I suppose they could tunnel, but they don't really need to? Most places where they need to go below grade they can just trench. It's possible the plan is to tunnel under Stockton, but it would be something like 17 miles of tunnel when a perfectly good path sans tunnel exists. You could probably have a single-tracked line through Stockton in the UP ROW that hooks up to a more express main line, but this is not indicated in their route.

@@LucidStewit would be a mistake for CAHSR to overtunnel in areas it don’t need to. High speed rail can climb up to 4% grades and this fact should be used as a way to broaden our horizon of possibly affordable route alignments

@@jarjarbinks6018 Design standards for the system are limited to 3.5% grade, and then only less than 6km continuous. Grades beyond 10km continuous are limited to 2.5%. They're also limiting speed at various grades, including 270km/h above 2.2% and 240km/h above 3%.

The biggest problems here are: -The central valley is, geographically speaking, one big-ass seasonal floodplain for the Sierra Nevadas. The only reason people can live here is because of a complex network of dams and canals. I'd be really leery about building anything underground here, especially with climate projections indicating that we're trending towards more severe and infrequent rains, which are the kind that are more likely to overwhelm drainage infrastructure. -Tunnels are really expensive, particularly in the US. I think the phase 1 tunnels through the coastal range alone added on something like $40 billion to the final (projected) bill for phase 1. It's better to avoid them if possible. -As LucidStew pointed out, they're not really needed, there are already useful existing alignments they could utilize to their advantage.

@@jarjarbinks6018 lnteresting to see whether or not BLW tunnels through the Cajon Pass and/or the Mountan Pass. Apparently the l-15 route for vehicles may approach up to a 6% grade.

Lot of empty parts.

@@mrxman581 Which is why I laugh when people claim the population of California won't stand up to this railway when it is finally running, as if people are going to completely abandon Cali.

Traffic is one of the major complaints when it comes to California, but when a legitimate solution pops up, all of a sudden it's faced with all this opposition. Especially from Red States that are completely fine with a physical barrier across the entire Mexican border with the US.

@@SirSayakaMikiThe3rd ...or build their entire economy centered around cars. Ever been to downtown Houston? Literally EVERY block has a parking garage. And there is no way to get to the airport except by bus or Uber. Not one railway runs to the airport.

It’s similar in size to the UK.

That's weird. Usually Google Earth Studio is more up-to-date than Google Earth, but not this time.

@@LucidStew yeah Google’s satellite imagery of California HSR progress is outdated as well, by probably a few years or even more. Edit: looking at that Google Earth Studio view again I’m seeing it’s even older than 2017, maybe 2014.

Compare UC Merced to UC Berkeley. Cal's enrollment is up pass 45,000 from 30,000 and has 500 student lecture halls. Climate is more moderate at Cal. Temperature that is not politics. l have heard nothing but niice things about UC Merced.

@@davidjackson7281 it’s definitely earning a name for itself.

The HSR may make it convenient for student travel, but the cost of a ticket will have to be huge to even keep up with maintenence costs.

Yeah, those small government assholes, trying to work within their means, what a bunch of cranks.

...so that money can flow up to legislators and executives... there, fixed it for you.

Cool. Keep fighting the good fight. My main goal is to lay it out realistically so the public can make a fair assessment.

@@LucidStewyou’ll have to make a future video comparing the total cost of CAHSR’s Phase 1 and 2 to that of what it would cost in freeway and airport expansions to carry the same capacity of people CAHSR expects to, both in its Phase 1 and Phase 2 services. Weigh not just the financial costs but also the ROI to see which is the better long term deal, to keep building HSR to SF and Anaheim and eventually Sacramento and San Diego, or to stop once Merced-Bakersfield is done and double down on more freeway lanes and expand airports in the LA and Bay Area regions to meet future travel demand. CAHSR did that in its 2020 Business Plan with help from WSP, a construction management firm, who compared Phase 1 to the equivalent capacity freeway and airport expansions and found those to cost 1.5 times more than HSR.

​@@ChrisJones-gx7fcwow, so CAHSR hired its own "experts" with public money to show that they need more public money? What a courageous group of bureaucrats.

A belated Merry Christmas to you as well. I'm still on the right side of Happy New Year!

It's very preliminary, basically a line on a map. It's very possible things could change if it gets to the point of outreach for environmental review. The people of Stockton would need to make their voice heard. Generally the Authority is willing to adapt to push back(although, not always).

Stockton could use a bump. It's kind of a shit hole

I would love to have a complete seaboard high speed rail spine. It appears a PNW HSR system might be planned for the future, probably connecting Vancouver down to Eureka. I don't see any official interest in bridging the gap between the California and PNW corridors with HSR, but it would be possible and I know it would drive economic growth to have a fast rail connector between Sacramento and Portland, as well as all the cities in between. I would like that 😅

For only 2 trillion more, lolol..... You dont even know we paid more interest on the debt last year than we spent on the Military? That number is growing exponentially...

Great idea. Export Oregon addicts, criminals, deadbeats to CA. They will fit right in

Something like this could be a very long way out, so that may very well happen first.

I'm guessing a significant portion of the Sacramento area will be blended and they wont bother with geometry upgrades. I was a bit surprised by the cost total. That is mainly down to the SR99 corridor being rather suburban through that area. There just isn't much rural territory left in these rights of way. The longest stretches in this route are only 6 miles. I only counted 48 rural miles total out of 114 and some of that is based on my Stockton bypass assumption.

America's stupid love for suburban development patterns screws us again​@@LucidStew​

I suggest you look at the public records of the California Secretary of State and Fair Political Practices Commission for political activites and donations which will be or may be already involved in this project at all levels ( federal, state and local). Don't wait until AFTER the graft and corruption is involved. @@LucidStew

@@crimestoppers1877 I'm already assuming that's the case. Unfortunately I don't have much time to do political investigations because simply learning about routes and trains and HSR takes up a lot of time.

I understand. My curiosity was stimulated because I know a bit of history about some the properties that you suggested could be involved in the planned system. Th local citizenry have already endured the alleged "shovel ready" "construction" for previous "grand plans" that were never completed. The development/political perps enjoy their political "donations" as "constituent service", manipulations and investments. @@LucidStew

I will likely do all of the "independent" Chicago Hub routes at some point, similar to the Chicago-Indianapolis video. Looking at it from a high level its easy to see how Wisconsin is a sticking point there.

Sacramento-Bakersfield is probably the best run in the system and would be one of the fastest on the planet if service matches design.

If you're over 40, don't count on EVER seeing this train ACTUALLY running.

You're going to be waiting a long. Long time.

Maybe we can figure out a way of bring costs down after we've gotten better at building it.

​@@LucidStewI doubt it you don't line pockets that way

The number of people who already travel by train on San Joaquin, Capitol Corridor, and ACE trains in that area definitely makes a strong case for finishing the full Sacramento to Bakersfield route. Even more so if the Capitol Corridor route is upgraded to HSR.

The Stockton area in particular I'm interested to see more detail on. Altamont Pass is in the Proposition text as a corridor they can use. Shortening the ridiculous distances between Sacramento and the Bay(and serving Oakland) are still possible sometime around the Star Trek TNG timeline.

@@LucidStew I'll hold out hopes for projects until you start dating them in years after (Asimov's) Foundation.

​@@MartinHoeckerMartinez Upgrading the Capital Corridor to HSR might be doable as an Amtrak project if it's extended to link Reno, Nevada which is becoming quite a sizeable city! And maybe at Reno the Corridor could take a right and head to the Nevada state capital Carson City.

@@mrxman581 $30-40 billion would only cover half the current funding deficit on Phase 1.

will do!

I made a whole video about the subject: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ed6HlduY0Nm7mGw.html but, yeah, two big lessons are not to build engineering or times tables requirements into the law. The 200mph cruising speed requirement along with the time requirements between certain stations, combined with the terrain demand that the train be state of the art and construction be very expensive in places. Most of my videos focus on 140-150mph average speed routes rather than the 170mph CAHSR will need to maintain in most places, so same general philosophy.

CA has other factors ... (1) legal requirements for highest speed per Prop 1A, (2) Highest speed (220 mph) requirements requiring grade separations, and (3) high probability of earthquakes requiring especially tough structures. CAHSR is using blended service inside cities (110 mph max).

@@RobertBenson-ce3xc Seriously, compare what Japan has built to what California is building. The earthquakes that they get are just as severe. That argument does not hold water. Japan does not build massive pergola structures like California does. If you look on Google earth, you'll find that they've only built got 3 or 4 different types of viaduct theses last few decades. Its always the same standardised viaducts sitting on top of beam and pillars. Standardisation, or rather the lack of standardisation is why a lot of our projects are so costly in North America.

@@jonathanlanglois2742Bravo.

​​​​​​​@@jonathanlanglois2742The pergola structures are necessary so that HSR can cross over the adjacent freight rail line. The route chosen by the CAHSR Authority is more costly than the route adjacent to I-5 would have been because the I-5 route could have been built in the median or on either side of the highway on private property (on new right-of-way), and thereby could have avoided having to cross over freight rail lines (because there are no rail freight lines adjacent to I-5). This was the option favored by the French (SNCF), who lost interest in the project when political considerations dictated the longer, more costly route through the cities in the eastern side of the Central Valley. 0:03

Merry Christmas to you as well, and a happy and prosperous New Year!

I'm sure they have a pretty good idea about the section. I think they also don't want to talk about the cost.

I cant wait to hear more.

@@LucidStewI’ll let you know in 2045

What, did they flatten your house to build a warehouse?

It's because it's not designed for Sacramento to sf travel

Thank you. The main idea is to investigate the issue rather than promote it. My stance has always been that this is a good mode from roughly 150-400 miles, so we should build it where it makes sense, if the price is right. Does CAHSR meet those conditions? In my opinion it comes dangerously close to failing, which is why I tend not to pull punches about the project.

@@LucidStew I very much appreciate your point of view and technical over insights. If they had started with an I-5 corridor route starting in say, Burbank and ending near San Jose. I would assume the right of ways using that route would be easier as the state seems to have a lot of buffer on each side of I-5. Its flatter and less crowded with buildings and they wouldn't have had to deal with the existing rail road company right of ways, so it would have been massively cheaper, faster to build. Then use existing snail trains, etc. to link in the short term to all the "milk run" stops. Then the next step would be to make the milk run loop/spur from Bakersfield to Sacramento, maybe linking from there through the capital corridor to Oakland and on to San Jose. It could have been built using smaller useful steps, rather than the train from Merced to Fresno that will not be useful in their stated goals. The priority should have been high speed travel from the Bay Area to L.A. then work in all the mid sized cities in between.

Because the video is about the Phase 2 extension to Sacramento. I have seen an official CAHSRA estimate of 2h 37m for L.A.-S.F., which seemed technically possible. The section between Gilroy and Burbank is designed to be extremely fast. We'll have to wait until dynamic trainset testing starts in 4-5 years to see if that translates to reality. Even if 2h37m is physically possible, I wouldn't count on that ever happening in regular service, though.

One thing that everyone saying to me that you have to keep cost of equivalent infrastructure in mind is also not keeping in mind that a no-build alternative is considered for every project.

True and you know how well the "no-build" works out. I look at the continual rebuilding and widening of I-580 through Livermore Valley since the early 1970's and it's time to repair the freeway from all the vehicle damage. So the cost cycle begins once again. My point is, yes HSR is expensive but so is expanding the freeways and highways. The cost of highway 99 between Madera and Livingston has to equal HSR between Merced and Modesto. But 99 has been a mess from Bakersfield and Livingston since the mid 2000's. Big budget infrastructure, HSR really isn't that out of line....

Scenarios like that are where electrification of freight at some point would really come in handy. If we could get all traffic in the intercity ROW on one system, throughput becomes much better compared to trying to squeezed multiple double-tracked systems in there. You would probably need a tunnel to get from that ROW to Sacramento Valley station, but it wouldn't be anything crazy.

Prop 1A limits to 24 stations in whole system. Also, SF-Sacto time is also specified in Prop 1A (so extra stations are problematic).

@@RobertBenson-ce3xcA future Prop 1B could nullify such pesky restrictions.

It takes a fair amount of time, but my production process improves a little each time. As a result, I'm able to decrease production time and increase production value just a bit on most new videos. The contest between BLW and CAHSR is really between RC-LV and Merced-Bakersfield. Unless something goes terribly wrong with BLW, this Phase 2 portion has no chance of being built first.

All for BLW. Love the project timing with CAHSR. Yes, it appears the odds "may" favor BLW. But l'll need to see how BLW's doing after a year of construction before assuming who begins revenue service first ... years from now. Anything could happen.

@@davidjackson7281 At the same time BLW has some padding and the CAHSRA will need to prove over the next 3 years that they can stick to a schedule if we're to expect revenue service before 2031. I personally have my money on 2032 atm. Both projects are about equally underfunded right now, so there's that whole barrel of monkeys. But really its about the most interesting thing going on in American HSR, at least until the Avelia Libertys hit revenue service.

@@mrxman581 I would assume Amtrak. They weren't shy about butting in on Texas Central aka Amtrak Texas High-Speed Rail.

An inverse way of looking at this is shame on Brightline West if they can't build RC to LV before CHSR finishes Phase 1 or even Phase 2. Brightline West has a much easier task at hand but however they get between RC and LV that is not going to help me get from SF to LA any faster. Different topography, different challenge.

I'm limiting myself with their route trying to figure out what the plan is there. If it were me, I'd bypass a little further east at higher speed with the main line. Then, squeeze a single track in the UP ROW between Lodi and Ripon, and put the Stockton station downtown. Manteca could get a station on that local branch as well. If you look at the buildhsr.com map, the station location they have is a real head scratcher.

@@LucidStew just looked and... Yeah, I've got nothing. Not sure why they don't just take over/improve the current and future San Joaquins alignment, except for political reasons, like they're expecting too much pushback, or financial reasons like they're expecting it'll cost way too much to grade separate through there. Stockton can get pretty dense, so that wouldn't shock me, but you'd think you'd want the station close to the dense areas anyway. Edit: I just remembered that the San Joaquins borrows that alignment, and there's freight infra connected to it that freight won't want to give up.

In terms of having to start in the Central Valley, something like Fresno-Sacramento may have been a better choice than Bakersfield-Merced. It's also more difficult to call it middle of nowhere if you're connecting the state capitol and 2 1/2 million more people. I think this had to do with both the phased approach and also the way the initial operating segment evolved. At first they wanted that to be Burbank to Bakersfield to close the current transit gap. That then slowly drifted north as they realized they didn't have the money.

Burbank to Bakersfield doesn't have political will. Have you heard of Acton which is south of Palmdale, well the CAHSRA Board has and the Board has made outlandish promises to these outraged NIMBYs in order to get the Environmental Impact study signed. @@LucidStew

@@LucidStewWish they had first connected Bakersfield to Burbank or Santa Clarita via the Tejon Pass and for the same or even less than what the Valley segment is costing. A 2:30 bus bridge is bogus. Hey everyone lets take a state-of-the-art, world class high speed train to Bakersfield on an excellent hour ride so we can then transfer to an uncomfortable, slow bus ride to LAUS. Oh boy.

As most people have concluded by now, funding is the main problem, and we need to decide if we really want to build this. If that's the case, we should quit screwing around and fund it.

I kind of agree but it’s also such a huge amount of money. Has 200 billion ever been spent for a project within a single state?

@@alexbinck8572 No. This is the second largest civil works project in U.S. history behind the Interstate Highway System.

Cheer up. Just enjoy the slow pace of ordinary speeds while you still can. lol. Atleast there are no catenaries and poles to obstruct the gorgeous valley views. Actually, 2050 for phase two seems pretty darn optomistic. Atleast BLW may be operating this decade.

"Between 1949 and 2017, the federal government invested only $10 billion in high-speed rail with $4 billion of that dedicated to the California project, compared to investments of $777 billion in aviation and over $2 trillion in highways." LA Times, 12/15/23

I've driven SF to Sacramento in the middle of the day, & weekends maybe longer on a holiday weekend or something like that but every other day, it's like 90 minutes either direction.

One complication here is the Prop 1A time requirement, which is insanely fast between Sacramento and L.A., even more so than L.A.-S.F. It will NEED to be very fast nearly all the way. When I came up with 2h 21m, I DID assume blended 110 in the Sacramento area, but... change that to 125mph for 10 miles and you only get your minute back. The slowest portion otherwise is that S-curve in Modesto, and that's just a quick slow down to 110 for a couple of miles and then right back to speed. I'm not pulling punches anywhere else. The assumption is 200-220mph nearly the whole way from Merced into San Fernando Valley.

@@LucidStew that’s only a requirement if you run non stop adding in any random stop will mean the time limit doesn’t apply

@@gdrriley420 I have 2 hours 21 minutes as a non-stop.

@@gdrriley420 the wording of AB3034 is "The high-speed train system to be constructed pursuant to this chapter shall be designed to achieve the following characteristics: (b) Maximum nonstop service travel times for each corridor that shall not exceed the following: (7) Sacramento-Los Angeles: two hours, 20 minutes." Whether or not there actually is a nonstop train in service is not relevant to the design requirement.

It's nothing technical. I'm having to cut some corners for expediency in the production process. I'm aware that creating a real high speed curve goes beyond tangents and constant curves, I just don't have time to apply those concepts and put together a 20 minute video in 7 days. I take a screenshot of the area. With image editing software I find a tangent circle that fits within the actual space comfortably, leaving room for clothoids. I find a landmark for the center of the circle, and then use a mapping app to measure the distance. I then use a chart I made up of convenient speeds and distances, which I created from a few different sources. It's not exact. I round to convenient amounts so I can use it to quickly eyeball speeds if I need to. The curve speeds in most videos are probably accurate to +-10%. I find it reliable enough. Using this video as an example, if the 150mph Livingston curve is actually 165mph, they'd still want to go faster than that.

Got a few cities in between on that one. Once I get done with FRA HSR corridors, I'll probably do something like a "Stew's National Vision for HSR" type video. I don't think that would be transcontinental and if it were I'd probably pick between San Antonio and Phoenix

It's possible. In the Fresno example they don't have much choice due to the convergence with the other crossing issues right next to it. The canal crossings from Merced to Sacramento, they don't really NEED to go under.

They don't need tunnels in most places. I don't see the argument for it in Sacramento. You're only talking about 5 miles of problem ROW at a terminus. You don't really gain anything by fixing that. Stockton is possible with something like 15 miles of tunnels. I found this unrealistic and their station location still didn't make sense. As I said in the video, I took it that they were avoiding downtown for some reason, so I came up with something that followed their general approach and made more sense to me. If they had their station downtown, I would not have avoided it.

@@LucidStew Fair enough

As Lucid Stew points out, the Phase 1 + Phase 2 route from Sacramento to San Francisco is long. And will take about the same time as the CC takes. The CC is 2 hours from Sac to Oakland Coliseum BART and, with a switch to an Amtrak bus, about 2 hours to SF. So if the high speed is significantly more expensive than Amtrak there is no point in taking it over the CC without a more direct high speed route. Since they are planning a second trans bay tube that will be able to carry non BART trains, the CC might get a direct train connection to SF before HSR gets a shorter route between Sac and SF. The tube may well be finished before the Merced to Sacramento portion of phase 2.

@@dylanryall I had forgotten about the transbay tube project. Assuming HSR can run on those tracks, does it make the case for through running from SF to Oakland and then building dedicated HSR tracks on to Sacramento? HSR could end up replacing some Capitol Corridor service, like how Lucid Stew suggests that the San Joaquin and ACE services will need to be readjusted once they share destination pairs with CAHSR.

The Altamont Pass in is Prop 1A. You're looking at a Phase 3 or 4 for the Altamont Corridor. In the mean time, ACE might do it instead. Maybe they'd share track or something like that.

Also, if we're talking about a future with genuine investments in intercity rail, its likely that Capitol Corridor route will receive improvements. Electrification of everything is out there somewhere at some equally distant year, so these various routes may converge at some point as well. CAHSR doesn't need to build everything in order to use it.

@@LucidStew If the CAHSR power and control system was used for other projects, it might definitely make interoperability feasible along multiple systems. Thus, HS is not the only time and convenience factor.

I have an NEC video coming up. My corridor videos have focused on how to get them up to a true high speed standard, so I'll mainly attempt to route a 2nd spine and potential bypasses allowing 150mph average express travel. However, I will likely also cover key chokepoints on the current mainline as well. The various calculations are by hand using simple algorithms that allow me to come up with a reasonably accurate estimate(~+-10%) quickly with just google maps and a few spreadsheets. Those are based on real-world projects and data as examples. Generally results have been reinforced by similarity to much more detailed analysis that is published. When I'm out of wack, I try to iterate my methods. I ran into this not too long ago when I discovered I was missing impacts from regional variation in construction and engineering costs.

@@LucidStew By chokepoints, you mean more than CT, right? Haha! But no seriously. I like your work and it gives me hope for a better future, despite seemingly endless shortcomings. It's easy to criticize the Americans for having shitty public transportation and poor HSR. But, when this is broken down, it helps demystify a lot of the original design decisions. I've read some FRA documents regarding alternative design plans, but those are basically before & after private committees, so it isn't really clear why certain plans are chosen over vague "cost effectiveness." Honestly, I don't even care about Cali HSR costs anymore, as long as it just keeps going. It isn't going to do any good ending up like HS2.

@@Gnefitisis I haven't examined the whole NEC route in detail, but I have looked more closely at western Connecticut during discussions and it is quite limited. Same with New York. That will be a big question in that video: can that be improved to any real degree? I know the North Atlantic Rail solution is Long Island and under Long Island Sound. Seems like an expensive proposition. The reason the CAHSR cost is important, and the reason it is one factor I continually point out is that the funding is so far short. Like in this video, when we talk about $20-35B for this section. That's on top of $60B for San Diego. That's on top of $80B more for L.A and S.F. The public really needs to come to terms with the gap whether its in the build or stop direction. The thing does no good if its not built, and at the current pace it could be 40-50 years just for Phase 1.

@@LucidStew Regarding Cali- what do you mean by phase 1? Phase 1 is building the IOS. Getting the IOS to Sacramento is Phase 2, AFAIK. Connecting LA and San Diego is an "ongoing study" issue. At least, that's how I see it. Ofc, everyone would want it finished connecting Cali! It would be amazing and really capture the spirit of the project- hell isn't the point of it to catch up to the rest of the world, at very least get kinda a Tokyo-Osaka Shinkansen style POC style route (if you catch my drift)! But I don't think 40 years is fair. If we are ~50 % done with Phase 1 construction, 8 years in... that's ballpark 16 years per phase. If Phase 2 gets off its ass and secures Federal and State money (and I also think they could do a Taiwanese style, get 7/11 to sponsor the stations while they sell lease rights to store construction JUST off the platforms, which I think is a win-win-win...because who wouldn't want a hot dog or something before going into town?) then maybe it get escape planning within the next 4 years and maybe secure a CP5. With that overlap Bakersfield up in maybe 20 years? Connecting LA can't take more than 20 more... right...right?? Please don't tell me I'm not right...? Then for the NEC, I do agree that a second spine could do alot of good. I personally advocate for the renegade North Atlantic Rail initiative myself, which seems to be getting some traction because you'll notice the FRA has considered it some too if you see the last set of NEC NEXT design alternative docs (albeit as a last, not serious, alternative), if anything for the sweet sweet Boston -Springfield-Hartford connection. However, the current NEC eas created by upgrading whatever was there and leftover by Amtrak, and at a comparatively large expense for the times too(!), which is why the current chokepoints exist in CT and the reliance on legacy routes along the coast. While these coastal routes may be nice, and a lot of the NEC is ugly tunnels, it's not ecologically responsible considering expected changes in global sea levels, and fiscally dubious due to higher salt corrosion from ocean spray and the poor state of CT bridges & NIMBY concentration around New Haven and the NY border. Point being- I would really like to know if it makes more sense to do the new spine and/or why Amtrak made the current NEC for Acella, as apposed to more land aquisiton for the alternative routes. Let's not forget there already had to be a lot in order to straightened many routes. Of course, if it's cheaper and faster to just straighten it out the NEC some more and fix CT in the process I can't complain, I suppose. The NEC really embodies the feeling, beggars can't be chosers. >.>

@@Gnefitisis Phase 1 is San Francisco to Anaheim.

Some habits are hard to break, l guess.

You'd need about a 70 mile long tunnel under the Sierras

So you're saying there is a chance. With the snow blizzards in the pass the tunnel would come in handy.@@LucidStew

Good to know I didn’t know it was that bad.

@@vincentperez4653 I think the only way you're getting transcontinental HSR is the southern route and even that is extremely optimistic. But, a Texas with 50 million people in it could change things.

parking in the vicinity of what?

@@LucidStew The rail stations, I think the last one you showed looked a lot like my local walmart or maybe the mall! But everything in steps.

@@NoirMorter Right, a lot of parking, but the rhetoric is that everyone riding will live in special transit development zones around the station. No contradiction there. Perhaps its meant to be something of an interim solution.

They're required to do a full review of the project every 2 years. The issue with the total at this point is massive overages from them screwing up the Central Valley, inflation from the project going way over on time thanks to screwing up in the Central Valley and lack of funding, and the requirements that the system be designed in a very expensive way. It COULD be built faster, thereby cutting out some inflationary costs, but they need to find something like $35 billion right now in order for that to happen.

@@LucidStew so basically, to be cheaper and faster, they need money now, but won’t be getting it, because they weren’t cheap and fast enough to start with, because they didn’t get enough money. Sigh

@@Jay-nk6dm It didn't help their case. However, the funding situation has been mismanaged since the project's official inception with the Prop 1A bond. They just need way more money than is available in a timeframe that doesn't extend decades.

@@LucidStew true. Hopefully when the Central Valley line opens, the public will see how good it is and approve of some sort of measure that would allow for the speeding up of the process. At this rate, I wouldn’t be surprised if the bright line Vegas route opens before phase 1 lol

@@Jay-nk6dm I'd put the odds slightly in Brightline West's favor to open before CAHSR Merced-Bakersfield. Right now I'm guessing it will be BLW by about 2 years.

In CAHSRA literature they mention 50% and 77% of airfare as potential targets. The text of Prop 1A requires an operating profit. FY2023, NEC Acela service had an operating profit at 20% of revenue with fares roughly equivalent to airfare, so 77% is not completely unrealistic. Based on current roundtrip flights between LAX and SFO, that would be about $160 roundtrip for the train. I would assume a similar ticket price for L.A.-Sacramento.

Need a tax for it. Current funding sources aren't adequate.

@@mrxman581 But this ignores the political reality of Congress. We have a House that wants to remove federal funding from the project entirely, at least rhetorically. The makeup isn't going to change in the short term. You're looking at probably at least another 4 years of deadlock. Who knows what the hell happens if Trump gets reelected. For something like what you're talking about, you'd need a Democrat majority strong enough to ram things through on budget reconciliation, like during the Obama administration when there were 57 Democrat Senators. Even then, they didn't do much for intercity passenger rail.

Based on a couple of sources I ran across and a quick and dirty calculation, I have a new 500-mile 8-lane freeway between Anaheim and S.F. via the eastern Central Valley at about $88 billion(likely on the high side) (edit: forgot to adjust for inflation about $110B YOE assuming completion in 2034 like CAHSR) in comparison to a range of $89-128 billion for Phase 1 CAHSR. And keep in mind, that freeway would be able to carry freight as well.

@@LucidStew Thanks for the numbers! At 8 lanes wide, I'd sure hope it'd be carrying freight as well as passengers! (A lot less efficiently in both cases, by space required, fuel consumption, road maintenance, vehicle maintenance, etc.) It seems to me that's a lot more real estate than a dedicated HSR line + a dedicated freight line, and maybe even throw in a dedicated non-HSR passenger line as well, if I'm not mistaken.

@@dwc1964 At the same time though, the premise of the need for HSR was that the population of the state would be expanding massively. That no longer appears to be the case, so its not really clear if ANY new road or airport infrastructure is necessary to meet future demand. It's also not clear CAHSR will meet its original objective for a reasonable amount of investment as some of the pressures in its favor are waning. I think that's why you see focus shifting away from utility and more toward environmental or social justice benefits.

@@LucidStew Maybe. The SF-LA air corridor is still one of the world's busiest & still one of the most optimal for replacement with HSR; the Central Valley is still growing; and the state's population growth trends have waxed and waned over the decades. I've lived through a couple of "everyone's leaving California" periods in my life. It seems to me that CAHSR, and even more so + Brightline West, will bring more growth to the state. We'll see.

@@dwc1964 Prior to 2020, the population of the state increased every year for over a hundred years. Since then, it has declined every year. The population of the state is now about where it was in 2016 at ~39 million. Compare this to projections used to sell CAHSR that had the population at 50 million by 2030. Current projections now have the state population around 40 million for the next 25 years.

There's isn't one. I'm not joking, nor being sarcastic.

Source? I'm unable to find anything relating CAHSR to the Valley Rail improvements.

@@LucidStew cdn.acerail.com/wp-content/uploads/Valley-Rail-Sac-Ext-FEIR-Vol-I-Sept-2020.pdf UPRR is not going to permit more passenger service on their Fresno Subdivision to the Roseville yard. All service improvements are happening on the Sacramento Subdivision that will eventually become the HSR line. See also the diagrams in the state rail plan, Northern Calif. breakout: dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/rail-mass-transportation/documents/california-state-rail-plan/csrp-workshop-slides-northern-region-a11y.pdf

Are you suggesting the Altamont Pass route should be studied vs. the Pacheco Pass route? Blasphemy, lol.

@@davidjackson7281 not the altamont route. But I think that the proposed direct San Jose to Merced tunnel should have been studied more. Also a larger wye should have been considered to avoid having trains go all the way out to south of Merced on their way between SJ and Sacramento or Stockton. Maybe an east tunnel portal to Modesto cut off.

@@G-546 To travel in a long roundabout way from San Jose to Sacramento via the Pacheco Pass and then up the San Joaquins seems absurd. The ACE train goes to Stockton. The Capitol Corridor goes to Sacramento. Just dig some tunnels through the Tejon Pass and forget the Tehachapi and San Gabriel routes too. Politically chosen Gilroy and Palmdale are not worth HSR. Happy 2024!

@@davidjackson7281 not saying Gilroy and Palmdale are not worthy. But the HSR project basically does nothing for improving the I-80, 680, or 580 traffic issues. Now let’s be honest, fixing those corridors is very possibly more important than giving Gilroy HSR service. Now you could argue that the best way to help those corridors could be alternative projects, but progress needs to be made.

@@G-546Upgrading the ACE route could help eastern 580 commute traffic some.

I'm sure the downtown route is possible, but its a little more complicated than 20 miles of viaduct. There are some narrow rights of way to contend with, UP is not going to be generous with its yards, and it would need to run through a lot of residential, which would bring speed down and interfere with Sacramento-L.A. time requirements in Prop 1A. I do not know what their plan is. The lines on the map don't make sense to me, nor does their station location. It's possible they would tunnel through there. But like I said in the video, it seems to indicate they will avoid downtown Stockton, and I pieced together a bypass as a result with some station possibilities that made a little more sense.

They surveyed it. There are survey markers all over the place, mostly on mountain peaks. They establish a baseline reference for everywhere else.

I did not pose the question in the video, but Bakersfield to Sacramento first for $10 billion less than Bakersfield-San Francisco does certainly have an appeal.

Definitely a good idea, especially with how fast the area is suburbanizing.

Delay San Francisco to Bakersfield and instead electrify Caltrain all the way to Salinas. @@LucidStew

@@vincentperez4653 I actually do like that idea. I've argued before that if access to affordable housing for Bay area workers was the goal, then Salinas makes more sense than Fresno. However, that doesn't really have anything to do with CAHSR south of Gilroy.

My point was to delay CAHSR from SF to Merced bc of the cost and environmental complications (I mean covering the HSR with roof bc of bird strikes). Extend HSR from Merced to SAC to make the line more useful.@@LucidStew

I tried my best to figure out what their intentions were as their 'lines on map' didn't make much sense. There's a better solution out there I'm sure, but it won't be cheap.

Maglev is generally more expensive on the capital investment side, although it would have been helpful with issues like grade, since tunnelling is one of the biggest costs for the overall project and Maglev can handle grades far beyond the 3.5% the CAHSRA limits itself to.

@@LucidStew If they had just tunneled this entire project using modern TBM and used Maglev using a more direct route and less stops it might have revolutionized the state. it would have cost probably 2/3 of this project.. Even though Maglev tech (Japanese current Maglev not Transrapid) is substantially more expensive- Land is one of the main contributing costs to this project, interchanges, viaducts etc. Once you start underground tunnel boring it actually goes pretty quickly. Perhaps Ironically- if they had used underground Maglev tunneling, they likely would have tunneled directly between LA and SF with later connection to Sacramento, and traditional rail to the Central Valley- but with this the Central Valley is going to benefit hugely.

@@Gigi-xr3qs Chou Shinkansen is mostly underground and will likely cost twice as much per mile as CAHSR.

@@LucidStew Per mile? Are you sure about that? What is California High Speed Rail up to now? Also- it will go about twice as fast, so that has to be factored in as well.

@@Gigi-xr3qs CAHSR is $125 billion for 500 miles. Chou Shinkansen is $80 billion for 180 miles.

They should start laying tracks in the next 12-18 months. There is an outside chance Merced-Bakersfield might be operating by April 2031. L.A.-S.F. is a ways off.

@@LucidStew very sad.

Brings up the classic regional line vs. trunk line argument and which should be built first. Of course the 200mph trains get the attention, but the 110-125mph support network also needs to be there in due time as well. Another issue we have is lack of electrification and the difficulty of convincing freight to cooperate or even switch over. If everything is electrified, life for new fast intercity passenger rail gets much easier.

That makes too much sense. Sad how government projects are so gold-plated when 'silver' is the better way.

In California there is a LOT of traffic between LA-SF areas, and it is a day-long effort to travel that. So, having a very fast service (that can compete with air travel) would be a godsend. That is the main reason why such high speeds were specified. Blended service wasn't even originally anticipated, but forced on the project by cost and space limitations. The big saving grace is that the middle of the system is less developed so that very high speeds are possible, so the project timing requirements are roughly feasible. Sadly, such very high speeds cost more and cause much more wear and tear, which will reduce profitability but can be tolerated.

@@RobertBenson-ce3xcMay a 2:40 trip eventually be possible on a blended service from SF-LA?

That's a different corridor that the CAHSRA is not planning to pursue at this time. The Altamont Pass Corridor is in the law as available for use as an HSR corridor, though.

@@LucidStew That doesn't seem very sensible given that it's the perfect distance for HSR. Then gain many things about California politics are not very sensible.

@@lilSnubby It has to do with the phasing of the project and the fact that the Altamont Pass is accessible only from parts that aren't in Phase 1.

Brightline Florida's popularity has not declined. They are operating close to capacity, which is currently constraining their ridership. At the moment their expansion is waiting on arrival of more passenger cars from Siemens, which is somewhat backlogged due to concurrent orders from operators around the country.

​@@LucidStewTry again. Projected ridership has steadily declined, causing 100s of millions of red ink. Their rosy predictions are in for a collision with reality.

parsecs?

Damn. Know imagine a world in which we gave a fuck.

@@JackKack-kk5ddNow wash your mouth w/soap.

It's tempting, but I don't think southern politicians will go for the delay in CAHSR reaching the L.A. basin.

@@LucidStew Would require a change to the law to do that! So, highly unlikely.

@@RobertBenson-ce3xc I haven't seen anything in the law that specifies what order the system must be built in.

Upgrade the speed of the 150 year old existing Altamont Pass route and extend the hsr valley route up to Modesto or Manteca and it easily goes to SJ perhaps only a very few minutes slower.

@@davidjackson7281 yes!

Of course it would.

Yeah, I don't think AI is advancing that quickly. CAHSR Phase 1 might be in trouble, though...

You probably won't see any movement out there west of SR59 for at least another 8 or 9 years. All identified funds through 2030 are for an operational Bakersfield-Merced segment. They'd only be able to move beyond that once that happens, unless some funding windfall shows up from out of the blue. Once that happens, the current funding situation makes it appear that their pace between Chowchilla and San Jose will be similar to Bakersfield-Merced, but that's pretty far out. Things could change. At the moment though, 2045 for operational Bakersfield-S.F. is optimistic, but possible.

We have the British engineers consulting.