Palmdale to Burbank SR14A Preferred Alternative Flyover 

Woah, that is cool!

SF funded its new Transit Center by selling land that had been made redundant by the new layout and allowing people to develop taller buildings on those sites. I wonder if California couldn't do something similar with this quarry site. Too bad there isn't a station nearby or you could call it a transit village. If you fill in that quarry enough so that the entire site can be developed you will be adding a huge amount of value to the site.

That's a clever, nice idea!

Really? You must have money coming out the ears. Why don't you pay for it?

@@Octavus5 why don’t you pay for i-69

Me too, and I'm in my late 20s.

@@alexverdigris9939 you will probably be around 40 when it is done

Project is expected to be done by 2033

It will probably be more like 2040 for the entire project to be complete

@@jacobgomer 🤣😆🤣

France's HSR lines have almost no tunnels. The landscape in France allows mostly to build railroads on the ground. Germany and Italy high speed lines however have long tunnel sections, same as in Japan.

We know. You’ve told us.

a MILLION times…

@@EASbear ikr

This is nerdy? Seems pretty simple to me.

I doubt the project will finish on time. Too many moving parts to prevent stuff going wrong without extra government funding That said, we desperately need it to really restructure CA transportation to be greener, faster, and better, and I can’t wait for phase 1 to finish.

@@LuckyFlanker13 I nenjoy seeing the progress, even more so in person. Wewill be leaving California in the next 2 years or so though.

If they didn't start digging now it won't be completed in time. Switzerland needed 16 years for the Gotthard and they had all the political support and funding. They started digging in November 1999 and operations started in 2016. Now it won't be as long and they have several sections where they can do both sides but it will take at least 10 years to built it and another 5 to plan it.

@@Sedna063 I see your point. What always bugs me is China can build high-speed rail in a couple of years at a fast rate. But most other countries take decades to get started. I can't help but think there is some corruption or excessive red tape going on in developed western nations. China has a lot of problems, but developing infrastructure is not one of them

FOR THE 121TH TIME YES IT WILL COME IN 2033

@@The_Poro_King yea hes everywhere

I agree. I have the same trouble seeing those color distinctions. So grateful for the voiceover commentary describing the colors on the route. BTW, I have found that if yo point a bright light to the colors, it helps to distinguish them. I helps when viewing a static image of routes.

I believe that I saw entire segment has a 6-7 year construction timeline with track and other finishing works taking a couple years. That leaves a 4-5 year span for their tunneling estimate.

@@brandonk7361 Double it.

100 years

The 4-5 years is about right. modern boring technology can go through this material fast. The feeding of blocks and supports is more likely the cause of time delays.

If I remember correctly, Brightline would not be utilizing the CAHSR trackage between Palmdale and LA. It would only be a transfer point between the two networks. The Brightline extension to Palmdale was done as a cost cutting measure to skip building their own expensive trackage into LA since there should be a connection to Downtown LA through CAHSR by the time it is complete.

@@AmpereBEEPeither way it future proofs you for future high-speed connection beyond Las Vegas for both companies. Otherwise it would be silly to make a low speed triangle junction. On a section where trains could easily be traveling at 250mph

@@richardmoore899 I see what you mean by that. Honestly with the way the triangle was shown there, it seems like Brightline wants all trains to stop at Palmdale which would negate the need for it to support the maximum designed speed. It probably also has something to do with the way that they need to squeeze the triangle between the Airport and the edge of the built up areas of the city. Not to mention that it probably isn't the final design for the junction either. I would imagine that if in the future they wanted trains to bypass Palmdale, they could create another larger triangle to the south of Palmdale that follows a significantly smoother curve to get around the problem entirely.

@@AmpereBEEP agreed on your points. Tho I don't like the idea of building a new bypass triangle cause of the lack of foresight..... Tho tbh I did once wonder why they don't create a larger triangle with one leg for South bound trains going parrelle to road 58 to Barstow and then you can get a bigger curve in the space given

@@richardmoore899 Brightline probably looked for the cheapest route to construct since they are a private company and the triangle shown in the video was the result. South of Palmdale it seems like there are quite a few hills and from what I have found, the initial Brightline segment would be between Victorville and Las Vegas, meaning that there would be another triangle at Barstow and then a dead end at Victorville if they decided to follow CA-58. Now that would not actually be that bad of a route, but I am not sure if there is enough room between Edwards Air Force Base and CA-58 for them to purchase their own dedicated Right of Way. Especially considering that there is already a railroad right of way there. Actually, if Brightline was looking for the most economically feasible way for them to construct an extension to Palmdale, it would make more sense for them to use Victorville as a pass-through station considering that they would have already constructed the trackage between Barstow and Victorville. I just measured out the two route lengths, and the route following CA-58 would add 39 miles or so of additional track length that they would need to construct by taking that route. All of those things add on to the journey time and that is possibly why they chose the route that they did. It might result in a shorter trip length by just slowing down for the triangle than by going the extra distance.

No, we deserve it.

It would be nice to know how much the through trains will have to slow to accommodate the zig zag through the Burbank Airport station. The best stations are multimodal (local and regional bus, local train, HSR, Air, Car Rental, parking, etc). Burying a station at the airport where multimodal expansion is needed makes adding more connectivity later more expensive and complicated. Since the airport terminals are planning a rebuild anyway the airport planners can always stack a regional transportation center on top of the station to pick up bus service. Regional tran users will need to walk or take a shuttle. If the whole point of HSR is to avoid air travel then prioritizing the short walk from a train to a plane over other modalities is somewhat suspect.

All HSR trains, including the express trains, will stop at Burbank Airport. First of all, the SF Valley has a huge population, so this station will be a major access point for the CAHSR system. Second, this stop is needed to cue inbound trains into LA Union Station above the 3-track section shared with Metrolink. It's needed for outbound trains because they won't be able to let more than two trains travel in each direction at the same time. If three trains traveled in the tunnel in the same direction, the middle train will be trapped in the unlikely event that a problem happens with the two other trains.

@@jmecklenborg I doubt express trains at least will be stopping in Burbank if any intermediate stations between LA and SF. Those will be the ones that have to meet the promised sub-3 hour goal laid out in Prop 1A, and once they leave LA or SF every minute counts. I can see San Jose being a stop for all trains, considering it’s a major hub for NorCal passenger rail and other transit, but not Burbank. It’s only 12 miles from LAUS, and is well connected by existing Amtrak and Metrolink services, the latter of which could implement a non-stop service between LAUS and Burbank Airport (especially with electrification of that corridor for HSR). There’ll need to be serious coordinating of trains on both the Caltrain and Metrolink ends of the LA to SF route to prioritize HSR trains, particularly the express ones, and I’m sure CAHSR will work with those agencies as well as UP to ensure that happens once operations begin. The tracks between Burbank and LA (and all the way to Anaheim) will need to be redesigned and upgraded to accommodate high speed rail, which if it’s anything like CAHSR’s Alternative 4 plan for San Jose to Gilroy will feature 2 passenger tracks and 1 freight track.

@@ChrisJones-gx7fc I have read other people speculate that CAHSR will do just that - run one "super-express" train each day during off-peak hours in order to fulfill the language of 2008's Prop1A. But a true express won't be possible during peak hours due to the Caltrains commuter rail activity on the Peninsula and Metrorail between Burbank and LA Union. A tapping of the brakes by a southbound train anywhere between SF and Burbank means it will miss its slot to proceed south of Burbank. Also, nearly 2 million people live in the San Fernando Valley, which is 2X the population of either Fresno or Bakersfield, so it's a major source of riders.

@@jmecklenborg well it does look like the proposed Burbank Airport station will be just that, a station for Burbank Airport, seeing as the latest plans will place it underground adjacent to what will be the new terminal. I would imagine though it'll be for namely Southern Californians from the LA area and Antelope Valley wanting to fly in and out of a cheaper and/or more convenient airport than LAX. As for the Caltrain corridor, I bet most HSR trains will terminate at San Jose, especially during peak commuter hours, with only some continuing on to SF. It'll probably be a similar set up for south of LA, with most trains terminating at LAUS and only some continuing on to Anaheim. Granted the Burbank Airport station will have connectivity beyond the airport and maybe even separate parking from the airport, thus serving the wider San Fernando Valley. Though if it'll really be a stop for all HSR trains (to as you say help funnel trains in and out of LAUS), I imagine it'll have to be a relatively large station layout that'll need to accommodate something like three to six trains per hour (likely in each direction), so at least three platforms, and with it all underground. Wonder what the practicality of that would be. That's why though I'd bet express trains will bypass Burbank on their way to and from LA, given they'll have the highest priority not just for HSR but all trains they share tracks with. That said most HSR trains will likely be limited and local stop, with express LA to SF trains running in non-peak hours.

I'm sure they will account for emergency exits in all sections of the tunnel. There will also be ventilation shafts as well, I'm sure. I've read several articles in the past that indicate things like subways and tunnels do better in earthquakes than things like bridges, and bridges do very well especially more recently build ones due to the higher earthquake building standards in CA.

fault lines really arent affected by human activity of this scale

It was explained. They chose this alignment because the San Gabriel Mountain Range was at its thinnest there and the chances of boring into high-pressure groundwater were reduced.

That would be $300 billion. Please pay at the register. Next!

@@TohaBgood2 Well, it truly does, as over 50 freights a day passed through in 2019, so either freight or HSR needs it's own tracks. And the blended Peninsula Corridor has it's own freight problem, as UP still runs, however now has to after Caltrain is done, as the KISS EMU's don't meet FRA crashworthiness standards, so will CAHSR have a cutoff as well?

@@AVeryRandomPerson That is incorrect. Caltrain's new Stadler KISS EMU fulfills both FRA and EU crashworthiness standards. It was modified for the North American market. Also, the UP is almost gone from this corridor as the businesses and port it used to service have moved to cheaper areas. I agree overall that full grade separation would be awesome and this is exactly what a lot of people were hoping for. But the reality just doesn't care about what we want. Full HSR track and grade separation are incredibly expensive to build in general. And California literally has the most expensive and desirable real estate in the world. The astronomical building costs and the stratospheric land acquisition costs would make this completely impossible. Heck, just the land on the Caltrain right of way would cost as much as an entire mid-size country. Atherton alone tens you

@@TohaBgood2 Agreed. And many HSR systems around the world do these blended routes when they approach major city centers. It's a very common practice.

There will be very few stations and thats the point of a high speed long distance line. Europe does this all the time.

Yup yup

I don't know what they plan for the California tunnels but there are technologies to build safe tunnels in earthquake zones. If you are interested, search for details for the Istanbul Bosposrus railroad tunnel in Turkey, which has been built in a highly active tectonic zone. Essentially it's a "tunnel within a tunnel". It has an outer pipe and an inner pipe (the actual railroad tunnel) with the inner pipe sitting on a bearing of strong springs. The shock waves, movements and energy of an earthquake only become effective on the outer pipe, which is able to bounce without breaking at once. That prevents the inner pipe to break. If there is damage, then only the outer pipe needs to be repaired. Maybe this won't survie a real big one like Richter scale 8, but most of the earthquakes which shake Southern California all the time. Fore sure such a tunnel is more expensive than a conventional tunnel, but maybe the only thing suited for California.

It doesn't. Earthquakes do most of their damage above ground, not in tunnels.

The San Andreas Fault is more than just a fault it’s a plate boundary and could shift up to 27 feet. This is a good question not to mention fire danger inside of tunnels. For a state that needs water infrastructure what a waste of money.

@@mikecodester No. It’s not a good question. The Japanese have been building tunnels in seismic zones for 60 years without incident. If water infrastructure is such a problem for you, why aren’t you campaigning to get a water infrastructure ballot measure. All that means is that HSR supporters are more organized and care more than you do because they got a ballot measure on the ballot and it passed.

@@gruweldaad The state should not be paying for 1 inch of this railroad. Move to Japan

@@mikecodester I can’t. I’ve seen squid game.

Shanghai is not upgrading to Maglev. The maglev line that was supposed to link Pudong and Hongqiao airports via Shanghai South and the Expo site was abandoned after local protests. A conventional rail line is being built in its stead.

what's not close to a fault line, in california?

@@orangemoonglows2692 the San Andreas

@@EASbear fault lines are everywhere in california. san andreas is the most well-known. i think the most recent larger earthquakes have not occurred along that fault line.

Fast lol

Tehachapi Pass was called out in a previous Q&A video as being their slowest pass due to the grade at a continuous 180 mph. I’m not sure exactly how braking before Burbank would factor into the average speed, but it’s safe to assume that it will be about 200 mph.

@@brandonk7361 That is still the fastest speed they have in one of the longest tunnels. 180 mph translates to almost 300 kph. The Gotthard Base Tunnel and the Brenner Base Tunnel only operate at 250 kph.

@@brandonk7361 I doubt they will operate at 200 mph throughout the system. Experience from other HSR systems is proofing such a speed - while technically no problem - results in uneconomically high power and maintenance costs. Here in Europe speed limits for tunnels never exceed 250 kph, which would be 165 mph. The super-long tunnels below the Alps mountains (30 to 40 miles length) mostly are authorized for 125 mph operational speed (200 kph) only. That's to keep wear and tear on an acceptable level.

@@OldSchool-px1xk That’s not strictly true. The Frankfurt-Köln line here operates through tunnels at 300km/h. HS2 in the UK is currently building tunnels for 360 km/h operation.

Maybe you’ve got a lot to learn from Japanese and European engineers. This is easy

@@tommyd3257 we arent in japan

@@KarlDahlquist you saying we have shitty engineers and mining crews here? Because it sure sounds like it

I believe btwn 22 and 28. It looks like the 22 is through "riskier and deeper" terrain. This alt appears to be the 28 mile version. That's a lot.

Topography isn't right for trains I think

Part of the plan is to refoundation homes on rollers and springs, haha. If you are older than 55 don't worry about it unless you live to 95.

Yeah. They need a million more people to move into AV before Dept of Airports will build

@@sdjahof1964 Damn in another words a 2nd LA of a populated city.

@@SalviAmerican Yes indeed. While we have the space ( do we, really?) There is no water and it would be foolish and criminal to build out and bring more people here

@@sdjahof1964 Very True

2033

being underground is actually the safest place during an earthquake

@@georgerascon1825 not when you’re under extra weight, in addition to the ground shaking all around the tunnel instead of just shaking below the rails.

@@mi12no oh

@@mi12no There have been several studies indicating being in a tunnel is safer than let's say on a viaduct or bridge during an earthquake. Japan has many miles of HSR tunnel and a lot of earthquakes too and they haven't had any serious issues. And they invented HSR and have had it the longest of any country.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but often median alignments don't work for trains due to different curve and grade tolerances between cars and trains.

Originally, California was built on rail transportation. Full north/south coverage happened in the nineteenth century. No autos then.

@@JamesMcGillis That is correct, Sir, However, the railroads which were constructed in the 19th century, up to present day, were curvy single-track lines. Already after WW1 they were considered as too slow, weren't they?. When I-5 was built, and airflight became affordable, passenger rail quickly went down. Not only in California, for sure, But that is the reason why the railroads in Europe and Eaat Asia responded with high-speed rail, to keep their passengers. Please look at the US East coast. On the NEC more people ride the train than in the whole rest of the US alltogether. That is, because you have the Acela and 125 mph at least. It could be much more if they would invest more into that route. Maybe they will, if Amtrak's budget is raised. So please don't get me wrong. I don't want to make a judgement about the US or California. But a train taking 12 hours from LA to SF really is no alternative to plane and car. That is why I wish CAHSR to become a success.

gas cars will be banned by the time this is finished

@@OldSchool-px1xk Very nice remarks. Car culture is true.

You can thank Oil, Auto, Airline companies & Elon musk for why this project is taking so long

But freight trains take much longer to cross. I sometimes just turn off my car because the wait can be long. HSR is much faster so it shouldn't be an issue for traffic.

I think there is a grade separation where the road will go over at these points.

Yes sir. This is the most expensive portion of the project. It appears to be the last tunneling so who knows when the dig begins and ends.

Tell that to I-69

@@darthmaul216 why? meaning what? is it delayed?

2029

Madera to Wasco (or the end of CP 4) 2029-operational Merced to Bakersfield 2033 hopefully Everything else is anyone's guess, mine is 2050+ for the whole project

Metro link speeds are lower and the turns would mean running the HSR at unacceptable speeds.

Not for many years

Ridership is low on Metrolink because its slow, infrequent, and it sucks

Lol. Tell that to I-69

Japan, China, and Italy have earthquakes, tunnels, and high speed rail. I don't know how they manage where Americans can't. I guess we're not exceptional after all.

Lol. That’s I-69 sheep

Why can't we do both?

Homeless are homeless because they want to give them a place to live they wouldn’t take it

We are doing both. The governor announced billions for combating homelessness in his last budget proposal in July due to the large unexpected $75 billion surplus. And LA County and LA City residents voted for 2 separate measures to fund construction of transitional housing to help with the homelessness issue too.

The homeless can just sleep on the train like they in new york and Chicago

Shouldn't they compensate for harm and damages?

@@R_Priest Well, we can only hope for that, but I am pretty sure no one is going to do that.

Probably not at all, if anything it’ll raise the value being next to a train

thanks Tim

Meanwhile Japan is have Fault line but have HSR go through them?

That’s I-69

Same

Lol. People would do the same thing if the freeway was widened. Have fun snowflake

In your mind

Ticket prices are not supposed to pay for infrastructure, otherwise the highways would never have been built, infrastructure increases land value, plus it creates better connectivity, which is very valuable to the government. Every high speed rail network in the world has boosted the economy, even though ticket prices haven't paid back the investment.

@@thetimelapseguy8 Agreed. And people never ask why aren't freeways and highways across the country paying for themselves. Why? because that would require all publicly funded roads,. bridges, highways,. and freeways to ave tolls. Yes, every car, bus, truck, etc. would have to pay a toll to use them. That scenario is the equivalent of saying that ticket prices won't pay for the HSR system as a whole. HSR should be viewed the way we view our highway system.

Potential passengers will be forced out of airplanes. France is already doing it and my generation is guaranteed to do it also, provided we have this SUPERIOR option to airports.

Are you sure that your name is Brian and not Xi?

@@gruweldaad And that is why HSR is so important to have as another viable option to move a lot of people fast for certain distances. Also, airports around the world are already at full capacity and it's extremely expensive to add significant capacity to exiting airports. HSR helps to alleviate that issue for flights between 100-500 miles which is the preferred route length range for HSR.