California High Speed Rail Update
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 2 окт 2024
- Speaker: Brian Annis, Chief Financial Officer, California High-Speed Rail Authority.
In November of 2008, 53% of California voters decided to take an innovative step forward and allocate $9.95 billion in bond dollars to the creation of a California high-speed rail line. The first high-speed and electrified train in the nation, California high-speed rail will stretch 494 miles from San Francisco to Los/Angeles Anaheim. The Phase 2 system will extend this segment 300 more miles with connections to Sacramento and San Diego. The train will travel at approximately 200mph. A 6 hour and 12-minute car ride from San Francisco to Los Angeles will one day be a brief 2 hour and 40-minute trip on an air conditioned, Wi-Fi-equipped, sustainable bullet train.
California high-speed rail is currently in construction along 119-miles in the Central Valley. 380 miles of the 494 Phase 1 system has been environmentally cleared. Right-of-way, utility relocations, and design for future stations are all advancing. Mr. Annis provided a general program overview and detailed the progress that has been made on California High-Speed Rail.
I would write a blank check if they could have the whole project finished by 2030
2050 would be a miracle. Lol
What is the environmental clearance for the SF to San Jose segment for, will speeds on the Caltrain corridor be upgraded to 110 mph?
Yep, they're installing the PTC and electrification right now. There's also a bunch of completed, in progress, and planned grade separations and quad gates everywhere else. It's finally happening - BART like 15 minute frequencies on Caltrain with 110mph speeds for express trains!
I wish the C.H.S.R. Authority was devoting more attention to the Los Angeles-to-Phoenix corridor and the San Diego-to-Las Vegas corridor.
Reestablishing San Bernardino as southern California's third metropolitan core, alongside Los Angeles and San Diego, is the key to solving the mega-region's biggest challenges.
Yeah but the bay areas pretty big too
I agree that there us definitely room for another large dense city among the endless SoCal sprawl. It will happen/is happening on its own anyway. Might as well bite the bullet and plan for a large city there properly and with foresight rather than let it become a mess on its own.
But transit and very dense development need to be at the center of such a plan. Otherwise you’re just creating more opportunities for more sprawl in new places away from water and economic opportunity.
@@TohaBgood2, San Bernardino has multiple lines of Metrolink regional-rail service, and two stations.
The new one is a multimodal terminal that includes the sbX transitway and the new fuel-cell-powered Arrow light-rail system, which is now undergoing testing.
The new multimodal terminal also offers several freeway-running express buses, and it is the optional station location in San Bernardino for California High-Speed Rail.
Additionally, the station is only two miles from the new San Bernardino International Airport, which is just now starting to offer daily non-stop flights.
@@TohaBgood2, San Bernardino has reduced its minimum car-parking requirements and introduced new bicycle-parking requirements. The City has adopted the Transit-Oriented Development (T.O.D.) Overlay District ordinance, and San Bernardino sits atop three underground aquifers that are estimated to contain more water than exists in Lake Shasta.
From southern CA (Torrance). Is there a plan to electrify Metrolink from Palmdale or Burbank to downtown LA , Anaheim or other southern CA cities?
The HSR will stop at union station in downtown LA
From what I’ve seen, CAHSR will construct a new pair of electrified tracks between Burbank and Anaheim that Metrolink could use if they were to someday introduce EMU service like Caltrain. There are definitely several lines they could (and maybe should) electrify, like the San Bernardino Line, Ventura County Line and OC Line.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Thanks. Hadn’t seen anything on this subject.
@@1gjohns I got it off of this 2019 track schematic showing the entire SF-Anaheim route. It shows blended track between SF and Gilroy, dedicated to Burbank, and blended to Anaheim except LA Union Station which HSR has dedicated platforms at. hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/programs/track/Part_B-2-2-1_TS1_2-1-Systemwide_Alignment_Schematic-2019-0501.pdf
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc Thanks! Appreciate the link also!
Long live California HSR! i hope in the future our local governments and federal governments would consider moving forward working on high speed rail trains.
This project will obviously cost at leaat $200 billion and won't be finished until 2040 or 2045 if ever. This project appears to be the greatest rip off in American history.
You shouldn't care about the cost, costs overruns are natural with new mega projects. I bet you don't even bat an eye when the government spends $600 billion on the Military every year.
sweet
In Europe there is increasing interest in the reintroduction of overnight sleeper services. Some proposals have suggested use of high-speed sections to extend the range of such services using compatible stock otherwise running on the traditional network.
Do you think this approach would warrant study in the US?
Long distance Amtrak bi-modes paying access charges?
It’s probably much more efficient to just change trains from overnight to high speed rail or vice versa for now.
In the US the rest of the railways aren’t electrified and run on track owned by freight railway companies. You would need to change locomotives, which would take time. Also, trains running on these tracks owned by freight railway companies can often be running late, which can lead to a chain reaction with all the trains being late.
@@etunimi1208 Which is why I was suggesting use of bi-mode traction.
We've been following what's happening in Europe closely. We believe long-distance night trains can be the foundation for improving and expanding our entire national rail network. You can read more here: hsrail.org/night-trains
Also distances in U. S. can be longer in the U. S. and cities further apart than most western Europe.
There isn't that much travel demand for the distances traveled that make sleeper trains viable. Business travelers would prefer day trips and getting back to their families at night, and tourists generally prefer lower density destinations that can't support rail. Families also prefer the greater privacy of a road trip for vacations. There are some places where it might work, for example the Charlotte/Atlanta/Asheville region that has a lot of dense tourism but it's a very niche use case.
Very interesting.
This project should have built in the year 2003 now is 2023
In 8 years China would have built 2000 miles what is wrong with us most people doubt it would ever be competed
And it would be $2 trillion in debt and with lines going to the boss’s home village instead of large cities, just like the incredibly corrupt and bankrupt HSR system in China. No thanks, bud! But thanks for playing.
Well... It is China. Labor is cheap and the US hasn't built anything like this before.
How well is the proposal by Brightline to build a line fron Palmdale to Las Vegas, NV coming along? Also, I have been hearing some chatter of them considering a line from Barstow, CA to Phoenix, AZ.
Brightline will likely start and finish construction before California HSR is even completed
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Brightline West in several ways has it easier than CAHSR. Their route is only between 170-180 miles between Las Vegas and Victor Valley, and the right of way is within the I-15 corridor (going down the middle of it in CA) so they don’t have to worry about land acquisitions, plus the land they do need to acquire is mostly desert, not farmland or urban areas. CAHSR’s initial Merced-Bakersfield route is 171 miles, while the full SF-Anaheim route is almost 500 miles and crosses three mountain ranges.
Brightline West’s western terminus is currently Victor Valley, but they do plan to extend across Cajon Pass to connect with Metrolink at Rancho Cucamonga, as well as to Palmdale to connect with CAHSR. Neither of those are LA, which is Brightline West’s main goal to provide fast train service between LA and Las Vegas.
Brightline West is the latest attempt for a SoCal-Las Vegas high speed train service, and unlike CAHSR, which will connect several large cities between LA and SF, Brightline West is really just about going between Las Vegas and SoCal. So the two really can’t be compared.
@@ChrisJones-gx7fc California could have started a line between LA and San Diego as a first phase. Instead they created the boondoggle we have now. It is a fair comparison, because California’s awful planning isn’t an excuse for their awful planning. You can’t use circular logic here.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 Brightline West? They "started" 3 years before the 2008 referendum for CAHSR, and despite being a much easier project to complete, they have nothing under construction. They claim their trains will be 40 mph slower. This despite being private enterprise, which I understand is supposed to be tautologically superior to public works. Shit's vaporware.
@@gumbyshrimp2606 and you can’t call it a boondoggle before it’s even had a chance to finish. How can you estimate how well something will do before it’s even had a chance to try?
The San Joaquins are Amtrak’s 5th busiest service outside the NE Corridor, with a little over 1 million passengers in fiscal year 2019. The Central Valley is home to over 6 million people and California’s 5th and 9th largest cities. It’s the only place high speed trains can be properly tested at over 200mph, and it’s also the segment that is easiest to build and had to be built at some point anyway. The federal money they received from the Obama Administration had to be spent in the Central Valley, an area that’s economically behind the Bay Area and LA Basin, and high speed rail has been an economic boost for it with construction and will continue to be when it’s in operation. Most of the workforce is locals from the Valley, and CAHSR is working with local businesses there too.
They are currently building 119 miles, soon to be 171 miles, that will connect existing transit in Merced and Bakersfield to continue to the Bay Area, Sacramento and LA, and provide the first true high speed rail service in the US. A separate operator, SJJPA, who runs the San Joaquins, will run the interim HSR service while CAHSR continues building over Pacheco Pass to San Jose and SF. In addition to that, they’ve helped finance the Caltrain electrification between San Jose and SF, as well as the Link Union Station project in LA and a few key grade separations in the LA Basin and SF Peninsula, in addition to now environmentally clearing most of the entire SF-Anaheim route from San Jose to Palmdale and Burbank to LA, with SF-San Jose cleared later this year and Palmdale-Burbank and LA-Anaheim in 2023 and 2024.
CAHSR has always been committed to reaching LA and SF and remains so. It’s taken longer than expected and for more, but that doesn’t mean it still isn’t worth doing. The Interstate highways took decades to build and cost more than originally estimated, but try to imagine life without them. Japan’s Shinkansen, the world’s first high speed train, was fiercely criticized by some and cost double its original estimate, and it’s gone on to become one of high speed rail’s biggest success stories. In fact, every high speed rail system worldwide has found success, used by millions of people daily. High speed rail is a new concept in the US, but it should be an exciting one. It probably will take some initial getting used to, but once people experience traveling at over 200mph on the ground, many will wonder why it took so long to finally get this and how they’ve lived without it before.
Just as with the Shinkansen and Interstates, and even the iconic and beloved Golden Gate Bridge, it’s easy to criticize large infrastructure projects and only look at the enormous price tag without taking time to consider how beneficial it will be. High speed rail has been proven time and again to be a successful enterprise, not just in revenue but in economic impact. A high speed train connecting California’s two biggest economic centers via the Central Valley, bringing all three closer together and providing a much needed third option to traveling around the state, is a serious game changer and one needed in California, the 5th largest economy in the world, to stay competitive in the 21st Century. We can’t continue to rely on driving and flying forever while the rest of the developed world leaves us behind.
Brian: Congratulations! Excellent report. A huge improvement over your last presentation. No noticable audible ticks (lip smacking) this time. You are easily becoming the best CHSR spokesman. Thank you. It all comes down to funding, don't it?
They should have got this done by 2008
Jesus Christ that’s not a good look, one third of phase one by 2030
Some Repub idiats keep suing the project to slow it down. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
They only broke ground in 2015. That’s about 15 years. That’s actually pretty good with all things considered.
well they haven't exactly been handed money.
So initial operations have been pushed back to 2030??
In my opinion, the biggest mistake is to select the mid-section to be constructed first. We should have started from both ends and work our way to the central valley. Then we can gather enough ticket revenue to finish the project. With the mid-section being built first, I don't believe the revenue from Merced to Bakersfield will be substantial and we will end up never getting the funding to complete the work.
You also have to think about land acquisition from the people in those area. Who's gonna be displaced and so on and so forth. Starting in an area where that issue is easiest means the could start when they did as opposed to that in where they probably wouldn't have until recently or worst, not at all
How far could you get with 4.5 billion for the north end and 4.5 Billion for the south end? 9 Billion is the total available for the main high speed line start.
That was never going to happen. There are literally millions of NIMBYs at both ends just waiting to pounce on this project. If they had started at either of the ends the project would have dies a swift death. Also, the Central Valley recently got shafted with the 5 freeway being jammed down its throat that bypassed the entire Valley for the benefit of the two coastal megaregions. There was zero chance of the Valley ever allowing something like that a second time and in quick succession. This project was always going to start in the Valley and extend from there. There literally wasn't any other way.
The Valley is always ignored and the coastal communities favored with infrastructure and other investment. 6.5 million people live there. There are multiple million population metro areas. It is NOT nowhere. It by itself is larger than most US states and many countries, even those that have their own HSR networks. People really underestimate how big California is.
I'm not even going to mention the plethora of technical reasons to choose the Valley. For one, it is the only flat part of the system. The test track would have been in the Valley no matter what. You'd still need to build a test section in the Valley even if construction had started elsewhere. It just doesn't make any sense to start building in any other place.
@@Yvonne-Bella it is usually not a problem to displace 1000s people for hihgways in US🤔...but for railll , that is different. That is commie business. The Golden Egg on this project is to connect SF-LA. I think a lot of parties have an interest to block/delay that. And when the sole mid section doesn't cover the investment (which it cant) , they can say ' told you so ! '. So they can donmore car and plane investments ..
@@TohaBgood2 not to mention the air quality is worst there too. Wanna prove how green electric trains are, start in the smoggiest area there is
If this project was fully funded from day 1 how fast could it be open to the public?
Commenting on the "coast" to central valley connections should have been starting point. For example, SF to Central Valley and Central Valley to LA. That probably would have been a best starting point. I tend to think Merced to Bakersfield has a tendency to give optics of unpopularity and ridership.
They did it because they were able to get a grant for the disadvantaged communities. It also gives a good test bed for the trains. Hard to do in that tunnel. It also connects to the commuter rail in the North if the central valley so you can still get to SF and Sacramento just not via Caltrain.
Edit: Also, they knew it would have the hardest resistance. And it's cheapest.
First of all, building only one of the mountain crossings but not the other would have been politically impossible. The Bay won't pay for a fast train for LA. Conversely, LA and SD won't pay for a train for the Bay.
Doing both the south and north mountain crossings at the same time would have been too expensive. Even just one of the crossings costs more than the $9.95 billion approved in 2008! There was no way to start with a mountain crossing.
People keep bringing this up, but the Central Valley was the only feasible option _and_ they got additional money from the Feds that could only be used in the Valley. A ton of smart and not so smart people have looked into this. There was no other way, not financially, not politically, and not logistically. Why can't people just let it go already? It's been debunked over and over and over again but keeps coming back.
thing is the top of the central valley has a decent rail connection with ACE and San J both should be running 10RT+ a day each at the start. if you got SF to Merced your feeding people onto 10RT a day San J south to Bakersfield. its just not a useful starting point
Tell these slowpokes in CA to hurry up !! If you gave me a shovel, I could have built the whole thing by now - BIG LAMEO energy at HSR !!
Lol, they are hiring. Have at it!
Have you and your shovel started building CHSR for us yet? We're waiting cash in hand over here.
Well? Are you coming? They are literally hiring!
What a joke
This will never get built because it's too expensive. I bet this guy makes a lot of money.
Sounds like you would have been opposed to the Interstate Highway System.
Keep crying. It’s coming
It will never happen. Probably will be world's worst boondoggle. Other countries have built high speed rail at a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time. I suspect massive corruption is at play.
Yeah agreed. The Shinkansen was finished on time and under budget, so was the TGV. England is crushing HS2, and the German ICE system had no issues and launched when the TGV did. The Chinese high speed rail project hasn't had any issues with corruption or workmanship. In fact it's a straight line of nailed targets and corruption-free projects back through the interstate highway project to the transcontinental railroad, so CAHSR's challenges are totally unusual and suspicious. You're on to something here.
China funded that HSR construction with $900 billion in debt and loses tens of millions of dollars on the system every day
Also they can just bulldoze over anyone who is in the way with no argument
@@mikegaskin5542 Yeah they really blew it by not building highly profitable highways like the US’s.
@@Zero76606 Sarcasm tag please! This dodo is too thick to research that the Shinkansen was 2x overbudget or that the HS2 is more delayed and more over budget than CHSR. Have mercy on this foul beast! It can barely think and walk at the same time, while you expect it to do complex google "research". /s
@@TohaBgood2 Also worth noting that the politicians complaining about HS2 cost increases are from the same party that put the project on hold for review and re-design fearing backlash from their NIMBY supporters. In consequence there is more tunnelling than originally proposed and costly redesign work largely of their own making.
In recently cutting back on the proposed Eastern Spur I have heard that design, public enquiries, planning orders and proposed purchase orders over the now defunct alignment have in all probability cost in excess of £2bn
This was passed in 2008 and there is only a bridge outside of Fresno. It is a joke domestically and internationally.
Need another tax hike
The bond measure was passed in 2008. They started building in 2015.
Concerning "only a bridge outside of Fresno". That's grade A nonsense. Three are a ton of drone videos of the stuff that has already been built. One of the three "construction packages" on the Central Valley section currently under construction is "substantially complete". The other two are due to be complete in the next two years. The schedule was for completion this year, so the delay is actually not that significant.
We've funded less than a 1/4 of the system in the 2008 bond measure. How do you expect them to build the whole line from that? They build whatever there is money to build and beg the Feds for the rest of the money. There's also the CARB moneys, but those are trickling in only about $1 billion per year. Not enough to make fast progress.
@@WarrenAAndrews We have some of the lowest property taxes in the nation. We could actually use a tax hike or a dialing down of Prop 13. Would improve housing availability too.
By the time this is fully completed all cars in the state will be electric so if people do ride it instead of driving it won't make any difference for pollution.
It will offset air travel which is a bit further off for electrification.
Electric cars - while cleaner than ICE cars - still aren't as efficient as electric trains.
@@stephanweinberger Only if the trains are full of people. What if it is only 10% full?
@@JayMcKinsey if you expect only 10% ridership, you wouldn't build a railway line in the first place. Given the environment in the Central Valley, it's _very_ unlikely that CAHSR will run empty trains.
International experience shows that new HSR lines routinely exceed the expected ridership.
@@stephanweinberger I grew up in the Central Valley (Modesto), they pride themselves on not using public transport.
When Prop 1A was written, the estimated cost to build from LA to SF was $30-40 billion. Today the estimate, according to the HSR, is $69-99 billion. That is 200-300% over the original estimate. This project should be stopped, not expanded.
Its a transportation system nobody cares about the cost except old people who wont even be around when its completed. Do you btch about the price of creating and maintaining freeways across the country? Exactly.
Wrong. The original estimate when the project was approved in 2008 was $44 billion. Stop trying to use older estimates that were for different projects or even created by different entities! The $44 billion systems is what the voters voted for! End of story.
Just due to inflation, $44 billion in 2008 dollars is $59 billion in 2022 money. I'm sorry if you don't like this number, but that's how our fiat currency works. Under 4% inflation is considered normal and desirable.
The actual current estimates for the project area a range from $78 billion to $105 billion, with a most likely estimate of $87 billion. People like you kept complaining about how little detail CHSR provided before so they started sharing a range instead of an average number. But the average number is all we have from the original estimate, we don't have a range for the 2008 projected cost.
$59 vs $87 billion is a 47.46% increase. It _is_ terrible that a bunch of crazies were able to sue and block to project into this insane cost increase. And I agree that all the Republican dark money groups who have been terrorizing this project, alongside all the fake "environmentalists", need to answer for what they have done. But this increase is nothing like what you are stating, not even close! 47% isn't 200-300%! Numbers are numbers! Math is real. You can't just make isht up and hope that no one notices!
You will no doubt want to disagree. Bring it on! Point me to any information that disproves what I have said. Please! I want to be corrected if I am indeed wrong. Having correct information is more important to me than "being right" or whatever.
Is $44 billion not the number that was stated just before the 2008 proposition?
Is that $44 billion not $59 billion in today's money?
Is $87 billion not the comparable current estimate from the same source as the $44 billion average figure?
Yes on all counts?
@@TohaBgood2 According to prop 1A the estimated cost is, like you said, $44 billion in 2008. Using actual inflation rates up to the the year 2020 (when the train was supposed to be open and generating revenue) we need to add $10.27 billion. The total project should now have been about 57.27 billion in 2020, reasonable to connect LA and SF with HSR and is what I and may others voted for. So the estimate is now up $105 Billion which is ABOUT DOUBLE the original estimate. Don't forget that this project is STILL not open and delays/cost overruns are STILL occurring. Only time will tell how much this disaster of a project will really cost.
@@paramedicdave Ok, so you concede on all counts. Good! That’s a good baseline of facts to start reasoning from.
Ok, so we only approved money for less than 1/4th of the system in 2008, correct? How does the rest get built without money? It doesn’t, but the time keeps going. Hence any future money we put into CHSR will again have to be inflation adjusted for whenever that money is expended.
Basically, what you are saying is a perfectly valid criticism IF we had approved the entire $44 billion. But we didn’t. That’s the reality of the situation. So whatever money we spend on finishing the system is going to be inflated the further we go into the future. That’s, again, how fiat currencies work. It’s just a fact of life and literally nothing to do with CHSR itself.
And no, the $105 billion figure is still not a valid figure for a total cost estimate. The $44 billion number was an average for all the hypothetical scenarios they considered in 2008. The $105 billion figure you’re quoting is a worst case scenario. It’s apples to oranges. So the increase is still “only” 47% based on CHSR’s existing estimates, not 100% like you are stating again above.
Again, that is terrible and I want bad things (within the law, of course) done to those interest groups and busybodies who caused the delays and overruns. But what you are trying to state about costs simply isn’t accurate.
Using your numbers of prop 1A $44 billion and your statement "most likely estimate of $87 billion" is DOUBLE the original price and thats only IF there no more delays and overruns.
A lot of bogus arguments here. CHSR will do nothing for pollution in the central valley because no-one there will ride it, they will continue driving their pickups across farm fields and churning up dust, which is the real problem. "Skilled workers in the Central Valley"?! They are ag. workers who will continue to live and work there. The only people who will use it are urbanites living very close to the stations in LA and SFO - and they'll have to wait another 20 years before riding it. Everyone else will find it quicker to fly. Starting in the Central Valley by running through city centers (rather than down the middle of I5) was a mistake and everyone knows it now. Please, stop this nonsense now and close the project down.
The city of Fresno has a population of 526,000. This is more than the largest city in a majority of the states. Bakersfield is 413,000. HSR is running where the people are in the central valley. The existing rail service, The San Joaquins, is the fifth busiest Amtrak route in the US. Speeding it up by a factor of 3 should definitely help ridership. Try flying to anyplace in the Central Valley: High prices and infrequent service. That is why so many drive.
There is absolutely nothing to do in the Central Valley.
@@NinjaPro57 Sure, 6.5 million people just sit around catching flies all day long 24/7/365. What planet are you from? I'm a Bay resident and even my arrogant face knows not to diss the place where all the food comes from. Including your food no matter where you live in the US!
The San Joaquin's very existence and the over 1 million passengers who take it completely disprove all of your points. Like it or not. People like trains in California. This new train will be proportionally popular just like all the previous Cal trains have been.
boomer