# GAO Report on CAHSR



## The Davy Crockett (Mar 30, 2013)

Although the GAO report on CAHSR has not been publicly released yet, Politico is reporting that:



> The lack of a dedicated funding stream and the austere environment on Capitol Hill make securing an additional $38.7 billion in federal money for California's fast train line in the coming years "one of the biggest challenges to completing the project,"


Politico goes on to report that:



> GAO estimates California is relying on the feds delivering about $2.5 billion annually starting in 2015, when leaders say the fast-train program will require the next federal infusion.


and that:



> "The largest block of expected money for the California project is uncertain," GAO concluded.


On the plus side, according to Politico:



> The report contains generally favorable reviews of the California High-Speed Rail Authority's business plan, ridership and revenue forecasts and says that California has demonstrated a "strong economic case for the project" - including job creation benefits and expanded job access to workers.


Politico also says the report finds the 'staged approach' being taken for the project is a good stategy.

The report was requested by House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, who had this to say:



> "The authority's plan is irresponsible and reckless, and that is why I am developing legislation to stop more hard-earned taxpayer dollars from being wasted on California high-speed rail."


hboy: Oh, boy! hboy: 
I suspect we will hear more about the GAO report in the days, weeks, months, etc.,etc. ahead.


----------



## Texan Eagle (Mar 30, 2013)

The sheer HUGE amount of money that CAHSR is supposedly going to need, I have wondered this since long, was it ever considered to construct a conventional moderate-speed dedicated passenger line connecting San Diego-Los Angeles-Sacramento/San Jose-San Francisco that could have been constructed for much less and still be quite useful?

SFO to LAX is 385 miles via SJC and I-5 corridor, that's almost as much as PVD to WAS on NE Corridor. Shortest trip PVD to WAS takes 7 hrs with a bunch of stops. Considering there'd be barely 3 or 4 big towns in the mainly empty I-5 stretch, a similar run at NE Corridor speeds can be done in about 6 hours or so, isn't it? Google Maps shows driving time is 5 hr 47 min, plus you'd take at least one gas/restroom stop so its 6 hours plus traffic. Would not a 6 hour train gather enough passengers to be successful? Putting two electrified tracks in the median of I-5 for most of the route, and elevated/underground close to city centers on both ends, I'd guess, would still cost considerably less than the eleventy gazillion dollars that CAHSR is supposed to cost.

Does it absolutely have to be 3 hour running time for SF-LA train service to be successful?


----------



## Blackwolf (Mar 30, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> The sheer HUGE amount of money that CAHSR is supposedly going to need, I have wondered this since long, was it ever considered to construct a conventional moderate-speed dedicated passenger line connecting San Diego-Los Angeles-Sacramento/San Jose-San Francisco that could have been constructed for much less and still be quite useful?
> SFO to LAX is 385 miles via SJC and I-5 corridor, that's almost as much as PVD to WAS on NE Corridor. Shortest trip PVD to WAS takes 7 hrs with a bunch of stops. Considering there'd be barely 3 or 4 big towns in the mainly empty I-5 stretch, a similar run at NE Corridor speeds can be done in about 6 hours or so, isn't it? Google Maps shows driving time is 5 hr 47 min, plus you'd take at least one gas/restroom stop so its 6 hours plus traffic. Would not a 6 hour train gather enough passengers to be successful? Putting two electrified tracks in the median of I-5 for most of the route, and elevated/underground close to city centers on both ends, I'd guess, would still cost considerably less than the eleventy gazillion dollars that CAHSR is supposed to cost.
> 
> Does it absolutely have to be 3 hour running time for SF-LA train service to be successful?


Doing what you suggest, a dedicated passenger-only rail line on the same routing as the CAHSR, would garner the _exact same_ opposition and claims of "Boondoggle" as we have right now. And it would still cost billions and billions of dollars, especially if it were built as an electrified route. So, you're not going to save anything by doing this; the saying "Go Big, or Go Home" comes to mind. Do it all the way, and have it be a true World-Class HSR route, or don't do it at all.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## George Harris (Mar 31, 2013)

Texan Eagle:

There is very little to no difference at all in the cost of building a mile of track whether for 110 mph or for 220 mph. When it comes to following I-5, that is the talking point of one of the major groups in opposition to the current plan. I-5 is essentially straight except crossing the Grapevine. It also misses Fresno, Bakersfield, and does not even go to San Francisco. Fresno with just short of a million people in the urban area can hardly be defined as a "big town".

To build a passenger only line for a lower maximum speed would cost nearly as much as the current planned railroad but provide significantly lower service quality, and in a very few years look like an incredibly shortsighted and downright stupid decision.


----------



## Trogdor (Mar 31, 2013)

Texan Eagle said:


> Shortest trip PVD to WAS takes 7 hrs with a bunch of stops.


???

The Acela does it in six hours.


----------

