Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. It will be so cool to see a part of the state most people outside of the locals never get to fully appreciate. I can't wait.
So, the benefits of this bridge will happen way before the HSR starts running? I mean, once the road over the bridge is in place people can start using it and that means a place to cross the BNSF tracks that didn't exist before. Nice.
What else does the bridge need to a span??? Seems like massive bridge for some high speed rail tracks, a separation between the freight and high speed rail tracks, and the freight tracks
There are many reasons and it is different for each bridge. But they have to account for the addition of more freight railroad tracks being built in the future. The land owners on one or both sides may have rights to access their land (farms) by passing under the bridge. There may also be a small road planned for the future as well. There may be a underground pipeline being installed at some point. These are just a few of the possibilities that would require a long span to be built.
You can probably pick out the two larger spans for the CAHSR tracks and the BNSF tracks. The two smaller spans are for agriculture and utility access. You can't tell very well from this video but the north side of the approaches are going to be vertical MSE walls pushed right up near a private property border too close for a vehicular access to fit. For vehicles to access the land immediately north of the bridge and along the tracks from the south there needs to be space under the bridge for them to fit since there is sufficient space on the south side of the approaches for vehicular access.
I forgot to mention, but you can see an already-complete version of pretty might the exact same design a little further north for Road 27/Lake Street. The purpose of those two shorter spans for ease of vehicular access is more apparent once the bridge is complete. The McCombs Road overcrossing near Wasco is another complete example of this.
NIMBY's, frivolous lawsuits, higher costs of materials, extreme exaggeration of land worth, frivolous lawsuits and NIMBY's are the biggest issues and costs. I want this project done and I want it done yesterday. All the grievances, delays and other BS associated with the project have been addressed some 60 years ago in Japan. Get it done and get it done today!
@@shawnaquino9868 This is true. I would also like to add that the initial 33 billion dollar price tag for the project was way too optimistic and way too low to begin with. Thus, it shouldn't even be used as a comparison, as the true cost might have been double that to begin with. (This last sentence is more directed at the OP, not you)
Keep up the great work. California is leading the nation.
The view from the train is going to be AMAZING. Look at those beautiful fields! Now imagine them speeding by at 200 MPH!
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. It will be so cool to see a part of the state most people outside of the locals never get to fully appreciate. I can't wait.
Did you see that those are all felled trees. Almonds? Fruit? I don't know.
😅
Agriculture is cyclical. @mrxman581 this is the time some trees are pulled. There will always be something new to see.
For the amount of dollars coming from your taxes, it better have a great view.
Great to see the ongoing progress. I can't wait to ride the HSR train across these fields going 220 mph! Awesome!
Wow TIL if you turn on closed captioning they have some explanations about what's being shown
damn. you are so right. I have never noticed this.
Oh, cool. Thanks.
That's... cool to know, but also a bad (mis)use of captioning. At least put some text on the screen indicating we should turn captions on...
Building the bridges, etc, takes time. When it comes to the track laying there will be noticeable progress every day.
So, the benefits of this bridge will happen way before the HSR starts running? I mean, once the road over the bridge is in place people can start using it and that means a place to cross the BNSF tracks that didn't exist before. Nice.
Hopefully trains will reduce traffic congestion for commuters, tourism, sporting events, amusement parks, and city centers.
That wont be for decades. As the initial construction will be a low density area. Building in SF/LA/SD wont be for a long long time
I always want California High-Speed Rail in California and I always love California High-Speed Rail in California.😮
best video yet
Yes and yeah of course California High-Speed Rail in California.😮
No no no.
Way cool.
What else does the bridge need to a span??? Seems like massive bridge for some high speed rail tracks, a separation between the freight and high speed rail tracks, and the freight tracks
There are many reasons and it is different for each bridge. But they have to account for the addition of more freight railroad tracks being built in the future. The land owners on one or both sides may have rights to access their land (farms) by passing under the bridge. There may also be a small road planned for the future as well. There may be a underground pipeline being installed at some point. These are just a few of the possibilities that would require a long span to be built.
You can probably pick out the two larger spans for the CAHSR tracks and the BNSF tracks. The two smaller spans are for agriculture and utility access. You can't tell very well from this video but the north side of the approaches are going to be vertical MSE walls pushed right up near a private property border too close for a vehicular access to fit. For vehicles to access the land immediately north of the bridge and along the tracks from the south there needs to be space under the bridge for them to fit since there is sufficient space on the south side of the approaches for vehicular access.
I forgot to mention, but you can see an already-complete version of pretty might the exact same design a little further north for Road 27/Lake Street. The purpose of those two shorter spans for ease of vehicular access is more apparent once the bridge is complete. The McCombs Road overcrossing near Wasco is another complete example of this.
Maybe room for farmers to access their crops on both sides of the tracks.
This project is projected to cost over $100 billion. We were promised it would only cost $20 billion.
NIMBY's, frivolous lawsuits, higher costs of materials, extreme exaggeration of land worth, frivolous lawsuits and NIMBY's are the biggest issues and costs. I want this project done and I want it done yesterday. All the grievances, delays and other BS associated with the project have been addressed some 60 years ago in Japan. Get it done and get it done today!
@@shawnaquino9868 This is true. I would also like to add that the initial 33 billion dollar price tag for the project was way too optimistic and way too low to begin with. Thus, it shouldn't even be used as a comparison, as the true cost might have been double that to begin with. (This last sentence is more directed at the OP, not you)
@shawnaquino9868 This project should have been done years ago.
Double that $100 Billion to $200 Billion and you almost will have the actual cost.
And it’s still cheaper then a highway