Economy Updated project canceled: California bullet train costs soar to $77 billion

agreed. I hear all the time about places in europe and asia being better because everything is walking distance so they dont need cars. But I enjoy the freedom to go places. I also enjoy having actual privacy with a yard instead of the condensed apartment style living so common in other countries.


True that true that.
Sometimes people are too eager to shit on usa but they don't account for what does into the differences, why they are different.
 
I'm actually surprised they havent completely abandoned this money pit. Even their scaled back version will wind up costing the taxpayers a massive fortune, money that would be better spent elsewhere.
 
I'm actually surprised they havent completely abandoned this money pit. Even their scaled back version will wind up costing the taxpayers a massive fortune, money that would be better spent elsewhere.

Sunk cost fallacy and ideology. A lot of millennials genuinely believe the only reason the US doesn't have bullet trains is because the evil republicans are preventing it from happening. Not that the population density is dramatically lower than Europe, not that the distances involved are much larger; nope, just the evil conservatives.
 
California officials always failing at something..

Cali citizens " let's move to other states and vote the same way.. this will do the trick!"
 
Sunk cost fallacy and ideology. A lot of millennials genuinely believe the only reason the US doesn't have bullet trains is because the evil republicans are preventing it from happening. Not that the population density is dramatically lower than Europe, not that the distances involved are much larger; nope, just the evil conservatives.
It’s amazing how people think that an excellent public transport is just one of those things that is just destined to happen if you’re a great country because look at Europe.
 
You keep thinking of Japan but it really is the rest of the world. You are referring to light rail for local transportation. You are telling me the big cities in America don't need a revamp in their light rail even if you don't need it in your area. Do you drive everywhere? When do you fly?

It is also embarrassing that LA cannot be connected to SF. There is no demand?
This is really what it boils down to. Cosmopolitan types who feel the need to spend ungodly amounts of money on plans that won’t even come close to covering their own costs, much less turning a profit, because they’re embarrassed that their European and Asian friends are confused as to why American transport isn’t as good as theirs.

Because we really need bullet trains to fly through Manhattan and the surrounding area, because that’s just about the only densely populated enough area to justify decent transit.
 
CA should have enlisted the help from another blue dominant state like HI who already knows how to massively fail on a rail project and waste billions in tax dollars.

Good thing the Dems could just tax people more to fund their feck ups. Thank the party of no accountability and fraud.
 
Last I heard the pinheads in Texas were going to try the same thing from Houston to Dallas

madmick mentioned "government by proposition" being part of the problem, the problem is, when these clown in office get it in their mind to build these things they don't stop until it passes.

City of Houston tried and failed numerous times to get a rail system passed to go throughout Houston, guess what they have running all over Houston now. Can't get rid of fossil fuels until you have a train for everyone to ride
 
Yeah...our infrastructure in this country is shit. We really need to invest big in infrastructure like China has the last decade. Our shit is extremely dated.
 
It's very peculiar that the state that doesn't have the culture to create the best highways(California was apparently rated as 43rd, even though having the highest basket of taxes) somehow would have the culture to create a great railway system. It's absolute nonsense. A lot of well traveled people need to realize without the proper culture you cannot create the things Europe has.
 
Yep and Japan only has one real bullet train track and it’s just now getting to the northern island of Hokkaido. So basically Japan has a single rail that can service most the major population centers with minor branch lines. It really doesn’t make sense for the USA. The USA should concentrate on passenger trains that don’t suck. Baby steps

The US seems to forget that the Shinkansen let’s you off at stations where you can get on other trains to go the final miles.
 
The US seems to forget that the Shinkansen let’s you off at stations where you can get on other trains to go the final miles.
lol this as well. You end up in major urban centers and have access to tons of trains. The USA version is basically the same as an airport. You’re there, but have no way of getting anywhere else. You need a car or Uber. There are many fundamentals lacking for this to be a success and you’re right, local train transport is a major one of them
 
Over a decade till completion? Thing is breaking 100 billion easy.
 
I live here in Cali and I'm still baffled by this failure.

what makes me most angry is how terrible the roads are and yet they want to spend billions more on a failed railroad
 
Is there an accepted point of failure known to the public here? As in, is there any accepted point where the project could just be scrapped, or is that an unthinkable and thus unplanned situation?

There is no ceiling for these severe budget overruns and no time limit for these severe construction delays, while billions are being flushed down the drain.

It wouldn't officially "fail" until its proponents concedes that its daily operation would require taxpayers' subsidies rather than on passengers fares alone, which is a requirement in Prop 1A.

Ofcourse, we all know this would be the case if/when it's finally operational.

California bullet train could end up needing subsidies, despite promises to voters

90
When California voters approved bonds in 2008 to build a bullet train across much of the state, a ballot measure promised them that future passenger service would not require operating subsidies.

State officials asserted over the next decade that their system would attract so many millions of riders that it would actually turn a profit.

Now it is debatable whether those promises will be met.

The state rail authority is moving ahead with a plan to issue a massive contract for tracks and an electrical system that would enable bullet train service in the Central Valley. But when the service starts in 2028, it would lose money that the state would absorb, according to consultants for the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

Opponents say the state plan is clearly violating promises made to the electorate.

“It defies the ballot measure approved by voters,” said Quentin Kopp, a former judge and state senator who was a key architect of the bullet train program and former chairman of the High-Speed Rail Board of Directors. “Once you establish the concept, the sky is the limit. There will be a lawsuit, and I want to be the lead plaintiff.”

The $80 billion mega-project has confronted an array of challenges in the last decade, but it now faces new political and legal tests about its ability to operate without further taxpayer support.

The Proposition 1A bond act in 2008 contained what looked like an explicit ban on subsidies, saying, “the planned passenger train service to be provided by the authority, or pursuant to its authority, will not require operating subsidy.”

In another passage, it said that if a partial segment or corridor were built, then “the planned passenger service by the authority in the corridor or usable segment thereof will not require a local, state or federal operating subsidy.”

State officials say they are not violating those promises.

Under a plan introduced by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the state wants to construct an electrified 171-mile starter system between Bakersfield and Merced by 2028 for $20.4 billion. Once the construction is completed, the state would turn over operations to a separate entity, most likely the San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority, which now controls Amtrak service in the Central Valley that goes to Oakland and Sacramento.

Business analyses of the plan by accounting firm KPMG and German rail firm Deutsche Bahn project that the service would lose about $40 million, though the losses could go as high as $90 million a year if expected investments in a new Merced station are not made. The plan includes connections with the ACE commuter system, which goes from the Central Valley to San Jose.

Proponents of the plan argue that any losses would be incurred by the San Joaquin authority, not the California High-Speed Rail Authority.

Brian Annis, the rail authority’s chief financial officer, said the idea is similar to investments the authority made in 2012 in the Caltrain and Metrolink commuter rail lines, which are also subsidized, though they do not operate bullet trains. Annis noted that the plan actually saves the state money, because combining high-speed rail service with existing conventional passenger rail operations reduces state subsidies by half.

Stacey Mortensen, executive director of the San Joaquin authority and chief of the ACE commuter line, said the issue of a subsidy should be “run up the flagpole” to get a legal opinion before moving forward. “Let’s ask the state attorney general to see how it relates to Prop 1A,” she said.

To be sure, the rail authority has consistently won the day in the state Legislature and in state courts, turning back past allegations that it was violating taxpayer protections embedded in the Prop 1A bond act. But the battles have been costly, causing construction delays and higher legal costs for the rail authority.

Authority spokeswoman Annie Parker also defended the plan, saying in a statement, “This model is allowable and consistent with the tenets of Proposition 1A.”

But others take exception to the idea.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan adviser to lawmakers, warned in a March report, “Operating subsidy expected” and asserted that a “subsidy of interim service appears inconsistent with the spirit of Proposition 1A.”

Helen Kerstein, the LAO’s expert on the bullet train, said in an interview, “We are not lawyers and in a position to opine on how a court would rule. The idea of having that language was that on an ongoing basis passenger fares would pay for the service, not taxpayers.”

A number of critics also say privately that the $40 million projected subsidy is based on inflated ridership expectations and could easily balloon out of control.

The plan is already facing more than verbal opposition.

A bill by Assemblyman Jim Patterson (R-Fresno) declares that the High-Speed Rail Authority’s plan does not comply with the prohibition of subsidies. A committee staff analysis said, “This bill clarifies the Legislature’s intent when it wrote the 2008 bond language prohibiting any operating subsidy for high-speed rail service in the state, because the most recent HSRA business plan proposes a system with an operating subsidy.”

It was approved by the Transportation Committee by a vote of 12 to 1. Committee chairman Jim Frazier (D-Discovery Bay), who has grown increasingly critical of the project’s execution, voted in favor of the bill, along with other Democrats.

“This is a signal of why high-speed rail is in such difficulty,” Patterson said. “This is clearly bait-and-switch; this is clearly a shell game.”

https://www.latimes.com/california/...may-need-subsidies-despite-promises?_amp=true
 
I'm actually surprised they havent completely abandoned this money pit. Even their scaled back version will wind up costing the taxpayers a massive fortune, money that would be better spent elsewhere.

The Democrats use it to pay off their cronies in HUGE ways with contracts. They don't care if they build the train as long as the money flows to them.
 
Holy shit, they actually are bringing this pork barrel back from the dead <Lmaoo>

 
US rails are narrow. They were built for hauling freight slowly.

Bullet trains overseas are on rails that are structurally much different than what the US has.

You simply can't put bullet trains on existing rails. You have to start from scratch.
 
Back
Top