As has been proven with the Shinkansen and the TGV, people will ride high speed rail as opposed to fly if they are given the option to and if they are incentivized to. This rail project is definitely going to have cascading benefits as it allows for cleaner transportation of goods and people between Norcal and Socal, and will definitely give California a reason to eventually phase out gas cars and diesel trucks in favor of electric in the not to distant future.

A bunch of these things seem to be ingenious ways to get funding for the already insanely high land prices.

Wow, you're special

@@anthonyherweck5765 Actually, the majority of Californians feel the same. I do. Everyone I know feels the same. I’ve never met anyone who would be against this project. Everyone says we should have built it in the 80s when it was originally brought up. CHSR is more popular now than when it was approved by voters in 2008. The anti-CHSR right wing propaganda has failed utterly to turn the population against this project within California. Nevertheless, they kind of succeeded outside of CA. So now we have the ridiculous situation where the people who are actually paying for CHSR are in favor of it and a bunch of non-Californians are against it although they have no horse in the race. Weird dynamic but the opponents don’t even live here so who cares what they think.

@@TohaBgood2 I think that's only true in the Bay area and LA. I think the rest of the state would prefer not to have it. I think it's an utter waste of money. I have to drive by portions of the HSR very frequently, it's a huge eye sore. To be honest, I think anyone that agrees with this project is very out of touch with people outside of their own point of view.

@@anthonyherweck5765 That’s the majority. You’re talking about the majority of the state. In a democratic republic whoever convinces a majority of people gets to have their way. The majority of Californians, a larger majority than when the first tranche of funding was approved, want this project built. It’s literally engrained in law. It will be built. And judging by how popular the San Joaquins is, the trains will probably be bursting at the seams from day one.

@@TohaBgood2 I'm well aware of how the voting process works, no need to explain. I on the other hand, I think you are very incorrect regarding the usage when it starts. I live in the valley, there won't be that much demand between Bakersfield to Modesto. You clearly, haven't spent that much time here in Central valley

For micromobility to work, the road designs and city planning will need to be drastically altered to make things safer. It will likely take as long as the Netherlands did (about 20-30 years) to fully achieve that.

@@mk3a oh, definitely, transportation to and from the stations is the next struggle after the train is built. CAHSR should spur development around the stations though, which should improve this a bit

@@Jdogg4089 Of all the places to cut cost, this isn't a bad one - they can always make new grade separations later.

@@Jdogg4089 well I don’t expect them to pay for all the grade separations on the Caltrain corridor (I believe that’ll be up to each city, like San Jose that recently received $7.5 million in a federal infrastructure grant for three grade separation projects along Monterey Road, including Branham Lane). CAHSR did help fund the San Mateo 25th Ave grade separation, as well as the Rosecrans/Marquardt grade separation in Santa Fe Springs. Alternative 4 does help deliver high speed rail as well as greater benefits to the existing corridor sooner with the least impact.

Are you gonna pay the extra 100 billion dollars?

@@Jdogg4089 If they were really "cheaping out everywhere" they would've cut out that 13 mile long tunnel.

@@Dogod2 actually it’s a horrible thing to cut cost on cause not grade separating means they have to drive slower.

Quad gates are supposedly safer than conventional crossing gates, but I believe the long term plan is to grade separate the entire Caltrain corridor. I believe it's the same for the Metrolink corridor at least between Burbank and Anaheim (I know there's plans to fully grade separate Burbank to LA, along with the Rosecrans/Marquardt grade separation in Santa Fe Springs, so I imagine that trend will continue to Anaheim).

@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Well that's good they're using quad gates.

@@TheRailwayDrone oh yeah. Iirc, the entire route for hsr is going to be quad gated. Could be wrong and if i am, they better do that asap if it aint completely separated already

@@TheRailwayDrone at 1:54 they show the quad gate concept for the intersection of Branham Lane and Monterey Road. Interestingly though, the city of San Jose recently received $7.5 million in a federal infrastructure grant to begin work grade separating this intersection along with the intersections at Skyway Drive and Chynoweth Avenue. This will hopefully be done before high speed trains start rolling through here probably in 2031 at the earliest. So the quad gates are a way to get the corridor ready as quickly as possible, while grade separations would be the long term plan and likely done by the respective cities they’re in.

@@Yvonne-Bella without quad gates they'd never get approval for any decent speeds

🚄🤝🚄

How China-Laos Railway changed lives kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5qcjNSduLWuqWg.html

Give us your high speed train!

yup about 30+ years from now

A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they will never sit.

How China-Laos Railway changed lives kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5qcjNSduLWuqWg.html

@@lioneljones6484 I would love to live in a culture where we care about what our grandchildren inherit in 30 years, and not just in our own immediate selfish interests. Invest in the future!

They need to plan to protect human life and remove grade crossings.

Wildlife is safe for generations because this boondoggle will take lifetimes to complete, if ever.

@@davidjackson7281 You lost, bud. Despite all of your oil shill propaganda, more Californians support this project now than when the bond measure was passed. Maybe consider a different state. Clearly your priorities don’t align with our state’s plans for the future.

@@TohaBgood2 As I have expressed to you before, there is no need to respond with rude and impolite comments. I'll chalk it up to perhaps youthful exuberance and level of maturity. Regardless, as you know, I am all for HSR in California. However, its poor execution is beyond frustrating. However, I bet I live closer than you to the eventual Merced to Bakersfield segment and so I will conveniently ride CHSR before you, my friend.

@@davidjackson7281 I doubt you’ve ever set foot in California, bud. And, every single one of your posts is anti-CHSR and identical to the posts of the anti-rail trolls. How come? Are they paying you?

Palmdale-Burbank will be approved next year IIRC, LA to Burbank is the section that has already been approved.

The BART San Jose berryess to silicon valley tube project won't be finished until 2030.

California has sufficient density for HSR, possibly Texas, Florida, and Illinois, but outside the northeast corridor America does NOT have sufficient density elsewhere. HSR is expensive to build, to get the most from the huge investment, requires many trains per day of at least once per hour services from 7am to 9 pm. To run that many trains requires a very large city metro with a population of seven plus million.

How China-Laos Railway changed lives kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5qcjNSduLWuqWg.html

The transport available is sustainable.There are lots of fossil fuel sources available

I don’t think there was much they could do, because like in the video, a lot of the railroad crossings are like, right next to crossroads, which isn’t really easy to grade separate besides just elevating or putting the train in a tunnel, unless you have a better solution

@@thejoechannel6912 About 2/3 of the crossings between San Jose and SF are grade separated already, including most of the major cross streets. There are already plans plans to grade separate more streets because CalTrain is planning to increase frequencies up to 10 min. Most grade separations have been made by creating underpasses for the streets which is much less disruptive. Some smaller residential streets can be dead-ended. But 100% grade separation is still far into the future. So ultimately, any grade crossing for HSR represents a big liability. A single car collision in Menlo Park could shut down the HSR system for hours. Why spend $100 Billion to build it and not spend a billion or two to grade separate the entire thing? That doesn't make sense.

@@bryanCJC2105 I see what you’re saying, but what I mean is like where there’s a 4 way stop right next to the crossing, like how they had in the video. I’m not sure of another way to grade separate that instance other than dead ending like you said, or elevating the railroad or putting it below ground in a cut or a tunnel

@@thejoechannel6912 In the example in the video w Monterey Rd and Branham Lane in San Jose, there are three such large and busy intersections along Monterey Rd that are just like that. The City of San Jose is already undergoing studies of how to grade separate these particular intersections. I imagine a 4-way road overpass would work best. The one in this video is the rare busy crossing still not grade separated. In fact, these three are the biggest and busiest crossings still not grade separated. Most are small residential or, in the case of Downtown San Mateo, Burlington, Redwood City, and Menlo Park, they are secondary downtown streets. There are a few similar but more rural crossings in San Martin and Gilroy where Monterey Rd (the same one in the video) closely parallels the tracks. I imagine in these areas the HSR alignment is elevated but I'm not sure.

Agreed. However, one stopgap solution is an operational one: have most HSR trains terminate at Diridon and limit HSR traffic to SF to like 1-2 trains every few hours.

Speed limited for hsr in residential for noise and safety reasons

They said 110mph is the max speed. Doesn’t mean they will be doing 110mph at grade crossings.

There will be constant interruptions to service, just like with Caltrain. This is a death sentence for HSR

@@jonasask8847 Ya, they will have to get rid of the grade crossings eventually.

This will be grade separated by the time the segment opens. You can find it on the city website.

You really, really need to do more research on the Mayan Train before you make such bold comparisons. Watching one B1M video does not make you an expert on the subject.

They're both of quality, don't compare

How China-Laos Railway changed lives kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5qcjNSduLWuqWg.html

@Javier Valencia - LOL, you have never been to this area I take it. The Southern Santa Clara County section will have amazing views of the country side and Santa Cruz Mountains.

Maybe your great grandchildren.

Yeah, because you nor I will ever be able to ride it.

Can you have light rail in every neighborhood? I thought light rail is meant to go fast

@@DengueBurger Light rail provides service like a subway, but at a less frequent rate and less capacity. It is great for urban centers that are sizable, but not large.

Light Rail is a joke in San Jose. Buses can do the same exact job for far less cost, more flexibility, and don't need their own dedicated space that takes up valuable and finite transportation space. But the people need their romantic fantasy rail systems....🙄

connect Montana and Wyoming

@@malachaicarter4338 No denying that, I just think it's funny that people overestimate its significance because it has the word "central" in the name, which is just the name of the company that built it (New York Central). Other than a temporary diversion a few years ago, it hasn't even been used by Amtrak in 30 years.

@@malachaicarter4338There are suggestions to connect Penn with Grand Central, but there's a lot more pressing needs atm.

No, the main portion will be following the 99 through the Central Valley, connecting on the Central Valley cities together.

Boring through a mountain is much different than boring under a city with utilities, property rights above etc.

@@elliotwilcox6900 plus, multiple boring machines can be used, starting at different points along the construction to speed things up.

@Zaydan Naufal I'm sure he's tunneling in Northern Europe right now

*45 years to plan it. 5 years to build it. Building isn't difficult. Getting the money from governments and convincing the locals that a couple years of extra trucks on the highways is worth it is the difficult part

That's still a very long way off. Phase 1 (San Francisco to Anaheim) won't be completed before 2033. (Expect it to take longer than that.) The LA to San Diego section (which will go through San Bernardino) is one of the Phase 2 projects. They haven't even finished planning the route yet. And realistically I'd expect the other Phase 2 project, Merced to Sacramento, to be built first as that will be much cheaper and easier.

Goodness wouldn't that be nice.

The CDFA didn’t give a crap about any of the birds they slaughtered. They didn’t test them they just killed them. So hearing this guy say oh the wildlife has to be preserved. All I heard was blah, blah, blah. All of a sudden they care about preserving the environment? Idk, i don’t have a crystal ball, but I foresee them collecting the funds and maybe even starting it, but something is going to stop it like oops they forgot the kangaroo rat vacations those parts every 3 years. 🤯🤪I just made that up, but that’s the type of crap these politicians spew.

I am with you, the traffic is no joke for that section.

No, because they're reusing Caltrain track to save money. (Imagine the cost to buy up land to build new track! That's not cheap real estate.)

the reasoning behind it (at least that I've seen from CAHSR) is not having to move the tunnel boring machine as much. Instead of doing a series of short tunnels that require the machine to be moved multiple times, you just do one long one, starting from one end and just keep going.

@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Good point perhaps but notice how they never discuss the prohibited projected cost of the tunnels.

Crazy drivers

yes

Altamont Pass eventually replaces Pacheco Pass.

@@m3x910 I appreciate your insightful comment. Help me to understand a little bit more why using the ACE route is prohibited. Are you saying ACE can not run more trains than the current commuter eight trains per day because UP won't let them? Legally passenger rail has priority over freight though it is not enforced. I don't think Altamont Pass is a route that freight uses that much. I think optimizing the route can be done with proper dispatching. Brightline shares the FEC line with freight. I concede you have made a good argument to cause me to reflect. Freight can run on off hours. Having 20+ passenger trains should be doable. ACE is working with the cooperation of UP and ATSF to increase their service on the Sacramento to Merced route for transferring to the San Joaquins train and the CAHSR segment. This approach I advocate will help until the funding is available for the Pacheco Pass. CAHSR as you know is $10 Billion short of completing the IOS without fed funding. Regarding electrification, a diesel (possibly hybrid) train would work. The complete line doesn't need to be electric high speed rail. Top speed of 110 mph with some 125 mph track would reduce the trip time 50% with an average speed of 80 mph. By progressively upgrading ACE more people will use it sooner to complement Central Valley service rather than being dependant on waiting decades more for an expensive Pacheco Pass route to be built. CAHSR has got themselves boxed into an impossible position of delivering a 2:40 trip averaging 188 mph for 500 miles. By blending more miles averaging 80 mph with the other half averaging 160 mph the journey could be done in a realistic and cost effective 4:15.

How China-Laos Railway changed lives kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5qcjNSduLWuqWg.html

I think the goal is as time goes on redevelopment around infrastructure like this will adapt accordingly. There are people in NY and NJ who have never driven a car - why? Because their towns were built around the train and other public infrastructure. In time there will be a similar shift like this in California too. But it is a chicken and egg problem. There is no demand for trains because there isn't infrastructure for it - lets face it California was built around the car and it will take a while to change that culture. But as $6/gal for gas gives way to higher prices, hmm... never ever becomes a maybe I'll try it, to "wow, why didn't we do this sooner"? But it may be 20 years to see this shift.

You're right that's a huge problem, but there's actually a decent amount of this stuff already, at least in San Jose, and specifically with Diridon Station, the whole Google complex thing should be a massive improvement. Also, there's just such a large amount of sheer demand in the Bay Area that even if most of the people still live in SFH suburban neighborhoods, there will still be plenty of people in areas that could really stand to benefit from this. I love in a fairly car-dependent part of San Jose that isn't really close enough to Diridon Station to benefit directly, but it's not hard to imagine it being redeveloped over time if the train infrastructure gets built up. As the crow flies, the distance is very modest when compared to places in Europe and Asia that have extensive rail networks.

Diridon will need way more parking.

@@r.s.4672 The whole point is to move away from car dependence. If we keep building train stations that people have to drive to and from and pay for parking at, and there's nothing interesting within walking distance of the train station, then nobody will ever use the trains. The problem with a lot of train stations in the US in particular is that we basically build them out in the middle of nowhere and make them a weird alternative piece of what would otherwise be a car commute. If you look at successful commuter rail systems, they all take you right to where you want to be.

How China-Laos Railway changed lives kzfaq.info/get/bejne/e5qcjNSduLWuqWg.html

Merced to San Jose is the most crucial segment of the entire SF-Anaheim route, cause once that's done and HSR trains can run between SF and Bakersfield, it'll be just as fast if not faster than driving between SF and LA, even with the 2 1/2 hour Bakersfield-LA bus bridge. Then there'll be the big push to get HSR to LA and Anaheim via Palmdale. Bakersfield to Palmdale closes the passenger rail gap and connects HSR to LA via Metrolink's Antelope Valley line, but the travel time would be just as fast or slightly faster than the current bus (2 hours on Metrolink from LA to Palmdale and 23-minute estimated HSR travel time from Palmdale to Bakersfield plus transfer time at Palmdale).

​@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Your points are reasonable. I don't have a strong opinion about the sequencing of subsequent projects given that Bakersfield Merced is built first. Sound like you do, and you've thought it through, so I'm liable to agree with you. (I do have questions about that bus bridge - I haven't ridden it but have doubts, a priori, about how smoothly bus services scale under growing demand. And presumably, if a fast train got riders to Palmdale, a shorter bus bridge would be organized to take people from Palmdale to key points south such as LA.) I was more lamenting that starting with Bakersfield Merced, assuming that segment even operates, will likely spell the end of CAHSR development. It should never have been the initial segment. Connecting cities where car ownership is customary and is required for last-mile mobility, the initial operating segment will have very low ridership. I expect that the fiscal damage to the whole state - already unavoidable - will prompt voters to end the HSR ambition by ballot measure, just as they started it.

@@ramanshah7627 the San Joaquins had just over 1 million riders in FY2019, and 710,000 in FY2022 (up from 434,000 in FY2021). So the ridership is definitely there, especially for a 200mph high speed train which is bound to attract more ridership as people want to experience that. Getting it to Merced and Bakersfield connects it with existing transit like the San Joaquins and ACE to Sacramento and the Bay Area and buses in Bakersfield to LA and SoCal. The Central Valley segment was built first for a number of reasons, but I’d say the biggest one is because it provides the most benefits to the entire state as soon as possible. If HSR had started in the Bay Area or SoCal, it would have left out the other half of the state. Having the initial segment link transit in both halves allows more people to experience HSR sooner. A majority of Californians support the project and want to see it completed to SF and LA, so if it were to reappear on the ballot I’m pretty confident it would still be voted to keep going. Like I said, linking the Central Valley and Bay Area with high speed rail will make it competitive with driving, and set up getting it to LA and Anaheim. I am kind of with you on the bus bridge though. I’m from SoCal and spent four years of college in the Central Valley, and never once took the train home because I didn’t want to do the bus bridge. Establishing the all-rail journey with Metrolink at Palmdale could potentially increase ridership more, but many already do the bus bridge and it’s fine, and as I’ve found out the all-rail route with current Metrolink and HSR via a transfer at Palmdale would be about as fast as the bus, or slightly faster.

CalTrain is currently replacing their locomotives with electric locomotives that can travel 110mph, the top speed of the tracks in that area anyways. As long as the stations can allow trains to pass, they won’t get in the way.

When they get the appropriate funding.

The current unrealistic and UNFUNDED estimate to build from SJ to merced is $23 Billion. They still are years and $ billions from finishing the Merced to Bakersfield by 2030. Optomistically, this section will start then and be done by no sooner than 2040 and by then cost $35 Billion (based on 5% annual inflation). Tunnels are very expensive, difficult, and time consuming to construct. That's assuming a huge increase in the annual funding rate to $3.5 Billion compared to the current $1 Billion annual funding. Where is the money going to come from?

@@davidjackson7281 Same place where the money is coming from for endless highway construction and widening. And no, lol, gas taxes don’t pay for jack. If they did then we wouldn’t have all these crumbling bridges and highways all over the place!

@@TohaBgood2 Good to see you commenting my friend. Time will tell about the level of funding won't it. Please remember, TohaBgood2, I am very much supportive of HSR. However, I am skeptical because of the consistent lack of committed funding and its bleak future outlook to pay for a $105 - 150 Billion project within anyone whose remaining lifetime is less than 50 years.

When hell freezes over