 |
Re: Another Bait and switch
Author: observer
Date: 02-13-2019 - 08:26
Completing the Valley part of the line, as I see it, has two functions:
1) use up the existing money;
2) complete something that has sale/lease potential to other railroads (e.g. BNSF).
No politician will ever just give up money that's available for a project.
And remember who started this. It wasn't Gavin or Jerry. Though both inherited it, and Jerry became a strong supporter (Gavin seems to be a bit more reluctant). Gavin is probably right in saying that there's no clear path to LA or the Bay Area for a True High Speed line given the costs. That doesn't mean that it can't be part of a "higher" speed line (110-125mph, 150 on the HSR segment) using more conventional equipment and construction practices, and constructed in smaller increments.
BTW, Max is right that a passenger-oriented railroad (such as HSR) needs its own facility that's not shared with freight. Their operating characteristics are so different in the US that nothing over 90 mph or so (really 70-80) can feasibly be mixed with freight trains (doing 40-70 mph), and even that only at slack times for freight movement. By the time the passenger moves get up to a dozen or more each way per day, they're using a large portion of the railroad capacity. If the line doesn't have much freight traffic, that's OK - but that's not the case for many lines. So if you make enough "improvements" to a main freight line to allow more than token passenger service, you are already halfway to building a separate railroad.
And before people start complaining (again) about HSR mismanagement (which has happened) and graft (not proven, but likely), yes, big projects especially transportation projects do cost too much in the US. California is one of the most expensive places to do such things. In Europe, something like the HSR starter (SF-LA) would cost probably half as much. Half of $100B is $50B, which is still an unpopular number (we all want it yesterday, for free, built with slave labor!), but it's more likely to result in something that can someday (maybe 30-50 years from opening) make money for somebody in operation (see: early TGV lines in France finally go positive - paid off construction cost & positive cash flow from operations - after almost 50 years). For cost comparison, note that it's costing San Diego ~$3B for a relatively (by California standards) cost-effective light rail project, and the Del Mar tunnel is likely to be $3-4B for about 5 miles (no HSR involved).
1) use up the existing money;
2) complete something that has sale/lease potential to other railroads (e.g. BNSF).
No politician will ever just give up money that's available for a project.
And remember who started this. It wasn't Gavin or Jerry. Though both inherited it, and Jerry became a strong supporter (Gavin seems to be a bit more reluctant). Gavin is probably right in saying that there's no clear path to LA or the Bay Area for a True High Speed line given the costs. That doesn't mean that it can't be part of a "higher" speed line (110-125mph, 150 on the HSR segment) using more conventional equipment and construction practices, and constructed in smaller increments.
BTW, Max is right that a passenger-oriented railroad (such as HSR) needs its own facility that's not shared with freight. Their operating characteristics are so different in the US that nothing over 90 mph or so (really 70-80) can feasibly be mixed with freight trains (doing 40-70 mph), and even that only at slack times for freight movement. By the time the passenger moves get up to a dozen or more each way per day, they're using a large portion of the railroad capacity. If the line doesn't have much freight traffic, that's OK - but that's not the case for many lines. So if you make enough "improvements" to a main freight line to allow more than token passenger service, you are already halfway to building a separate railroad.
And before people start complaining (again) about HSR mismanagement (which has happened) and graft (not proven, but likely), yes, big projects especially transportation projects do cost too much in the US. California is one of the most expensive places to do such things. In Europe, something like the HSR starter (SF-LA) would cost probably half as much. Half of $100B is $50B, which is still an unpopular number (we all want it yesterday, for free, built with slave labor!), but it's more likely to result in something that can someday (maybe 30-50 years from opening) make money for somebody in operation (see: early TGV lines in France finally go positive - paid off construction cost & positive cash flow from operations - after almost 50 years). For cost comparison, note that it's costing San Diego ~$3B for a relatively (by California standards) cost-effective light rail project, and the Del Mar tunnel is likely to be $3-4B for about 5 miles (no HSR involved).
