@@gooser__43 It isn’t a waste of money. It certainly is not $100 Billion over budget. It was never going to be cheap. This HSR network will change travel in the state. This is the first HSR project of scale in the USA. We are building experience and infrastructure which pays off for decades
Mark my words, here’s what’s going to happen: The HSR project is going to get canned by the lack of funding from the Federal Government. The CAHSR will be in checkmate, thus leading them to sell the existing infrastructure to the Federal Government. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will essentially take ownership of the project’s infrastructure and turn it into a highway. The government is playing a waiting game with this project, I’m telling you. There’s too many people in DC who are invested in air travel. Feel free to like this comment in 2035 when this happens.
Even if costs $250 billion, at the end of the day there will be modern high speed rail network. That's it, nothing more to spend and you have high speed rail for 75+ years. Texas just passed their latest ten year highway budget, its over $85 billion, at the end of the day they are left with a depreciating asset that in another 25 years will need another $160 billion (assuming it won't go up, we all know it will). Why is the question "How much money will is make/cost" only asked of the most efficient, modern technology and ignored for car dependency?
There will be some maintenance costs attributed to mainly inspections and train maintenance but I get you point that those costs are nowhere near the 160billion dollars every 25 years that it will cost for road infrastructure in Texas. But it still is much closer in cost than a lot of people want. My estimates of the 75 plus years would be a gap of around 265 billion dollars with the Texas roadway infrastructure more expensive.
First rail needs plenty of maintenance just as much roads do. Two assuming your numbers are right that is the number for highways crossing all over a huge state vs CAHSR's 1 travel corridor. Three those highways support local travel, long distance travel and freight. CAHSR will be for passenser travel only and mostly only long distance journeys. Also its looking more and more like the route may stall at Bakersfield to Merced and they will just suggest passenger connect to other modes of transit to continue onto SF and LA. If thats how it winds up its going to be a huge overpriced failure.
@@Jordan-gn7nyAnd, another benefit with CAHSR is that it produces no harmful exhaust like cars and trucks. And, passengers will pay to ride it. That will help to offset operating costs. If highways were to be required to pay for themselves, they would all require tolls. Maybe we should start doing that. Charge tolls on all highways and freeways.
False. The system is impossible to build. They still haven't figured out how to deal with the sinking valley floor, bad enough to make rebuilding a section of the line every two years.
There is a big error in the video. The length of the route between Merced and Bakersfield is 171 miles, not 118 miles. That's a very big difference. The funds that the Trump administration clawed back was returned by Biden. This year, CAHSR received an additional $3.1 billion from the federal government. 100 year infrastructure is NEVER inexpensive. It's about investing in the future of the state. The Central Valley will experience an economic boom from building this HSR route.
You need to watch "Utopia", an Australian satirical comedy about government and bureaucratic inefficiency. The go-to slogan for spinning the way out of any disastrous waste of money is "Investing in the future".....
Yes definitely its time for High Speed Rail. I live here in Bakersfield so looking forward to taking the train from here in Bakersfield to Las Vegas. The drive is about six hours now it will only be 3 hours and I won't have to drive....so exciting. California has alway lead the country to new exciting endeavors.
Corruption, corruption & corruption is the problem!!! Get rid of the current company & open up the build for new bids to bring the ballooned cost of $128B down!! Build in incentives for completing the project on time or early completion!!!
I live in Fresno and the hsr is only a mile from here, lots of viaducts but I have never seen any workers and over the years it seems that nothing has changed.
bait and switch// snake oil // rush the start before the public realizes the boneheaded idea // lie to the public to lie/lay the track. folks, don’t try these shenanigans on your “regular job”. you won’t last a day.
This project no longer even closely resembles what voters approved back in 2008. It MUST be put to a vote again as a “new” project. Knowing there is no firm completion date, no reliable final cost estimate or a funding source, put it to a vote again. If it’s approved, build it. NO MORE FEDERAL $ - CA can pay for it.
The US has the most developed US Hiway and airline systems in the world. High speed rail will only compete with what we already have, and fail miserably. Use history and your common sense to end throwing your grandchildren's money into a pit.
If the automobile lobby is so powerful then why did the airline industry emerge? Stop trying to come up with ridiculous explanations for outright failure.
@@daleviker5884 What industry bought up local rail companies and replaced them with buses following an era when the United States was number 1 in passenger rail? As to why the airline industry emerged, I think that technology was gonna be huge regardless, and big oil/gas...
Plus, when this is done, it is noted that, most likely, it will still be cheaper and faster to take a plane anyway. Don't forget that intermediate stops add time and slow the speed of the train as it has to slow down to approach the stop and stay slow as it leaves the stop and there will be speed limits near urban areas. The Left is OBSESSED with rail travel and I've never figured out why. They keep trying to get one built between LA and PHX. No one truly wants it but it keeps getting pushed anyway. The only POSSIBLY viable route here in AZ is PHX to CGZ to TUC but even that has its issues. For it to be viable, it can only stop at a metro rail connection in PHX metro, CGZ, northern Tucson, and downtown Tucson. The two intermediate stops can only be for five minutes and it must travel at over 100mph (125mph is better) the whole route or it isn't viable. (It's a bit less than two hours by car at 75mph.) Oh, and it'll have to pass through a reservation in order to be built and that creates further problems. Passenger rail travel here, especially in the western US, is just not practical. There's a reason the Super Chief no longer runs from Los Angeles to Chicago. Planes are faster and cheaper. Who wants an overnight train trip anymore when a plane can get you there in four hours?
Maybe they're obsessed with rail because it's literally the most efficient way to move people? Saying it's not practical for the US is just an excuse because the infrastructure isn't there like it was built in Europe. Go travel Europe and then get back to me. I'd gladly spend an extra hr on a comfortable train then go through the security hassle of an airport, only to get crammed into the smallest seat imaginable.
@@kennykenevil57 I've both flown inter city in Europe and taken many inter city high speed trains in Europe. I would say especially the last 20 years inter city air travel is more popular then high speed rail. I love trains too, but its usually more expensive and slower so its hard to justify using.
@bensonr2 I'm not going to say that your opinions are wrong, but we all have our own opinions and the right to voice them. If you think air travel is more practical than fine. I think that air travel is extremely bad for the environment and that more options are always better whether that be high speed rail or air or roadways the more options you have the more efficiently you can move your population. So them building high-speed rail for extremely high prices is just a fact of paying for dividends to help us continue living on this planet for many years to come. Also roadways and airports are almost comparable cost wise. If there were as many hurdles to go through with roadways and airports, you can guarantee that they would cost as much or more to operate and construct.
@@bensonr2 I was in Italy last year, I'm not sure how it is everywhere but the high-speed trains were not very expensive at all, and they were very busy. I'm sure the rise of cheap airlines have eaten into the pool of passengers but for inter-country it was definitely the easiest way to travel, while also being cheap.
