California's bullet train could cost multiple billions dollars more than expected (San Gabriel: purchases, construction)

[the tiger]

This is much needed in more than any other where in the country.
https://mobile.twitter.com/latimes
https://t.co/VK9Ml6I9rZ

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Here are the big problems with this program.

Firstly, by making the (initial) northern terminus a stub (e.g. SF is at the tip of a peninsula) they made it inconvenient for the masses of the East Bay. Dumb and dumber. Secondly, by doing a completely new crossing of the Diablo Range (Pacheco Pass) instead of going where existing lines cross (Altamont) - another missed opportunity in terms of both route construction and ridership. Now for the doozy. You want to what? - tunnel through the San Gabriel Mountains? Are you nuckin' futz!!???!!!!

Bah!

[ryanms3030]

20 years from now there will still be no train but we will have a lot of rich politicians

[davidt1]

What is this train all about? The Brown payback to his campaign donors and public employee unions?

[citizensadvocate]

Ironically I was surprised to learn the projected cost of a single 400 mile CA high speed rail line is higher than the current price tag of China's 10,000 mile and expanding high speed rail system. I wonder if the project is ever going to be completed. It appears Republican candidates hate it and voters including myself who were once optimistic on the project lost interest and hope on further supporting it.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by citizensadvocate

Ironically I was surprised to learn the projected cost of a single 400 mile CA high speed rail line is higher than the current price tag of China's 10,000 mile and expanding high speed rail system. I wonder if the project is ever going to be completed. It appears Republican candidates hate it and voters including myself who were once optimistic on the project lost interest and hope on further supporting it.

Well, China has lower labor costs and does not require any public deliberation and simply uses a version of eminent domain to take land where it needs rather than go through litigation, pricey land purchases, or rerouting to less optimal paths. That the US and this project does have to deal with having to negotiate and/or face costly delays is definitely mentioned in this article. That's a huge difference. You'll notice the article has a few things--one is that the cost overrun projections are potential risks not necessarily true--it's the right thing to have an assessment that outlines potential risks but it's also too tempting to take something like good standard practice and to turn it into a juicy news bit about government waste.

It's still not a terrible idea. Not great since there are other rail projects that could have been better funded instead, but still worthwhile. A far off possibility is that if they do this adequately, then maybe the California High Speed Rail Authority and Californian companies involved then get into the business of being contracted for high speed rail elsewhere in the US, but doing this well is a pretty big if.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Well, China has lower labor costs and does not require any public deliberation and simply uses a version of eminent domain to take land where it needs rather than go through litigation, pricey land purchases, or rerouting to less optimal paths. That the US and this project does have to deal with having to negotiate and/or face costly delays is definitely mentioned in this article. That's a huge difference. You'll notice the article has a few things--one is that the cost overrun projections are potential risks not necessarily true--it's the right thing to have an assessment that outlines potential risks but it's also too tempting to take something like good standard practice and to turn it into a juicy news bit about government waste.

It's still not a terrible idea. Not great since there are other rail projects that could have been better funded instead, but still worthwhile. A far off possibility is that if they do this adequately, then maybe the California High Speed Rail Authority and Californian companies involved then get into the business of being contracted for high speed rail elsewhere in the US, but doing this well is a pretty big if.

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.

[V8 Vega]

Drill a tunnel clear through a mountain range? that's 68 billion right there.

[Ceece]

It's not more than expected, it's exactly as expected. This was never going to be anything but a money grab from the start.

[Cream1]

Originally Posted by Ceece

It's not more than expected, it's exactly as expected. This was never going to be anything but a money grab from the start.

Dems gonna Dems