California's bullet train could cost multiple billions dollars more than expected (San Francisco: attorneys, transfer)

[pvande55]

If through some miracle it ever gets built it will be more useful for Northern California, where commutes of over 100 miles each way to find anything affordable are common.

[Big-Bucks]

The whole "bullet train" idea was sold to voters based on many lies. What was the initial price tag? Like 33 billion. Then they came up with the sexy 98 billion dollar number. I was hearing that it's going to be more like 150 to 200 billion. Then there's the cost of keeping it going, buying the actual trains (not included), fuel, etc. If this thing were to get built then it would not be profitable. It would hemorrhage money.

To top it off, the thing is not even "high speed". That was another lie. It was supposed to get to San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes. I think it's more like 3 hours and 40 with all of the stops. People are just going to fly.

By the time they get this thing built in 40 years, Elon Musk is gonna have his hyper-loop train ready.

And why the hell are we doing this when the state of California has 453 billion in debt? State of California Debt Clock

Fortunately there is not going to be enough funding for this boondoggle. No private investors are interested and for good reason.

[V8 Vega]

There aren't that many people traveling back and forth from LA to San Francisco. And flying is faster and cheap.

[OyCrumbler]

Well, it's definitely got a lot of work cut out for itself. The US population right now simply isn't used to and is generally unfamiliar with high speed regional rail so this was always going to be a hard sell with myriad arguments for why it wouldn't work. It's a tough one.

[Cream1]

Not even the most outspoken libs on this forum are getting anywhere near this thread

[2nd trick op]

It's a creation of politics, and politics far to the left of rationality at that; no politicized project ever ends up where its proponents intended; check out a map of the BART system as proposed vs. what has actually been built.

As it stands now, what's likely to be completed is a system with somewhat higher speeds than the current Amtrak line on the East Coast, but only between Bakersfield-Fresno-Stockton; getting those lines into the end-point cities and, in the case of the southern portion, across the San Gabriels and into the L. A. Basin, still has to be addressed, though one possible redeeming factor here is that Warren Buffet (or his successors) want a new line into Southern California for his Burlington Northern Santa Fe, (a freight road) and might be willing to pick up part of the tab.

I'm not arguing for (or against) this project, nor any particular part of it; just pointing out that with this amount of money, and this far-fetched a set of horizons -- the shortest distance between two points never turns out to be a straight line.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Trump says he will spend one trillion on infrastructure, and California needs much better rail service anyway. While California may need to do more to bring the cost of construction down, the bottom line is something like this is needed.

California didn't vote for Trump, so hold your breath waiting for infrastructure money. Sad.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

There aren't that many people traveling back and forth from LA to San Francisco. And flying is faster and cheap.

^^^^ this

I live in Los Angeles and last time I went to SF must be 25 years ago. They got a tourist industry, we got a tourist industry, and I'm bored with both. I go out of state for tourism.

And what, somebody is going to live in LA/SF and commute to SF/LA? Crazy.

I can't see any use for high speed rail between LA and SF (or LA and SD) except to bulk out pockets of politicians, lobbyists and the contractors they support.

One word: pork.

[Finper]

Why didn't they do a high speed rail from LA to Nevada(Vegas)?? . I know I and all my friends would use it. People would also live in Vegas and commute here a lot more then live in San Fran and commute to LA and vice versa. Also no mountain ranges...

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Finper

Why didn't they do a high speed rail from LA to Nevada(Vegas)?? . I know I and all my friends would use it. People would also live in Vegas and commute here a lot more then live in San Fran and commute to LA and vice versa. Also no mountain ranges...

True but that train was supposed to start in Victorville and that would be considered the LA station.

Now if you can connect it to Anaheim, then let's talk...