2 ms·

> 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

> 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

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.