What Went Wrong With California High Speed Rail And How Can Other HSR Systems Avoid Those Mistakes?

Looking at the history of errors related to the California High Speed Rail project and how those might be applied to other aspirational high speed rail lines in other parts of The United States of America. I've done about 40 minutes of video on California High Speed Rail in the present. This video mostly looks at the history of the project and explores some ways the concept could have been approach differently that would have been more productive. This is the first part of a multi-part series on the Federal Railroad Administration's high speed rail corridors. This is the California Corridor, which is synonymous with California High Speed Rail at this point.
Regarding the subject of this video, YES I already know that due to stipulations in Prop 1A that the train has to run through certain Central Valley cities. The direct route between L.A. and S.F. is purely hypothetical and would not happen practically at this juncture. Same with the reordering of construction on the current plan.

0:00 Introduction
0:19 Origins
0:56 Intercity HSR Report Findings
3:04 Critique Of Those Findings
4:35 CAHSR Whole System EIR
5:11 2008 Business Plan And Prop 1A
5:43 Critique Of Prop 1A
8:11 Funding Problems
10:23 Hypothetical Scenarios
10:45 Build It In A Different Order
13:00 Direct Line LA to SF First
15:12 The Present Dilemma
15:40 Conclusion
15:52 Future Videos
16:20 Outro

1996 Intercity Commission High Speed Rail Report

2005 California High Speed Rail Authority System EIR

Topics:

California High Speed Rail
Cascadia Ultra High Speed Rail
Federal Railroad Administration High Speed Rail Corridors
The Case For High Speed Rail in the United States
pre-CAHSR studies
San Diego
Inland Empire
Antelope Valley
Central Valley
Pacheco Pass
Panoche Pass
Altamont Pass
CAHSR Phase 1
The Grapevine
Los Angeles
Bakersfield
Modesto
bay area
CAHSR Phase 2
California Proposition 1A
CAHSR Business Plan
Federal fundings
Cap and Trade
San Francisco
Anaheim
Gilroy
Burbank
San Jose
Sacramento
Bakersfield
Fresno

[ChrisJones-gxfc]

I think whichever US high speed rail project was first was going to encounter these or similar problems. California being the first means it’s the one all others will learn from. CAHSR has also learned from its early mistakes and will apply those lessons going forward, starting with the extensions to Merced and Bakersfield.

Chances are good Brightline West will be the first to start operations, if they stay on their schedule for construction beginning this year and service starting in 2028.

I agree that California HSR needs to get a route up and running ASAP, and what’s being built is the Central Valley portion so let’s get that done. Merced to Bakersfield is the initial segment and establishes a foothold for CAHSR to expand from.

Also, CAHSR’s route is only 440 miles between SF and LA (470 includes to Anaheim). That means an average speed of 166mph. By comparison the fastest Shanghai-Beijing HSR service averages 181.4mph.

The Central Valley portion connects transit in both ends of the state earlier, providing greater statewide benefits sooner. If HSR began in either end of the state first, it would have left out the other half of the state.

The sooner CAHSR is funded, the sooner it’ll happen. My gut hunch is CAHSR will receive the funding it needs to finish Merced to Bakersfield, but it won’t receive any beyond that until it gets revenue trains running to justify what’s been spent so far and to make the case for more funding to expand to SF and later LA.

It may end up being Brightline West that helps save CAHSR, as having a successful operating example of HSR should give a major confidence boost to other US HSR projects, including California’s, and therefore more funding for it and others to complete or start their own HSR projects.

[Hahlen]

It blows my mind that Spain built its entire HSR network for substantially less than the projected cost of this one project

[pacificostudios]

Critics of CA HSR know nothing about the EXISTING California intercity rail and feeder bus system. HSR is vitally necessary to connect what are, effectively, two separate systems. There is so much demand for NorCal-SoCal rail transportation, Amtrak California (CalTrans) operates overnight buses on both the Tejon Pass and Coast routes.

[alexverdigris]

If completion of CAHSR fails, it will be primarily because of the sheer number of people who want to see it failing, and will do their best to undermine and underfund it. With them in mind, it's a miracle that building work continues at all. The biggest enemy to HSR in America, is Americans and their anti transit culture. If you posses that, then it's very easy to fail at building HSR. The reason why Brightlighe has made some progress in Florida, it's mainly because it's not HSR and their compromises and work with existing track and limitations reduces their challenges. Though any useful train is useful, so better than no train, I suppose. You'll incrementally get there, if America changes mindset.

[gdrriley]

200-220mph design speed was the right call, thats the standard for new lines throughout the rest of the world and a must to get travel times down.
the feds putting such strict time deadlines while the authority got bogged down in 8 years of lawsuits was really something that needed to be changed by 2013 or 2014.
Public votes are a requirement to get basically any amount of money from the public in California. Blame the late 70s for that.
having SF to Gilroy and LA- Anaheim done has little benefit without the larger system
the IE route is going be insane compare to upgrading the coast line to 110-160mph, the central valley segment is far more useful than it

Really the state should have started and learned from upgrading the coast and surf line to 110-125mph in the 90s then used that experience to do the true high speed line down the central valley later.

[Da__goat]

I never understood why they absolutely needed a homerun-Why did the train need to run at 200mph? They could have had a very good line that topped out around 125 or 150mph, establish a population that uses the train, and then upgrade the rolling stock on 200mph track or upgrade the track to 200mph. Saving money. I also don’t get how they just ignored the recs of so many other HSR boards like Renfe, SNCF, and JR, and now complaint that the first phase is going to cost $96 billion, with no funding in site for the rest. Planning isn’t even done for the LA section

[craftergin]

I'd like to see the Feds invest in Amtrak and start purchasing right of ways for dedicated passenger tracks between SD and LA.

[phlatlander]

Love the CAHSR content! Very informative!

I think it's good that CA was ambitious. Someone had to bite the bullet and do HSR first in the US. I really do hope that the mistakes of CAHSR help other US systems to move faster. Edit: Altho maybe a shorter trial segment would've been a good starting point

[acuritis]

Great video but I think one key challenge I have with your argument is CAHSR is a government project, not a for-profit business. “Return-on-investment” is measured differently. The people making a living building the tracks and bridges are the also the “investors” and “stock-holders” for the project. Starting in the Central Valley is generating valuable political capitol which will ultimately benefit the project.
CAHSR may not ever become profitable but that’s not the point of government programming. It will be successful if it’s getting cars off the road, generating jobs, and improving quality of life for rural economies with booming populations.

[lbsc]

There is absolutely no reason to skip all the Central Valley cities. Whatever you save in construction costs you lose after by having a line that skips all the intermediate population centres. No, a second parallel line would not be built and you know it.

[etbadaboum]

Another great video that really helps to understand the project much better! Thanks!

[richardneilson]

Nicely done. You pointed out the original problems were political. However, I disagree with how you recommend starting at the end points with large population centers, and then working on San Joaquin Valley section. Once the Bay Area and Los Angeles Area got built, the politicians in both large metro areas would torpedo any building in the Valley. Look at how the metro areas have already taken vast amounts of HSR money for their own projects. For that matter, look at how many secondary projects are being funded by HSR money. The lack of train/transportation infrastructure that needed to be upgraded has cost more than the actual project. Within City of Fresno, there have been 96 grade separations made, per the City. Why weren't these done over the last 100 years? How much has gone toward LA's Union Station change from pull -in pull-out to pull through? I believe the electrification of Cal Train also received HSR money. How long has Cal Train been around? The fact is HSR has funded numerous projects, alot of them in the metro areas.

[jdillon]

As an Australian it's interesting to see what's going on in California and over here. At least California has got something started, whereas in Australia the only high speed lines we have are imaginary. One of the many sticking points in both places seems to be the mountainous/hilly terrain. This is a real head-scratcher for me. France and Japan, the twin birthplaces of HSR, are both mountainous. And the new members of the HSR club, Spain, Italy and China, are also mountainous. So, why is it that English speaking countries seem unable to deal with hilly terrain when thinking of or planning HSR?

[bensteele]

I think the best thing they can do at this point is get the central valley section running and then make damn good shuttle services from the metro regions to the terminating stations. A high quality bus shuttle from Sacramento, the bay area, and LA to the train with relatively seamless transfers and a single ticket would at least get some usage out of the track. It could be slightly faster than driving (probably less than an hour faster). CAHSR just has such a bad reputation, if they can get some sort of service running it will make it easier for people to agree to funding it further.

[bosskxx]

Mostly agree with you. The biggest lesson learned is that the government needs to own most of the land to build a new right of way.. So much money was wasted on lawsuits on this project.

[Zero]

Are any of the reports you reference available online somewhere? Could you throw links in the description?

[jasons]

IMO you can go faster along the I5 route from LA to SF since there is maybe two useful stops between LA and San Jose. Stop after getting through the Angeles mountains and at Gilroy. Central Valley route stops at half a dozen cities/towns, which requires slowing down and speeding up for stopping and ~3-5min at each station for ppl getting on and off.

[r.williams]

amazing video, thank you so much! ive been wanting a good analysis of the calhsr- couldn't find it anywhere.

[ix]

I wholeheartedly agree that connecting more people faster is the way to go even at slower (but still very fast) speeds. The top and average speed requirements create self-imposed challenges. Your "two system" approach makes a lot of sense and once implemented would have made the central valley portion an easy "yes".

[watwudscoobydoo]

San Francisco to Gilroy already exists. It’s called Caltrans. So the Central Valley first idea is best because otherwise most the money would go to the LA area and northern cali wouldn’t like that.