Well the Caltrain electrification is in one of the book ends.
The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part sooner rather than later?
The logic for starting in the middle is that it created economic assistance (as a side effect) in an area with a jobs problem. Why not start that part sooner rather than later?
And at the same time, they're doing construction in the Central Valley, which is cheaper and easier on a per-mile basis. Just wish they could find a way to do it faster though; 7 years for SJ-Bakersfield seems like an unreasonably long time.
Let's be honest, it was an important if not dominant reason for this project.
It's true that building the smaller initial construction segment in the Valley was driven by economic development concerns, but the Valley needed to be part of any sensible initial operating segment anyway, so why not start building their if the side benefits were greatest there?
This is much like the broken-window-fallacy. The reason not to start in the middle is because the middle (especially on its own) doesn't have a lot of inherent value.
Heck, if the train here (minus wages) costs more than it is worth this is a straight-up broken-window-fallacy.
Not really. Lots of projects can start out in the red and then provide more value longer-term. This is particularly true when talking about improving transit to impoverished areas.
Meanwhile... if you're going to build a high-speed line from SF to LA, why not start the project by
1. In locations which already have rail infrastructure, upgrading that infrastructure to the required standard, and
2. In locations which lack existing infrastructure or connections to the planned stops of the line, get the construction on that going
And if as a side effect it boosts the economies of the places in (2), well, that's a nice side effect. But "we were going to do this anyway, doing it in this order gets this side effect that's useful" is not the broken-window fallacy.
Plus, you know, infrastructure isn't generally built for its high profit margins; it's built because of the profit it generates in other sectors.
If you want to provide welfare to people without jobs, then provide welfare. Don't provide secret welfare and call it a high speed train.
The initial operating segment runs through the Valley to San Jose; that's pretty close to the S.F. end , and is the third biggest city in California (and the second biggest covered by the whole Phase 1 LA-to-SF alignment.)
Obviously, the initial operating segment isn't going to connect both ends, and short of doing that, where specifically would be better than the actual planned IOS?
Sure, the initial construction segment is a small section in the valley that would probably see little ridership without being connected to some place nearer to the endpoints, but the ICS is not the whole IOS.
No, the initial plan was Burbank to Merced.
Not that the initial (or any intermediate) plan is even germane to the discussion.