4 ms·
This would more than likely turn all of California’s rail freight into road freight (or even worse, air freight). It’d probably end up being a net worsening of
by DoughnutHole 3y ago
This would more than likely turn all of California’s rail freight into road freight (or even worse, air freight). It’d probably end up being a net worsening of emissions considering how much more efficient rail freight is than trucks.
And converting a 19th century rail network into something that can support high-speed rail is no small task. You’d eliminate the land acquisition costs, but that’s about it.
It’s pretty defeatist to abandon new rail anywhere that land values are high. It’s expensive but at least you’d have something new and useful at the end of it, rather than sacrificing an excellent freight rail system and ending up with the bad balancing out the good.
- AlbertCory 3y agoAll true, but I'll just keep saying: $100 billion and counting. 171 miles of track from Merced to Bakersfield in 2030, by which time it'll be $200 billion, probably. The scale changes everything. Intuitive arguments like yours melt away.