http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/01/15/poll-californians-would-ditch-high-speed-rail-for-water-storage/
I wonder how many California voters even have heard about the possibility they are facing a $93 billion price tag? This thing is beginning to resemble a Pentagon weapons procurement program!
Should California wish to spend that kind of state money on it, I would be amused but have no basis to complain. However, it is inevitable that the majority of the money will be federal. If construction is to continue, some serious reforms are in order.
Please supply a source for your 93 million figure. A real source, not some pundit's claim.
I think the reason it escalated so dramatically in cost was the following in phase I.
1. Route direct into downtown San Francisco. Mega $$$ in eminent domain costs. That could have been a phase II or phase III item.
2. Not sure if phase II costs are rolled into total costs but if they are it added significant mountain trackage on the way to San Diego as well as rail North to Sacremento.
3. Should have limited the station stops more on phase I and phase II but because they are taxpayer funded they fell into the trap of trying to please large population groups along the way.
4. Not sure why they included a LA to Anaheim leg in phase I.....equally silly.
5. Aimed for 220 mph or 200 mph I heard instead of just engineering for that but sticking with a lower initial speed and bumping up the speed later.
6. Because of the 200 mph throughout the whole damn thing has to be grade and other railroad use seperated. Which means it cannot just run along the San Jose to SFO alignment, it either needs air rights or another parallel ROW, IMHO. I don't think there is existing space for it in that alignment but I could be wrong.
Poorly executed though. Should have stuck with LA to SFO through central valley and cut out the expensive city entering sections and either replaced them with lower speed. Sacrifice what maybe an hour and a half travel time but possibly $30-50 Billion in costs.
I am actually curious now what the Central Valley route saved via coastal route would have. I'll bet you that minus all the Central Valley political add-ons that the coastal route is now cheaper and faster.
CMStPnP. 1. Route direct into downtown San Francisco. Mega $$$ in eminent domain costs. That could have been a phase II or phase III item. 5. Aimed for 220 mph or 200 mph I heard instead of just engineering for that but sticking with a lower initial speed and bumping up the speed later. 6. Because of the 200 mph throughout the whole damn thing has to be grade and other railroad use seperated. Which means it cannot just run along the San Jose to SFO alignment, it either needs air rights or another parallel ROW, IMHO. I don't think there is existing space for it in that alignment but I could be wrong.
Agree. 1. The trackage in urban areas (San Jose to SF) should just use existing RoW and speeds, maybe just fixing any slow spots. 5 & 6. Aiming at 180, starting with 150 would have been much cheaper, but quite adequate. This pattern of using dedicated RoW for HSR in countriside, but using existing RoW in large urban areas works in many other countries quite well.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
This ballot measure has not made the November 2016 ballot yet so this is a little premature. When you drive I-5 to the Bay Area, you see all sorts of signs on the farms about water v. high speed rail.
Victrola1 A majority of California voters support an upcoming ballot measure that would strip funding from the high-speed rail project and divert it toward new water storage projects, according to a poll released Thursday. http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/01/15/poll-californians-would-ditch-high-speed-rail-for-water-storage/
I can't help wonder if you live in California. To begin with, service to downtown SF is obviously crucial, downtown to downtown service in a one-seat ride is a big part of the whole point.
I don't know where you get the idea that eminent domain costs will be megabucks, or indeed, any cost at all, since access will be by a tunnel to the underground station (the train box of which is now essentially complete).
Both the costal route and the Central Valley route are geographically challenging, but the CV route is shorter, which why people drive the I-5 instead of the 101. Plus, the only significant population center on the coast is Santa Barbara with a pop of around 80-90,000 while the CV has Bakersfield and Fresno, with pops of over 300,000 and 500,000 each. These cities clearly should not be bypassed. In other words, connecting the two cities of SF to LA is not the only purpose of the project.
Finally Anaheim is a city of more than 300,000 in the midst of Orange County whose population is over 3 Million. Plus the railroad right of way is there to share, requiring only uprgrading. It makes sense to extend service there.
J. Bishop Please supply a source for your 93 million figure. A real source, not some pundit's claim.
The HSR project looks like a boondoggle to me, but you can't disqualify it on the basis of a poll before a campaign is even waged. And a timely few weeks of rain between now and a ballot measure could change everything.
dakotaguy sort of ducked it, but here is the opinion piece posing as an "article." Breitbart is simply an ideological rag. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/26/california-bullet-train-dangerous-faults-raise-costs/
J. Bishop,
Estimates for this have changed several times as features have been added or cut.
The mainstream media Sacramento Bee, in a November 22, 2015 piece, mentions the $93 B as estimates of 'outside experts' who more carefully considered the cost of the long tunnels which will cross the San Andreas fault zone. Most recent 'official' cost is $68 B and assumes entry to LA and SFO over existing, relatively low speed routes, a major change in scope from the original vision of 200-220 MPH end to end. That version crept up to about $90 B at which point even the proponents started to think it might be a bit too expensive.
Mac
SFO will be entered over the Peninsular commuter line, which is why it is being electrified. The LA enterance from Palmdale commuter line proved unworkable, and an expensive new line is proposed.
The line thru the valley is straight and flat (once you got into the valley). A costal line would be endless curves and grades.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.