Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama
That's a shitty analogy and you know it.
Here's how I think and I want you to prove me wrong.
I don't know, it just seems like a gamble. What will happen is that money gets spent to build a high speed line in the Central Valley. Then, HSR dies forever because of politics and that line gets used by a handful of crappy conventional Amtrak trains which may or may not even be able to go all the way to LA. Actually, the part about going to LA seems like the biggest deal to me, after all the reason why no passenger services continue south going that way is because freight has clogged the famous railfan photo spot loopy loop route through the mountains at Tehachapi pass. A tunnel from there to Sylmar would cost 823 gazillion dollars and take 20 years because the environmentalists want to save the mountain lions or something, then fuck it all, am I right?
My question is whether or not it is worth it to tie up a couple billion on something like this, if it was at all possible to take that money and fund something elsewhere. On the East Coast where results would be immediate and would show how HSR could work, and fix the political problem.
Planning anything is a long term thing that is not for the impatient, as I have heard before. But politics change rapidly, elections every couple years and public opinion comes and goes. Attempting a megaproject in the good ol' USA of 2010 seems like an enormous waste of effort.
|
I think it's a great analogy.
As others have mentioned, to finish the system, we need every bit of track built. The goal is not a half-finishes system, it's 100%.
California has been working on this since the 1970's. Complaining at every step of the way that "it will never happen" is easy but counterproductive.
I don't understand how the east coast is even relevant, considering California voters put up 10 billion, something no one else has done.
You also say:
"On the East Coast where results would be immediate "
False. The east coast didnt even get money because they weren't prepared. Building rail is far from immediate, it takes years of planning.
I agree that I would have preferred phase 1 to be between Bakersfield and Palmdale. But it wasn't even considered because that section isn't ready, the studies haven't been finished.
Here are the reasons why it was a good choice:
-Every portion of the system needs to be built, might as well start where you get the longest track for your dollar.
-The Valley has an unemployment rate of 18%, 26% when you include underemployment.
-Very little resistance. The counties are on board, the mayors are on board, the people are on board.
-Worst case scenario, amtrak can use it.
You say:
" line gets used by a handful of crappy conventional Amtrak trains "
These "crappy" trains are the number 5 most popular amtrak line in the country. 12 trains a day (6 each way).
100,000 people a month ride the San Joaquin.
For a place where "nobody" rides transit, that's a lot of people.
Even if HSR fails, we get:
Speed increase from 79 to 125mph
Double tracking
Dedicated ROW, no freight, no intersections
=Faster speeds, less delays, ability to schedule more trains a day.
That's pretty much the investment getting thrown at Ohio, upper New York state, georgia etc. Take conventional trains and make them better.
Note: If money allows, Amtrak/Caltrans plan on adding a round trip in 2012 and another in 2013 to the San Joaquin line, for 16 trains a day.