California high-speed rail project facing more delays, higher costs

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

SACRAMENTO — Completion of California’s high-speed rail project has been pushed back four more years — into the 2030s — and the project’s costs are likely to shoot up to $77 billion, officials said Friday.

A revised business plan issued by the California High Speed Rail Authority said building the full San Francisco-to-Los Angeles bullet train line is expected to cost at least $63 billion, and $98 billion under a worst-case scenario. The middle-of-the-road estimate is $77 billion, according to the report.

The bullet train’s most recent cost estimate was $65 billion, which was already far above the original $32 billion price tag that was pitched to state voters when they authorized bond money for the project nearly a decade ago.

The rail authority said it hopes to finish the full line by 2033, a delay from the most recent estimate of 2029. It said it will focus on starting service between San Francisco and Bakersfield by 2027, and then work on the financial and technical challenges of extending the line over the Tehachapi mountains to Los Angeles.

Read more: https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-high-speed-rail-project-facing-more-12741787.php

[eissa]

1. That's disappointing, but it's sorely needed

Particularly for inland inhabitants who make the long, tormenting drive to LA/Bay Area.

[Auggie]

2. For that amount of money I bet you could add two lanes to I-5 ...

I voted against this, not because I hate rail but because local commute upgrades are needed more. BART, CalTrain, Muni, AC Transit, etc. (Bay Area).

[eissa]

4. Extra lanes are a short-term answer

Our railway system is decades behind other industrialized nations. My son was just in Europe last Summer, and they were amazed at our car-centric lifestyle, which costs citizens more in the long-run in both time and expense. You can hop on a train and travel through countries in a matter of several hours, while it take 5 hours to get from the Central Valley to LA.

I do agree that upgrades and extensions are needed for BART and other rail systems, but that's the cost we're paying for ignoring our public transportation needs for so long.

[Auggie]

6. You nailed it. We're so far behind the rest of the world. Decades, perhaps a century ...

If we're going to ignore the highways then let's improve Amtrak at least. And public transit to the airports -- most of that infrastructure is in place.

$68 to $98 billion for a bullet train? California needs major water upgrades too. The dams, aquaducts and levees are crumbling, the reservoirs are too small.

I just don't agree that spending that amount for another train is warranted. Not under the current budget system. But ... take money away from the defense budget and I'm onboard.

[eissa]

8. Your last line

If only! It’s like the holy grail — just mentioning cutting defense is like saying you want to sauté your puppy while watching ISIS videos.

[crazycatlady]

9. public transit to the airport works very well

EWR (Newark) is otherwise a shithole, but it is my airport of choice for departure because I can just hop on NJ Transit and get to the terminal.

[Auggie]

11. We're discussing the S.F. Bay Area and missed opportunities ...

[msongs]

3. the original project has been hijacked by local interests. it was supposed to be

a direct rail from LA to SF along the west side of the central valley with few stops. then it was decided to detour east through the middle of the valley to serve other cities, thus making it NOT direct and NOT high actual speed route. gone downhill from there while the cost was jacked way up

[eissa]

5. As someone in the middle of the valley

I'd argue there's a stronger need for it here. One could easily fly between LA and SF. If I wanted to do that, I'd have to drive a couple of hours to the nearest airport, make certain I'm there at least an hour prior to my flight for parking/check-in, and then take the 1.5 hour flight. Saving 30 minutes is hardly an incentive to take that route. Driving from the valley to either SF or LA has become a VERY cumbersome ordeal. As costly as this is, it would be extremely beneficial to millions in the valley.

[ansible]

7. An absolute waste of money!

So much construction delays, traffic getting worse every month because of it and nothing's even been made yet!

[gyroscope]

10. Not surprising, since the US is decades behind on HSR

the US has no significant experience building high speed rail, so the learning curve will be steep, and very expensive. Such a complex technology is not something you can learn overnight. Countries with a lot of experience building HSR have accumulated the expertise and know-how to bring costs down, something we do not enjoy in the US.

Another problem is building in a state that is very suburban and spread out like California. HSR makes more sense in a more densely-populated area such as the NY to DC corridor in the northeast. Similarly, the high density metro areas of Europe and Asia are well-suited for HSR.

[EX500rider]

12. US & European costs about the same...except for California...lol

China’s high speed rail with a maximum speed of 350 km/h has a typical infrastructure unit cost of about US$ 17-21m per km, with a high ratio of viaducts and tunnels, as compared with US$25-39 m per km in Europe and as high as US$ 56m per km currently estimated in California.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/07/10/cost-of-high-speed-rail-in-china-one-third-lower-than-in-other-countries

[gyroscope]

13. Except for California?

US and European HSR costs about the same, except California? if you count the Acela perhaps, where costs is comparable to Europe and Asia but Acela is not true high speed rail and could hardly be called such. Acela is much slower than systems in Europe and Asia yet cost as much to build. You're paying the same amount but getting a lot less for your money.

It costs twice as much in California than anywhere else, and the costs in that state will no doubt continue to keep rising - by the time all is said and done it may double yet again. Not only does it cost more but will take much longer to build than in other countries, due to politics and the learning curve of building something for the first time.

[EX500rider]

14. "Except for California?" Just quoting from the article I posted a link to.