How difficult would it be to upgrade the at-grade sections of this project to be above or below grade in the future if a lot of money ever comes in? At-grade tracks will reduce safety and overall speed by introducing more potential conflict points.
That is very funding dependent, Merced to Bakersfield is in the 2030-2033 range, SF to Bakersfield is in the 2033-2035 range, Bakersfield to Palmsdale would need a decent amount of money to happen
@@EdwardGiordanoI’d honestly be surprised to see SF happen by 2035. The funding they have now and identified/are competing for is to finish Merced-Bakersfield by 2030-33. They don’t have any identified for beyond the Valley, and thus no determined timeline, though they are working to get the SF and LA extension ready for construction so it can begin once funding is secured. SF is their next priority, and my gut hunch is funding for it, and thus the start of construction, won’t happen before 2030/31. CHSRA will need to justify the timeline and amount spent so far, what’ll be up to $35 billion and 15+ years of construction since ground broke in 2015, by having something tangible, i.e. trains running between Merced and Bakersfield, at least testing if not carrying passengers, before they’ll get the funding needed to keep going to SF and later LA. Ideally they’ll get enough to go to both San Jose and Palmdale simultaneously, so when the first HSR trains reach SF they’ll also reach Metrolink to LA. If construction doesn’t start before 2030, CHSRA’s estimate of the 13.5-mile Pacheco Pass tunnel taking up to six years is accurate, and all other construction on the San Jose extension is completed by then, and the entire segment is funded from the get-go with minimal delays, I would predict the first HSR trains don’t reach SF until 2036/37. If they could reach Palmdale by then that would be amazing, to eliminate the bus bridge over Grapevine for the first SF HSR riders, with the Metrolink rail connection to LA. Even if it would only make the overall LA-SF trip margin faster, it’d still be a huge improvement with the advantages of a train over a bus and avoiding bad weather that could slow/stop traffic on I-5.
@@EdwardGiordano I’d honestly be surprised to see SF happen by 2035. The funding they have now and identified/are competing for is to finish Merced-Bakersfield by 2030-33. They don’t have any identified for beyond the Valley, and thus no determined timeline, though they are working to get the SF and LA extension ready for construction so it can begin once funding is secured.
SF is their next priority, and my gut hunch is funding for it, and thus the start of construction, won’t happen before 2030/31. CHSRA will need to justify the timeline and amount spent so far, what’ll be up to $35 billion and 15+ years of construction since ground broke in 2015, by having something tangible, i.e. trains running between Merced and Bakersfield, at least testing if not carrying passengers, before they’ll get the funding needed to keep going to SF and later LA. Ideally they’ll get enough to go to both San Jose and Palmdale simultaneously, so when the first HSR trains reach SF they’ll also reach Metrolink to LA. If construction doesn’t start before 2030, CHSRA’s estimate of the 13.5-mile Pacheco Pass tunnel taking up to six years is accurate, and all other construction on the San Jose extension is completed by then, and the entire segment is funded from the get-go with minimal delays, I would predict the first HSR trains don’t reach SF until 2036/37. If they could reach Palmdale by then that would be amazing, to eliminate the bus bridge over Grapevine for the first SF HSR riders, with the Metrolink rail connection to LA. Even if it would only make the overall LA-SF trip margin faster, it’d still be a huge improvement with the advantages of a train over a bus and avoiding bad weather that could slow/stop traffic on I-5.
The Palmdale to Burbank segment follows three other segments (Central Valley, Pacheco Pass, and the Tehachapis) so its completion is 40 years away. The estimated cost of 22.55 Billion dollars is a meaningless low ball fiqure. Wish they would traverse the Tejon Pass instead.
@@SoCalHighIron Briefly, it is 50 miles shorter and 20 miles of less tunnels than traversing through the Tehachapis and the San Gabriels. Going to Palmdale is way overrated. CAHSR caved to nimbys.
@@davidjackson7281 I agree about caving to NIMBYs, but more so for the decision to put Kings-Tulare and Madera stations out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by an ocean of surface parking. I think there's a lot of value in connecting to Brightline West via the High Desert Corridor, and following existing rail rights of way made more sense than having to design and environmentally clear an entirely new route through Tejon.
@@SoCalHighIron Well they haven't finished designing the Tehachapi route. CAHSR has once again requested a $100 million federal grant to do so. The environmentals through the Grapevine won't take very long nor be prohibitly expensive at all. That's a red herring argument.The HDC is a good route for possble population growth after certain other routes are completed such as BLW and CAHSR's Tehachapi route plus either the San Gabriel route or simply upgrading and electrifying the Metrolink Antelope Valley route.
The CAHSR board started construction in the flat, open area of the Central Valley. They didn't have any money, so they started with a segment they thought they could finish, a 119 mile stretch from a field to Fresno. The track grading is all designed. The Environmental Impact Statements have been finished and approved. Almost all of the property has been purchased. A vast majority of the utilities have been relocated. Most of the grade separations are complete or underway. A portion of the stretch, called CP4, has been substantially completed. This is where the track and OCS will first be installed and the train sets tested. The testing will start in 2029, because one of the grants stipulated a train had to be on tracks by December 2028. After construction started on the 119 miles, the California legislature gave CAHSR a funding source and a directive to finish from Merced to Bakersfield as a double-tracked line. The extensions are designed to both cities, the property being purchased, and the utilities being relocated.
@@jeffreypierson2064 lt will be real interesting to see how the purchase of 500 parcels and utility relocations work out for the extensions which to date are still $10 Billion short of secured funding. Not to mention the purchase of six train sets and the building of four to five stations. Doubt CAHSR will have operating revenue service before 2034. Other than that l am 199% for CAHSR. Should have connected Bakersfield to LA first. Just one minor nit picky point: The 220 mph lndonesian Whoosh train was tested and operates on 89 miles needed vs. CAHSR bogusly insisting 119 miles are needed to test.
Because the Chinese Communist Party fully funds the HSR projects. If the USA federal government did that, too, projects would be built much faster. It's all about the funding.
@@mrxman581exactly. They even said in a previous board meeting they are worried about funding if Trump is elected because he previously pulled funding for the project
That makes absolutely no sense. You end up crippling the service from the beginning by single tracking the route. That is what BLW is doing with their Vegas route, which will result in a much lower average speed of 101 mph. That's pathetic for a train that will be capable of running at 200 mph. The single tracking and no significant infrastructure to deal with the Cajon Pass and the Vegas valley results in a much slower HSR train. It's a shortsighted vision that will cost more in the end.
@@mrxman581 The conquering of the Cajon pass will be a joy to behold. lt will prove the concept that the Tejon Pass/l-5 Grapevine corridor would be the best CAHSR route. BLW will operate five years before CAHSR and with 2-3 times the ridership. A two hour ride averages 109 mph and the lady president of BLW mentioned a one hour fifty minute (express?) ride. This is world standard high speed. After ten years double tracks can be added should ridership dictate the need. l don't remember exactly but did you not take the Desert Wind in the 90s for a 7:45 hour journey from LAUPT to downtown LV? Seems you are a bit hard on BLW don't you think my transit friend? l do not see how CAHSR could be anything but embarassed but regardless they will continue to put a brave face forward ... as funding dictates. l love the competition.
@@davidjackson7281Stop lying to yourself and others. The Florida operations of bright line prove they’re not even competitive with some of Amtrak’s “high speed” rails. Hahahaha, the operations of this private company will not rival the highly strategized California project that the people of California are forcing our leaders to get the job done! The LA-LV “high speed” rail from BLW is projected to open in 2028 for the crowds coming for some of 2028 Olympics in LA- CAHSR is expected to open anywhere as early as 2029 to 2031 depending on how any future court proceedings go and how else this country finds other ways to drag their feet in hopes of thwarting the people’s projects for desperately needed good public transport. BLW will only be operating for five years in your head before the first part of our public works project is done, we have the funding sources confirmed, that’s why the people are putting a brave face forward; every single attack from special interest groups and other private entities who have tried to destroy parts of this project have failed, and there’s no doubt we will win the end of this decade and make many other states follow suit.
@@davidjackson7281 Marxists are devoted to the struggle against all the ill and other evils capitalists bring upon the people, not to Marx himself. Also you sound like someone who is an actively homosexual liar.
Wish these meetings were streamed live, but glad they do end up on here! Love all the progress!
They are, but on Zoom. Would be nice if they'd simulcast them here.
what progress?
How difficult would it be to upgrade the at-grade sections of this project to be above or below grade in the future if a lot of money ever comes in? At-grade tracks will reduce safety and overall speed by introducing more potential conflict points.
How many years will the train be in entering services for passenger to enjoy the time to san Francisco to LA ???
That is very funding dependent, Merced to Bakersfield is in the 2030-2033 range, SF to Bakersfield is in the 2033-2035 range, Bakersfield to Palmsdale would need a decent amount of money to happen
@@EdwardGiordanothey need to be more efficient with the money they get because 20 billion is a lot
@@EdwardGiordanoI’d honestly be surprised to see SF happen by 2035. The funding they have now and identified/are competing for is to finish Merced-Bakersfield by 2030-33. They don’t have any identified for beyond the Valley, and thus no determined timeline, though they are working to get the SF and LA extension ready for construction so it can begin once funding is secured.
SF is their next priority, and my gut hunch is funding for it, and thus the start of construction, won’t happen before 2030/31. CHSRA will need to justify the timeline and amount spent so far, what’ll be up to $35 billion and 15+ years of construction since ground broke in 2015, by having something tangible, i.e. trains running between Merced and Bakersfield, at least testing if not carrying passengers, before they’ll get the funding needed to keep going to SF and later LA.
Ideally they’ll get enough to go to both San Jose and Palmdale simultaneously, so when the first HSR trains reach SF they’ll also reach Metrolink to LA. If construction doesn’t start before 2030, CHSRA’s estimate of the 13.5-mile Pacheco Pass tunnel taking up to six years is accurate, and all other construction on the San Jose extension is completed by then, and the entire segment is funded from the get-go with minimal delays, I would predict the first HSR trains don’t reach SF until 2036/37. If they could reach Palmdale by then that would be amazing, to eliminate the bus bridge over Grapevine for the first SF HSR riders, with the Metrolink rail connection to LA. Even if it would only make the overall LA-SF trip margin faster, it’d still be a huge improvement with the advantages of a train over a bus and avoiding bad weather that could slow/stop traffic on I-5.
@@EdwardGiordano I’d honestly be surprised to see SF happen by 2035. The funding they have now and identified/are competing for is to finish Merced-Bakersfield by 2030-33. They don’t have any identified for beyond the Valley, and thus no determined timeline, though they are working to get the SF and LA extension ready for construction so it can begin once funding is secured.
SF is their next priority, and my gut hunch is funding for it, and thus the start of construction, won’t happen before 2030/31. CHSRA will need to justify the timeline and amount spent so far, what’ll be up to $35 billion and 15+ years of construction since ground broke in 2015, by having something tangible, i.e. trains running between Merced and Bakersfield, at least testing if not carrying passengers, before they’ll get the funding needed to keep going to SF and later LA.
Ideally they’ll get enough to go to both San Jose and Palmdale simultaneously, so when the first HSR trains reach SF they’ll also reach Metrolink to LA. If construction doesn’t start before 2030, CHSRA’s estimate of the 13.5-mile Pacheco Pass tunnel taking up to six years is accurate, and all other construction on the San Jose extension is completed by then, and the entire segment is funded from the get-go with minimal delays, I would predict the first HSR trains don’t reach SF until 2036/37.
If they could reach Palmdale by then that would be amazing, to eliminate the bus bridge over Grapevine for the first SF HSR riders, with the Metrolink rail connection to LA. Even if it would only make the overall LA-SF trip margin faster, it’d still be a huge improvement with the advantages of a train over a bus and avoiding bad weather that could slow/stop traffic on I-5.
I have a few questions for the whole team how much is the manufacturer deal to approvals with government
How much money would you save on a single rail tunnel
My best guess is not much. The infrastructure to remove the spoils and deliver materials is required whether there is one or two tunnels.
The Palmdale to Burbank segment follows three other segments (Central Valley, Pacheco Pass, and the Tehachapis) so its completion is 40 years away. The estimated cost of 22.55 Billion dollars is a meaningless low ball fiqure. Wish they would traverse the Tejon Pass instead.
Can you explain how traversing Tejon Pass would be faster or less expensive than Tehachapi Pass?
@@SoCalHighIron Briefly, it is 50 miles shorter and 20 miles of less tunnels than traversing through the Tehachapis and the San Gabriels. Going to Palmdale is way overrated. CAHSR caved to nimbys.
@@davidjackson7281 I agree about caving to NIMBYs, but more so for the decision to put Kings-Tulare and Madera stations out in the middle of nowhere surrounded by an ocean of surface parking. I think there's a lot of value in connecting to Brightline West via the High Desert Corridor, and following existing rail rights of way made more sense than having to design and environmentally clear an entirely new route through Tejon.
@@SoCalHighIron Well they haven't finished designing the Tehachapi route. CAHSR has once again requested a $100 million federal grant to do so. The environmentals through the Grapevine won't take very long nor be prohibitly expensive at all. That's a red herring argument.The HDC is a good route for possble population growth after certain other routes are completed such as BLW and CAHSR's Tehachapi route plus either the San Gabriel route or simply upgrading and electrifying the Metrolink Antelope Valley route.
Où en sont les travaux, est-ce que ça avance ?
OUl
The CAHSR board started construction in the flat, open area of the Central Valley. They didn't have any money, so they started with a segment they thought they could finish, a 119 mile stretch from a field to Fresno. The track grading is all designed. The Environmental Impact Statements have been finished and approved. Almost all of the property has been purchased. A vast majority of the utilities have been relocated. Most of the grade separations are complete or underway.
A portion of the stretch, called CP4, has been substantially completed. This is where the track and OCS will first be installed and the train sets tested. The testing will start in 2029, because one of the grants stipulated a train had to be on tracks by December 2028.
After construction started on the 119 miles, the California legislature gave CAHSR a funding source and a directive to finish from Merced to Bakersfield as a double-tracked line. The extensions are designed to both cities, the property being purchased, and the utilities being relocated.
@@jeffreypierson2064 lt will be real interesting to see how the purchase of 500 parcels and utility relocations work out for the extensions which to date are still $10 Billion short of secured funding. Not to mention the purchase of six train sets and the building of four to five stations.
Doubt CAHSR will have operating revenue service before 2034. Other than that l am 199% for CAHSR. Should have connected Bakersfield to LA first.
Just one minor nit picky point: The 220 mph lndonesian Whoosh train was tested and operates on 89 miles needed vs. CAHSR bogusly insisting 119 miles are needed to test.
Everyone: "How does China build their HSR so quickly?"
California: "Here is our plan to hire a fossil protection taskforce."
It is amazing anything gets built with all of the complainers.
Because the Chinese Communist Party fully funds the HSR projects. If the USA federal government did that, too, projects would be built much faster. It's all about the funding.
@@mrxman581exactly. They even said in a previous board meeting they are worried about funding if Trump is elected because he previously pulled funding for the project
Slave labor and eminent domain. It’s a lot easier when the national government is bankrolling everything.
@@mrxman581 in china the cost to build it is 1/3 less at least .
Why do we need to rails at least right now until ridership rises to put a second rail save the the for know to get the completed line done
That makes absolutely no sense. You end up crippling the service from the beginning by single tracking the route. That is what BLW is doing with their Vegas route, which will result in a much lower average speed of 101 mph. That's pathetic for a train that will be capable of running at 200 mph. The single tracking and no significant infrastructure to deal with the Cajon Pass and the Vegas valley results in a much slower HSR train. It's a shortsighted vision that will cost more in the end.
@@mrxman581 The conquering of the Cajon pass will be a joy to behold. lt will prove the concept that the Tejon Pass/l-5 Grapevine corridor would be the best CAHSR route. BLW will operate five years before CAHSR and with 2-3 times the ridership.
A two hour ride averages 109 mph and the lady president of BLW mentioned a one hour fifty minute (express?) ride. This is world standard high speed. After ten years double tracks can be added should ridership dictate the need.
l don't remember exactly but did you not take the Desert Wind in the 90s for a 7:45 hour journey from LAUPT to downtown LV? Seems you are a bit hard on BLW don't you think my transit friend? l do not see how CAHSR could be anything but embarassed but regardless they will continue to put a brave face forward ... as funding dictates. l love the competition.
@@davidjackson7281Stop lying to yourself and others. The Florida operations of bright line prove they’re not even competitive with some of Amtrak’s “high speed” rails. Hahahaha, the operations of this private company will not rival the highly strategized California project that the people of California are forcing our leaders to get the job done! The LA-LV “high speed” rail from BLW is projected to open in 2028 for the crowds coming for some of 2028 Olympics in LA- CAHSR is expected to open anywhere as early as 2029 to 2031 depending on how any future court proceedings go and how else this country finds other ways to drag their feet in hopes of thwarting the people’s projects for desperately needed good public transport. BLW will only be operating for five years in your head before the first part of our public works project is done, we have the funding sources confirmed, that’s why the people are putting a brave face forward; every single attack from special interest groups and other private entities who have tried to destroy parts of this project have failed, and there’s no doubt we will win the end of this decade and make many other states follow suit.
@@MarxistNurse You sound like perhaps a devotee of Marx who was a homosexual.
@@davidjackson7281 Marxists are devoted to the struggle against all the ill and other evils capitalists bring upon the people, not to Marx himself.
Also you sound like someone who is an actively homosexual liar.