That first segment in Florida averages 69 mph (Palm Beach to Ft Lauderdale) and never approaches 110. Eventually there will be a short 20-30 mile segment near the airport that will approach the range of 110-125mph.

Fresno to Bakersfield was the hardest segment to justify for HSR funds, but, contrary to what's been said (best for testing), it was chosen first because only by doing it first would it ever get done. From here on out investments are easier to justify, ie, the difference of doing 192mph from Bakersfield to Palmdale vs 50-60 mph, or doing 139mph from Palmdale to Burbank vs 27mph by Metrolink will matter. Also, tying in with the 200mph Brightline line will give these segments more utility as will the increase in number of stations. Saying I can get to Merced, Tulare or Palmdale just doesn't cut it.

The most painful section is almost complete.




FUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're basically correct about the cost structure
> of the Brightline/Vegas project, at least for
> phase 1. I'll be interested to see what they come
> up with for getting "over the hill" to Rancho
> Cucamonga, which is necessary but seems likely to
> cost a LOT. Though I think they eventually will
> want both routes into LA. It's still qualitatively
> different from the FL line, though; for good
> reason, but different.
>
> As for CAHSR, yes, it should have had, and still
> should have, a real business plan. Unfortunately,
> being a political creation in its present form,
> any such plan wouldn't be worth the paper it's
> printed on (or even the electrons wasted on
> reading it on a display). If such a business plan
> were, for instance, to suggest that 2:30 between
> SF and LA really doesn't serve a need, that
> 125-maybe 150 mph is enough to provide good access
> between the Bay Area, Central Valley, and LA, and
> that the money spent on anything more than, say,
> Acela speed would be better spent on some more
> improvements elsewhere (like the Coast and
> LOSSAN), that would be interesting but following
> such a plan would violate the initiative that set
> the whole thing up. So CAHSR is kind of in a
> political corner: it truly does make little sense
> to continue the way they're going, but if they
> stop and rethink the whole thing they 1) lose any
> remaining bond funds; 2) lose any remaining fed
> funds and might have to pay back what's already
> spent; and 3) might end up with a bunch of
> structures that will never be used, because the
> initiative probably won't let them run Amtrak on
> it (even though they should, along with maybe some
> Z trains). Arguably, somebody might be fired or
> even go to jail for not carrying out the
> initiative's mandate.
>
> IMO, the work going on now should be completed.
> Wasco to Chowchilla, tying back into BNSF. Even
> the French HSR lines started out in the country
> and slowly moved into town as money became
> available. Then, spend the next increment of
> funding, whenever and wherever it appears, on
> dealing with the Tehachapis in some way; that's
> megaproject enough. We should have some kind of
> independent body investigate what has been done so
> far with an eye toward correcting the more obvious
> corruption - and there almost certainly is some.
> We then need to run some kind of ballot measure to
> restructure the whole mess (for which Mr. Kopp has
> to bear a certain amount of responsibility)
> allowing more realistic business and other
> planning. We owe that to our grandchildren, who
> will be the first ones to ride it, unless a
> restructured program can be made attractive to
> Brightline. Then get busy on really useful (sorry,
> Thomas) trains for the state.