(01-19-2018 11:45 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

Quote:Will California's high-speed rail plan go bankrupt before the state even finishes building the first leg? Maybe, if we're lucky.

On Tuesday, the officials in charge of the massive $64 billion boondoggle were formally told what everybody with any lick of sense has been saying from the start: They had wildly underestimated the costs and woefully underbudgeted just the first stretch of train construction by billions.

The first 119-mile stretch of the bullet train project in the central part of the state is going to cost $10.7 billion, which is much higher than the original $6 billion budgeted. This is actually the second time the cost for just the first leg of the project has skyrocketed. In September, the cost of the initial leg of the project jumped $1.7 billion.

None of this is a shocker to anybody who has been remotely paying attention to this project. From the very beginning, critics who analyzed the state's bullet train plan warned that the projections were way off. And deliberately so: The ballot initiative authorizing the train's construction requires that it not demand additional operational state subsidies, so there was a pretty significant incentive for the project's proponents to insist that it would be built within specifications. In 2008, a decade ago, Reason Foundation analysis determined that the projections for the costs of both building and operating the train were off by billions.

They were right. So was the Federal Railroad Administration, which predicted a year ago that the cost of this first leg would rise to $10 billion.

And to be clear, right now there does not appear to be much real thought about how this train project can actually progress beyond this initial phase. Ralph Vartabedian of the Los Angeles Times politely understates:

It remains unclear how the Central Valley cost increases will affect the total program, which under the 2016 business plan is supposed to cost $64 billion. But the jump in the Central Valley — a 77% increase above the original estimate — suggests the authority and its consultants have vastly underestimated the difficulties of buying land, obtaining environmental approvals, navigating through complex litigation and much else.

Assuming the rest of the project saw the same budget increase, the whole project would skyrocket to more than $113 billion. And you probably shouldn't assume that the project's unexpected budget increases will scale at the same rate. The train's construction will get more challenging as it heads toward San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Or maybe "if it heads toward San Francisco and Los Angeles" is a better way to talk about the train's future. This boondoggle has been propped all along the way by Gov. Jerry Brown, who is entering into his final stretch as governor this year. He has been insistent in setting aside money to keep the project going even as more Democrats within the state have been increasingly concerned.

But as the Los Angeles Times notes, they may be a little shy about speaking too loudly. Vartabedian says Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, running to succeed Brown as governor, has declined for the past two years repeated requests to be interviewed about the high-speed train project's future.

Back in 2014, though, Newsom was more vocal and public when he reversed position. Like many institutional California Democrats, he supported the bullet train at first. But then once he recognized the costs growing out of control, he turned against it. He also said at the time that many Democrats felt the way he did, but few were saying so publicly.

That was before he announced he was running for governor, though. Newsom's acknowledgement tracks with observations by Reason's Matt Welch and former editor Virginia Postrel that the political class in California knew full well this was all a fancy boondoggle designed to appeal those who glamourized zipping across the Golden State landscape in a shiny, superfast train.

Does Newsom still oppose Brown's train project? Or, assuming he becomes California's next governor, will he dip into the $13.5 billion "rainy day" fund and the state's surplus to try to keep the boondoggle going and the pockets of the train project's crony beneficiaries lined?

http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/17/califo...train-abou

This thing was never going to work in highly populated areas where you had to move a metric sh!t ton of utilities and acquire thousands of parcels of land through purchasing at bloated rates or going through protracted eminent domain litigation.

These pols who used this are all either complete effing idiots or they were out to make fat piles of cash off of this boondoggle for their donors and lobbyists. Anyone who supported this should pound themselves in the forehead with a 2x4.

in the end, it all comes down to.......when do the dippos develop a clue what "fiscaclly solvent" means.....

I can't say "dipshite" enough.....

(01-19-2018 11:49 AM)Lush Wrote:  how did japan do it?

Easy. They started it in 1964, built it on existing rail right of ways that were designed for it, and they don't have one continual string of suburbs and barrios that run the entire length of the route. Most of Japan's population is condensed into a surprisingly few number of population centers. California, not so much.

(01-19-2018 11:51 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The crash of the "high speed" train near Seattle the other day occurred where it had to slow from 80 to 30. Slowing from 80 to 30 is not "high speed rail."

Exactly.

and it dayum sure isn't sustained 200 mph.....and even if it was, how does that make and 'cents' moving people from A to B.....

(01-19-2018 11:54 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 11:49 AM)Lush Wrote:  how did japan do it?

Easy. They started it 50 or so years ago, built it on existing rail right of ways that were designed for it, and they don't have one continual string of suburbs and barrios that run the entire length of the route.

hence, funding current infrastructure.....

building shite only yields more shite.....

ref: see china's empty cities......however, that was one helluva strategical move on their part......they're now back in the game....

(01-19-2018 11:49 AM)Lush Wrote:  how did japan do it?

No clue. Probably spent a shitload of money that Americans aren't willing to spend on it. Also probably helps when your whole country is smaller than California itself so everyone in it has a stake whereas California is a single broke state, nobody in the other 49 states gives a schit how someone gets from LA to San Francisco, and certainly aren't going to pay $100B so they can take a 3-4 hour choo choo ride as opposed to a 5 hour drive or 1.5 hour flight.

India and China are doing it the same way Japan did.


California thought they were smarter than everyone and could just create this from scratch in 2017. LOL. God bless the contractors for turning those pockets inside out. An idiot and their $$ are soon parted.

(01-19-2018 11:54 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 11:49 AM)Lush Wrote:  how did japan do it?

Easy. They started it in 1964, built it on existing rail right of ways that were designed for it, and they don't have one continual string of suburbs and barrios that run the entire length of the route. Most of Japan's population is condensed into a surprisingly few number of population centers. California, not so much.

Not sure about today but corruption and bid rigging was always frowned upon over there, but very common in public projects in the USA. I remember an employee of Toshiba (think it was them) stole technical designs, of ship or sub propeller system, from an American MFG. The CEO resigned although he had nothing to do with it. Those guys literally fall on their own swords.

(01-19-2018 11:59 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  India and China are doing it the same way Japan did.


California thought they were smarter than everyone and could just create this from scratch in 2017. LOL. God bless the contractors for turning those pockets inside out. An idiot and their $$ are soon parted.

it's why they're running scared relative to fed funding......

what a pile of dipshites.....

deflation is coming in certain areas that have ignored the obvious....

oh wellzy.....

(01-19-2018 11:54 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 11:49 AM)Lush Wrote:  how did japan do it?

Easy. They started it in 1964, built it on existing rail right of ways that were designed for it, and they don't have one continual string of suburbs and barrios that run the entire length of the route. Most of Japan's population is condensed into a surprisingly few number of population centers. California, not so much.

so, you're suggesting that california needs to get bombed?

Its already has an army of occupation.

Personally, I'd rather they use that money to fix that dam that broke during that massive flood. But, I guess that's too simple. If they want a bullet train let the companies pushing this to foot the bill.

Between gas tax and the California carbon credit nonsense, they are going to spend every dine they can.

(01-19-2018 12:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 11:54 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 11:49 AM)Lush Wrote:  how did japan do it?

Easy. They started it in 1964, built it on existing rail right of ways that were designed for it, and they don't have one continual string of suburbs and barrios that run the entire length of the route. Most of Japan's population is condensed into a surprisingly few number of population centers. California, not so much.

Not sure about today but corruption and bid rigging was always frowned upon over there, but very common in public projects in the USA. I remember an employee of Toshiba (think it was them) stole technical designs, of ship or sub propeller system, from an American MFG. The CEO resigned although he had nothing to do with it. Those guys literally fall on their own swords.

And the article hinted at a lot of the problems. They kept having to redesign it to keep the local communities happy (i.e. payoff every NIMBY and environmental group in a state FILLED with NIMBY and environmental groups).

(01-19-2018 09:02 AM)Lush Wrote:  do you all think that high speed rail is a bad idea to begin with, or just the way it's currently being approached?

It's the approach that is making HSR a bad idea. The goal is to find a transport option that can fit neatly in between the 200-500 mph sweet spot that Bullet mentioned. When coupled with the fact that even in the NE Corridor, the outlaying areas are just as important as the the CBD, you realize that the idea just won't work here. This isn't to say such that said gap can't be filled, just not with trains.

IMO, this is the area where self driving cars should be focused on. Get the ROW alongside the Jersey Turnpike or even the air rights and build a roadway that is exclusively for automated vehicles that can travels up to 150 mph. It has on/off ramps just like regular expressways thus negating the multiple train stop issue the California's system is facing and you can have turns off to the CBD for buses to produce the train effect that many urban planners fantasize about.

(01-19-2018 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 10:50 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 10:28 AM)bullet Wrote:  Airports are nearing capacity.

Agree, that is part of where the money should be going.

Address this problem the way Europe is. Privatize them. Airports, air traffic control (like Canada), TSA. Privatizing means that capital can be deployed based upon demand, not politics.

I'm only for privatization in order to get the Air Traffic Controller system the US needs. But apparently small private flyers are willing to stonewall anything new if it means their users fees will increase.

That said, only some of our airports are at capacity, most are implementing new construction to deal with this demand*. But the way we travel, specifically the hub and spoke system is also needlessly concentrating that demand.

*Excepting the NYC area, where the Port Authority is content to wallow in incompetence, graft and degrading facilities.

NO ONE is surprised by the information in that article. Project supporters have been lying or truth-avoiding in an effort to make the project look viable. Project detractors have been saying for years how impractical this project is. The pro formas are unrealistic. They've "saved" cost by using some existing Amtrak (i.e. not high speed) tracks. They fast tracked a small section in the middle of BF Egypt to get the state pot committed.

The good news is that the project is counting on 1/3 of its funds coming from the Feds and so far Congress has been unwilling to provide more than a few billion. Hope that keeps up.

(01-19-2018 05:25 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(01-19-2018 09:02 AM)Lush Wrote:  do you all think that high speed rail is a bad idea to begin with, or just the way it's currently being approached?

It's the approach that is making HSR a bad idea. The goal is to find a transport option that can fit neatly in between the 200-500 mph sweet spot that Bullet mentioned. When coupled with the fact that even in the NE Corridor, the outlaying areas are just as important as the the CBD, you realize that the idea just won't work here. This isn't to say such that said gap can't be filled, just not with trains.

IMO, this is the area where self driving cars should be focused on. Get the ROW alongside the Jersey Turnpike or even the air rights and build a roadway that is exclusively for automated vehicles that can travels up to 150 mph. It has on/off ramps just like regular expressways thus negating the multiple train stop issue the California's system is facing and you can have turns off to the CBD for buses to produce the train effect that many urban planners fantasize about.

Interesting idea.

Now on the trains, the stations are invariably close to the CBD and that is more important for travel than the suburb the airport happens to be located in. As they are closer in, they save time over driving to the airport. In Houston-Dallas, there will be a station at Loop 610 and US 290 in Houston, a Grimes County station midway (to service Texas A&M and Sam Houston St.) and a downtown Dallas station. There is also a separate plan to have a station at DFW Airport and downtown Ft. Worth.

(01-19-2018 09:02 AM)Lush Wrote:  do you all think that high speed rail is a bad idea to begin with, or just the way it's currently being approached?

At this point it's almost unnecessary with the proliferation of low-cost and ultra-budget airlines tying together so many cities in regions of the country where rail is feasible in theory. Rail's best use usually is to remain local if the market calls for it, though in most cases it does not and is impractical to implement by this point for many cities where it would otherwise make sense (e.g. commuter rail in Houston).