Quote:
Originally Posted by Busy Bee
It's a par for the course naysayer piece from the LAT but I think the author meant hit in the sense of affect.
That stretch should ideally be in a trench shared with Metrolink, and the numerous arterials that were sunk under the current right of way over the years reconfigured to reconnect the neighborhoods and foster urban develop along the route. I think its a mistake to pursue the conservative approach they seem to be. Putting all that in a trench would be such a smart investment in the future. Four tracks, 2 for passing HSR and 2 for local electrified Metrolink with a modern mezzanine Glendale station spanning the trackway complete with escalators - you know like the 21st century.
|
I understand why so many prefer electric locomotives on commuter trains, which Southern California lacks and Northern California will have. But let's look at why it is different within the same state.
Caltrain will run under electric catenaries for 47 miles between San Francisco and San Jose. Caltrain owns this portion of the rail corridor in which the entire length is 78 miles, extending around another 30 miles south of San Jose to Gilroy. Caltrain budget for electrifying just 47 miles is around $1.7 Billion.
Per Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caltrain
"Cost, excluding electric rolling stock, for the first phase was estimated at $471 million (2006 dollars). By 2016, costs had increased to $1.7 billion."
Some math = 1700 million / 471 million = 3.609. So the costs has increase 360% in 10 years time. That is what has happen in Northern California.
Metolink in Southern California runs on 534 miles with 52 locomotives and 260 railcars with 7 designated rail corridors. I have no idea how much of the 534 miles is owned by them or by freight railroad companies.
if it costs $1.7 billion to electrify 47 miles rail corridor, how much would it cost to electrify another 30 miles in Northern California, and likewise how much would it cost to electrify all 534 miles in Southern California?
Keeping the math simple and assuming the same costs per mile,
1.7 billion / 47 miles = $36 million per mile
Therefore 30 miles x $36 million per mile = $1.08 billion.
Therefore 534 miles x $36 million per mile = $19.22 billion.
Remember, the average $36 million per mile figure does not include the costs of the trains.
In 2016, the latest Wiki reports numbers for, California DOT budget was $17 billion. That's every penny the state government spent of highways, trains, buses, airways, and seaways. That includes any grants received from the US DOT.
Metrolink's budget set in 2019 was $330 million.
https://metrolinktrains.com/news/metrolink-news/fiscalyear2020budget/
Caltrain's budget was $148 million (o&m) and $65 million (capital)
https://www.caltrain.com/Page5010.aspx
Where are you going to find an additional $20 billion?
If California can not find $20 billion in funding for intercity very fast CHSR, why do you think they can find $20 billion for slow commuter rail trains?
Let's not limit the argument to just funding. In San Francisco, one commuter rail line and one HSR line - both being electrified because both are using the same tracks, means 100% of these trains are electrified. But that would not be true in Los Angeles, unless all 7 commuter rail lines were electrified with the HSR line. I suppose Metrolink could electrify one line at a time, make the air cleaner one line at a time - but that would take decades to do all of them. It's harder to justify a non 100% electrification argument wise.
Prev
Linear Mode
