@@LucidStew I hope so. While I am wishing for things maybe we can even get some of the I-10 median back between El Monte and LA to double track most of the corridor from LA Union and Rancho Cucamonga.
In the past I’ve advocated in CAHSR social media circles the idea of Metrolink electrifying its AV Line, which would then allow CAHSR trains to use it as an interim route between LA and Palmdale while they finance and build their own route. A member of a CAHSR subreddit I’m in responded to this idea with info that when SP/UP sold its tracks to SCRRA (Metrolink) for the AV Line and Coast Line, it came with the stipulation that those tracks could not be electrified, I believe for the clearance issue for double stack containers (since then it’s known that isn’t an issue as catenaries are high enough to clear those). Whether that requirement can change, if it hasn’t already, could determine if the AV Line could be electrified, cause if it could and thus potentially allow CAHSR trains to share it, that may give them their best shot of reaching LA before 2040. 2039 is the centennial year for LA Union Station, and should be the target date for HSR service to begin between LA and SF. Palmdale is one of the two most critical cities that CAHSR has to reach no matter what, the other being San Jose, for the Metrolink connection to LA. San Jose is NorCal’s biggest transit hub as well as the start of the Caltrain-owned corridor to SF.
@joshuareyes9284 I reiterate that it would only be an interim route, done for as little as plausible, so really just electrify, and double track where feasible. The latter of those SCRRA already plans to do in Santa Clarita and Sylmar, and really the whole route from Sylmar to Burbank already has space for a second track, given that segment had two tracks before SP removed one. It wouldn’t be about realigning any of it. It would just provide CAHSR trains an early route to LA for as little as possible so they could begin SF-LA service while they finance and build their own route. Most likely what’ll happen is people will just transfer at Palmdale between CAHSR and Metrolink until CAHSR opens its own route. The travel time from LA to Bakersfield will take about the same amount of time as the current nonstop 2 1/2 bus ride over Grapevine, 2 hours on Metrolink and an estimated 23-minute HSR ride, plus time to transfer at Palmdale. Of course the train will provide more capacity, is less prone to bad weather that would impact travel on I-5, and the train provides a nicer ride experience than a bus.
Something to look forward to on Stew's News in two months from the California High-Speed Rail Authority 📈 Central Valley construction labor numbers are in for W/E April 26, 2024. 👷 We’re at 1,561 daily-workers for the week.
TEXAS Has more land then it knows what to do with yet we still have NIMBYs. Ecspecially when it comes to grazelands. I dont get it. Thanks for the update reports, nice to see the passenger train news consolidated.
No matter how terrible the California Authority is, once that train is up and running, it’s going to be great (I am coping, it will never be finished).
I believe that they will get it operating, although just like a model railroad, 1:1 scale railroads are never completely finished, as there is always maintenance to do.
We'll probably see Merced to Bakersfield finished. What happens next depends on funding and if they prioritize going towards Gilroy or Palmdale (which could be used to connect to Brightline West).
@@absolutezeronow7928 there’s no way Californians will be cool letting HSR end in the Central Valley. Once people can begin to experience it and see its advantages over driving, with the improved transit connections at Merced and Bakersfield to the Bay Area/Sacramento and LA/SoCal, there’ll be increased push to get HSR at least to San Jose, NorCal’s main transit hub and the start of the shared Caltrain corridor to SF, and Palmdale, with its Metrolink regional rail connection to LA. CHSRA’s next priority once the Valley is finished is SF, then LA and Anaheim via Palmdale. Palmdale-LA will likely be the last segment built, and perhaps most challenging.
@@LucidStew CAHSR is on track to begin Central Valley service in 2030, if they get the remaining $4.7 billion in federal funding they’re competing for within the next year or so. They give themselves until 2033 in case that funding takes longer or doesn’t happen. That’s 6-9 years, not 8-11. California probably could come up with the funding to finish Merced-Bakersfield on its own, but will need serious federal funding to reach SF and LA, at least anytime in the relatively near future (before the 2040s).
Ron Desantis shot down the idea of keeping the I4 right of way open in the new $5+ billion transportation plan. I think theyre going to block the median now? And it needs that state funding
I wouldn't label CAHSR getting government funding as a "bailout". It's just necesssary funds just like how highways, which are huge money pits, are funded because they are huge boosters to the economy. The point of HSR projects shouln't be to make a profit. The development and growth that pops up around railroads is and will be worth it.
Not that decent passenger rail wouldn't be good there, but it's 1.5-2 times as far and the SLC region is less than a sixth the population of greater LA. i.e. not even close to a similar passenger count. Phoenix (& Tuscon) would seem the likelier next step.
They probably will because Salt Lake City will have the Olympics in 2034. Utah wants passenger rail, and they could ask Brightline West to come. Plus, for Brightline know there will be huge tourists coming in for the Olympics 2034.
@GustavSvard I as a European can say for sure that SLC is big enough for HSR. This in combination with regional rail and light rail connecting to HSR. This is already enough to justify the project without even stopping Boise (Boise would get a stop).
@@StefanWithTrains3222 It's longer than London - Edinburgh, and just one town on the way worth stopping in. I'd say there are higher priorities. Several other higher priorities. But if for some reason this is the one that gets funding? Do it! Boise? Isn't that in Idaho?
I look forward to your video 50 years from now on some meta AI youtube platform finally talking about CAHSR having its first passenger rail service from SF to LA!
And the final completion of the double decker US Interstate upgrade at only $999b but traffic times remain the same with complaints about the premium cost fast chargers kw charge. Meanwhile rail corridors attract higher real estate prices
I would genuinely like to be alive to ride on that train, but I have my doubts. I used to own a house 2 miles from one of the proposed Phase 2 stations and was excited about the potential boost in property value. Ah, to be young and naive...
So, I had an idea the other day while flying from Vancouver to Toronto, but I’m not sure how viable it would be. A lot of people use the bad excuse for no HSR in the U.S. and Canada because the country is so large, and we rightfully say “well, you wouldn’t have cross-country HSR, you would link up city pairs that are in the 300-600 mile range instead. But, door to door it took me about 8 hours to get to the airport/get through security/fly/get from the airport to the destination. What if we had HSR sleeper trains? Even if it took say 14-16 hours for that trip, if I spent 8 of those hours asleep, it would be roughly the same amount of waking hours spent on the trip, and those waking hours would be far more pleasant. These days sleeper trains have become more of a novelty tourist experience, but back in the day they were the best way to travel cross country. I think we should bring them back.
I really doubt it would be worth the expense. The idea is nice, and though HSR's time competitiveness starts fading badly over ~700 miles, the real problem is when you couple that with the huge upfront capital costs that HSR requires. The Rockies are also not the easiest obstacle to overcome at speed. It may look like a better idea with a built-out set of regional networks in the far future.
And now there’s more good news to start off the new month. Brightline West announced that Siemens is their preferred bidder, meaning that the American Pioneer 220 will be coming to the US. Can’t imagine Alstom is very happy but at least Siemens will finally get their shot at American high-speed rail. They’ve proven to be efficient with their other rolling stock so hopefully that high quality stays consistent.
@@mrbloodmuffinsIndeed. They clearly trust each other since they’ve worked together for nearly a decade now. Any delays on Brightline were because of track work and lawsuits, not because of rolling stock issues from what I can recall. Since they’ve considered interoperability with CAHSR, that puts pretty good odds that the same train sets will be used for both projects.
@RailFireProductions the one thing I don't get is why the Siemens chargers have been working so well with Brightline but seem to have such difficulty in the Midwest with Amtrack's trains.
@@mrbloodmuffinsTrue. I think the models are slightly different between Amtrak and Siemens. It might be the colder climate, or maybe because they are used more frequently. I’m no expert so I can’t say for sure. But you’re right, it always seems like multiple chargers pull consists or that P42s have to assist them.
If they could get the High Desert Corridor to the existing Metrolink line and then electrify it, you'd also have a secondary albeit dirty second connection to Union Station in Los Angeles and perhaps all the more reason to finance the Bakersfield to Los Angeles section of HSR faster than ever... including the massive tunnel between Burbank and Palmdale...
I really wish they thought critically and started the projected from the outside SD to LA and SF to Merced instead of going from within. This is so frustrating
@@jewelrule CAHSR CEO Brian Kelly has explained this before. LA to SD was one of a few corridors they were initially looking at, but they needed federal funding to help get things moving, and that funding required them to start in the Central Valley in order to boost the economy there, a historically underinvested region. The high speed rail project has been a major boost there, generating over $18 billion in economic impact so far and creating thousands of local construction jobs.
why do you refer to federal funding as a “bailout” for cahsr but amtrak leading the way on texas central (which will mean a lot of federal dollars) is a good thing? aren’t most projects pretty heavily federally funded?
Oh, that's because California started this project with the intent of showing the rest of country how its done. We were going to lead on the HSR issue. Then we screwed it all up and now we're going crying to daddy about it, so I find it hypocritical. It's even more gross that the politicians and bureaucrats are completely unapologetic about. I don't think I've passed judgement on Texas Central in these videos, but as a private venture it has clearly failed if Amtrak is taking over. It really depends what Amtrak is going to do with it. We don't know yet. If it turns out Amtrak or Congress pay for half of it or whatever, then yeah, that's a bailout, too. The fascinating thing about that situation though is that Texas doesn't even want it. :D Yes, many large infrastructure projects get a decent amount of federal funding. At $7 billion, CAHSR has gotten more than most. Do you think a state should be able to start an exorbitantly priced project on its own and then expect the other states to pick up the tab when things go awry? This is a California intrastate project. That makes it pretty unique in terms of demanding federal funding.
@@LucidStew I mean the federal government funds tons of projects all around the country that only benefit local cities/counties and don’t directly connect to another state. I don’t really see that as a requirement for federal funding but if the feds are funding highway projects or light rail/intercity rail projects that only benefit the state they’re located in, It would be natural to ask them to fund this project in a more meaningful way. the plan back from the beginning was to seek federal dollars
likewise for texas. I don’t see any high speed rail project getting by without major federal support so I guess I just don’t view it as a “bailout,” just standard procedure for most infrastructure
@@DLBreidenthalthe Interstates were 85% federally funded and 15% state funded, whereas California HSR has been the other way around. Yes, CAHSR is going to need a lot more federal funding, and fast, to reach SF and LA anytime in the foreseeable future (before 2040). California probably could go it alone if they had to, but that would take a lot longer, and then it runs an increasing risk of not completing Phase 1, let alone Phase 2. California also gives more tax dollars to the feds than any other state, helping fund infrastructure projects in other states, many of whom are red states, that it’ll never see the benefits of. That’s how federal spending generally works. That doesn’t necessarily give CA a free pass to take all the federal money it wants to finish its HSR, but perhaps it’s a bit more entitled to get some more federal funding since it generates so much federal tax revenue.
@@LucidStew To say that California expects other states to pick up the tab is a stretch of the truth. Return on tax dollars indicates the amount of federal funding the state receives in return for each $1.00 in taxes the state sends to the government. States with a return of less than $1.00 (such as California at $0.65) pay more to the government than they receive and are considered donor states. Should a state be able to expect more of a return on federal tax dollars when they have a project that will increase economic activity and in doing so produce more federal tax dollars? Federal funding of California High-Speed Rail is more of an investment that will produce increased tax returns for the federal government than a bailout which for the airline and financial industries has produced large payouts to investors
The High Desert Corridor doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m sure it’s cheaper to build and faster top speed. However, eventually BrightlineW and San Diego CAHSR will get to Union Station. When they do it makes more sense to run both all the way to SF. It will serve all those communities in LA sprawl-land. The HDC will serve a couple small towns at best. That’s a lot of extra expensive track to become mostly redundant and underutilized within a decade or two.
It's going to give Rancho Cucamonga-like service to the Antelope Valley, Santa Clarita Valley, and a fair portion of the San Fernando Valley. That's a few million people. since it's going to be jointly owned and developed by Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, there may also be some improvement work on Metrolink's Antelope Valley line to better serve that before CAHSR maybe/maybe not gets there.
2:35 I too picked up on this. Some skeptics tried to say she misspoke but honestly I find that hard to believe. The time is too specific and not only that, it's the most important day of the year to have a blunder like that. Had she just said "2 hours", you could say she might be generalizing, but not "1 hour 50 minutes". Clearly she knows something we don't.
Yeah, I don't see how that happens. What would she have been trying to say that she said an hour and 50 minutes instead? I've been wondering for a while how they're going to be more than 2 hours. I figured the route could handle about 1h40m without looking at it super carefully.
@@LucidStew just Hesperia or also Victor Valley? I believe it was AmpereBEEP who put out a Brightline West video a while back that showed the 2 hour 10 minute travel time was nonstop, and 2 hours 20 minutes with the stops at Hesperia and Victor Valley. Either way, it’s interesting that BLW suddenly just shaved off 20 minutes off that travel time, something I don’t think a 14 mph increase on the few segments they anticipate being able to get up to 186 mph on would do.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc All trains in both directions will stop in Victor Valley. 2h20m was very slow for the route. There are a lot of places they could do better than a 2h20m time other than top speed sections.
I love Brightline and fully support them, but I doubt the line will be ready by 2028 what with needing FRA approval and testing. I certainly hope they don't rush a high speed rail system, that's just an accident waiting to happen.
@@LucidStew Wes Edens has yet to sell the private activity bonds Brightline West has been allocated and the 2028 timeline has been mentioned in every media coverage recently. The 2028 date would make it the first high-speed rail in these United States and is good advertising for bond sales
Yes, there is no way they have it up & running by 2028. They will encounter probs & suffer delays as with every other transport infrastructure project. 2030 is more realistic.
I really hope that Texas Central becomes a reality and we can see a Japanese train in the United States operated by a Spanish company, the best combination possible.😁
I should think having a japanese company would be better, considering they're the only ones actually operating the rolling stock and have a proven track record. If not Japanese then Swiss, maybe Dutch.
In other news on May 1st, Brightline West finally announced/confirmed that Siemens and their Velaro Novo/American Pioneer 220 is the preferred builder/rolling stock.
Am I the only one thinking Brightline West is setting themselves up for failure by building both ends of the line far from where anybody actually wants to travel to? From Rancho Cucamonga to a spot miles south of the strip in the middle of the open desert leaves a lot to be desired. They are literally building the easiest route possible rather than where anybody would want to travel to. I guess they expect the public transit agencies to do the heavy lifting at both ends. They are really half-assing it.
It's about the same distance from the Strip as Harry Reid and the 8th St. station is 3 miles from ONT. Plenty of people fly without it being a big deal.
EXCELLENT COMMENT. I totally concur. They're doing it as cheaply as possible. Too many people are NOT going to be willing to take Metrolink from LAUS to Rancho and change trains there to go to Las Vegas via Brightline West. Brightline trains need to go all the way to LAUS on Metrolink, over a line that has been double tracked, electrified, and grade separated, with four tracks at every Metrolink station (allowing BW's high speed trains to pass the commuter trains). This major infrastructure upgrade would dramatically increase both commuter ridership and Brightline ridership. The cost of the Metrolink upgrade could be shared with BW.
They're separate ideas. The HDC has been proposed for a long time, but more recently has been seen as a means of connecting Brightline West and CAHSR at Palmdale. This would then, conceivably, enable a BLW one-seat ride between L.A. and L.V. via the HDC and CAHSR tracks. Brightline West didn't want to wait on that since its likely at least a couple of decades away, so they came up with the Rancho Cucamonga extension from Victorville.
06:30 🤞that CAHSR selects Siemens as their Rolling Stock manufacturer. Alstom doesn't exactly have the best name in the game for American trainsets after soiling the sheets on the NEC & the new Acela
@@LucidStew True, Alstom has more "experience" in American High Speed Rolling Stock, in the fact that the company built the first generation Acela Power Cars. However, Siemens Mobility manufacturing plant is in California, outside Sacramento. I would not discount that, FLOABW, "Home Team" advance. Because, if there's one thing Politicians love, it's claiming credit that they created jobs for their voters. Choosing Alstom is sending high quality manufacturing jobs to New York😱
@@TheWolfHowling I'd have to look around to be sure, but I think they were talking about building the high speed sets in North Carolina if they win one of these contracts.
@@LucidStew Siemens’s proposal to Nevada DOT (Brightline West) called for building their new HSR plant in Nevada (If I had to guess, that’s to incentivize BLW to choose them, as it would mean Nevada jobs). NVDOT is, to my knowledge, still seeking that FRA exemption from “Buy America” for HSR parts not made here yet.
Yes, assuming Phase 1 is completed and clears significant operating profit, it is supposed that will power financing of Phase 2. Still, that's going to be a massive expense, likely 50-60% of the cost of Phase 1.
Amazing how deep you go in the Amtrak reports. Very interesting how much the salary expenses rose, i wish we had this data for germany (and somebody would explain it lol). But for sure im all in on paying the railway workers what they deserve
It didn't really register the first couple of months, but the revenues were up and the operating profit was pretty bad and I wondered what the deal was. If the money is going to better service or to help workers live a little better, that's a lot better than other things it could have been.
I’d hope it’s that, but I’m betting more money that it’s compensatory raise packages for CEO/Board/etc to try and keep shareholders happy… And with this report they can say “mannnn paying workers so nice (hand behind their back 🤞) is making it so we can’t get more profitsss let’s fire some people and like, do we really have to pay a “living” wage?”
5:58 This is just referring to the Bakersfield to San Diego portion, I take it? Still disheartening to hear but I think it’s almost guaranteed they’ll get the IOS done. Also calling federal funding a “bailout” is a bit misleading in my opinion. We’ve known since the beginning that a project of this magnitude can’t be completed with state funding alone. And it’s not really California’s fault that the feds seems to hate our very existence
You could look at it that way, although the condition is also going to factor into the extension to Silicon Valley as well. Project went from expecting $12-16 billion from the federal government, which would have been 35-50% of the projected cost, to $90-100 billion, which would be 70-75%. That's a bailout.
0:03 @@ChrisJones-gx7fc The only way California can secure the federal funding needed to complete its HSR project is for it to be part of a national commitment to build HSR on all viable intercity routes. The Interstate Highway System benefited almost the entire nation, not just one part of the country. If California cannot complete the extensions to the Bay Area and LA, it should sell the completed Merced to Bakersfield segment to a private company for a token sum, and allow it to use eminent domain to complete the project. Under that scenario, the state should pay for the cost of all highway and street underpasses and overpasses. I have no doubt that Wes Edens and Fortress Investment Group would be interested in this possibility.
@@LucidStew no, but it also was never meant to fund the entire project. If you read Prop 1A it says that funding for the project would come from a mix of state, federal and private sources. So far most of the funding has come from the state, while a relatively small amount by comparison has come from the Feds and so far none from private. Should the latter of those three materialize, it likely won’t be until once HSR construction is well on its way to Silicon Valley, and all those tech companies could help finance some of the construction and promote living in the CV and working in SV. Are you of the opinion that no state-voted project should receive any federal funding, or to what percentage of its total projected cost should it? Brightline West as an example will only serve two small parts of two states, and more of a niche market than CAHSR, plus that was supposed to be 100% privately funded but now has more than half its estimated price tag covered by public money. High speed rail is the largest infrastructure project undertaken here since the Interstates, and just as those needed large amounts of federal funding to get built in a relatively quickly timeframe (four decades and counting), so too does HSR if it’s to happen relatively quickly, or at all. Yes CAHSR, as well as Brightline West, Texas Central, and every other US HSR corridor will serve a smaller market than the nationwide Interstate network, but that doesn’t mean they’re not worth building or that the Feds should leave it to those states to go it alone. The economic benefits of having that faster travel alternative, and the increased mobility it provides, means greater potential state and federal tax revenue as more people have greater flexibility to travel and spend money in other regions of the state, or afford to live in more affordable housing while working a good paying job that would otherwise be a 2-3 hour drive away.
2:05 While I would in support of Metrolink installing Electrification across their services network, as opposed to Battery or Hydrogen Locomotives or whatever, at least with the track is publicly owned and the agency is not going to be blocked by BNSF/UP, I would be uncertain if the SB line would be able to accomodate BLW. Metrolink is attempting to implement their SCORE program, with a goal of 30 minute frequencies. However, much of the SB Line is Single-tracked with passing loops, and there are sections with very little space for Double-tracking . Should Metrolink achieve this aspiration, there may not be the additional capacity to slot in extra express trains to/from Las Vegas
Not to mention potential capacity issues at Union Station, between Metrolink, Amtrak, and eventually CAHSR trains. To my knowledge LAUS is not adding any more tracks, just some run-through tracks (initially two and eventually six) to improve the flow of trains in and out.
Hey Stew, I have been following your channel for a while now and every monthly update you post the chsra numbers and I have no idea what anything ever means. Do you have. Video explaining those numbers? If not, Video idea? Also, I grew up in Florida and have followed brightlines progress very closely. I am finally getting the opportunity to ride brightline from Orlando down to Aventura and I can't be more excited. Lemme know if there are pics or anything g you want from the trip. I'm going. Wednesday.
What would you like to know? I'm happy to clarify. I happily accept media contributions in exchange for credits in the video. If it's Brightline Florida, I likely have a use for it as some point. Video would be great, but stills are fine. I can use all sorts of different footage. Trains, stations, interiors, views, you name it.
@@moshecohen127 Sure, so risk contingency I don't have their formula, but based on statistical analysis, they determine how much of a problem is known and unknown. Then based on the cost and percentage of the known, they calculate an amount which SHOULD be necessary padding to cover a reasonable assumption of the unknown. If they use it up with things like change orders, the project has gone over budget. earned value is a comparison of what they expect to have gotten done over a certain period compared to what they've actually accomplished at given point in time. The way it goes with these charts is that if they're exactly on schedule, that's a 1. Less than 1, behind schedule, ahead of schedule greater than 1. Now, because this is tracked over time, below 1 doesn't mean they will FINISH behind schedule. It means they'll need to make that time up later to stay on schedule. With CAHSR in general, I've never seen them make up time, so the 0.97 number means they'll probably be behind schedule, but only by 3%, if they can correct the issues right away. Right now they're working on about a 3 year schedule to complete that CP1. 3% of that would about 33 days. Not a big deal. If it gets down to 0.7 like CP4 did, that would be more like 11 months. Also, usually, you can infer that if something is behind schedule, it will probably also go over budget simply because then you have to pay people to work on it longer than planned.
Plus that’s still a rendering and not necessarily the final design, so it could change between now and when the design is finalized later this year. Also, the perspective of that rendering could make the restroom appear larger than it actually is. The video tour of CAHSR’s physical mock-up gives a good idea of the proportions of the restroom, as well as the various seating options being looked at and the children’s play area.
I hate to use that word but it's coming: Baseless - That TC is suffering from inappropriate foreign influence is baseless. After the initial loan, which I think turned into a donation, Japan was not enthusiastic when Governor Abbot showed up in Japan years later seeking funds. They put him in a non-Shinkansen threadbare coach with a mural of TC''s route on the front wall which came partially unglued in transit. (there was a picture of it) So Japan seeking to exercise excess influence is not likely or wasn't then, though I sympathize with the NYMBYs because... Another word that's up-and-coming is malign, as in - The only malign influence on Texas Central (besides their original gullible leadership suffering the humiliating daily grind of commuting by air) is the FRA, and they're thoroughly criminally domestic. The FRA drew the TC plan to their own specifications. So while it's ten miles longer than the "correct" route between the two "correct" downtown stations it stops about ten miles short of the one in Houston, and short of the one in Dallas as well. (FRA also designed the voluminous Shinkansen-friendly regulations published in the legal code at their own considerable expense.) Besides the termini it also skips all the high-potential railroad towns along the "correct" route (10-miles-shorter) which if developed would make a passenger line there an absolute Juggernaut. At the risk of repetitiveness see: www.rail-nyc-access.com/rail-texas
More obstruction from the obstructors, but I really don't blame the landowners. Their point that its a nightmare for them seems quite valid. Clearly the project has been a disaster to this point and ramming it home, I'm sure, will prove even more popular. I find their route workable with flaws. It could be worse. On one end, they are close to DT Dallas, and maybe might hook up with DFW HST? The Houston station, while not ideal, at least there is a plausible means of connecting that to DT Houston via rail. The Roans Prairie station, of course, borders on the bizarre. College Station looks entirely possible with some effort, although I guess you could hook the two up with bus service. Given your stance on the FRA here, I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the route coming out of the "review" process unscathed.
@@LucidStew It would be great if they could connect with that old station in Ft. Worth, boy is it splendid, got a big grade crossing diamond right out the gate all boxed in with highway bridges. Regardless I definitely prefer that alignment. The upper waiting room of Dallas Union is splendid too, and if they had escalators this time it'd probably quell the complaints on that. It's begging to be a two level station with the DART on the lower - with plenty of light. (but know:the MO: "We would never want to plunge class war DART passengers into darkness!) Connectivity - they used to say that a lot, particularly while building the opposite. I think my College Station branch would definitely justify all the stations I suggested. Forget how long it is, not twenty miles I don't think.
The former Southern Pacific route from Houston to Dallas (now Union Pacific) via Bryan/College Station is 264 miles, but it's circuitous north of Bryan. The optimum HSR route is probably going to be about 255 miles. The shorter BNSF route is approximately 249 miles. If I remember correctly, I-45 is 239 miles.
@@michaeljones7927 Both UP and BNSF are involved in my alignment. Mostly it's to be found tracing across two points of a triangle formed by the meandering 19th + early 20th Century configs of the existing lines. While it does run parallel-at-a-distance through the towns - since that's generally the best place for stations - with a few exceptions it only comes in contact where it crosses the older rail lines. There are quite a few pictures showing this at the link above if you care to scroll down. The older lines are shown in white.
@@brucehain I know the rail lines, highways, towns, and terrain between Dallas and Houston intimately, having grown up in Houston. I've ridden freight and passenger trains over both of the rail lines in that corridor numerous times over the years and driven every highway and county road along the alignment you propose. The problem with using the BNSF to access Houston is that it passes through many residential neighborhoods, while the UP (SP) line runs for fifty miles along U.S. 290 between Hempstead and Houston, continuously flanked by warehouses and industrial properties on the west side of the track for about 15 miles. Both Texas TGV (in the '80s) and Texas Central today have proposed entering Houston along U.S. 290 (along the UP line). The problem with the latter is that the HSR line would have to be elevated for about twenty-five miles at great expense.
CAHSR will need funding from the FEDS because the FEDS has requirements when it comes to building. Don't hurt your head now looking at all this information. Who do you think will fund the electrification of the Metrolink SB line? Take a wild guess lmao
Metrolink is funded from a variety of sources. If Metrolink electrifies, it will likely be similar to Caltrain electrification, which came from a variety of sources.
@@LucidStew you cannot expect a city like Palmdale to fund segments of the HSR. Its a state project bisecting a small city that requires studies by the feds. To put that burden local residents makes no sense.
@@RailFireProductions Brightline West has secured a $3 billion grant from the federal government and the ability to sell $3.5 billion in private placement bonds to investors who qualify as able to absorb the loss of the investment. Marketing an issue may be more difficult for private placements, as these investments can be quite risky with lower liquidity than publicly traded securities. None of the $3.5 billion of Brightline West bonds has yet to be sold
@@RailFireProductions a recent Forbes video about Wes Edens and Brightline West said that BLW has found private investors but weren’t disclosing who they are yet, and even Wes was putting in some of his own money into this project. ua-cam.com/video/T31yrpNwMVc/v-deo.htmlsi=qU2VbyNqFrOCSWmh
A recent Forbes UA-cam video on Wes Edens and Brightline West said that BLW has found private investors, but weren’t disclosing who they are just yet, and Wes Edens is even putting some of his own money into BLW.
Can't help but think the environmental studies are one of the major things holding CHSR back, I'm not saying clearcut the redwoods, I'm saying maybe stop trying to save endangered leaches and mosquitos or whatever it is they're wasting money on this week.
The environmental reviews are almost done. The problem is that they have 1/4 of the funding needed and the other 3/4 represents more money than has been spent on any public works project outside of 48,000 miles of Interstate.
The environmental process has cost over $1 billion so far. When construction started the only environmental study approved was in the Central Valley which is where they started building. The Palmdale to Burbank section is expected to be completed this year with only the congested Los Angeles to Anaheim section on which the California High-Speed Rail Authority spent considerable effort attempting to remove freight traffic from coming last. The effort to eliminate freight on the segment failed and the shared tracks environmental studies are expected next year
The environment is important, but the way environmental regulations are weaponized to sandbag projects by miring them in legal limbo is part of why California in particular but US cities in general have a hard time developing.
@@NithinJune what made 5 years ago special? CEQA has been around since the Reagan era and every leader knows it sucks. If CA can’t do anything about bad regs like this, then it’s probably doomed for eternity.
I don't think the California High Speed Railway will EVER be finished, not even the initial Merced to Bakersfield segment. And if the White House and the Senate flip to the Republicans expect Texas Central, the two Brightlines, and the Amtrak expansions and NE Corridor killed too. This country is simply not serious about transportation issues.
Merced-Bakersfield will almost surely be completed. It's mostly a matter of when at this point. Beyond that you start running into real doubts, with the connection between Bakersfield and L.A. being a HUGE one. It doesn't look like Congress is moving to the red. It looks like it may continue to be gridlocked for 2-6 more years, though, which also isn't good for intercity passenger rail.
Merced to Bakersfield will absolutely get done, with revenue service starting by 2030-33. To stop now would truly be a waste of the $12 billion or so spent so far, plus the other $16 billion yet to be spent that by law is required to be used on the CAHSR project. Then there’s no way Californians, especially once they begin to experience HSR travel here, will be cool with letting it end in the Central Valley, and there’ll be increased pressure to get it across the mountains to at least San Jose/SF and Palmdale, and eventually down into LA and Anaheim. That’s what was voted for in Prop 1A, and that’s what’s being built. It’s a matter of when it happens, not if, and the sooner we get serious about finishing this project, straighten things out so they happen faster, which has at least for the most part already been done, and the sooner it gets the funding it needs, the sooner it gets done and less it’ll cost. The alternative is either more freeway and airport expansions, which’ll cost more with fewer benefits in the long run and not solve the current pitfalls of those options, or we wait on some fanciful and even more expensive technology like maglev or hyperloop, the former only has a couple operational examples and the latter is pretty much DOA at this point, while HSR has successful examples in over twenty countries carrying tens of millions of passengers a year, and most of those countries have smaller populations and economies than California, let alone the US, and similar distances between its cities. High speed rail is already happening, so let’s keep pushing to get it done. The travel demand is there, the majority support is there, and the need for an alternative option to driving and flying is there.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc @LucidStew I hope you guys are right or things come out better! We all know how Republicans hate high speed rail especially if it's a public sector service.
@@user-uo7fw5bo1o better rail in general should be something Republicans support, so I think it may be more of just partisan politics, that if one side supports it then the other has to despise it, even if it would benefit their constituents. In the case of California HSR, by connecting the Central Valley cities to the coasts, and providing a fast, frequent, convenient alternative travel option, it’ll mean less traffic on the highways for people who’ll choose to keep driving. Then there’s the economic benefits for those cities as increased mobility between the coasts and the Valley means more people can more easily visit there or live there, boosting the local economy with more spending in places like stores, restaurants, venues, and tax revenue, which then gets put back into the city for improving infrastructure, local transit, solving social issues, or whatever. High speed rail is more than just a fast train. It’s an economic engine.
@@user-uo7fw5bo1o better rail in general should be something Republicans support, so I think it may be more of just partisan politics, that if one side supports something then the other has to despise it, even if it would benefit their constituents. In the case of California HSR, by providing a fast, frequent, convenient alternative travel option between the Central Valley and the Bay Area/SoCal, it’ll mean less traffic on those highways for people who’ll choose to keep driving. Then there’s the economic benefits for those cities as increased mobility between the coasts and the Valley means more people can more easily visit there or live there, boosting the local economy with more spending in places like stores, restaurants, venues, and tax revenue, which then gets put back into the city for improving infrastructure, local transit, solving social issues, or whatever. High speed rail is more than just a fast train. It’s an economic engine.
0:03 @@LucidStew I thought Rudy was America's Mayor. LOL. But he's too busy fighting lawsuits and criminal indictments to be able to spend much time helping to develop HSR.
CAHSR bringing the disappointment as usual. Ridership numbers are going to be revised downwards because using pre-pandemic numbers is just padding the numbers. Also, I doubt Uncle Sam is going to bail out CAHSR especially since they can build multiple new Brightline networks for CAHSR money and those networks could be multi-state. Although I could see a case for Federal funding of finishing up to San Francisco if it gives Brightline West a San Francisco to Las Vegas route.
@@LucidStew I think we'll see completion of the initial operating segment. Getting from Bakersfield to Palmdale is also doable (and that puts the HDC in play). Phase 1 in Northern California does have 1 tunnel that will be 13 miles long, but that's definitely easier than going from Palmdale to Burbank. I don't know if I'll be alive to see Phase 1 completed either.
@@LucidStew de·lu·sion·al characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition. It's a perfectly apt description. The comment is delusional.
Florida has Brightline Orlando to Miami 235 mile rail connection that cost less than one-tenth California's money pit HSR, & projected ridership is giantly overestimated. Its future is in extreme doubt. Who the frikk is going to ride your train, especially at the prices you would have to charge?
IT NEEDS TO GO AT LEAST 350 MPH . CHINA IS DOING 375 MPH AND WORKING ON 475 MPH !!! TO SPEND IN THE BILLIONS YOU PEOPLE ARE NUTS !!!! CHARGING ARMS AND LEGS WHAT IS GOING ON … YOU PEOPLE ARE NEED HELP HOW TO RUN A DAMMMMMM BUSINESS NOT TO DESTROY IT …..
Brightline needs to get Elon Musk involved with the production of the high speed train sets. Not only does he excel in going fast, he bores tunnels, makes batteries, and builds big noisy rockets. It's nice to see progress on HSR, even if is slow progress.
If only the Metrolink board didn't voice regular opposition to electrifying their lines. :(
Things could change in 5 -6 years. The setting will be different. New forces will be in play.
@@LucidStew I hope so. While I am wishing for things maybe we can even get some of the I-10 median back between El Monte and LA to double track most of the corridor from LA Union and Rancho Cucamonga.
In the past I’ve advocated in CAHSR social media circles the idea of Metrolink electrifying its AV Line, which would then allow CAHSR trains to use it as an interim route between LA and Palmdale while they finance and build their own route.
A member of a CAHSR subreddit I’m in responded to this idea with info that when SP/UP sold its tracks to SCRRA (Metrolink) for the AV Line and Coast Line, it came with the stipulation that those tracks could not be electrified, I believe for the clearance issue for double stack containers (since then it’s known that isn’t an issue as catenaries are high enough to clear those).
Whether that requirement can change, if it hasn’t already, could determine if the AV Line could be electrified, cause if it could and thus potentially allow CAHSR trains to share it, that may give them their best shot of reaching LA before 2040. 2039 is the centennial year for LA Union Station, and should be the target date for HSR service to begin between LA and SF.
Palmdale is one of the two most critical cities that CAHSR has to reach no matter what, the other being San Jose, for the Metrolink connection to LA. San Jose is NorCal’s biggest transit hub as well as the start of the Caltrain-owned corridor to SF.
@joshuareyes9284 Agreed! The Antelope Valley Line would need significant realignment and straightening to be a viable route.
@joshuareyes9284 I reiterate that it would only be an interim route, done for as little as plausible, so really just electrify, and double track where feasible. The latter of those SCRRA already plans to do in Santa Clarita and Sylmar, and really the whole route from Sylmar to Burbank already has space for a second track, given that segment had two tracks before SP removed one. It wouldn’t be about realigning any of it. It would just provide CAHSR trains an early route to LA for as little as possible so they could begin SF-LA service while they finance and build their own route.
Most likely what’ll happen is people will just transfer at Palmdale between CAHSR and Metrolink until CAHSR opens its own route. The travel time from LA to Bakersfield will take about the same amount of time as the current nonstop 2 1/2 bus ride over Grapevine, 2 hours on Metrolink and an estimated 23-minute HSR ride, plus time to transfer at Palmdale. Of course the train will provide more capacity, is less prone to bad weather that would impact travel on I-5, and the train provides a nicer ride experience than a bus.
So hyped for bright light west, good month for HSR
Just today plans for a new passenger rail network in Alberta were announced. I'm very excited!
Plans...
Something to look forward to on Stew's News in two months from the California High-Speed Rail Authority
📈 Central Valley construction labor numbers are in for W/E April 26, 2024.
👷 We’re at 1,561 daily-workers for the week.
That sounds like good news! I hope that translates to good construction progress!
@@teuast now that the rainy season is close to done, the rate of construction should be picking up again.
TEXAS Has more land then it knows what to do with yet we still have NIMBYs. Ecspecially when it comes to grazelands. I dont get it. Thanks for the update reports, nice to see the passenger train news consolidated.
Guess we can only build infrastructure for cities surrounded by barren wastelands now.
Jake Ellzey and Cara Mendehlson are scum!
@@LucidStewyes
I would bet a paycheck that Texans Against HSR is an astroturf group
@@counterfit5 if that a joke? otherwise it was invented by Monsanto a st Louis company now it's owned by a German company.
No matter how terrible the California Authority is, once that train is up and running, it’s going to be great (I am coping, it will never be finished).
I believe that they will get it operating, although just like a model railroad, 1:1 scale railroads are never completely finished, as there is always maintenance to do.
8-11 years seems quite plausible still for Merced-Bakersfield, despite the setbacks.
We'll probably see Merced to Bakersfield finished. What happens next depends on funding and if they prioritize going towards Gilroy or Palmdale (which could be used to connect to Brightline West).
@@absolutezeronow7928 there’s no way Californians will be cool letting HSR end in the Central Valley. Once people can begin to experience it and see its advantages over driving, with the improved transit connections at Merced and Bakersfield to the Bay Area/Sacramento and LA/SoCal, there’ll be increased push to get HSR at least to San Jose, NorCal’s main transit hub and the start of the shared Caltrain corridor to SF, and Palmdale, with its Metrolink regional rail connection to LA. CHSRA’s next priority once the Valley is finished is SF, then LA and Anaheim via Palmdale. Palmdale-LA will likely be the last segment built, and perhaps most challenging.
@@LucidStew CAHSR is on track to begin Central Valley service in 2030, if they get the remaining $4.7 billion in federal funding they’re competing for within the next year or so. They give themselves until 2033 in case that funding takes longer or doesn’t happen. That’s 6-9 years, not 8-11.
California probably could come up with the funding to finish Merced-Bakersfield on its own, but will need serious federal funding to reach SF and LA, at least anytime in the relatively near future (before the 2040s).
One thing that has curiosity is the Brightline extension from Orlando to Tampa.
It’s dead
Is it really? What happened?
Ron Desantis shot down the idea of keeping the I4 right of way open in the new $5+ billion transportation plan. I think theyre going to block the median now? And it needs that state funding
@davidaldinger113
No, they are going forward with construction still.
@@gumbyshrimp2606Where did get this from?
I wouldn't label CAHSR getting government funding as a "bailout". It's just necesssary funds just like how highways, which are huge money pits, are funded because they are huge boosters to the economy. The point of HSR projects shouln't be to make a profit. The development and growth that pops up around railroads is and will be worth it.
CAHSR is required by law to not lose money operationally.
@@LucidStewHow is construction an operational cost?
@@KoruGo its not. The person I was responding to said "The point of HSR projects shouln't be to make a profit."
How the fukk is this a boost to somebody's economy? And, does 600B just grow on trees? I know comatose Biden thinks it does.
Continue the line from Vegas to SLC!
That is a good idea for an extension! Plenty of business from SLC to Las Vegas also.
Not that decent passenger rail wouldn't be good there, but it's 1.5-2 times as far and the SLC region is less than a sixth the population of greater LA. i.e. not even close to a similar passenger count. Phoenix (& Tuscon) would seem the likelier next step.
They probably will because Salt Lake City will have the Olympics in 2034. Utah wants passenger rail, and they could ask Brightline West to come. Plus, for Brightline know there will be huge tourists coming in for the Olympics 2034.
@GustavSvard I as a European can say for sure that SLC is big enough for HSR. This in combination with regional rail and light rail connecting to HSR. This is already enough to justify the project without even stopping Boise (Boise would get a stop).
@@StefanWithTrains3222 It's longer than London - Edinburgh, and just one town on the way worth stopping in. I'd say there are higher priorities. Several other higher priorities. But if for some reason this is the one that gets funding? Do it!
Boise? Isn't that in Idaho?
I look forward to your video 50 years from now on some meta AI youtube platform finally talking about CAHSR having its first passenger rail service from SF to LA!
And the final completion of the double decker US Interstate upgrade at only $999b but traffic times remain the same with complaints about the premium cost fast chargers kw charge. Meanwhile rail corridors attract higher real estate prices
I would genuinely like to be alive to ride on that train, but I have my doubts. I used to own a house 2 miles from one of the proposed Phase 2 stations and was excited about the potential boost in property value. Ah, to be young and naive...
@@stephendoherty8291 yet more people will use that than ever hsr
So, I had an idea the other day while flying from Vancouver to Toronto, but I’m not sure how viable it would be. A lot of people use the bad excuse for no HSR in the U.S. and Canada because the country is so large, and we rightfully say “well, you wouldn’t have cross-country HSR, you would link up city pairs that are in the 300-600 mile range instead.
But, door to door it took me about 8 hours to get to the airport/get through security/fly/get from the airport to the destination.
What if we had HSR sleeper trains? Even if it took say 14-16 hours for that trip, if I spent 8 of those hours asleep, it would be roughly the same amount of waking hours spent on the trip, and those waking hours would be far more pleasant.
These days sleeper trains have become more of a novelty tourist experience, but back in the day they were the best way to travel cross country. I think we should bring them back.
I really doubt it would be worth the expense. The idea is nice, and though HSR's time competitiveness starts fading badly over ~700 miles, the real problem is when you couple that with the huge upfront capital costs that HSR requires. The Rockies are also not the easiest obstacle to overcome at speed. It may look like a better idea with a built-out set of regional networks in the far future.
And now there’s more good news to start off the new month. Brightline West announced that Siemens is their preferred bidder, meaning that the American Pioneer 220 will be coming to the US. Can’t imagine Alstom is very happy but at least Siemens will finally get their shot at American high-speed rail. They’ve proven to be efficient with their other rolling stock so hopefully that high quality stays consistent.
Siemens also must have a good working relationship with Brightline by now so that probably helps things.
@@mrbloodmuffinsIndeed. They clearly trust each other since they’ve worked together for nearly a decade now. Any delays on Brightline were because of track work and lawsuits, not because of rolling stock issues from what I can recall. Since they’ve considered interoperability with CAHSR, that puts pretty good odds that the same train sets will be used for both projects.
@RailFireProductions the one thing I don't get is why the Siemens chargers have been working so well with Brightline but seem to have such difficulty in the Midwest with Amtrack's trains.
@@mrbloodmuffinsTrue. I think the models are slightly different between Amtrak and Siemens. It might be the colder climate, or maybe because they are used more frequently. I’m no expert so I can’t say for sure. But you’re right, it always seems like multiple chargers pull consists or that P42s have to assist them.
If they could get the High Desert Corridor to the existing Metrolink line and then electrify it, you'd also have a secondary albeit dirty second connection to Union Station in Los Angeles and perhaps all the more reason to finance the Bakersfield to Los Angeles section of HSR faster than ever... including the massive tunnel between Burbank and Palmdale...
RIP my san diego brothers.
I really wish they thought critically and started the projected from the outside SD to LA and SF to Merced instead of going from within. This is so frustrating
@@jewelrulethat would not be thinking critically.
@@JackKack-kk5dd well it would of been better to have a half funded project going to major population centers then nowhere at all.
@@jewelrule CAHSR CEO Brian Kelly has explained this before. LA to SD was one of a few corridors they were initially looking at, but they needed federal funding to help get things moving, and that funding required them to start in the Central Valley in order to boost the economy there, a historically underinvested region. The high speed rail project has been a major boost there, generating over $18 billion in economic impact so far and creating thousands of local construction jobs.
why do you refer to federal funding as a “bailout” for cahsr but amtrak leading the way on texas central (which will mean a lot of federal dollars) is a good thing? aren’t most projects pretty heavily federally funded?
Oh, that's because California started this project with the intent of showing the rest of country how its done. We were going to lead on the HSR issue. Then we screwed it all up and now we're going crying to daddy about it, so I find it hypocritical. It's even more gross that the politicians and bureaucrats are completely unapologetic about.
I don't think I've passed judgement on Texas Central in these videos, but as a private venture it has clearly failed if Amtrak is taking over. It really depends what Amtrak is going to do with it. We don't know yet. If it turns out Amtrak or Congress pay for half of it or whatever, then yeah, that's a bailout, too. The fascinating thing about that situation though is that Texas doesn't even want it. :D
Yes, many large infrastructure projects get a decent amount of federal funding. At $7 billion, CAHSR has gotten more than most. Do you think a state should be able to start an exorbitantly priced project on its own and then expect the other states to pick up the tab when things go awry? This is a California intrastate project. That makes it pretty unique in terms of demanding federal funding.
@@LucidStew I mean the federal government funds tons of projects all around the country that only benefit local cities/counties and don’t directly connect to another state. I don’t really see that as a requirement for federal funding
but if the feds are funding highway projects or light rail/intercity rail projects that only benefit the state they’re located in, It would be natural to ask them to fund this project in a more meaningful way. the plan back from the beginning was to seek federal dollars
likewise for texas. I don’t see any high speed rail project getting by without major federal support so I guess I just don’t view it as a “bailout,” just standard procedure for most infrastructure
@@DLBreidenthalthe Interstates were 85% federally funded and 15% state funded, whereas California HSR has been the other way around. Yes, CAHSR is going to need a lot more federal funding, and fast, to reach SF and LA anytime in the foreseeable future (before 2040). California probably could go it alone if they had to, but that would take a lot longer, and then it runs an increasing risk of not completing Phase 1, let alone Phase 2.
California also gives more tax dollars to the feds than any other state, helping fund infrastructure projects in other states, many of whom are red states, that it’ll never see the benefits of. That’s how federal spending generally works. That doesn’t necessarily give CA a free pass to take all the federal money it wants to finish its HSR, but perhaps it’s a bit more entitled to get some more federal funding since it generates so much federal tax revenue.
@@LucidStew To say that California expects other states to pick up the tab is a stretch of the truth. Return on tax dollars indicates the amount of federal funding the state receives in return for each $1.00 in taxes the state sends to the government. States with a return of less than $1.00 (such as California at $0.65) pay more to the government than they receive and are considered donor states. Should a state be able to expect more of a return on federal tax dollars when they have a project that will increase economic activity and in doing so produce more federal tax dollars? Federal funding of California High-Speed Rail is more of an investment that will produce increased tax returns for the federal government than a bailout which for the airline and financial industries has produced large payouts to investors
The High Desert Corridor doesn’t make much sense to me. I’m sure it’s cheaper to build and faster top speed. However, eventually BrightlineW and San Diego CAHSR will get to Union Station. When they do it makes more sense to run both all the way to SF. It will serve all those communities in LA sprawl-land. The HDC will serve a couple small towns at best. That’s a lot of extra expensive track to become mostly redundant and underutilized within a decade or two.
HDC will give BLW a faster route to LAUS. It will also allow trains to run between LV and SF. HDC is a connector.
It's going to give Rancho Cucamonga-like service to the Antelope Valley, Santa Clarita Valley, and a fair portion of the San Fernando Valley. That's a few million people. since it's going to be jointly owned and developed by Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties, there may also be some improvement work on Metrolink's Antelope Valley line to better serve that before CAHSR maybe/maybe not gets there.
2:35 I too picked up on this. Some skeptics tried to say she misspoke but honestly I find that hard to believe. The time is too specific and not only that, it's the most important day of the year to have a blunder like that. Had she just said "2 hours", you could say she might be generalizing, but not "1 hour 50 minutes". Clearly she knows something we don't.
Yeah, I don't see how that happens. What would she have been trying to say that she said an hour and 50 minutes instead? I've been wondering for a while how they're going to be more than 2 hours. I figured the route could handle about 1h40m without looking at it super carefully.
@@LucidStewwhat did it say on the EIR or design/technical documents you used to map the Brightline West route?
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Operating assumptions in the Cajon Pass EA are 2h20m with a stop in Hesperia.
@@LucidStew just Hesperia or also Victor Valley? I believe it was AmpereBEEP who put out a Brightline West video a while back that showed the 2 hour 10 minute travel time was nonstop, and 2 hours 20 minutes with the stops at Hesperia and Victor Valley. Either way, it’s interesting that BLW suddenly just shaved off 20 minutes off that travel time, something I don’t think a 14 mph increase on the few segments they anticipate being able to get up to 186 mph on would do.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc All trains in both directions will stop in Victor Valley. 2h20m was very slow for the route. There are a lot of places they could do better than a 2h20m time other than top speed sections.
I love Brightline and fully support them, but I doubt the line will be ready by 2028 what with needing FRA approval and testing. I certainly hope they don't rush a high speed rail system, that's just an accident waiting to happen.
Yeah, I mean, with ALL the possible avenues of delay, its hard to see how it could possibly go so perfectly as to all come together in 50 months.
@@LucidStew Wes Edens has yet to sell the private activity bonds Brightline West has been allocated and the 2028 timeline has been mentioned in every media coverage recently. The 2028 date would make it the first high-speed rail in these United States and is good advertising for bond sales
What does the FRA approval and testing process consist of?
Yes, there is no way they have it up & running by 2028. They will encounter probs & suffer delays as with every other transport infrastructure project. 2030 is more realistic.
@@chestnu1Expect at least 6 to 12 months of static & then full dynamic testing.
5:01 “Phase 1 will be complete in time for the 2028 Summer Olympic Games” is what I’d write if it were my last day working there and I felt troll-y.
The amazing part is that the 1996 study that led to the creation of Prop 1A predicted that Phase 1 AND Phase 2 would take 8 years to build. 😂
Have you looked much into the new passenger rail corridor for colorado front range?
Enough to know its not high speed. :)
At 4:10 you can see the back of my head! I never thought I'd make it into one of these videos
Some would argue back of the head in a Lucid Stew video is just slightly ahead of Medal of Honor.
I really hope that Texas Central becomes a reality and we can see a Japanese train in the United States operated by a Spanish company, the best combination possible.😁
I should think having a japanese company would be better, considering they're the only ones actually operating the rolling stock and have a proven track record. If not Japanese then Swiss, maybe Dutch.
@@triplediff I agree with the Japanese company but I don't understand your point of view on the Swiss or Dutch thing
Babe! We gonna boing later, Stew just uploaded!
Oh wow. I suggest boinging first. You'll be more calm for the CAHSR sections.
In other news on May 1st, Brightline West finally announced/confirmed that Siemens and their Velaro Novo/American Pioneer 220 is the preferred builder/rolling stock.
Am I the only one thinking Brightline West is setting themselves up for failure by building both ends of the line far from where anybody actually wants to travel to? From Rancho Cucamonga to a spot miles south of the strip in the middle of the open desert leaves a lot to be desired. They are literally building the easiest route possible rather than where anybody would want to travel to. I guess they expect the public transit agencies to do the heavy lifting at both ends. They are really half-assing it.
It's about the same distance from the Strip as Harry Reid and the 8th St. station is 3 miles from ONT. Plenty of people fly without it being a big deal.
@@LucidStew Fair point. I just like to see train infrastructure taking us to the end of our journey. Living in Europe has spoiled me.
EXCELLENT COMMENT. I totally concur. They're doing it as cheaply as possible. Too many people are NOT going to be willing to take Metrolink from LAUS to Rancho and change trains there to go to Las Vegas via Brightline West. Brightline trains need to go all the way to LAUS on Metrolink, over a line that has been double tracked, electrified, and grade separated, with four tracks at every Metrolink station (allowing BW's high speed trains to pass the commuter trains). This major infrastructure upgrade would dramatically increase both commuter ridership and Brightline ridership. The cost of the Metrolink upgrade could be shared with BW.
9:50 why not propose to route HSTs via Los Angeles?? Would get RC connected to LA and provide a one seat ride via LA
They're separate ideas. The HDC has been proposed for a long time, but more recently has been seen as a means of connecting Brightline West and CAHSR at Palmdale. This would then, conceivably, enable a BLW one-seat ride between L.A. and L.V. via the HDC and CAHSR tracks. Brightline West didn't want to wait on that since its likely at least a couple of decades away, so they came up with the Rancho Cucamonga extension from Victorville.
06:30 🤞that CAHSR selects Siemens as their Rolling Stock manufacturer. Alstom doesn't exactly have the best name in the game for American trainsets after soiling the sheets on the NEC & the new Acela
I think they do have the advantage, though, of the Avelias being quite close to ready for Amtrak, given the short time frame for both CAHSR and BLW.
@@LucidStew True, Alstom has more "experience" in American High Speed Rolling Stock, in the fact that the company built the first generation Acela Power Cars. However, Siemens Mobility manufacturing plant is in California, outside Sacramento. I would not discount that, FLOABW, "Home Team" advance. Because, if there's one thing Politicians love, it's claiming credit that they created jobs for their voters. Choosing Alstom is sending high quality manufacturing jobs to New York😱
@@TheWolfHowling I'd have to look around to be sure, but I think they were talking about building the high speed sets in North Carolina if they win one of these contracts.
@@LucidStew Siemens’s proposal to Nevada DOT (Brightline West) called for building their new HSR plant in Nevada (If I had to guess, that’s to incentivize BLW to choose them, as it would mean Nevada jobs). NVDOT is, to my knowledge, still seeking that FRA exemption from “Buy America” for HSR parts not made here yet.
To be honest, the other ca extensions rely on the success of their first rollout. Even getting LA to SF is the main traffic generator
Yes, assuming Phase 1 is completed and clears significant operating profit, it is supposed that will power financing of Phase 2. Still, that's going to be a massive expense, likely 50-60% of the cost of Phase 1.
2:30 I thought it was gonna be 200 mph 😢
that's TOP speed
@@LucidStew yeah I realized that
11:07 that section of mainline was 6 tracked when built for this exact purpose…
penn access is a mess rn my dad was talking abt delays on the project which was the construction's fault more to come can update in a bit.
well, they just started and they're already 9 months behind, right? XD
@@LucidStew lol they are 4 years behind 9 months is a more recent number, remember this is east side access extended..
Amazing how deep you go in the Amtrak reports. Very interesting how much the salary expenses rose, i wish we had this data for germany (and somebody would explain it lol). But for sure im all in on paying the railway workers what they deserve
It didn't really register the first couple of months, but the revenues were up and the operating profit was pretty bad and I wondered what the deal was. If the money is going to better service or to help workers live a little better, that's a lot better than other things it could have been.
I’d hope it’s that, but I’m betting more money that it’s compensatory raise packages for CEO/Board/etc to try and keep shareholders happy…
And with this report they can say “mannnn paying workers so nice (hand behind their back 🤞) is making it so we can’t get more profitsss let’s fire some people and like, do we really have to pay a “living” wage?”
been waiting for this video
5:58 This is just referring to the Bakersfield to San Diego portion, I take it? Still disheartening to hear but I think it’s almost guaranteed they’ll get the IOS done.
Also calling federal funding a “bailout” is a bit misleading in my opinion. We’ve known since the beginning that a project of this magnitude can’t be completed with state funding alone. And it’s not really California’s fault that the feds seems to hate our very existence
You could look at it that way, although the condition is also going to factor into the extension to Silicon Valley as well. Project went from expecting $12-16 billion from the federal government, which would have been 35-50% of the projected cost, to $90-100 billion, which would be 70-75%. That's a bailout.
@@LucidStew the Interstates were 85% federally funded.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc The Federal-Aid Highway Act was an act of Congress. Was Proposition 1A an act of Congress?
0:03 @@ChrisJones-gx7fc
The only way California can secure the federal funding needed to complete its HSR project is for it to be part of a national commitment to build HSR on all viable intercity routes. The Interstate Highway System benefited almost the entire nation, not just one part of the country. If California cannot complete the extensions to the Bay Area and LA, it should sell the completed Merced to Bakersfield segment to a private company for a token sum, and allow it to use eminent domain to complete the project. Under that scenario, the state should pay for the cost of all highway and street underpasses and overpasses. I have no doubt that Wes Edens and Fortress Investment Group would be interested in this possibility.
@@LucidStew no, but it also was never meant to fund the entire project. If you read Prop 1A it says that funding for the project would come from a mix of state, federal and private sources. So far most of the funding has come from the state, while a relatively small amount by comparison has come from the Feds and so far none from private. Should the latter of those three materialize, it likely won’t be until once HSR construction is well on its way to Silicon Valley, and all those tech companies could help finance some of the construction and promote living in the CV and working in SV.
Are you of the opinion that no state-voted project should receive any federal funding, or to what percentage of its total projected cost should it? Brightline West as an example will only serve two small parts of two states, and more of a niche market than CAHSR, plus that was supposed to be 100% privately funded but now has more than half its estimated price tag covered by public money.
High speed rail is the largest infrastructure project undertaken here since the Interstates, and just as those needed large amounts of federal funding to get built in a relatively quickly timeframe (four decades and counting), so too does HSR if it’s to happen relatively quickly, or at all. Yes CAHSR, as well as Brightline West, Texas Central, and every other US HSR corridor will serve a smaller market than the nationwide Interstate network, but that doesn’t mean they’re not worth building or that the Feds should leave it to those states to go it alone. The economic benefits of having that faster travel alternative, and the increased mobility it provides, means greater potential state and federal tax revenue as more people have greater flexibility to travel and spend money in other regions of the state, or afford to live in more affordable housing while working a good paying job that would otherwise be a 2-3 hour drive away.
2:05 While I would in support of Metrolink installing Electrification across their services network, as opposed to Battery or Hydrogen Locomotives or whatever, at least with the track is publicly owned and the agency is not going to be blocked by BNSF/UP, I would be uncertain if the SB line would be able to accomodate BLW. Metrolink is attempting to implement their SCORE program, with a goal of 30 minute frequencies. However, much of the SB Line is Single-tracked with passing loops, and there are sections with very little space for Double-tracking . Should Metrolink achieve this aspiration, there may not be the additional capacity to slot in extra express trains to/from Las Vegas
Not to mention potential capacity issues at Union Station, between Metrolink, Amtrak, and eventually CAHSR trains. To my knowledge LAUS is not adding any more tracks, just some run-through tracks (initially two and eventually six) to improve the flow of trains in and out.
Hey Stew, I have been following your channel for a while now and every monthly update you post the chsra numbers and I have no idea what anything ever means. Do you have. Video explaining those numbers? If not, Video idea? Also, I grew up in Florida and have followed brightlines progress very closely. I am finally getting the opportunity to ride brightline from Orlando down to Aventura and I can't be more excited. Lemme know if there are pics or anything g you want from the trip. I'm going. Wednesday.
What would you like to know? I'm happy to clarify. I happily accept media contributions in exchange for credits in the video. If it's Brightline Florida, I likely have a use for it as some point. Video would be great, but stills are fine. I can use all sorts of different footage. Trains, stations, interiors, views, you name it.
Ok. Things like risk contingency and earned value. Like how are they calculated, what do they mean in the big picture. Thanks
@@moshecohen127 Sure, so risk contingency I don't have their formula, but based on statistical analysis, they determine how much of a problem is known and unknown. Then based on the cost and percentage of the known, they calculate an amount which SHOULD be necessary padding to cover a reasonable assumption of the unknown. If they use it up with things like change orders, the project has gone over budget.
earned value is a comparison of what they expect to have gotten done over a certain period compared to what they've actually accomplished at given point in time. The way it goes with these charts is that if they're exactly on schedule, that's a 1. Less than 1, behind schedule, ahead of schedule greater than 1. Now, because this is tracked over time, below 1 doesn't mean they will FINISH behind schedule. It means they'll need to make that time up later to stay on schedule. With CAHSR in general, I've never seen them make up time, so the 0.97 number means they'll probably be behind schedule, but only by 3%, if they can correct the issues right away. Right now they're working on about a 3 year schedule to complete that CP1. 3% of that would about 33 days. Not a big deal. If it gets down to 0.7 like CP4 did, that would be more like 11 months. Also, usually, you can infer that if something is behind schedule, it will probably also go over budget simply because then you have to pay people to work on it longer than planned.
@@LucidStew thanks stew, you're a beast!
What was the music used when Pete Buttigieg face was flashed? Remember that from the 90s I think...
Oh that's not music, that's just sound that's constantly eminating from Buttigieg.
Like the sun, but with sound rather than light and heat.
That is the opening of "Friends of P" by The Rentals.
possibly accurate. I've not yet been in his presence.
About that "tooting" sound effect whenever Pete's picture appears-doesn't it give the appearance of homophobia?
As far as I know Pete Buttigieg is gay, so I doubt he's homophobic. And the toot-toot clip from Major Payne was after Andy Byford.
Why is Pete Buttigeig The Rentals?
Friends of P? P for Pete...
The toilet areas need to be wheelchair accessible, so they need to be fairly large.
Plus that’s still a rendering and not necessarily the final design, so it could change between now and when the design is finalized later this year. Also, the perspective of that rendering could make the restroom appear larger than it actually is. The video tour of CAHSR’s physical mock-up gives a good idea of the proportions of the restroom, as well as the various seating options being looked at and the children’s play area.
The discord link does not work :(
Those shouldn't expire, but I replaced it with a new one. Try it again. You might need to refresh the page.
You cld put 10 airplane bathrooms in that 1 bathroom!!! It sure is acessible though. 😂😂😂😂
Amazing bathroom. I'm going to hang out in there until someone starts banging on the door.
@@LucidStew I'm gonna guess that that's the 1st class bathroom.
@@HallsofAsgard96 it certainly is a first class bathroom, one way or the other.
@@LucidStew A lot of ppl are gonna be banging in those bathrooms that for sure!
Are you truly lucid, Stew? Only when sober, presumably.
Lucid at all times. I even have lucid dreams.
A double Rentals drop!😂
I hate to use that word but it's coming: Baseless - That TC is suffering from inappropriate foreign influence is baseless. After the initial loan, which I think turned into a donation, Japan was not enthusiastic when Governor Abbot showed up in Japan years later seeking funds. They put him in a non-Shinkansen threadbare coach with a mural of TC''s route on the front wall which came partially unglued in transit. (there was a picture of it) So Japan seeking to exercise excess influence is not likely or wasn't then, though I sympathize with the NYMBYs because...
Another word that's up-and-coming is malign, as in - The only malign influence on Texas Central (besides their original gullible leadership suffering the humiliating daily grind of commuting by air) is the FRA, and they're thoroughly criminally domestic. The FRA drew the TC plan to their own specifications. So while it's ten miles longer than the "correct" route between the two "correct" downtown stations it stops about ten miles short of the one in Houston, and short of the one in Dallas as well. (FRA also designed the voluminous Shinkansen-friendly regulations published in the legal code at their own considerable expense.) Besides the termini it also skips all the high-potential railroad towns along the "correct" route (10-miles-shorter) which if developed would make a passenger line there an absolute Juggernaut. At the risk of repetitiveness see: www.rail-nyc-access.com/rail-texas
More obstruction from the obstructors, but I really don't blame the landowners. Their point that its a nightmare for them seems quite valid. Clearly the project has been a disaster to this point and ramming it home, I'm sure, will prove even more popular. I find their route workable with flaws. It could be worse. On one end, they are close to DT Dallas, and maybe might hook up with DFW HST? The Houston station, while not ideal, at least there is a plausible means of connecting that to DT Houston via rail. The Roans Prairie station, of course, borders on the bizarre. College Station looks entirely possible with some effort, although I guess you could hook the two up with bus service.
Given your stance on the FRA here, I'm guessing that you're leaning toward the route coming out of the "review" process unscathed.
@@LucidStew It would be great if they could connect with that old station in Ft. Worth, boy is it splendid, got a big grade crossing diamond right out the gate all boxed in with highway bridges. Regardless I definitely prefer that alignment. The upper waiting room of Dallas Union is splendid too, and if they had escalators this time it'd probably quell the complaints on that. It's begging to be a two level station with the DART on the lower - with plenty of light. (but know:the MO: "We would never want to plunge class war DART passengers into darkness!) Connectivity - they used to say that a lot, particularly while building the opposite. I think my College Station branch would definitely justify all the stations I suggested. Forget how long it is, not twenty miles I don't think.
The former Southern Pacific route from Houston to Dallas (now Union Pacific) via Bryan/College Station is 264 miles, but it's circuitous north of Bryan. The optimum HSR route is probably going to be about 255 miles. The shorter BNSF route is approximately 249 miles. If I remember correctly, I-45 is 239 miles.
@@michaeljones7927 Both UP and BNSF are involved in my alignment. Mostly it's to be found tracing across two points of a triangle formed by the meandering 19th + early 20th Century configs of the existing lines. While it does run parallel-at-a-distance through the towns - since that's generally the best place for stations - with a few exceptions it only comes in contact where it crosses the older rail lines. There are quite a few pictures showing this at the link above if you care to scroll down. The older lines are shown in white.
@@brucehain
I know the rail lines, highways, towns, and terrain between Dallas and Houston intimately, having grown up in Houston. I've ridden freight and passenger trains over both of the rail lines in that corridor numerous times over the years and driven every highway and county road along the alignment you propose. The problem with using the BNSF to access Houston is that it passes through many residential neighborhoods, while the UP (SP) line runs for fifty miles along U.S. 290 between Hempstead and Houston, continuously flanked by warehouses and industrial properties on the west side of the track for about 15 miles. Both Texas TGV (in the '80s) and Texas Central today have proposed entering Houston along U.S. 290 (along the UP line). The problem with the latter is that the HSR line would have to be elevated for about twenty-five miles at great expense.
CAHSR will need funding from the FEDS because the FEDS has requirements when it comes to building. Don't hurt your head now looking at all this information. Who do you think will fund the electrification of the Metrolink SB line? Take a wild guess lmao
Metrolink is funded from a variety of sources. If Metrolink electrifies, it will likely be similar to Caltrain electrification, which came from a variety of sources.
@@LucidStew you cannot expect a city like Palmdale to fund segments of the HSR. Its a state project bisecting a small city that requires studies by the feds. To put that burden local residents makes no sense.
🚄. 🇺🇲
You called the High Desert Corridor the High Desert Connector. Boo boo?
Check the tape. 1/4 speed or pause there. :D
I thought Brightline West already secured all the money for their project
As far as I’m aware, they’ve only secured $6.5 billion out of $12 billion.
I second this.
@@RailFireProductions Brightline West has secured a $3 billion grant from the federal government and the ability to sell $3.5 billion in private placement bonds to investors who qualify as able to absorb the loss of the investment. Marketing an issue may be more difficult for private placements, as these investments can be quite risky with lower liquidity than publicly traded securities. None of the $3.5 billion of Brightline West bonds has yet to be sold
@@RailFireProductions a recent Forbes video about Wes Edens and Brightline West said that BLW has found private investors but weren’t disclosing who they are yet, and even Wes was putting in some of his own money into this project. ua-cam.com/video/T31yrpNwMVc/v-deo.htmlsi=qU2VbyNqFrOCSWmh
A recent Forbes UA-cam video on Wes Edens and Brightline West said that BLW has found private investors, but weren’t disclosing who they are just yet, and Wes Edens is even putting some of his own money into BLW.
Can't help but think the environmental studies are one of the major things holding CHSR back, I'm not saying clearcut the redwoods, I'm saying maybe stop trying to save endangered leaches and mosquitos or whatever it is they're wasting money on this week.
The environmental reviews are almost done. The problem is that they have 1/4 of the funding needed and the other 3/4 represents more money than has been spent on any public works project outside of 48,000 miles of Interstate.
The environmental process has cost over $1 billion so far. When construction started the only environmental study approved was in the Central Valley which is where they started building. The Palmdale to Burbank section is expected to be completed this year with only the congested Los Angeles to Anaheim section on which the California High-Speed Rail Authority spent considerable effort attempting to remove freight traffic from coming last. The effort to eliminate freight on the segment failed and the shared tracks environmental studies are expected next year
The environment is important, but the way environmental regulations are weaponized to sandbag projects by miring them in legal limbo is part of why California in particular but US cities in general have a hard time developing.
it’s too late to repeal/exempt CEQA. This would have actually been useful 5 years ago
@@NithinJune what made 5 years ago special? CEQA has been around since the Reagan era and every leader knows it sucks. If CA can’t do anything about bad regs like this, then it’s probably doomed for eternity.
2033 to build a bridge. Amazing. The US army corp would be faster and cheaper
That's one of the earlier estimated completion years on the various NEC bridges that will be upgraded in the next 10-15 years.
unions
They're evil
Onions
San Diego to LA if started now would prob finish before most of phase 1 at the rate it is going
Honestly, China could build a bridge to the moon and do it faster, cheaper and have it be less problematic than any of these projects.
Jake Ellzey is the worst.
Texans Against High Speed Rail 😬
y
I don't think the California High Speed Railway will EVER be finished, not even the initial Merced to Bakersfield segment. And if the White House and the Senate flip to the Republicans expect Texas Central, the two Brightlines, and the Amtrak expansions and NE Corridor killed too. This country is simply not serious about transportation issues.
Merced-Bakersfield will almost surely be completed. It's mostly a matter of when at this point. Beyond that you start running into real doubts, with the connection between Bakersfield and L.A. being a HUGE one. It doesn't look like Congress is moving to the red. It looks like it may continue to be gridlocked for 2-6 more years, though, which also isn't good for intercity passenger rail.
Merced to Bakersfield will absolutely get done, with revenue service starting by 2030-33. To stop now would truly be a waste of the $12 billion or so spent so far, plus the other $16 billion yet to be spent that by law is required to be used on the CAHSR project.
Then there’s no way Californians, especially once they begin to experience HSR travel here, will be cool with letting it end in the Central Valley, and there’ll be increased pressure to get it across the mountains to at least San Jose/SF and Palmdale, and eventually down into LA and Anaheim. That’s what was voted for in Prop 1A, and that’s what’s being built.
It’s a matter of when it happens, not if, and the sooner we get serious about finishing this project, straighten things out so they happen faster, which has at least for the most part already been done, and the sooner it gets the funding it needs, the sooner it gets done and less it’ll cost.
The alternative is either more freeway and airport expansions, which’ll cost more with fewer benefits in the long run and not solve the current pitfalls of those options, or we wait on some fanciful and even more expensive technology like maglev or hyperloop, the former only has a couple operational examples and the latter is pretty much DOA at this point, while HSR has successful examples in over twenty countries carrying tens of millions of passengers a year, and most of those countries have smaller populations and economies than California, let alone the US, and similar distances between its cities.
High speed rail is already happening, so let’s keep pushing to get it done. The travel demand is there, the majority support is there, and the need for an alternative option to driving and flying is there.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc @LucidStew I hope you guys are right or things come out better! We all know how Republicans hate high speed rail especially if it's a public sector service.
@@user-uo7fw5bo1o better rail in general should be something Republicans support, so I think it may be more of just partisan politics, that if one side supports it then the other has to despise it, even if it would benefit their constituents.
In the case of California HSR, by connecting the Central Valley cities to the coasts, and providing a fast, frequent, convenient alternative travel option, it’ll mean less traffic on the highways for people who’ll choose to keep driving.
Then there’s the economic benefits for those cities as increased mobility between the coasts and the Valley means more people can more easily visit there or live there, boosting the local economy with more spending in places like stores, restaurants, venues, and tax revenue, which then gets put back into the city for improving infrastructure, local transit, solving social issues, or whatever.
High speed rail is more than just a fast train. It’s an economic engine.
@@user-uo7fw5bo1o better rail in general should be something Republicans support, so I think it may be more of just partisan politics, that if one side supports something then the other has to despise it, even if it would benefit their constituents. In the case of California HSR, by providing a fast, frequent, convenient alternative travel option between the Central Valley and the Bay Area/SoCal, it’ll mean less traffic on those highways for people who’ll choose to keep driving.
Then there’s the economic benefits for those cities as increased mobility between the coasts and the Valley means more people can more easily visit there or live there, boosting the local economy with more spending in places like stores, restaurants, venues, and tax revenue, which then gets put back into the city for improving infrastructure, local transit, solving social issues, or whatever.
High speed rail is more than just a fast train. It’s an economic engine.
🚅👍
What's with the Pete Buttigieg moments? You in love with him or something?
I like Pete ok. He's our Secretary of Transportation and America's Mayor. He deserves a theme.
@@LucidStew I not so humbly disagree iwth your assessment.
0:03 @@LucidStew
I thought Rudy was America's Mayor. LOL. But he's too busy fighting lawsuits and criminal indictments to be able to spend much time helping to develop HSR.
@@michaeljones7927 He was, but then he got in with the wrong crowd. 😄
we had a high-speed train in the 70's faster than any train we operate now so what do we need shinkansan for
CAHSR bringing the disappointment as usual. Ridership numbers are going to be revised downwards because using pre-pandemic numbers is just padding the numbers. Also, I doubt Uncle Sam is going to bail out CAHSR especially since they can build multiple new Brightline networks for CAHSR money and those networks could be multi-state. Although I could see a case for Federal funding of finishing up to San Francisco if it gives Brightline West a San Francisco to Las Vegas route.
I think it will probably happen one day, but I don't think I will be living still.
Wow the delusion is crazy.
@@LucidStew I think we'll see completion of the initial operating segment. Getting from Bakersfield to Palmdale is also doable (and that puts the HDC in play). Phase 1 in Northern California does have 1 tunnel that will be 13 miles long, but that's definitely easier than going from Palmdale to Burbank. I don't know if I'll be alive to see Phase 1 completed either.
@@JackKack-kk5dd Don't disrespect peoples opinions by calling them delusional. You can disagree in a more civil manner.
@@LucidStew de·lu·sion·al
characterized by or holding false beliefs or judgments about external reality that are held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, typically as a symptom of a mental condition.
It's a perfectly apt description. The comment is delusional.
Florida has Brightline Orlando to Miami 235 mile rail connection that cost less than one-tenth California's money pit HSR, & projected ridership is giantly overestimated. Its future is in extreme doubt. Who the frikk is going to ride your train, especially at the prices you would have to charge?
Common Brightline W and CAHSR L
for now...
@@LucidStew can’t wait to see them fight over who makes it to LA Union first (in 2075)
IT NEEDS TO GO AT LEAST 350 MPH . CHINA IS DOING 375 MPH AND WORKING ON 475 MPH !!! TO SPEND IN THE BILLIONS YOU PEOPLE ARE NUTS !!!! CHARGING ARMS AND LEGS WHAT IS GOING ON … YOU PEOPLE ARE NEED HELP HOW TO RUN A DAMMMMMM BUSINESS NOT TO DESTROY IT …..
Brightline needs to get Elon Musk involved with the production of the high speed train sets. Not only does he excel in going fast, he bores tunnels, makes batteries, and builds big noisy rockets. It's nice to see progress on HSR, even if is slow progress.
Musk should start his own HSR railroad. Name suggestions?
Elon Musk needs to stay away from any transportation ideas for a long, long time.
@@alhollywood6486 TrainX
No thanks
Musk was the one who 'derailed' funds from HSR projects with his hyperloop.. I'm good. Siemens does well producing high speed train sets..