Quote:
Originally Posted by william
One last note: Frankly, it would be much cheaper to build the route to Sacramento and then connect to SF on the existing Capital Corridor trains. And eliminating the LA spur to Irvine (as shown on map) could save a lot of money that could go toward the SD route.
Of course, these additions could then be built in "Phase Two..."
But LA and SF would never go for that. Their faith in later extensions is equal to mine.
|
I think you do make good points and are right to be skeptical, but honestly Los Angeles and San Francisco are, hands down, the two most important, most populous (LA metro and Bay Area), and biggest job centers in not only California but the Western United States. It really makes most sense to connect these two cities with high speed rail first. This is, according to forecasts (
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/plan/pdf/Plan_3.pdf, see table 3.2) the corridor that will see the highest volume of traffic.
You go with what just plain makes most sense first. The system, as all other high speed rail systems in the world, will start making money. Phase 1 will make the most money (see the table). Given this high probablity of success, the later extensions I think are a lot more possible than you think.
This system, if ever built, will be the single most important piece of infrastructure in our state's history. Building it in phases is the only feasible way to pay for it. The current phasing system (LA to SF first) makes most sense in terms of economics. As others have said, the more we wait, the more we'll have to pay for it.