Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Posted: 8/14/2011 8:28:40 AM EST



Tuesday, Aug. 09, 2011

   

California high-speed rail cost soars


   

   
   
   
       

       
           By ADAM WEINTRAUB - Associated Press
       
       

   














SACRAMENTO, Calif. –– Building tracks for the first section of
California's proposed high-speed rail line will cost $2.9 billion to
$6.8 billion more than originally estimated, raising questions about the
affordability of the nation's most ambitious rail project at a time
when its planning and finances are under fire.


A 2009 business
plan developed for the California High-Speed Authority, the entity
overseeing the project, estimated costs at about $7.1 billion for the
equivalent stretch of tracks. Officials say those estimates were made
before detailed engineering work and feedback from communities along the
proposed route.

The decision to start the planned
800-mile system in the Central Valley, linking relatively small towns,
has generated criticism that the project could become a high-priced
"train to nowhere." In a critical report earlier this year, the
nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's office said the rail line should start
near coastal population centers and recommended moving control of the
project from the largely independent rail board to the state Department
of Transportation.



Read more: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/08/09/1998444/ap-exclusive-calif-high-speed.html#ixzz1V1dbmIdN
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 8:33:45 AM EST
[#1]




Meh ...... as long as they get to spend other people's money they can run it from Calipatria to Amboy by way of Blythe for all they care.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 10:50:09 AM EST
[#2]
Here they are building a high speed rail line from St Louis to Chicago. It will knock off 10-15 minutes travel time from that it now takes Amtrak already!
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 10:53:06 AM EST
[#3]


Faster to get illegals up from the border.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 10:53:29 AM EST
[#4]
High speed rail between NYC and Washington DC is the only route that makes sense, particularly because you can run the trains into each city, whereas the airports are located far enough out that between getting to the airport, parking, security, and waiting at the gate, plus doing the reverse at the other end, takes longer than the flight.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:01:49 AM EST
[#5]
High speed rail ran over budget. You don't say? I never would have expected this....
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:02:14 AM EST
[#6]
Quoted:
Here they are building a high speed rail line from St Louis to Chicago. It will knock off 10-15 minutes travel time from that it now takes Amtrak already!


Well that should only cost about $1 billion per minute saved. What a deal!
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:15:35 AM EST
[#7]




Quoted:

High speed rail between NYC and Washington DC is the only route that makes sense, particularly because you can run the trains into each city, whereas the airports are located far enough out that between getting to the airport, parking, security, and waiting at the gate, plus doing the reverse at the other end, takes longer than the flight.




Here's why HSR between two points of relatively close proximity makes no sense:  New York to Washington DC is roughly 200 miles.  At 100 mph average velocity that's two hours.  At 150 mph average velocity that's an hour and 20 minutes.  There's just not enough difference timewise (40 minutes) to make it worth the extra's of billions it would take to increase that average velocity 50%.



Now consider an HSR between more far-flung cities:  Say two cities 1500 miles apart - at 100 mph AV that's 15 hours, at 150 mph AV that's ten hours.  The latter could be done on an overnight HSR and fit within the common constraints of the average business day, while the former would require taking time off work.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:35:59 AM EST
[#8]
all the better to move the proletariat around


Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:38:37 AM EST
[#9]
HSR between NYC and DC competes with air travel, not car or slower rail travel.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:39:54 AM EST
[#10]
Why would they waste the money on something like that? I mean, I know its Kali, but still.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:40:38 AM EST
[#11]




Quoted:

HSR between NYC and DC competes with air travel, not car or slower rail travel.




Okay, say it takes two hours via either airline or Amtrak.  Which one do you think has the higher infrastructure costs?  Occam's Razor applies to transportation too.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:41:53 AM EST
[#12]
Quoted:

Quoted:
HSR between NYC and DC competes with air travel, not car or slower rail travel.


Okay, say it takes two hours via either airline or Amtrak.  Which one do you think has the higher infrastructure costs?  Occam's Razor applies to transportation too.


Rail will be higher.  But the cost of tying up airspace for short range commuter travel is increasing.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:42:57 AM EST
[#13]
Sacramento and LA aren't exactly small cities.  Rail between the two probably would make sense.

The OP's headline is idiotic, not the plan.  The article is talking about one section of a rail line between LA and Sacramento.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 11:49:10 AM EST
[#14]




Quoted:



Quoted:





Quoted:

HSR between NYC and DC competes with air travel, not car or slower rail travel.




Okay, say it takes two hours via either airline or Amtrak. Which one do you think has the higher infrastructure costs? Occam's Razor applies to transportation too.




Rail will be higher. But the cost of tying up airspace for short range commuter travel is increasing.




True.  But it's still cheaper just to build a new airport or two than to build a dedicated HSR line.



The one great advantage of rail over any other transport mode is the ability to carry megatons long distances at speed.  When the rail technology is constrained to carrying passengers on short hops as it's prime MO, it loses it's competitive advantages.



One of the reasons long distance HSR might make sense is that such trains could carry freight tonnage in addition to passengers.  Package delivery (aka UPS, FedEx) and Just-In-Time delivery would be ideal freight optiosn for long distance HSR.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:02:52 PM EST
[#15]







Quoted:




Why would they waste the money on something like that? I mean, I know its Kali, but still.




The thinking is that even a wasteful, useless multibillion dollar project creates some economic gains from the construction, and presumably public officials will figure out some way to extract graft from it.  What they don't realize (or don't care about) is while the funds to build this come from the federal government (free money!) the operating costs will have to be born by the State and it will become an expensive unjustifiable burden. Nobody is going to use this thing.  California's deficit is something like $23 billion, it just doesn't have the money for this.
Wisconsin and Florida refused federal funds for HSR in their states because they know it will end up being a net loss.  CA politicians of course snapped it up because it is in competition with Illinois as the worst-governed state in the union.
 
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:03:57 PM EST
[#16]
Read between the lines.

They want this to run the entire length of the state, by doing the more sparsely populated areas first, it gives them huge leverage when it comes to condemning private property in more developed areas.

Oh yeah, guess who one of the biggest landowners is in those rural areas? The husband of a California senator. He stands to make a shitload off the state purchasing his otherwise useless tracts of desert wasteland.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:09:59 PM EST
[#17]
The point of infrastructure improvements is to Incite Regional Growth; that's why I never understood criticism of 'bridge to nowhere', or in this case, the 'rail between two smaller communities'; interesting to see the attempt at drawing a comparison with this other project in the article's abstract.

If it's easier for people to travel between these regions, people can use the system to commute to businesses for work, so they're able to find more affordable housing in smaller communities, and businesses can have greater flexibility in choosing their physical location, due to availability of labor. Not only are jobs created in building the rail system, but they're created in housing, education, gasoline, coffee shops, etc. etc. etc. - it's rudimentary capitalism.

Of course, the success of such a project depends on the accuracy of the planning and projections behind it, but the United States is far behind other countries with respect to High-Speed rail, which can be quite convenient.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:12:33 PM EST
[#18]
Quoted:
Sacramento and LA aren't exactly small cities.  Rail between the two probably would make sense.

The OP's headline is idiotic, not the plan.  The article is talking about one section of a rail line between LA and Sacramento.


The cost overruns are just beginning, if you know anything about the history of the I-105 Glen Anderson Freeway aka the Century Freeway you will have a better idea of how bad a fuckstorm the Bullshit Rail System has the potential of being.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:30:48 PM EST
[#19]
Quoted:

Tuesday, Aug. 09, 2011

   

California high-speed rail cost soars

                       
                   By ADAM WEINTRAUB - Associated Press                
   
SACRAMENTO, Calif. –– Building tracks for the first section of California's proposed high-speed rail line will cost $2.9 billion to $6.8 billion more than originally estimated, raising questions about the affordability of the nation's most ambitious rail project at a time when its planning and finances are under fire.

A 2009 business plan developed for the California High-Speed Authority, the entity overseeing the project, estimated costs at about $7.1 billion for the equivalent stretch of tracks. Officials say those estimates were made before detailed engineering work and feedback from communities along the proposed route.

The decision to start the planned 800-mile system in the Central Valley, linking relatively small towns, has generated criticism that the project could become a high-priced "train to nowhere." In a critical report earlier this year, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's office said the rail line should start near coastal population centers and recommended moving control of the project from the largely independent rail board to the state Department of Transportation.

Read more: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/08/09/1998444/ap-exclusive-calif-high-speed.html#ixzz1V1dbmIdN


LOL! The irony, calling my town Podunk and you live in Alaska. Podunk state of the Union.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:35:21 PM EST
[#20]
So which politicians have a financial interest in those towns that are being connected?
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:36:29 PM EST
[#21]



Quoted:



Quoted:



Tuesday, Aug. 09, 2011

   

California high-speed rail cost soars

                       
                   By ADAM WEINTRAUB - Associated Press                
   



SACRAMENTO, Calif. –– Building tracks for the first section of California's proposed high-speed rail line will cost $2.9 billion to $6.8 billion more than originally estimated, raising questions about the affordability of the nation's most ambitious rail project at a time when its planning and finances are under fire.




A 2009 business plan developed for the California High-Speed Authority, the entity overseeing the project, estimated costs at about $7.1 billion for the equivalent stretch of tracks. Officials say those estimates were made before detailed engineering work and feedback from communities along the proposed route.



The decision to start the planned 800-mile system in the Central Valley, linking relatively small towns, has generated criticism that the project could become a high-priced "train to nowhere." In a critical report earlier this year, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's office said the rail line should start near coastal population centers and recommended moving control of the project from the largely independent rail board to the state Department of Transportation.



Read more: http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2011/08/09/1998444/ap-exclusive-calif-high-speed.html#ixzz1V1dbmIdN




LOL! The irony, calling my town Podunk and you live in Alaska. Podunk state of the Union.


With $40 billion in the bank.  Your state's hemorrhaging $23 billion a year.



 
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:36:41 PM EST
[#22]
Quoted:
So which politicians have a financial interest in those towns that are being connected?


It would be easier to put together a list of who doesn't.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:45:56 PM EST
[#23]
Quoted:
True.  But it's still cheaper just to build a new airport or two than to build a dedicated HSR line.


Both cities that I mention already have two airports.

It's a 40 minute bus ride to go from Arlington to Dulles.

Quoted:
The one great advantage of rail over any other transport mode is the ability to carry megatons long distances at speed.  When the rail technology is constrained to carrying passengers on short hops as it's prime MO, it loses it's competitive advantages.


NYC to DC isn't a short hop.  100 minutes is short enough to allow commutes and weekend trips.  

Quoted:
One of the reasons long distance HSR might make sense is that such trains could carry freight tonnage in addition to passengers.  Package delivery (aka UPS, FedEx) and Just-In-Time delivery would be ideal freight optiosn for long distance HSR.


That's an awesome idea.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:48:17 PM EST
[#24]
.
Construction of the first stretch of tracks - as much as 140 miles from south of Merced to just north of Bakersfield - is scheduled to begin by September 2012 using $3.5 billion in federal money and an estimated $2.8 billion from the sale of state bonds approved by voters



Well, it's Federal money so that's like free Obama money from his stash.  California isn't paying for it those Federal people are.



Oh, wait, that means I'm sitting here in Wisconsin paying for that stupid train.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 12:59:29 PM EST
[#25]



Quoted:





Quoted:


Quoted:




Quoted:

HSR between NYC and DC competes with air travel, not car or slower rail travel.




Okay, say it takes two hours via either airline or Amtrak. Which one do you think has the higher infrastructure costs? Occam's Razor applies to transportation too.




Rail will be higher. But the cost of tying up airspace for short range commuter travel is increasing.




True.  But it's still cheaper just to build a new airport or two than to build a dedicated HSR line.



The one great advantage of rail over any other transport mode is the ability to carry megatons long distances at speed.  When the rail technology is constrained to carrying passengers on short hops as it's prime MO, it loses it's competitive advantages.



One of the reasons long distance HSR might make sense is that such trains could carry freight tonnage in addition to passengers.  Package delivery (aka UPS, FedEx) and Just-In-Time delivery would be ideal freight optiosn for long distance HSR.
Building a 'new airport or two' won't solve the problem. The airspace is also congested. Plus, building a new airport isn't an easy or cheap proposition, especially in places with high population densities already.





 
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 1:20:17 PM EST
[#26]
Just buy everybody their own plane and teach them how to fly.  It will be a lot cheaper and faster too!
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 1:27:51 PM EST
[#27]



Quoted:





Quoted:


Quoted:




Quoted:

HSR between NYC and DC competes with air travel, not car or slower rail travel.




Okay, say it takes two hours via either airline or Amtrak. Which one do you think has the higher infrastructure costs? Occam's Razor applies to transportation too.




Rail will be higher. But the cost of tying up airspace for short range commuter travel is increasing.




True.  But it's still cheaper just to build a new airport or two than to build a dedicated HSR line.



The one great advantage of rail over any other transport mode is the ability to carry megatons long distances at speed.  When the rail technology is constrained to carrying passengers on short hops as it's prime MO, it loses it's competitive advantages.



One of the reasons long distance HSR might make sense is that such trains could carry freight tonnage in addition to passengers.  Package delivery (aka UPS, FedEx) and Just-In-Time delivery would be ideal freight optiosn for long distance HSR.


You are entirely incorrect there. There is also no room in NYC's airspace for another airport. It is already the busiest airspace on planet earth.

 
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 2:15:29 PM EST
[#28]

Link Posted: 8/14/2011 2:55:38 PM EST
[#29]
I think one of the reasons politicians love rail is it gives them yet more control over you. With a car, you can go where you want when you want.
With a train, you go where they let you and when they let you.

Nobody wants a train as their BOV.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 3:04:23 PM EST
[#30]
From what I hear around the campfire, this thing is just about dead in the water.

Everybody, except a few retarded politicians are backing away so as not to get the stink on them.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 3:05:12 PM EST
[#31]
Light rail makes sense in cities.  I took Minneapolis' light rail when I visited almost 2 years ago from the downtown to Mall of America and back then from downtown the the airport.

High speed rail from, say, Chicago to STL, as P08 pointed out, seems silly, when you can drive there in roughly 5 hours, depending on how many gas, food, and rest room breaks you take.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 3:58:49 PM EST
[#32]
Good ole CA political logic at work.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 4:07:20 PM EST
[#33]
Quoted:


Meh ...... as long as they get to spend other people's money they can run it from Calipatria to Amboy by way of Blythe for all they care.
That is funny!. All those town listed itty-bitty towns in Calif with super small populations.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 4:13:44 PM EST
[#34]
Railroads make union jobs and Democratic voters.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 4:27:55 PM EST
[#35]
The original ballot initiative that somehow passed authorized $10B in bonds to pay for it. Funny how they seem to have burned through most of that with no end in sight. Just one more reason I'm glad we left. What a joke.
Link Posted: 8/14/2011 4:29:32 PM EST
[#36]
Monorail!


Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top