# CA HSR Costs



## Ben (Aug 11, 2011)

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2011/08/high-speed-california-costs.html

Could legislation being proposed cancel the project next year? Would that mean the $3.5 billion will be redistributed to other projects?


----------



## John Bredin (Aug 11, 2011)

It used to be in ths country that a public works project or other major program once approved stays approved. Even with the whole environmental review process that some complain about, if and when that ended for a given project with all the "i"s dotted and all the papers stamped, the damned thing would then actually be built! Similarly, Social Security wasn't repealed when Eisenhower became President, nor Medicare when Nixon became President.

Not anymore! One national or state administration gets a project or program approved by the Congress or legislature, and the next administration kills it to retroactively deny a victory or success to the opposition. (See Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida.) This is becoming like ancient Egypt, where some pharoahs would have the name of a predecessor chipped off all monuments. Or the Soviet Union, where one dictator or Politburo faction upon coming to power would have his predecessor's or its opponents's article(s) in the Soviet encyclopedia, newspaper archives, etc. pasted over to write them out of history and render them "unpersons". :huh: Needless to say, that's not a paradigm to aspire to or emulate. hboy:

Yes, I know this is only proposals at this point. Twenty years ago, this obstructionism-for-obstructionism's-sake wouldn't have gotten as far as a publically-discussed proposal. Maybe some party hacks from the newly-installed Ins would joke over cocktails about killing the Outs's pet program, but it would be seen as unduly petty for the Ins to actually float a bill to that effect.


----------



## Anderson (Aug 12, 2011)

Though I know that some planning is always necessary, it does seem that at least part of the problem is the lengthy process to get anything underway: In Virginia, it usually takes about six years (plus) to get a road improvement "on the list" for the transportation department, and I believe that we're required by the Feds to have even longer-range plans (I seem to recall requirements for things out to 2025) on the burner.

Now, while long-range planning is good and necessary, this does have the effect of providing a decade or more for opposition to crop up to a project, someone to come along and pull it off the list, etc....all the while hands can be tied at putting replacement projects into the process and/or putting in plans for improvements that were not previously expected. The problem seems to be too much planning actually backfiring...though to be fair, most of the megaprojects of the past were (I suspect) "one level" projects (that is, either state or federal projects) that didn't require keeping a bunch of governments on the same page.

Edit: I'd like to point out one problem on CA's front, namely that the state is almost broke and stuck with a massive mound of debt. That alone endangers the project unless the Feds somehow guarantee the loans.


----------



## mfastx (Aug 12, 2011)

Wait, it's only going to cost $3.5 billion? Wow, in comparison, a freeway expansion in Houston costs over $3 billion, and that's just to expand a 20 mile stretch of freeway. And we could build a HSR connecting major Californian cities at about the same price? Wow, it's shocking how cheap rail is compared to urban highway construction.


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 12, 2011)

mfastx said:


> Wait, it's only going to cost $3.5 billion? Wow, in comparison, a freeway expansion in Houston costs over $3 billion, and that's just to expand a 20 mile stretch of freeway. And we could build a HSR connecting major Californian cities at about the same price? Wow, it's shocking how cheap rail is compared to urban highway construction.


No. The California rail project is estimated to cost over $40 billion (probably way over). The $3.5 billion is the amount the federal government has granted to the project so far.


----------



## mfastx (Aug 13, 2011)

PRR 60 said:


> No. The California rail project is estimated to cost over $40 billion (probably way over). The $3.5 billion is the amount the federal government has granted to the project so far.


Oh, OK that's what I thought. That didn't sound right to me anyways, lol.


----------



## leemell (Aug 21, 2011)

mfastx said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > No. The California rail project is estimated to cost over $40 billion (probably way over). The $3.5 billion is the amount the federal government has granted to the project so far.
> ...


The FRA just obligated another $179M which makes the first leg from Bakersfield to Fresno now fully funded.


----------



## PerRock (Aug 21, 2011)

Ben said:


> http://www.bizjourna...rnia-costs.html
> 
> Could legislation being proposed cancel the project next year? Would that mean the $3.5 billion will be redistributed to other projects?


Well if it's Federal Money, it won't be distributed to other projects. It could be given to other states for their railway improvements.

peter


----------



## trainviews (Aug 24, 2011)

mfastx said:


> PRR 60 said:
> 
> 
> > No. The California rail project is estimated to cost over $40 billion (probably way over). The $3.5 billion is the amount the federal government has granted to the project so far.
> ...


Compared to putting in a new highway or massively extending an existing one for the same capaciti, it probably still isn't too bad. But that comparison is rarely made...


----------

