25 ms·

As a point of comparison, consider the New Mexico Rail Runner. Length: 97 miles. Project kicked off in 2005, service for three stations (Albuquerque/Los Ranch

As a point of comparison, consider the New Mexico Rail Runner. Length: 97 miles. Project kicked off in 2005, service for three stations (Albuquerque/Los Ranchos/Sandoval) started in 2006, first phase (Belen to Santa Fe, eight stations) completed in 2008, second phase complete in 2017 with fifteen stations operational. Total capital cost: around $385 Million dollars. That’s Million…with an M. Operational deficit of about $20 Million/year that is now covered by sales tax. Folks liked it enough to pass the sales tax to cover operating losses, being viewed positively by both locals and the tourism industry. A horizontal complement to the vertical Sandia Peak Tram (4000’ elevation change, 2.7 mi length, two stations, completed in two years, opened 1966). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Rail_Runner_Express https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_Rail_Runner_Express https://sandiapeak.com/history-construction/ https://sandiapeak.com/history-construction/

jdmichal 4y ago
The New Mexico Rail Runner is 96.5 miles, 74.2 of which was preexisting BNSF track which is still shared with freight and also I believe the Amtrak Southwest Chief. There are some other segments that are also preexisting track, but they are much smaller and some was improved as part of the project so I won't even try to figure out what proportion was what there. So strictly less than 22.3 miles of new track. For $385 million.
Jarwain 4y ago
While we're making comparisons: the CHSR is supposed to be 520 miles with two tracks. It also has a lot of elevation changes; hills and mountains and valleys. This isn't to excuse the utter lack of progress made by California, but these factors Do make it a more difficult project compared to (what a cursory Google maps search shows is) New Mexico's flatter land. Or another comparison, Florida's brightline currently connecting Miami to West Palm Beach, with plans to make it to Orlando. 70 miles + 170 to Orlando. 1.75 billion across incredibly flat land, expedited by utilizing existing tracks. All that is to say, California's project as defined currently seems a lot more difficult in terms of terrain and scope. There are probably a lot of inefficiencies built in, as well as mismanagement. But it's not the most apt of comparisons, at least not to NM or FL.

jdmichal 4y ago

The New Mexico Rail Runner is 96.5 miles, 74.2 of which was preexisting BNSF track which is still shared with freight and also I believe the Amtrak Southwest Chief. There are some other segments that are also preexisting track, but they are much smaller and some was improved as part of the project so I won't even try to figure out what proportion was what there. So strictly less than 22.3 miles of new track. For $385 million.

Jarwain 4y ago

While we're making comparisons: the CHSR is supposed to be 520 miles with two tracks. It also has a lot of elevation changes; hills and mountains and valleys. This isn't to excuse the utter lack of progress made by California, but these factors Do make it a more difficult project compared to (what a cursory Google maps search shows is) New Mexico's flatter land. Or another comparison, Florida's brightline currently connecting Miami to West Palm Beach, with plans to make it to Orlando. 70 miles + 170 to Orlando. 1.75 billion across incredibly flat land, expedited by utilizing existing tracks. All that is to say, California's project as defined currently seems a lot more difficult in terms of terrain and scope. There are probably a lot of inefficiencies built in, as well as mismanagement. But it's not the most apt of comparisons, at least not to NM or FL.