CA High Speed Rail Authority requests Billions to start construction (Los Angeles: neighborhoods, subsidized)

[18Montclair]

So I guess the high speed rail people are comfortable with admitting that the project is not just 40-something billion, but nearly 100 Billion?

Hence the LA Times citing that amount several times in this article.

Originally Posted by Los Angeles Times

California's bullet train agency on Thursday formally requested a multibillion-dollar appropriation to start construction next year, after dozens of people from across the state attacked the $98-billion project's cost, rationale and effects on communities.

The California High Speed Rail Authority board adopted a funding plan, which seeks to tap $3.3 billion in federal grants and $2.7 billion in state bonds to begin building an initial 140-mile segment of track through the Central Valley. That non-operational segment would run mostly through farmland from Chowchilla to Bakersfield.

The request now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown's administration and then the Legislature, where it will face tough scrutiny by lawmakers concerned about where they will find more than $90 billion to finish the system — described as the largest infrastructure project in the nation.

Voters approved the project in 2008, but critics say the ranks of opponents are growing, particularly with cost estimates for the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco leg of the system now three times original estimates.

California bullet train panel requests billions to start building - latimes.com

My opinion: HELL NO.

I dont mind speding $42 Billion on public transit projects up and down the state of California--but in its current form and under its current leadership, I believe the CASHR is a boondoggle of immense proportions and we must stop it.

If you concur, please contact the governor's office and tell him so by calling his office at (916) 445-2841

[nslander]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

So I guess the high speed rail people are comfortable with admitting that the project is not just 40-something billion, but nearly 100 Billion?

Hence the LA Times citing that amount several times in this article.



My opinion: HELL NO.

I dont mind speding $42 Billion on public transit projects up and down the state of California--but in its current form and under its current leadership, I believe the CASHR is a boondoggle of immense proportions and we must stop it.

If you concur, please contact the governor's office and tell him so by calling his office at (916) 445-2841

I disagree. The $98 billion is in 2033 dollars and assumes a higher than expected rate of inflation. The consensus response to the recently released financial plan, even from vocal opponents of the project, was that it is honest. In fact, one of its biggest flaws is it appears to have been drafted to assuage those critics by adopting worst-case cost scenarios. The plan also shows the initial operating segment will be under budget and profitable, allowing for the profits to be plowed back into the expansion of the line, and increasing the prospect of private investment. Even if the initial operating segment does not draw significant private investment by itself, its profitability justifies its completion. Certain unnecessary costs (viaducts and tunnels) in the current plan going beyond the initial segment do need to be engineered down. But calling for a stoppage is cutting your nose to spite your face, and reflexively screaming "boondoggle" does not help.

Have you considered the cost of NOT building the system? E.g. the costs of I-5/freeway expansion and increased airport gate and terminal capacity? Those cost estimates, also contained in the financial plan, exceed the cost of building HSR itself. We subsidize highways to the tune of untold hundreds of billions of dollars, and nobody ever says one damn word. The fact oil is only going to increase, perhaps exceeding $125 a barrel shortly, is another reality. Applying pressure to reduce costs beyond the initial segment, perhaps even threatening to pull the plug on its expansion, is one thing. But the current phased approach makes sense.

[DarkWolf]

Its the same with the 110 billion Northeast HSR project , inflation is factored in and infact all our projects factor in Inflation....sometimes the project doesn't even cost that....usually less then...

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Its the same with the 110 billion Northeast HSR project , inflation is factored in and infact all our projects factor in Inflation....sometimes the project doesn't even cost that....usually less then...

Which provides politicians political cover. But it also fuels political opposition. As it currently stands, the CA plan has cost problems. But given the projected build out time, they can be addressed.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by nslander

Which provides politicians political cover. But it also fuels political opposition. As it currently stands, the CA plan has cost problems. But given the projected build out time, they can be addressed.

People seem to think that its right away costs , its down the road costs....theres a difference....

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

People seem to think that its right away costs , its down the road costs....theres a difference....

Yep. This tells what we can expect as things are presently constituted (enginneers, board membership, unresoved inter-agency turf-wars), not what is needed immediately. But it does make for a lot of good screaming on talk radio.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by nslander

I disagree. The $98 billion is in 2033 dollars and assumes a higher than expected rate of inflation. The consensus response to the recently released financial plan, even from vocal opponents of the project, was that it is honest. In fact, one of its biggest flaws is it appears to have been drafted to assuage those critics by adopting worst-case cost scenarios. The plan also shows the initial operating segment will be under budget and profitable, allowing for the profits to be plowed back into the expansion of the line, and increasing the prospect of private investment. Even if the initial operating segment does not draw significant private investment by itself, its profitability justifies its completion. Certain unnecessary costs (viaducts and tunnels) in the current plan going beyond the initial segment do need to be engineered down. But calling for a stoppage is cutting your nose to spite your face, and reflexively screaming "boondoggle" does not help.

No, its a boondoggle imo and I am dead set against it becuse I dont believe it is cost effective, I believe that at the end of the day it will be totally subsidized by taxpayers, I do not believe that it has any bearing whatsoever on intrastate freeway traffic between Los Angeles and San Francisco(what a huge exaggeration), and I believe that it will take business away from an already fragile and even more important mode of long range travel-AIR.

Also, I believe their gross underestimation of the cost of this project from the beginning reaks of deception and what I perceive to be lying to voters in 2008.

I am also totally turned off by the CAHSRs arrogance with respect to totally ignoring community opinion up and down the state, with respect to running this elephant on roller skates through their neighborhoods and cities.

Have you considered the cost of NOT building the system? E.g. the costs of I-5/freeway expansion and increased airport gate and terminal capacity? Those cost estimates, also contained in the financial plan, exceed the cost of building HSR itself.

If the point is to alleviate traffic between SF and LA, then its all a waste of money because actual traffic flow btwn the two metros is NOTHING compared to the actual horrendous traffic that exists within their respective Metro boundaries.

There are other far more pressing regional issues that should take precedence over this most wasteful and unnecessary of projects.

Expanding BART and LAs Metro would be a much better way to spend our money.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

The traffic between the Bay Area and Sacto is way worse than the traffic between the Bay Area and LA. Take a couple billion and make the Capital Corridor better, and as you've noted, make local transit better.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

The traffic between the Bay Area and Sacto is way worse than the traffic between the Bay Area and LA. Take a couple billion and make the Capital Corridor better, and as you've noted, make local transit better.

100 Million Percent Agree.

I have no problem whatsoever spending tens of billions on projects that will actually have a positive impact on alleviating traffic and making transit a more viable mode of transportation for more people in urban and suburban areas.

But this thing imo CLEARLY does not accomplish those ends.

[Bulldogdad]

Take that 100 billion and turn 99 into a real six lane Freeway like I-5 and then improve the major conjestion points around the state. You can fly more people cheaper and faster from Norcal to LA.

Again its all about how you vote into office liberals. Get rid of Galgiani and her Ilk or they will continue to dream up and ram crap like this down your throats.

You cant have it both ways.