 |
Re: I Agree with Quentin ... Not at All-What Are Our Real Transportation Needs?
Author: mook
Date: 03-30-2013 - 14:35
HSR that concentrates on the SF-LA market isn't part of a transportation system - it's an attempt to put SF-LA shuttle flights out of business at great public expense. I think it's telling that SWA never mounted a real campaign against it - given the provisions of The Proposition, they probably knew it wouldn't happen (unlike the proposal they killed for HSR between Dallas and Houston). The Proposition did at least get some people thinking about what CA needs in terms of future transportation.
I agree that Bak-LA is the key gap in the current passenger rail system. I agree that if funding were unlimited Tejon Tunnels would be the best way to go for through traffic. Where I differ is in whether that's reasonable at startup, especially if it's tied to a nonstop BA/LA straight run that provides no useful service to the Valley. CAHSR has a realistic budget, finally, and a straight-thru wouldn't cost much less with Tejon Tunnels. If you assume a $60B budget, straight-thru would use about 1/2 of that to get over (through) the Tehachapis and into LA; 1/3 of it to get from the SJV into SF or at least SJ; and the rest in the Valley. Ballpark. CAHSR's line isn't really cheaper because it still has the BA/SJV tunnels (there's no practical alternative - even Altamont would need serious tunneling); what they save in tunneling by going through Palmdale is spent on the extra line length (though getting some Palmdale traffic and connecting with XW mitigates that a little bit); and the Valley segments will be more expensive because they're longer and have to get through some towns (chiefly Fresno and Bakersfield). So it's a tossup for cost, CAHSR is realistically slower (would probably not achieve 2:40 - maybe 3:00 or 3:30 for express which is still plenty fast), but CAHSR would serve several more markets than straight-through thus meeting more transportation needs and having a little more potential for covering operating cost.
The other difference is that CAHSR can build something with the original money, which can be used for equipment development (225+ trains are not "off the shelf" even if some exist) and Amtrak and possibly BNSF while waiting for the rest of the line or if the rest goes toes up. $6-8B isn't enough to even start scratching the ground for Tejon Tunnels let alone the rest of the line that's needed to make them worth it.
Not that it matters: The Proposition was written such that neither option can meet its terms, so really it was just a $2B transit funding and Visioning program if the courts read it the way QK wants them to. You need access to $30-40B (over 20 years or so) to make a realistic start.
BTW, the present incarnation of JB hasn't appointed a lot of judges, and most of the ones he appointed in his prior round are retired or nearly so. The judges in the system now are from the govs in between, only one of whom shared some of JB's outlook (Gray). I don't see much potential for excessive deference to the current Administration.
I agree that Bak-LA is the key gap in the current passenger rail system. I agree that if funding were unlimited Tejon Tunnels would be the best way to go for through traffic. Where I differ is in whether that's reasonable at startup, especially if it's tied to a nonstop BA/LA straight run that provides no useful service to the Valley. CAHSR has a realistic budget, finally, and a straight-thru wouldn't cost much less with Tejon Tunnels. If you assume a $60B budget, straight-thru would use about 1/2 of that to get over (through) the Tehachapis and into LA; 1/3 of it to get from the SJV into SF or at least SJ; and the rest in the Valley. Ballpark. CAHSR's line isn't really cheaper because it still has the BA/SJV tunnels (there's no practical alternative - even Altamont would need serious tunneling); what they save in tunneling by going through Palmdale is spent on the extra line length (though getting some Palmdale traffic and connecting with XW mitigates that a little bit); and the Valley segments will be more expensive because they're longer and have to get through some towns (chiefly Fresno and Bakersfield). So it's a tossup for cost, CAHSR is realistically slower (would probably not achieve 2:40 - maybe 3:00 or 3:30 for express which is still plenty fast), but CAHSR would serve several more markets than straight-through thus meeting more transportation needs and having a little more potential for covering operating cost.
The other difference is that CAHSR can build something with the original money, which can be used for equipment development (225+ trains are not "off the shelf" even if some exist) and Amtrak and possibly BNSF while waiting for the rest of the line or if the rest goes toes up. $6-8B isn't enough to even start scratching the ground for Tejon Tunnels let alone the rest of the line that's needed to make them worth it.
Not that it matters: The Proposition was written such that neither option can meet its terms, so really it was just a $2B transit funding and Visioning program if the courts read it the way QK wants them to. You need access to $30-40B (over 20 years or so) to make a realistic start.
BTW, the present incarnation of JB hasn't appointed a lot of judges, and most of the ones he appointed in his prior round are retired or nearly so. The judges in the system now are from the govs in between, only one of whom shared some of JB's outlook (Gray). I don't see much potential for excessive deference to the current Administration.
