2 ms·

> How much do you think that costs? probably a f&cking lot. On the other hand, with the sums they're throwing away, nothing is off the table.

jcranmer 3y ago
My point is that the reason it's so expensive is largely because of who's doing the work--buying out an entire company isn't going to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done, nor is it likely to fix the issues making the project so ruinously expensive. It's just going to make it more expensive because you have to buy out an entire company on top of all the work you're doing at inflated costs.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  Two arithmetic errors there: First, it's not on top of what's planned; it's instead of. Second, the money to control UP is acquiring a profitable asset, not wasting it.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    > First, it's not on top of what's planned; it's instead of. No, it's on top of. What you're proposing is to convert an existing freight rail line that is nowhere close to HSR standards (unelectrified, low speed, and single track) to HSR standards, and combining that with some sort of freight relief line (which is a new line that is unelectrified, low speed, and single track). There is no meaningful cost reduction in that process from retaining the existing freight rail line and adding a new line built to HSR standards. You say that you are not a railway engineer. Do you have any explanation for why you think there's a cost reduction basis to buy a company, build a line to HSR standards and build a line to freight standards over not buying a company, building a line to HSR standards, and doing nothing to the existing freight line?
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      > Do you have any explanation for why you think there's a cost reduction do you have any explanation for the fact that they're NOT "adding a new line built to HSR standards?" Possibly not even in the initial Merced-Bakersfield route, as I laid out in my article. or that there is no published plan for doing it, or a credible budget? Particularly in heavily populated areas like LA and SF. Or that going through the central Valley makes a mockery of the "two and a half hour" claim that sold the plan in the first place?
      - jcranmer 3y ago
        Yes. They are actually adding a new line built to HSR standards. It's incomplete, and so incomplete that it's not useful without the subsequent phases that are not yet funded. (And the high costs you are quoting are the projected costs for the full completion of the actual viable project). There are published plans for more parts of the project. Look up the Caltrain-HSR blended stuff for more information (I don't know the plans in LA offhand, but that's partially because a lot of my sources are still salty about which pass is being used to enter LA). Yes, CAHSR costs at least 5x what it should to build (probably going to be more like 10x when you take into account idiotic decisions). But what it will deliver will involve HSR standards of track.
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        I see. So you've admitted that it'll be 10x a reasonable budget, and by going through the Central Valley it can't possibly meet the 2 1/2 hour time originally quoted. I think we're done here: over-promising, under-delivering, exactly what the conventional wisdom says. (Considering the tracks can't run in a straight line, 400 miles LA-SF is a ballpark figure. Even if the train averaged 200 mph, that'd be two hours. With stops, much more. But the projected route will be way longer than 400 miles, with more stops, and a slower average speed.) How the project ought to be done is pretty irrelevant; how it's actually going to be done, or has been done, is all that matters.

jcranmer 3y ago

My point is that the reason it's so expensive is largely because of who's doing the work--buying out an entire company isn't going to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done, nor is it likely to fix the issues making the project so ruinously expensive. It's just going to make it more expensive because you have to buy out an entire company on top of all the work you're doing at inflated costs.

AlbertCory 3y ago
Two arithmetic errors there: First, it's not on top of what's planned; it's instead of. Second, the money to control UP is acquiring a profitable asset, not wasting it.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  > First, it's not on top of what's planned; it's instead of. No, it's on top of. What you're proposing is to convert an existing freight rail line that is nowhere close to HSR standards (unelectrified, low speed, and single track) to HSR standards, and combining that with some sort of freight relief line (which is a new line that is unelectrified, low speed, and single track). There is no meaningful cost reduction in that process from retaining the existing freight rail line and adding a new line built to HSR standards. You say that you are not a railway engineer. Do you have any explanation for why you think there's a cost reduction basis to buy a company, build a line to HSR standards and build a line to freight standards over not buying a company, building a line to HSR standards, and doing nothing to the existing freight line?
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    > Do you have any explanation for why you think there's a cost reduction do you have any explanation for the fact that they're NOT "adding a new line built to HSR standards?" Possibly not even in the initial Merced-Bakersfield route, as I laid out in my article. or that there is no published plan for doing it, or a credible budget? Particularly in heavily populated areas like LA and SF. Or that going through the central Valley makes a mockery of the "two and a half hour" claim that sold the plan in the first place?
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      Yes. They are actually adding a new line built to HSR standards. It's incomplete, and so incomplete that it's not useful without the subsequent phases that are not yet funded. (And the high costs you are quoting are the projected costs for the full completion of the actual viable project). There are published plans for more parts of the project. Look up the Caltrain-HSR blended stuff for more information (I don't know the plans in LA offhand, but that's partially because a lot of my sources are still salty about which pass is being used to enter LA). Yes, CAHSR costs at least 5x what it should to build (probably going to be more like 10x when you take into account idiotic decisions). But what it will deliver will involve HSR standards of track.
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        I see. So you've admitted that it'll be 10x a reasonable budget, and by going through the Central Valley it can't possibly meet the 2 1/2 hour time originally quoted. I think we're done here: over-promising, under-delivering, exactly what the conventional wisdom says. (Considering the tracks can't run in a straight line, 400 miles LA-SF is a ballpark figure. Even if the train averaged 200 mph, that'd be two hours. With stops, much more. But the projected route will be way longer than 400 miles, with more stops, and a slower average speed.) How the project ought to be done is pretty irrelevant; how it's actually going to be done, or has been done, is all that matters.