Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad
I like the idea of high speed rail in California. But its been so muddied and thrown against the wall so many times, I don't know what's true and what's not anymore. That being said, the one thing I know is true is the total price tag.
This is a serious question.
I know some sections will be viaducts and as stated above will be trenched and tunneled. But why are even the flat land sections costing so much per mile? And why is the new plan all of a sudden avoiding LA for the time being? the biggest mistake seeing how they will be missing out on 20+ million potential riders.
|
The project is so large, and funding requirements so costly, the best and appropriate method to deliver it would be in phases.
The is first because sections of long tangent track are necessary for testing trains. It also supports the need to provide a maintenance yard at relatively cheaper costs than in LA or SF areas. It also compliments political support whereas vetting extensions to north and south can be equal, if paired together.
Like you said, it doesn't compliment initial ridership and usage, which is a consequence.
IMO, too much in politics is playing a role in the planning of the system. I agree with the initial operating criteria identified in the State voter approved measure, however, not much of the later political involvement. The product will be slightly less optimal operationally and slightly more expensive - capital construction and annual operating costs.
Yes, the CHSRA blog site is good.