 |
Re: A Cascadia bullet train: Time to move to next level or ‘kill this thing right now’?
Author: FUD
Date: 12-11-2020 - 10:02
For most of the posters here (and elsewhere), the answer is the second part of your OR statement.
As for the first part, yes, the Chinese will be very competitive for the equipment contract. Japanese and a few European firms would be competitive as well, but if the Chinese really want it they can get govt subsidies that allow them to underbid anybody.
For design and construction, most likely one of the PBs and Tutors of the world would get the contracts. Too big for local engineers and contractors to be competitive. Worth looking at how the Texans are doing it, not CAHSR.
For operation and r/w maintenance, one of the Europeans would be most likely, though the Japanese are possible. Amtrak is not a HSR operator of consequence (despite running Acelas in the NEC). Not clear whether the traditional US rail and transit contractors are ready for HSR work. Again, worth watching what happens in Texas with this.
Somewhere along the line, Amtrak will need to be dealt with, for coordinating reservations if nothing else, unless you want to run it as an island, like commuter and transit lines.
And circling back to line 1, it's a big, expensive project that'll inconvenience people, take a long time to build (so people lose interest - Americans demand instant gratification), and cost enough to build that operation, even if "profitable" above the rail, will never pay off the capital cost (which will have to be financed with taxes). A lot of people don't realize it, but outside of a few major cities, WA and OR are pretty Red states - so raising taxes over a large area to pay for a HSR line, no matter how logical it might be (yet to be proven in that regard), will be a hard, hard sell.
Texas hopes to be a private operation that eventually does pay off capital, as would the LA-LV line, but neither of those is far enough along yet to demonstrate that private capital (even with govt help via tax exemptions for bonds) can actually do the job. I'd say a PacNW HSR line would have to go the traditional tax-supported route, at least for capital-related expenses; above-the-rail operating cost recovery will remain an open question until there's more experience with real HSR in the US. So the second OR statement option is a very strong possibility.
As for the first part, yes, the Chinese will be very competitive for the equipment contract. Japanese and a few European firms would be competitive as well, but if the Chinese really want it they can get govt subsidies that allow them to underbid anybody.
For design and construction, most likely one of the PBs and Tutors of the world would get the contracts. Too big for local engineers and contractors to be competitive. Worth looking at how the Texans are doing it, not CAHSR.
For operation and r/w maintenance, one of the Europeans would be most likely, though the Japanese are possible. Amtrak is not a HSR operator of consequence (despite running Acelas in the NEC). Not clear whether the traditional US rail and transit contractors are ready for HSR work. Again, worth watching what happens in Texas with this.
Somewhere along the line, Amtrak will need to be dealt with, for coordinating reservations if nothing else, unless you want to run it as an island, like commuter and transit lines.
And circling back to line 1, it's a big, expensive project that'll inconvenience people, take a long time to build (so people lose interest - Americans demand instant gratification), and cost enough to build that operation, even if "profitable" above the rail, will never pay off the capital cost (which will have to be financed with taxes). A lot of people don't realize it, but outside of a few major cities, WA and OR are pretty Red states - so raising taxes over a large area to pay for a HSR line, no matter how logical it might be (yet to be proven in that regard), will be a hard, hard sell.
Texas hopes to be a private operation that eventually does pay off capital, as would the LA-LV line, but neither of those is far enough along yet to demonstrate that private capital (even with govt help via tax exemptions for bonds) can actually do the job. I'd say a PacNW HSR line would have to go the traditional tax-supported route, at least for capital-related expenses; above-the-rail operating cost recovery will remain an open question until there's more experience with real HSR in the US. So the second OR statement option is a very strong possibility.
