Plan for $98 billion California bullet train relies on funding sources that don't now exist

[alp227]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

California's bullet train project will not only cost a lot more, it will also attract fewer riders, produce less revenue and won't start service unless the state finds $20 billion from federal tax sources that now don't exist, a pivotal new report released Tuesday says.

One day after news leaked that the cost of the project had tripled to $98.5 billion from the estimate voters were given in 2008, the rest of the details included in the project's new business plan weren't much prettier.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority attributes the added cost -- which had doubled in two years and tripled in three years -- to inflation, more years needed to build it and rising costs for materials such as steel and new track alignments that call for more costly tunnels and elevated bridges.

(...)

The state now hopes to gobble up billions of dollars from taxpayers in chunks to extend the first, $6 billion stretch of track in the Central Valley to either San Jose or the San Fernando Valley so the trains can start running. To do that, the rail authority hopes to get $20 billion in federal grants and tax credit bonds -- revenue sources don't currently exist -- and supplement that with $5 billion in state bonds.

Read more: http://www.mercurynews.com/rss/ci_19241126

[Journeyman]

1. I never understood why the first trains didn't run from LA to Las Vegas. . .

or the Bay Area to Reno. . .

Let the casinos underwrite the initial costs. They'd be the ones who will ultimately profit, let them be the ones to raise the needed revenues. After those runs were finished, and we had a better grasp on how much use the rails would receive (and maybe found means to reduce the costs), then we could look at expanding the system.

And hey: here's an interesting idea from the Chinese for making these systems more practical: Trains that never stop. . .

http://ebaumnation.com/2010/04/16/the-train-that-never-stops

[XemaSab]

3. Bay Area to Reno

would have the added advantage of running through Sac.

The only logistical problems that I can see are how to get over the Sierras.

LA to Vegas would be much easier from an engineering standpoint, though not from a planning standpoint.

[demosincebirth]

5. The Chinese built the RR over the Sierra's

[XemaSab]

6. Yeah, but it wasn't designed

to go 200 mph.

[JDPriestly]

9. I ride the trains a lot. The passengers are a mix of retired people

and students for the most part. They are not interested in having to stop by Reno or Las Vegas on their way to visit their kids or families at the other end of the state.

As air travel becomes more expensive (and it will), more business travelers, especially those associated with small businesses, will probably join the rail regulars and abandon airlines.

In fact, fast rail could be faster than air travel if you consider that you have to be at the airport an hour early and that you can get to, for example Union Station in LA by train or Metro rail and avoid parking fees and traffic jams.

Fast rail would be great for California and revive some of the cities and towns in the middle of the state.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. We have a word around here for contractors that cost 3 times their estimates

fired

[24601]

4. Wow - we could have had been building one in Tampa. Scott

may not have screwed that one up.

[bluestateboomer]

7. Just Build It.

This a prime example of why there are no more large visionary public works. The minute something is proposed an army of critics start complaining. Anyone who has ridden the bullet train in Japan or the ICE in Europe can see the advantages of a high speed land transport network. It will cost, but the cost of having no system will cost us economically and environmentally in the future. We will need it in the future and it will only increase in cost the more we delay. Just build it.:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[JDPriestly]

8. I thought we were in a deflationary period.

Isn't that why there where no COLAs for Social Security recipients for the past couple of years.

We really need this rail. Air travel is becoming too expensive. Airlines really can't cut corners any more, can't pay employees, especially pilots, any less and still provide safe service.

Rail makes so much sense. It would cut down on pollution and global warming if some of the electricity were provided by solar and wind power.

[TheWraith]

10. Air travel isn't expensive because of inflation, it's because of fuel.

A big jet needs a LOT of fuel, and even divided between all the passengers, most of the cost of your ticket is going to pay for gas.

[JDPriestly]

11. Precisely. I much prefer train to air travel.

The seats are more comfortable and less narrow and crowded on the train. I'm short. On the train, there is a special footrest for short people. (Or tall people if they want to use it, but it is especially helpful to short people because it allows us to relax our backs.)

You don't have to wear a seatbelt on the train. It's easier for me to get to the train station than it is to get to the airport.

I don't have to be at the train station an hour early and sit around. I don't have to go through a security check and mess with showing my ID (with exceptions) and other nonsense on the train.

I absolutely love rail. I can get up and walk around if I get tired of sitting. The luggage restrictions are not quite as severe as on planes. Although I am limited to two bags, size is not an issue. I don't have to check a large bag through.

I fly long distances, but I take trains for commuter distances. Saves choosing between a short commuter flight, a bus or a train.

I would like to have fast rail to the North of California so I could visit friends there.