I like trains as much as the next guy, but Drew, in his inimitable way raises a legitimate question. Cost, or more specifically cost benefit, should be a factor before incurring any public debt. How is the cost of the bridge replacement recovered, or is it forever a cost to the taxpayer, with little, or no return on the investment?

The HSR begs the same question, as Drew has addressed before. Using the optimistic financial numbers propagated by the HSR commission, the rail line might not cost the taxpayer a dime if they can find enough patrons to run 1000 passenger trains, on 10 minute headways, 24/7. Otherwise, they won’t even come close. The question that should be asked, and is not, is if the money could be better spent on infrastructure that benefits 100% of the population, as compared to a small percentage that might ride the HSR. Perhaps using the HSR funds to build an aqueduct to bring water from the Northwest, would be a far better investment, especially since 100% of the population would benefit, or any other infrastructure spending that would benefit everyone. Otherwise, the HSR is only more public debt, benefiting a few unions and politically connected corporations. The local public transit agency thinks they’re doing great if they can get 15% of the operating cost out of the fare box. Guess who pays the other 85%. The HSR will not likely cover even 15% of the construction and operating cost from fares, and once again you know who pays the balance. And, in the case of the La Selva bridge, could the money have been spent better elsewhere, or better yet, left in the taxpayers pocket to spend as they wish?

I look forward to any logical and reasoned replies. And I did enjoy the outstanding pictures.