Time to stop letting contractors charge so much...
1
Consider the follow statistic - the Chinese economy poured more concrete in a recent three year period than the American economy had used in the previous 100. No wonder the former head of US military forces in Europe predicted last October that there would be war with China within the next 15 years.
Corruption exists everywhere but the major difference between corruption in China and corruption in the United States is that in America corruption, politicians on the payroll, incompetence, and stupidity are all mostly legal and an established mode of governance. We enjoy the finest democracy that money can buy.
6
It's too late to build something like this. It's no longer the wild undeveloped West. Virtually all of this land is in private hands, developed and expensive. To take it all would cost a fortune and tons and tons (literally in paper) of litigation.
5
The thing reporters outside of California seem to underestimate is that we love our cars in California. If not cars, we fly. The initiative voters originally approved for this project years ago was heavily promoted with the promise of most of the funding coming from the Federal government and more jobs for Californians. That's why people voted for it; not because we love trains.
I'm confident that the right huge infrastructure projects can still happen in California, such as water reclamation in Los Angeles.
3
America and California is certainly capable of building big, that’s not the question despite the title of this article. The question should be - Can America build smart and efficiently. Building something big that nobody wants or needs is the opposite of smart. Building something that will end up costing over $80 billion is inefficient.
5
A train, from San Francisco to Los Angeles, was always an expensive boondoggle. The money could be much better spent on upgrading local rail systems which would aliviate hellacious commutes...
4
The problem is that in the West, distances between cities are so great. Europe and the Northeast are more compact. The distance from LA to SF is farther than Paris to Amsterdam, while Boston to Washington is only 50 more miles.
7
California will see the birth of its high-speed rail system, despite envious naysayers and habitual skeptics, because thriving at the leading edge of achievement and innovation is what California does. As Lyin' President Trump and his retrograde followers watch the world pass by in their rear view mirrors, we will forge ahead into the future. Indeed, the future has often appeared on our doorstep, and we have always welcomed it. High-speed rail is no exception.
4
The California HSR project was hobbled by politicians from the start. Ronj Diridon and Medi Morshed were appointed to the commission for political reasons, proposed routs were changes to satisfy the wishes of developers. Diridon got a station named after himself in San Jose, where he helped design an almost worthless transit system. Morshed was behind rerouting the system from SF, Stockton Modesto, to the 101 route, across to Los Banos, and then across wetlands to Merced, with a station planned north of Los Banos where several acres had options on them by a wealthy eastern developer. In the south the route was originally planned LA to San Diego, a very heavily traveled commute route served by I5. The HSR builder from the Netherlands gave a seminar. But the Orange county firm Tudor-Salida was chosen as prime contractor, the same company that was responsible for major cost overruns and delays on the LA transit system. In the meantime the retrograde GOP has made it their policy to be obstructionists to any mass transportation improvements. HSR takes about the same time as air travel up to 500 miles, 300KM is common. It is also far more environmentally friendly, a 737 uses 750 gallons an hour. Priority should be Sacramento to Bay Area, Bay Area Stockton, Modesto, LA San Clemente, LA San Bernardino. These are the most congested routes. There are more factors such as commute times and family disruption, the make HSR a good choice.
7
Why is this project failing? The total cost for 500 miles of track is now estimated to be $99 billion dollars. This works out to be $198 million dollars per mile. Seems a bit impractical to me.
7
@Stephen Scott And, as any New Yorker knows, that "estimate" is guaranteed to skyrocket over the years.
4
The USA can’t build big when corporations and American oligarchs pay minimal taxes.
6
We need to get out of our cars and airplanes. This project should have been built decades ago. And our government should be subsidizing clean transportation. We pay billions for roads, so why not trains?
5
The federal government must take the lead in building infrastructure that will take people out of their cars & put them in mass transit.
1
The article suggests the dominant obstacles are excessive environmental regulations (for a train designed to reduce traffic in single occupancy automobiles) and lawsuits.
There seems to be a moral to this story.
2
Everyone rants and raves - "if china can do it in 23 years, what is wrong with the US?"
In China, the only decision voice is the communist party. The hourly or daily wage is determined (pennies) and if you don't like it you can leave or maybe even go to jail. It was built on slave labor.
That aside, the lands confiscated and the environment trampled had no opposition; that is not allowed. In the US, especially CA, environmentalists can stall a project indefinitely. Lastly, and perhaps most important, when the voters agreed and voted for it, it was supposed to be $45 billion; with heavy subsidies coming from DC. Now it's more than twice that and nothing is working or done yet. How come?
4
"California’s High-Speed Rail Authority, which is running the project, was established 23 years ago. During that time China has built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail." The Communist government of China has been killing it with their infrastructure build for the past 40 years. Will all the infighting and lawsuits by anyone and everyone, and if CA can't build it, give up already because no other state will be able to do it. America is riled with lawsuit happy people.
5
@N Sih
And the worst of them are the environmentalists.
3
The California High Speed Railroad project made no sense to me at all when announced. It's quite easy to get from LA to SF via air travel and the time time is longer. Plus LA and SF are sprawling cities with no central business core unlike NYC or DC.
Why do these projects cost so much? Project Labor Agreements which guarantee the maximum labor cost and management by a government entity. They are spending you money not theirs. Best of all, who is going to take one of these trains from Bakersfield to Merced? Certainly not the local population which is largely poor,
3
@Bill W San Francisco is hardly a "sprawling city. " It is seven miles by seven miles with its major commercial areas occupying about a third of that area. This project is poorly planned and borders upon being fantasy to the extent that it proposed linking San Francisco with Los Angeles. Linking Bakersfield with Merced (two rural communities in the Valley noted for turkeys and oil) makes absolutely no sense. The airlines provide adequate service in the SF-Los Angels/Orange County corridor.
4
Hello. What We Need is Inner City Light
Rail and to the airports. The New Tappan
Zee Bridge aka Mario Cuomo was designed to
Have Light Rail connecting Westchester to
Rockland County ??? What Happened
What about a subway connection from
Manhattan to LaGuardia Airport?? I say
Tax the 1 percent to the teeth to pay for
These projects.
1
How about the governor doing something about train service between San Diego and LA. To say it's not high speed is quite the understatement. My last trip to LA took 6 hours and 5 minutes to cover the 116 miles from SD's Old Town Station to LA (much of the way there is only one track). At one point the train was traveling parallel to a road and a guy on the bicycle was going faster than the train. It's mass transportation in the dark ages. I fully expect to see Jaime Lannister, in full armor, come down the aisle on one of these trips.
18
@Paul T
Actually I might have been the guy on the bicycle. The Amtrak and coastal train share a SINGLE TRACK in places such as San Clemente coast. The bike path crosses the tracks in several places making for some real adventure. You never know which direction the train is approaching.
I’ve heard the coastal to SF (Oakland) is a real Wild West show. The snow train to Tahoe (Truckee) took about 6+ hours. I could drive in 3-4.
4
Barcelona to Paris: 600 miles in a little over 6 hours with multiple stops. Reasonably priced. California GDP exceeds both France and Spain. Airports are crowded and difficult for many to navigate. Interstate 5 is a parking lot on most Holiday weekends. California needs an alternative, efficient transportation option. High-speed rail needs to be built. The mistake was the failure to create a "vision" and the inability to adhere to a realistic but optimistic timetable. SF to San Jose; Oakland to Sac; LA to San Diego; LA to Vegas. People see the immediate utility of HSR.
7
Where is Robert Moses when you need him? The problem is that there is nobody willing or able to cut a path of destruction down the Peninsula from SF, and something similar on the LA end, the way Moses did through the South Bronx.
1
@PSP
No need. There is existing multiple track rail in use up and down the peninsula to SF. Also the SF Terminal center box cut was constructed underground during the downtown post quake reconstruction. On the other side there’s little multi story housing or heavy infrastructure in the right of way to LA as there was in the Bronx.
1
Good gracious!
California High Speed Rail was not about being unable to "think big". It was the epitome of "thinking bad".
From the outset, it was a project doomed to failure because it tried to be all things to all people and all regions with impossible parameters and voodoo economic models. And I say that as someone who has supported passenger rail for 40 years.
The distance between SFO and LA is at the furthest distance, 400 miles, of viable high speed rail lines with only small population centers in between. And yet, the planners came up with a circuitous route that added roughly 100 more miles. "Roughly" because even when they began building, the full route had not been determined.
Even with ridership estimates that begged credulity, CHSR would have never returned even the interest on its cost, let alone any principal of operating costs. And the initial segment was a route from nowhere to nowhere - which would have had laughable ridership.
And to accomplish of all this, CHSR would have had to have speed exceeding the French TGV on a brand new, untried system. One that had trackage through urban areas with limited speeds and over mountain ranges, also with limited speeds. Such that on the straightaways, the trains would have had to travel at light speed.
California could have had high speed rail if they had had a direct route and an initial section paralleling I-5 in the West Valley. But now, high speed rail will be dead for at least another generation.
5
If it is such a great idea, leaving the EU, vote again, and let the people say again that they want to leave.
The Brexit people don’t like the idea of a second vote, because they know that they won’t be able to fool the people a second time.
1
Special designated “infrastructure zones” should be drawn wherein the usual culprits of delay are dealt with. Impact statements should have a time limit, along with jurisdictional and bureaucratic snafus. “Time is of the essence”
is written into most real estate contracts. Infrastructure projects need to get out of the poirk barrel and fast tracked as public emergencies.
Once the “infrastructure zones” prove their worth they can be expanded to include the rest of the country. Another map of highly sensitive environments can be overlayed as special permit only zones.
2
Traffic in the Bay Area is a nightmare. The critics of the project focus on the fact that it's easy to fly from LA to SF. So what? The number of counties that constitute the Bay Area is constantly expanding, and this train would help take people from those counties directly into the SF financial district (currently the Cal Train goes only to 2nd and King, which is far away, requiring you to get on another bus after that to get to the financial district). I think killing the project seems weak-kneed and short-sighted. I miss Brown; he had the gusto to stand up for things he believed in and see them through as much as possible. Newsom seems like a hack by comparison - someone who just parrots whatever is popular in the moment, governing by the daily weather report.
3
The California HSR project was hobbled by politicians from the start. Ronj Diridon and Medi Morshed were appointed to the commission for political reasons, proposed routs were changes to satisfy the wishes of developers. Diridon got a station named after himself in San Jose, where he helped design an almost worthless transit system. Morshed was behind rerouting the system from SF, Stockton Modesto, to the 101 route, across to Los Banos, and then across wetlands to Merced, with a station planned north of Los Banos where several acres had options on them by a wealthy eastern developer.
In the south the route was originally planned LA to San Diego, a very heavily traveled commute route served by I5. The HSR builder from the Netherlands gave a seminar. But the Orange county firm Tudor-Salida was chosen as prime contractor, the same company that was responsible for major cost overruns and delays on the LA transit system.
In the meantime the retrograde GOP has made it their policy to be obstructionists to any mass transportation improvements. HSR takes about the same time as air travel up to 500 miles, 300KM is common. It is also far more environmentally friendly, a 737 uses 750 gallons an hour.
Priority should be Sacramento to Bay Area, Bay Area Stockton, Modesto, LA San Clemente, LA San Bernardino. These are the most congested routes. There are more factors such as commute times and family disruption, the make HSR a good choice.
1
As long as we have the humongous military industrial complex, and give away huge tax breaks to corporations, we will never have any money for anything worthwhile.
2
USA is not China. Using high speed train construction to compare the two nations is misleading, given diverse factors such as population density, political system, cost structure, etc. Nevertheless, there is still the overall impression that the "Yes we can" spirit is diminishing in USA while rising in China.
Take the development of 5G for example. China caught up with 5G, now leading the technology. How does USA respond to it? Bring Huawei down by any means: apply threats to other 5-eye countries, spread innuendos among EU countries, arrest Huawei founder's daughter with the help of Canada, etc. Such is not the behavior of a confident nation. PEW survey result shows the rest of the world does not have much confidence in USA either. It is a long term trend.
@Observer: I couldn’t of said it any better than you have stated; I put high speed rail up there with the things like going to Marz anytime soon; except for the science it’s purely a waste of resources. I think we should think seriously about high-speed rail and maybe even hire Chiner to build it, then I’d get done right as long as we managed it (or supervised carefully), the building of this HS rail. I’ll go to Disneyland before I really want to take a ride on the high-speed rail, like I did back in 86 fr the south of France, or the south of France to Paris.
Anyone who believes that Trump can build his big beautiful wall after reading this should get his/her head examined. We can't build anything in this country any longer. Everyone sues. The property owners. The bird lovers. The environmentalists. The "anywhere but here" crowd. The list could go on forever but the fact remains that every lawsuit takes up time while the construction prices increase concurrently.
Thank God we don't have a colony on the moon. Residents there would be suing to stop rockets from flying over their dwellings.
3
Just remember, kids—as with Christie’s submoronic rejection of those tunnel and improvement projects for NYC and Jersey, at some point this’ll have to get done.
And it won’t get cheaper.
Pay me now, or pay me (much more) later.
6
I spent decades traveling China, Japan, Taiwan and Europe on business. Do you know why those areas were able to build high speed rail?
Because 75 years ago they were devastated. No infrastructure existed after the war. It became a blank canvas to build upon
In China I have watched decades of road building, tunnel and bridge spans and high speed rail building. What’s the common factor. The government doesn’t care what the people want. They take the land, move their people out and build. No lawsuits, no environmental statements. They build.
And their government, such as it is, remains in place for a decade or more. Now do I want China’s government...no way....but it does get things built
5
Clearly, Communist China could plan and manage the project and get it done early and under budget. It doesn't make me happy to say this. Far from it.
The facts and truth are that WE can learn much from China without accepting all the bad stuff from its authoritarian capitalist system that has a well-earned horrific human rights record internally and seeks to sabotage liberal democracies everywhere, including Australia and New Zealand (and the United States). Successful Asian democracies refute its core narrative. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Hong Kong, are examples.
It's complicated. Certainly we can learn something useful from our adversaries and reject the rest.
3
it might be revealing if someone were to figure out how much of the money spent on this to date has gone into the pockets of lawyers...
8
Of all of the ambitious infrastructure projects that would be worth funding in this country- offshore wind power arrays, Gen III and Gen IV power plant prototypes, tertiary water treatment plants, riparian restoration, cisterns and pumped-storage reservoirs, upgrading the power grid, etc.- a high speed rail project in the middle of California is at the bottom of the list. It just isn't that urgent. It's questionable that it's even worth doing at all. There are more effective ways to address the multiple array of problems found in the economically depressed parts of California. The construction of a high speed passenger line that includes Fresno as a stop is hardly a guarantee of its economic revival.
Unfortunately, each expensive failure of an ill-conceived public intrastructure project undermines the future prospects for all of them- even those that address urgent problems with projects that are well planned and capably designed.
2
The good news we can take from this article is that the Horizontal Trump Tower proposed for the Southern border will never be built.
1
Hey, don't be so pessimistic.
Californians will still have a high speed bullet train linking Bakersfield to Merced, 100 miles away.
2
What municipality built The Transcontinental RR?
Commercial freight, not passenger traffic, moving coast to coast, could really improve efficiency with fast trains, so why not incentivize The Burlington, etc. to build a fast train network. All good things can happen with free markets & capitalism...as Lincoln knew (but The Times doesn't!).
Best...PJS
2
‘Scuse me, but the Transcontinental Railway only happened because of the massive land grants, guarantees of right-of-way, and 6% government bonds that Lincoln signed into law in 1862.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts#1862_Act
I don’t so much mind that right-wingers don’t know anything. But given that it took me less than 15 seconds to look this up, I really get tired of your refusing to learn.
And if we’d done the same with this rail project—exactly the same!—it’d be built by now.
See also Space-X, which has gov contracts and uses government launch sites and tracking facilities.
5
"If California can’t build it, who can?" Easy. How about any state without an insane thicket of needless environmental rules?
3
If politicians focused upon need instead of federal $$, the "bullet train" would have had a much greater chance of success. CA's bullet train failed because they began at what should have been the last phase. It may have succeed if it was implemented in these phases:
Phase I connecting the SF-Bay area to the Central Valley, serving a current and dire need.
Phase II connecting the Los Angeles metro area with the Central Valley, serving a current and dire need.
Phase III connecting the Central Valley terminus of the SF-Bay line with Sacramento, a logical way to begin connecting NO & SO CA.
Phase VI connecting the terminus of the LA Metro line with Bakersfield, also a natural way to connect NO & SO CA.
Phase V connecting both Central Valley termini to complete the system.
Rather, those in charge decided to begin at the end, rather than the beginning. The proposed line to be completed will connect two, essentially rural towns, with small populations, low housing costs and virtually zero traffic.
As politicians are wont to do, they recklessly sell the "pie in the sky" dream without the necessary due-diligence. The result is wasted tax dollars and canceled projects.
There are many feel-good, "pie in the sky" dreams being promoted by a new generation of naive politicians. We can expect a lot more wasted tax dollars and shattered dreams.
3
Years ago in my city, the public zoo was in desperate need of infrastructure repair and expansion. Local officials saw the perfect marriage of the Zoo facility and large tracks of abandoned steel industry land that had now fallen onto the public tax rolls as back taxes accumulated. The Zoo board of directors jumped in enthusiastically. In the mean time, silently, local politicians and their friends bought up as much of this old industrial land as they could hoping to make a killing on its resale when the funding for the project was put in place. Time went on and a big press conference was called by the Zoo Board and everyone expected an announcement of the start of the Zoo expansion but shock of shocks! The Board announced that it had to scrub the expansion project because land costs were much higher than anticipated and were beyond the scope of requested funding. I think we got a new monkey house and a elephant habitat repair but a new world-class zoo was never to be. Greed is not always good.
4
I wish articles such as this would hearken back to the numbers (equated in today's terms) of the great projects of our past. What was the total cost of the Eisenhower National Interstate system? The Hoover Dam? Etc. It would be nice to have a perspective based on historical experience.
I doubt either of those marvels could be constructed today in the face of our litigious citizenry.
I've been the victim of imminent domain twice in my life. It hurts, and yet I realize life goes on, and hopefully the changes made are for the betterment of everyone.
2
@Bill
Just looking it upon line one finds: “The final estimate of the cost of the Interstate System was issued in 1991. It estimated that the total cost would be $128.9 billion, with a Federal share of $114.3 billion. This estimate covered only the mileage (42,795 miles) built under the Interstate Construction Program.”
As for Hoover Dam, “The Hoover Dam was finished in five years -- two years ahead of schedule -- and cost a $49 million, which is worth under $750 million today.”
Our current regulatory systems would probably multiply those figures by a factor of 10, at least.
5
Given the catastrophic changes that are all but certainly coming our way due to climate change, this project doesn't make sense.
In January, the Pentagon submitted a report to Congress detailing the risks to 79 key military facilities due to increasingly severe weather, flooding and drought resulting from climate change.
Reinsurers, the institutions that insure the insurance companies, have all moved past "what if?' and are soberly calculating "what then?" (See the Wall Street Journal article from 10/2/18 titled 'Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate')
This is real. This is happening. The future's here. We are it. We are on our own. What we do, and don't do, matters.
The production of concrete, and steel, are mind-bogglingly carbon intensive. And, given the amounts of those materials required for this project, how many of us could even begin to calculate the total carbon footprint? And for what, a slightly quicker ride from almost- San Francisco to almost- Los Angeles?
Instead, how about high-voltage transmission lines for wind- and hydro-power from the naturally blessed abundance of Washington state to the population centers of California?
This project doesn't make sense, and that matters.
1
Can the SF and LA regions tax themselves to raise funds to connect to the Central Valley HSR system? If I recall, LA voted to tax themselves $120+ billion to fund regional transportation projects. Why can't HSR be funded similarly?
To all the comments saying this train is unnecessary due to the airport infrastructure - that is short-sighted. Airports have limited capacity and we don't need hundreds of daily flights to city pairs that can be reached in a few hours via train. That airport capacity could be better used for more long haul flights.
Also, I doubt California's population will plateau at 40 million. Think about 50 years from now - it could be 60, 70, 80 million. Unless you raze entire neighborhoods for new airports, I don't know how the current system of airports and future expanded freeways will absorb the travel demand. High Speed Rail is visionary and will connect all of California's major cities in a few hours. It should get built as soon as possible.
5
The governor made a wise and difficult political decision.
Where will the riders in LA come from? There isn’t adequate public transportation there to feed riders into the high speed rail.
Build up regional rail first in LA and improve the Bay’s. Grow the ridership on the regional rail and then pour the money into the now abandoned project. The work done isn’t a total loss, some of it can be used when the project is resumed.
There are 1000 freeways in California and none of them alleviates traffic. Instead, take one half of say the 101, part of the 5, or any number of roads and just build over this. There are plenty of other routes to absorb these ones partially gone, and it will be painful for a while but if that's what it takes and Californians want lower emissions it's the only way.
2
@Stephen
"Instead, take one half of say the 101, part of the 5, or any number of roads and just build over this. There are plenty of other routes to absorb these ones partially gone."
Clearly you are not from LA. Also, the key about freeways within cities is that they have frequent exits. If you have frequent exits on your rail line, it's not high speed rail, it's light rail. But any 5-second look at a map of LA will tell you why LRT doesn't get much traction: You still have to get "inland" to the final destination a mile or two off the freeway. Try doing that with two kids and bags from the shopping trip you just did.
And if you're meaning just erase half the lanes from the rural stretches of the 101 or 5 you're still ignoring the routing questions and the cumulative effects of closing lanes on things like, trucking. And you're still getting stuck with environmental reviews even on the land CalTrans already owns.
1
"The places where high-speed rail has been most successful, Mr. Summers notes, in Asia and Europe, are more densely populated and therefore more conducive. America is a largely suburban nation where most commuters drive to work alone. “America is the land of sprawl,” he said."
High-speed rail isn't meant for commuters. It's meant as an inter-city mode of transportation. It was was originally proposed to go from San Francisco to Los Angeles. It should have followed the coastal train route already in place, though that would have required some tunneling. Other countries can do it. It's perplexing that the US and California, in particular, are unable to.
4
To understand the importance of this project, you need to look back at the economic development from past infrastructure projects. Go back 125 years and look at how Boston and New York City changed when they build their subway systems. Would they be the same cities without the subway? Go back to the 1960's and 1970's and see how the country changed as the interstate highways were being built. It seems like every off-ramp created new economic development that could not have been foreseen during the 1950's planning stages. Built at a cost, in today's terms, of over $100 billion, we seemed to be able to build it back then, so why not now? You can't judge this in its effect today but in the potential that it could bring well into the future. Will there be population shifts when developers build housing near the rail stations for people who can't live close to the cities the line will serve? What economic growth will happen 100 miles away from a city because it's now only a 30 ride back to the city? Remember the old saying, "If you build it, developers will come".
2
Even with tremendous operational subsidies, the assumption was trains would depart each way between LA and SF, every five minutes, 18 hours a day, with 80% of the seats full, even though it would be faster and less expensive to fly. Right.
Now $33 billion over budget, at least 15 years behind schedule, and no path into urban SF and LA, it’s a no brainer to kill this debacle.
2
Anyone who has ever been to France, Germany or Japan surely understands why this project was begun, and needs to be finished in a timely manner. California has the world's 5th largest economy, yet people act like it's a backwater. (And/or that air travel is everything.) Xenophobic, libertarian, idiotic. And Gavin Newsom should be ashamed of himself.
3
I applaud the fact that the first segment in Fresno is going to get built. America could use a project that speaks to its soul right about now. Once Fresno has it people will want it across the state. No one wants to be the poor cousin. 2022? Three years is nothing, and thanks to the wisdom of former Governor Jerry Brown California is sitting on a formidable budget surplus.
Regarding the outcry over cost, I understand it is hard to describe how amortization over the lifetime of a project like this works. Most people don't even understand credit card interest, but even over 20 years the project is a bargain. Compare the following:
LA METRO
108,017,525 riders in 2018
105 miles of track
28 years old
$12.3 billion (best cost estimate based on wiki data.)
BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)
124,000,000 riders in 2017
122 miles of track
46 years old
$9.5 billion (in 2018 dollars)
Did I mention how much I hate Atherton? The selfish nimby brats cost the State $600 million in phony legal delays. We could have built 20 brand new middle schools for that.
2
Being from New Jersey, I can sympathize with dismay over a governor's decision to instantly cancel a project that has been years in the making. What's worse is that this governor followed Jerry Brown, and is (supposedly) a democrat. I've spent my life wondering when we'd get our act together in this department. We already have plenty of land across the country in the electric grid, and that land alongside power lines is an untapped resource. A sad day indeed. I hope he lasts one term.
2
As the article states, the Califonia state coffer is flush with cash these days. Perhaps a bit too much is spent on various social programs, aid for immigrant families, etc, and not enough on real concrete items that will grow the economy in the future.
Even if the project costs $200B, in the end it will be worth it. The gasoline and aviation fuel saved by consumers in California will be tremendous, and that will continue year to year far into the future. California roads and airports are very congested, and this is the only logical way to relieve traffic here. If nothing else, this train can serve as a prototype for linking other parts of the nation together in a network. This is something that should be thought of on a fifty year horizon.
1
@John
Flush with cash, yet unfounded pension liabilities are hundreds of billions of dollars. Total state debt may be around $1 trillion. Lots of spending for today but at some point it’s going to come crashing down.
5
I have a feeling that those opposed to high speed rail have never experienced it in China, Japan, or Europe. City center to city center without arriving 2 hours early and flexibility to buy a seat at the last minute are huge time savers.
The problem is not an inability to dream big, but the xenophobic "not invented here" attitude of our majority, who then easily exploit our legal system to obstruct progress.
1
Yes, California leads the nation in good government, budget management and surviving catastrophic natural disasters - no other state comes close - however, building a high speed rail is not the example the rest of the states need in rebuilding their neglected, decaying and often poisonous water systems, actually all underground pipelines throughout the country, except perhaps CA, need to be replaced. However, we all know, or should know, that Trump's cancellation of federal funds for this rail has not anything to do with infrastructure - it's all about Ms. Pelosi's Democratic Party and her expertise as a leader, which infuriated him - so he is hitting back, as is his wont.
Invest in electric cars, the solar, wind and tidal power plants to power them and rebuild the crumbing roads that carry them.
And if you want to ride the rails, take a trip on the Durango to Silverton narrow gauge RR with their nifty little seam locomotives.
1
this project was never about making sense, it was about us californians thinking we were above economics and that our you know what doesn't stink...
2
My wife worked on the engineering side of this disaster for a while. She was ecstatic to get out. When you play in a mudhole, you come out muddy. She thought the engineering decisions made by upper management.
3
"California’s High-Speed Rail Authority, which is running the project, was established 23 years ago. During that time China has built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail." The fact that comments are implying that we have no need for this silly project when the rest of the world, including our main allies, figured out how to make this work years ago should be embarrassing for us. More specifically, we should be embarrassed that we are not investing much more time, effort and money into the actual literal future of travel. We're closeminded and insisting that technology invented 100 years ago is still the best way to travel. We're sitting in traffic for three hours a day to make a 40 mile round trip. It's a joke. We're killing our own productivity and efficiency by being afraid of improving and changing our national transportation system.
5
I have to laugh at all the comments from non-Californians who so stridently ridicule California. We are the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world. The movers and strivers in American move to the West Coast while the complainers stay in their safe cocoon. Texas is joining us not because of the native Texans but because the movers and stivers are moving to Texas too.
1
@Jeff
Well then the movers and shakers can pat for the HS RR system. Based on my visits and this article, it doesn't sound like their are a lot of "movers and shakers" in the Central Valley who could even afford to take this train.
1
How old fashioned! The US isn't really a country of "builders" anymore. But, hey, do you need some lawyers? We've got you covered there! Hello! Any countries out there need more lawyers? Anyone? No? Well... if you do... we're happy to help.
But yeah, we've outgrown the whole "building roads and rail and airports" thing. Our grandparents built them for us and they'll surely last forever and ever and ever, giving us more time to focus on lawsuits and media scandals!
1
Having spent all of my engineering career working on projects of all sizes, I can tell you that a large project requires large leadership. They don't work when they're driven from the top by a group of legislators. They have to be driven by community leaders via the legislature.
Here in Minnesota we recently witnessed a large and expensive fiasco when the State decided to upgrade its motor vehicle software. As predicted, the technology problems got moved to the back burner, and the political problems were moved to the front burner. By 'politics', I mean who gets the jobs, who gets the fat, and who gets to flex their egos. The tollgate vigilantes will always put their own numskull in charge of a large project, and so the whole thing languishes.
In California, people like Elon Musk brag a lot (vis-a-vis his tunneling machine), but are nowhere to be found when it comes to putting skin in the game and his own neck on the line.
32
When the Iraq War began, with US involvement, it was not much trouble raising ultimately several trillion dollars for an ill advised involvement with a nation on the other side of the globe. It was clear that many domestic matters would have to be placed on hold to foolishly demonstrate US military might. Sacrificed were our domestic needs including health care reform, educational funding and very clearly, infrastructure spending. With the leadership of George W Bush, we got no return for that expensive effort.
Now we are really paying for it, giving up on priorities that have some potential to improve our nation. Seemingly, we don't learn from this type of experience, with more worthless military engagement, and building walls that are primarily political statements, while we let our nation fall into further disarray. Thousands of bridges are in an advanced state of neglect, modern rail amenities that other nations have up and running, sit incomplete or on drawing boards.
Forty million people have no medical coverage.
We have no sense of priorities that will shape our nation, economically or socially in the future.
7
@Eric S: Best comment I've read in a while, this should be a NYT pick!
2
It’s going to get built. There’s no doubt in my mind.
There are no engineering or scientific hurdles. It’s all long proven and existing technologies. California plows billions yearly into existing highways with incredibly marginal benefits and builds privately owned toll roads which are toxic and environmental land use disasters.
BTW, one major, if widely unnoticed, successful project was the extensive earthquake reinforcement of every bridge in the state.
The only real detriment is the Newsom-Trump plague of small mindedness.
2
@macbloom
Isn’t it true that the actual engineering and development of a sound plan for tunneling along the route in seismically risky areas is far from solved? Sounds like a hurdle to most.
2
@George S
Beg to differ. For example the BART rail tunnel runs eight miles under SF bay in a seismically active region. California is no stranger to many types of tunnel bore and open cut construction.
1
I travel to China frequently. The high speed network there is a blessing. The journey from Beijing to Tianjin used to take 2-3 hours by road. Now you could do it in 30 minutes. We used to fly Shanghai to Beijing which is 3 hours in the area but an indeterminate time of the ground due to scheduling issues. The first generation high speed train was 5 hours, now its been cut to 4. The service is excellent.
When I read about how China is stealing American IP, I have to wonder how much is really commercial protectionism and trickery to cut out a nimble competitor. Maybe you should steal some of theirs!
3
Americans have become far too selfish, politically and personally, for the sacrifices often needed to "build big." Projects of size require funding, vision and mundane things like property takings through eminent domain. Lots of people want to take. Not many want to give. We see that in multiple arenas in our society and it bodes ill.
3
If we have the public spirit for big projects, why don't we do something that has more than a trivial impact on the environment - build some nuclear power plants and subsidize the excess costs over natural gas. This would inevitably happen with an inter-city rail system, but at least it would do some good for far more people.
1
The article should have more specifics like the estimates of the number of people who would use the train and what the fare would be.
I suspect that the government would be providing a subsidy for every passenger from the the day the first train ran until the day the last train stopped.
Would the passengers even cover the operating cost?
Would it be more effective to spend the money on commuter rail where it would serve less wealth people and each passenger that was taking the train rather than driving would be a passenger 5 days a week?
2
The problem isn't the lack of ability to deliver, it is that infrastructure projects have become increasingly determined by politics and not good policy or data. This particular project was a text book example of such.
4
If they figured out what was the cheapest complete level stretch to build, and just completed that segment as a test, the rest would get built.
Same thing in the northeast, if there was a fast train from NYC to Philadelphia that took 45 minutes, people would be building those tracks down to DC, and back up to Boston in no time at all.
1
Its hard to believe that one speech could halt the bullet train in California, but here we are.
Whether or not one thinks the bullet train in California is a good idea, and I happen to think it is, there are many reasons why it is taking so long and the cost has increased so much. The central valley wanted a piece of it and so the original route was changed. This also made the negotiations for land acquisition more difficult, and time consuming. Farmers want compensation for lost revenue, not just compensation for the land. Sure in China 16,000 miles of high speed rail have been built, but it is a very different political system. Here everybody has a say, so maybe this is one of the reasons why big infrastructure projects have such a hard time getting built.
Its hard to see what the future could be when one is stuck in the present.
7
@ktcrowe
Here we now believe we can somehow (and must) please everyone; in China they need only please high Party officials.
1
If California wants to spend $48 to $90 billion on infrastructure improvements to benefit the highest number of citizens, the highest return on investment would be to build a legitimate mass transit system in Los Angeles.
9
How about converting what's already been built to a solar electric generating facility? Plenty of sun in the Central Valley, isn't there? Just overlay that elevated concrete slab with solar panels or maybe there's some new technology to try out.
1
While I would love to see high speed rail networks in the US that rivals the networks of France, Japan, and China, it's not going to happen. Much the same is true for urban transport -- while NYC and the Bay Area struggled to make minor enhancement to their local systems, Delhi has built out a complete Metro system with 10 lines and more than 140 stations (35 underground), all since 2003. It works *really* well.
This reader does not believe that America can still build big. I'm personally convinced that today's US would not have been able to gain government approval and public support for the Manhattan Project, the Interstate Highway System, or the early space program that led to the moon landing. They would have been sunk by political infighting and by budgeting fights. Can you imagine the Environmental Impact Report just for I-95?
Similar issues lead to our failure to invest in education, in maintaining our infrastructure (among other things), and addressing the issues that affect climate change. We've fallen behind in electronics and manufacturing, too, and will become increasingly dependent on the advances of countries that are investing in their own development.
13
We desperately need this project, there is nothing on the east coast that is as horrible as trying to get through LA by driving, the Amtrak trains are PACKED all the times, the route is very very well frequented, and will only become more so as population in Ca. co ntinues to increase. Newsome is NOT a transportation guy, he already said he wanted to use transportation funds for something else, an idea that ignored the fact that his intention is illegal. So much to the pain of all of us that Newsome is starting out on WAY the wrong foot.
and anyone who says take a plain from SF to LA, I say, no thank you, too polluting, too hectic with stressed overprivleged humans all fighting for attention. Never, no planes for me. And a LOT of other people. We need the bullet train. .
6
@grace thorsen
Well California has the option to pay for the project if it want it. No one has told them to stop other than the Democrat Gavin Newsome who actually seems to have a shred of common sense as compared to Gov. Moonbeam. Wait till the next recession..CA will be in big trouble since it relies very heavily on personal income taxes and capital gains paid by the wealthy.
This project was too ambitious. It cost too much, and at 2 hours, 40 minutes travel time its advantage over air was not compelling (especially if TSA got its claws into the boarding process).
It would have been better to have started small: Los Angeles to San Diego. There is more traffic, no mountain ranges to cross, and with a distance of 120 miles the travel time could have been less than an hour, essentially the gate-to-gate air travel time.
5
America can still do big infrastructure projects, but it must be on projects that clearly provide benefits for the dollars, such as expanded airports, better and new highways, etc. The problem here is rail. It simply does not work economically for our country’s population density, not to mention the average American’s desire for autonomy in his own automobile. Even here in densely populated Honolulu, a few mile rail project has caused strife and has gone way over budget. The money would have been better spent fixing the roads, more public benefit for the buck.
4
$98 billion is insane.
In Texas, maybe they could do it for $10 billion
2
Preening, Self-absorbed California. earnestly believing in its own intricate Smoke and Mirrors Mythology.
High Speed Rail......once a futuristic Disneyland dream so carefully constructed at Disneyland circa 1960s.....that really "california cool" monorail thing.....that pretty much does nothing useful in America......land of the free roaming automobile.
Now we have Silicon valley Robber Barons.... massing huge estates for themselves and having the enslaved california natives maintain it for them in the best California Mission traditions.... want a Federally Funded plaything called High Speed Rail......70billion dollars worth of Federal Gravy.......at least 12 times more gravy than Trump wants for his Wall.....after all California already has their small portion of Border re-inforced with big walls, military guards, and beefed up security technology.
California Uber Alles.
The DNC/Tammany Hall Machine rules like supreme lords in California
2
Might want to call the Chinese. They probably can fund it too. We should get something for their thievery in Silicon Valley.
1
Why don't we fix the third world mass transit systems we have now before we waste money on boondoggle projects that don't make economic sense? The New York Subway system would be a good start.
2
As everyone with a household budget knows, you can't afford to buy everything unless you're Jeff Bezos. The ruling faction in CA which is the Democratic Party needs to understand this. If you want to build/remediate infrastructure you cannot take the position that cost is no object when it comes to social welfare programs including support for undocumented "guests". The only solution they ever come up with to this issue is suck the taxpayers dry. The Democratic liberals who also control NY and NJ also share this dilemma. Is this one reason why last year NJ led the nation in more people moving out of the state than moving in?
5
This project has been misguided from day one. A high speed train from SF to LA is not necessary. Due to our existing airline infrastructure, that journey is already fast and cheap. The goal of high speed rail must be to get workers from the x- burbs up to 100 miles out to their jobs in the big cities in less than one hour. That will help ease the traffic snarls and the high cost of housing currently crushing CA. A one hour commute from Sacramento to SF/SJ would be a huge win! A fast train ride from SF to LA merely a boondoggle.
58
@Rick B not getting me in a plane, and a LOT Of other people. It's expensive and stressful and you can't change your plans once you have booked and paid. NO, many many many of us want trains. Need trains, for that matter. So open your mind - not everyone is exactly like you, there is as much diversity in america as the whole earth, so providing diverse options for travel is a no-brainer. No need to be predjudiced or disparage those who neither want to fly or drive. For that matter, there should be good walking biking trails fro LA to SF. Why not? WE can only accomodate planes and cars? ridiculous.
48
@Rick B
Airlines are fast and cheap and absolutely destructive to the environment. A train that goes 150+ mph (which is current technology) and isn't subject to weather will be faster from SF to LA--and exponentially better for the environment. We simply are years behind our competition.
22
@Douglas
We don't compete anymore in infrastructure , we just dropped out. Our transport system is very worn, unchanged for 50 years.
Fast passenger rail has changed the lives of the many millions living in E & A , as Americans have discovered when visiting abroad.
Our current form of Gov. , as pointed out in several posts here, is obsolete with its pecking order of agencies that put emphasis on political correctness solutions ahead of real civil engineering needs that are passed on to the 'next' bureaucrat in line.
It all needs to change and will only happen when people elect a Natl. admin. that is aware of things like infrastructure demise.
5
Considering the average age of our current rail infrastructure, I can see where it would make sense to start from scratch to build something with the required technical intricacies of high-speed rail. Furthermore, interrupting established Amtrak routes could financially hurt that already-challenged institution.
In general, I find it very peculiar that a desire to “make America great again” did not include, from the beginning, a well-thought-out, national infrastructure plan. The more I see of other areas around the world, and what they are doing with infrastructure, the more I feel that America has fallen far, far behind. We may not presently have an event like the Great Depression to pull us together, but that does not mean that we cannot rebuild our nation by sheer will alone. Bureaucracy and a lack of a national, cohesive will appear to be our downfall.
6
With the corruption of men like Trump who have billions and set the prices and increases for all the projects I believe are the only ones to blame. Why the GOP supporters can't see they are the problem is very sad.
4
@D.j.j.k.
This project predate Mr. Trump by 10 years. The prices for this project are essentially set by the big unions who then give campaign contributions to the politicians who promote the project. Typical labor rates on projects like this exceed $100 per hour including benefits.
This article highlights just how far we have fallen when it comes to infrastructure. Just this morning, I pulled from my bookshelf, the construction of Hoover Dam, which during the Depression was constructed in unbearable desert heat, and involved negotiation and cooperation between the states for water rights and usage. The dam was built and completed two years ahead of schedule, and under budget, and remains today, one of the amazing engineering feats in this country, that delivers hydropower, water for irrigation and flood control.
In 1956, the Federal Interstate Highway Act was passed under the Eisenhower administration, and approximately 41,000 miles of limited access highways were constructed, between the late 1950s through the 1970s.
Since then, it seems that America has lost its "mojo" when it comes to large public infrastructure projects. A new rail tunnel is needed between New Jersey and New York, to relieve pressure on the 100 year old tunnel that funnels Amtrak and New Jersey Transit trains into New York. The old tunnel leaks water from the Hudson River. Political infighting has so far killed the project.
When I see the progress other countries have made with high-speed rail, and compare them to ours, we are so hopelessly far behind. The political will that occurred
in earlier times seems to be missing now.
10
New York City and Boston have horrible subways that can't be fixed, how could we even tackle something like the train in California with all the land use issues? We have a blank check to destroy and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan but we can't even help ourselves.
5
Environmental-reviews, regulations, union demands, enough said.
3
@EAH small minded non-visionary luddites who can't see the forest for all the trees, enough said.
1
In New York we have the new Goethals and Tappan Zee. And a story in the Times today lauds the new LaGuardia airport. It can be done.
1
@Jim T
Those are projects that have a purpose and needed to be rebuilt. California HS rail has no practical use other than to create jobs. A good comparison would be the $4,0 Billion downtown NY transportation center. It clearly cost far more than any sane person would pay but who cares...it's not their money,
Don't worry. The robot cars will save us.
2
Generally speaking, I support infrastructure projects because of their multiplier effect across the economy.
So, let's stop this one and instead institute a major desalinization effort to secure drinking water for the future.
BTW it is not just America that is losing its mo-jo. Just look at the disaster that is the new Berlin-Brandenburg airport.
1
If California was actually serious about this, it should have been designated as an "Environmentally Damaging" project, paid everyone in it's path double the 2015 assessed value, and just done it. If you want to make a pot pie, you gotta kill some chickens.
As it is it's looking more like Superfund 2.0
4
We need high speed rail in California. If anyone doubts it, they should come here and try driving from Sacramento to San Jose during commute times.
7
@Momo The Altamont Commuter Express does much of that route, using over-100-year old rights of way. For a tiny fraction of the SF--LA high speed rail cost, it could be upgraded to run at 100 mph (not 160 mph, but good enough for that shorter route) and double-tracked for frequent service in both directions.
There is already a disused second roadbed over the hills.
High speed rail has failed in California, to the detriment of its economy.
Large scale, high-wage, good-benefits job creation (Amazon) has failed in New York, to the detriment of its economy.
See the pattern?
Never forget the first rule of Presidential elections, the rule created by a Democrat that got Trump elected, despite his vile character and personality.
James Carville’s focus on “economy, stupid!” elected Bill Clinton in 1992, unseating a sitting Republican President.
3
@MR OMG! "High speed rail has failed in California to the detriment of its economy." Are you serious? California has recently moved from the 7th largest economy in the world to the 6th largest. I guess if our high speed rail project had been a resounding success we would move to the 5th largest economy in the world.
Yes, the list of infrastructure fiascos around here is truly depressing. I cannot think of a single major project that has NOT come in over-budget, over-schedule and falling apart.
To name a few: a new bay bridge span that is rusting in place; an old bay bridge that is shedding concrete blocks; a brand-new transport terminal with cracked beams after 6 weeks; a high-rise that is leaning towards Pisa; a pathetic little subway that won't even reach Fisherman's Wharf; on-again off-again ohforgetaboutit water diversion tunnel/s; local toxic clean-up that didn't; I could go on. Then there's BART that was a miracle 50 years ago but I doubt they've even swept the floors since then...
Just embarrasing.
4
The California high speed rail project went off track when the decision was made to align the project with heavily populated Highway 99 instead of Interstate 5, where the existing right of way is ample and the route between SF and LA is far more direct.
5
I'm a big supporter of transit and infrastructure, but this project, as planned, makes no sense. First, it's a San Jose-LA line. There will be no real HSR to SF, nor is there planned capacity. San Jose will not deliver significant ridership. Second, the route through the Central Valley makes no sense. It needs to serve the densely populated coast, rather than take odd detours to
score political points. Third, they're building the most useless segment first, so it's easy to drop the project in its early stages.
3
@Osito The coast is not densely populated, largely because of its forbidding terrain. There are only small towns between Santa Barbara (hardly a metropolis) and San Francisco, and San Jose isn't on or near the coast.
Fresno, Bakersfield and Modesto far outrank any town on the coast. And going up the Central Valley naturally leads to an extension to Sacramento.
@Jonathan Katz
A quick visit to Modesto or Bakersfield will convince you that the riders will be one way.
California or HSR folks could talk about how much was spent building all the endless highways in California and go from there. I suspect over the last 60 years California has spent in the hundreds of billions. Regardless, what about the concept or reality that economic development follows the line.
Having lived in and traveled to jurisdictions where high-speed rail exists, works well and is reasonably affordable for the public (Europe and Asia) I can say that building something like this is certainly possible. But, it is expensive and it can not be done without cooperative support from all levels of government who share a common vision. That isn't the case anywhere in the United States today. It is also much simpler to do where there is an existing rail system to serve local transportation needs. Then high-speed becomes part of a network, just as major highways connect to regional and local roads. The current rail system in the US is deplorable, or no longer even exists. It was once an excellent system killed off by the automobile and its lobby by the 1950s. It seems like a step was missed: before going for the big flashy high-speed trains, restoring the regional and local network, or rebuilding it altogether needed to happen first.
8
The problem with selling these projects to the public is that the cost is a big, scary number and the benefits are widespread and complex:
- What's the expected revenue from riders, advertising, etc.?
- What's the environmental benefit of shifting tens of thousands of people from highways or airplanes to trains everyday?
- What's the quality of life benefit of cutting two or three hours off the Los Angeles to San Francisco travel time in each direction?
- What's the property tax benefit of the neighborhood development that would occur near these stations?
- What's the income tax benefit of widening access to urban job centers into areas without it?
- What's the tourism benefit of faster trips between cities?
- What's the safety benefit of fewer people driving cars everyday?
- What's the national security benefit of being able to move goods/people faster during a time of crisis?
I could go on.
$100 billion is certainly a lot of money, but this is a major project. When you tally up the benefits over the course of, say, 50-100 years, my guess is it's economically favorable—and it probably isn't even close.
The federal government needs a vision for the future that is more dependent on high-speed rail and it needs to do everything it can to support these types of projects, which are often too much of a burden for state governments, but measly in a federal context.
Getting around our country is abysmal compared to doing so in other developed nations. It's embarrassing.
4
You could not build this country today! I concluded some years ago that with polarization of our citizens, lawsuits ad infinitum, and a general lack of desire to do things for the common good (can’t agree what it is) the days of big projects in America are over. Unless somebody attacks us. Then for a while we can forget differences and pull together. We have recently done long term and big expensive projects. Afghanistan is a case in point. If we have the ability to agree on projects for war we have the ability to agree on projects for common good. It is a matter of will.
3
California's high speed rail project never made much economic sense. Still, it's problems can be educational. We cannot build infrastructure at a reasonable cost because we have made permitting too hard and have made it too easy to file harassing lawsuits. Remember when the Obama administration was going to fight the Great Recession by funding a bunch of shovel-ready projects? It turned out these projects didn't exist. It is just too expensive to go through the permitting process unless you really want to do a project and are ready to go.
5
I have never felt so angry and betrayed as I did when Newsom gave that speech. I have been writing and tweeting at him daily to express my frustration. High speed rail is my number one issue because it would help improve the environment, reduce inequality, and show that government projects CAN work. It's only fatalism that stops it. It was not expensive at all, at only around $1000 per person in California OVER AN ENTIRE DECADE. That is nothing and is so much less expensive than having to own a car. Why doesn't anyone understand that?
6
@Claudia Gold
Every person doesn't pay taxes. Tax burden falls heavily on people making more than $40,000 a year, and the cost per tax payer would be substantially higher than if it were split evenly. Many people who would be taxed to pay for this rail line live nowhere near it, would never see any immediate or personal benefit from its existence.
There is already an increasingly sharp divide between urban and rural politics, and projects like this just cement even further to rural people that they don't matter. They are being taxed to improve infrastructure for the densely populated urban coast and are expected to be grateful to have the opportunity to contribute.
2
Two viable alternates to build the high-speed rail: China or Musk. Driving I-5 for 5 hours is fun the first hundred times, but a 3-hour train between downtown SF and LA would win every time. Maybe by 2100? Only two centuries behind Japan and France.
2
That question has long been answered with a resounding NO. America is split up into 55,498 special interests, all trying to influence big projects - and gain financially or defend financial interests. On top of that, the US is litigation heaven, so things get dragged into court, delaying everything forever. California had freeway projects that last 40+ years, due to all kinds of legal issues. Or, look how long it took to rebuild the World Trade Center after 9/11. The times when we were able to do big infrastructure projects are over.
We were promised a self supporting $40 billion system connecting San Francisco and LA in under three hours. It became a much slower $100 billion system from outside LA to outside SF. They have yet to solve the engineering issues involved in long tunnels through seismically active mountain ranges. I believe the initial promises were made in bad faith, assuming once the camels nose was in the tent it would be unstoppable. It is now apparent nobody had an understanding of how difficult this project would be. Heads should, but won’t, roll. Consultants have already made their piles.
5
This is not intended as a commuter line. Many readers think it is. The distance between San Diego and San Francisco is almost a thousand miles. The high-speed rail would link three highly urbanized metropolitan regions. Electric cars won't compensate for the lack of rail transport unless they drive at speed of more than 200 miles per hour.
@Ivan Light AS much as I favor this project, it is of some value to get the facts right.
According to Dr Google, the distance between San Diego and San Francisco is a bit over 500 miles and a bit under an eight hour drive.
The distance between Seattle and San Diego is about 1,200 miles with a 19 hour drive.
FROM THE ARTICLE: California’s High-Speed Rail Authority, which is running the project, was established 23 years ago. During that time China has built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail.
I have an idea. Let's invite China to extend its One Belt One Road initiative to the U.S., as it's been doing in parts of Africa and South America. The Chinese obviously are capable of pushing ahead with big projects. We obviously are not.
2
@John H. Agree, but to be fair China has slave labor at its disposal. And we should take note of the profound shift in world power that China's Belt and Road project will facilitate. They will control natural resources across Europe, Africa, and Pakistan.
1
Japan has enjoyed its “ buller trains” for decades. Of course, that country is very ethnically homogenous, so they can make public decisions more easily, but we have also handed our Democracy to corporations. Forty years ago, corporations changed from being for the public good to existing to make profit, and high rewards for its executives, Their money has bought both parties, and now we have government that also concernes itself with corporate profit. That makes us a Plutocracy.
This conflicts with public projects like California’s high speed rail project. With so much invested already, there should be an investigation into why costs have so rapidly increased. That investigation should be well-funded so it can proceed rapidly. If it find corrections to be made, then they should be enacted. If the costs overuns are due to underestimation, it should be determined if that was deliberately presented, and if so, perhaps there is a fraud charge to be brought.
Or maybe there needs to be a tax increase. Tax the richest. Democrats have got to defend the need to tax - to do good, to build the common good. Or we can continue along our Plutocratic path.
1
The Japanese bullet trains were built to relieve overcrowding on existing trains. We are trying to build bullet trains where few people travel by train. Even in Japan, the only bullet train route which is clearly profitable is Tokyo to Osaka
2
@Laura Dely
Even if you tax the rich at 100% you would still fall short of money for all the grand demands and schemes.
1
@James G. Russell 'few people travel by train' . YOu mean YOU have never travelled by train. The amtrak and bus configurations that get one from San Diego to SF or Sacramento are PACKED. all the time. get out take a train, once in a while, i dare you! For holidays, make your reservation a month in advance..
2
High speed rail between San Francisco and Los Angeles is a no-brainer. High speed rail from nowhere to nowhere in the Central Valley makes no sense at all.
Stories like this miss the forest for the trees. The real story is how special interests and skewed political goals prevent serving the public good. This story fits alongside the NYTimes series "How Politics and Bad Decisions Starved New York’s Subways" and countless other stories at the local, state, and national level.
What the public wants is fast transportation between the Bay area and LA. Europe has built thousands of miles of high-speed rail connecting major cities so there are clear models to follow. Thinking the gov't wanted to build the obvious, the French national operator SNCF proposed to privately fund and build the project but were rebuffed because it didn't go thru the towns with legislators holding the bill hostage (see http://marketurbanism.com/2012/07/10/what-i-learned-today-about-sncf-and-california-hsr/) And we ended up with the current boondoggle.
5
A mistake from the beginning. A flight from San Francisco to Los Angeles already takes less time in the air. The real kicker is getting to the airport, waiting in line for security, then reversing the process on arrival. And Los Angeles, unless you are going for a single business meeting and flying back the same night, unfortunately is a place where you really do need a rental car. A high speed train won't really save any time for passengers.
24
@Cloudy Exactly. It is not about city center to city center but door to door. San Francisco aside, unless there is viable local transportation for the first and last 2-10 miles, it takes longer than driving.
4
@Cloudy
“A flight from San Francisco to Los Angeles already takes less time in the air.”
What exactly does that mean? Less time compared to the proposed HS rail? LAX is a traffic nightmare. Get there takes at least an hour, plus park car time or taxi $$, plus security wait time. Same on reverse.
@Cloudy. Factor in reliability. How do you know that traffic won't be more congested than usual? How about airport parking? How close to the terminal will you get? Security lines. Good day or bad day for TSA? If you have a 10 am meeting in LA, what time to you have to leave home in SF to be sure to not be late?
Rail excels at reliability.
1
As someone who actually drove the section currently under construction on a regular basis, I wonder what genius decided to start here. The primary vehicles on the highway are trucks, not cars. Who is going to use this railway? Not the local population, which as the article notes are primarily poor farm laborers.
How the whole project was promoted is a classic example of political cronyism. The present rail fare for the LA to San Fran Amtrak costs substantially more than the price of a plane ticket. Does anyone but an individual with a vested financial interest in the construction of this boondoggle really believe this rail line will actually ever be financially viable?
29
@Michael Staudt I have travelled from Fresno to San Diego over 200 times by Amtrak, and for one thing, your snobbish comment that the 'locals won't use the rail' is absolutley wrong - amtrak is packed, it is a tortuous journey, and ALL of us who frequent these packed Amtrak trains would LOVE to go hs rail. Try getting on a train instead of just making something up in your
head, bro..
24
@grace thorsen
Yes, the train could be packed but how many cars at what frequency? Current schedule shows that the line runs about every 2-3 hours.
That won't cut it. The high speed rail would require more frequent trips and a lot more passengers to make it viable.
2
@interested observer build it and they will come. if only to stop driving on one of the most dangerous roads in america, HWY 99 in the Central Valley.
8
America hasn't built big for a while. The last big building was under Reagan when the U.S. Navy was a formidable 600 warships and other significant military spending that ended the Cold War. The Interstate Highway system was another project that came to halt about the same time as did the space program, creation of Amtrak, and the World Trade Building in New York. The last great bridges across the Hudson were the Verazano Narrows and sixty years after the first Tappan Zee, finally a new replacement. And what else? Well, nothing. We no longer build rockets to the moon and depended on the Russians for a lift to the Space Station. We haven't built new railroads in decades. Nuclear power plant building came to and end. So did building of great ships for both military and cruising.
The Interstate system is in shambles and desperately needs rebuilt, extended and maintained. Too many airports are crumbling relics of the 1950s. Decent, affordable public housing building has come to an end. Malls across America are literally abandoned and falling down.
The last great train routes were built more than 70 years ago and nothing new has been added, especially for passenger service since. Amtrak desperately needs new train sets. The New York subway system is a wreck. So are the tunnels.
Twenty years of unwindable wars abroad, and an out of touch government in Washington can't build anything least of all consensus to build something. Schools too are a national disgrace.
55
@Jay Boston's big dig is now complete, and has transformed Boston traffic for an immense improvement. New YOrk would be working on another tunnel under the Hudson, if Christie hadn't decided to use the money stopping traffic on the bridge.
19
@grace thorsen
Yep! You're correct. I forgot about that. I'd love to see a transcontinental high speed rail system with local connections. Maybe some new, modern, clean sleeper cars with bathrooms that are roomy and clean. Extend that system to Alaska and Canada too. Maybe some day through Mexico into South America! Wow! Imagine a project like that. Our cities could also use new train systems, not a patch work quilt. But, we've got a paralyzed government filled with ideologues and demagogues. Look how long it took to rebuild lower Manhattan and it's still not finished! We lack leadership and the courage to take on the challenges to work together and build our nation.
11
Another boondoggle generated by self serving irresponsible politicians deceiving the public about the cost.
As always, many individuals and special interests profit at the expense of taxpayers.
"Surveys suggest it still has majority support" as long as that majority does not bear the expense.
My own "survey "suggests that everyone is in favor of any project or benefit that is paid for by someone else.
23
@jck
The “it costs how much” issue, the resulting shock and realization that “free ain’t free”, is what routinely changes support on such questions to a negative. Think Medicare for all, “free” college tuition, these sort of “they’ll pay for themselves” projects, the GND, etc...when the fiscal reality and constraints hit home, many people end up saying no thanks.
7
Let's see, this isn't too hard to figure out. Americans have a NIMBY attitude towards any large project these days, miring it in endless lawsuits. We also don't want to pay taxes and keep electing politicians who cut them.
Not a great combo if you want to build big, but such is the price of our version of freedom. Compare it to China where the government can, at a whim and after minimal deliberation, forcefully relocate millions for a single project, and perhaps you'll reconsider whether America's way is so bad after all.
22
@Mr. Adams
Not only NIMBY but also environmental and eminent domain lawsuits. Then you get the labor unions involved that ridiculously high wages. The left talk about building infrastructure but won't let anything actually be built.
4
@James
'rediculous high wages' from labor unions.......... wait a second........how bout the 'wages' for litigators who make make millions a year and produce nothing but court challanges to stop funded projects.
Are you saying $ 30-40/ hour is rediculous for skilled machine operators and other skilled trades ?
Skilled union wages have not caused the decades long Infrastructure collapse, the preponderence of lawyers in Congress voting to kill the funding of projects , is the cause of the collapse.
4
@Steve Crouse
An hourly rate of $30.00 per hour for 80 hours equates to a weekly pay of $2,400, monthly pay of $10,400, and an annual salary of $124,800. Yes for a person with H.S. education just bc a labor join extorts it.
1
The idea of creating a high-speed train out of thin air in a country where even basic rail transit is lacking was reckless. Some rail enthusiasts have argued since the beginning that the money would be better spent investing in Amtrak or other infrastructure, the current passenger network, instead of reinventing the wheel.
In order to sell this project to the voters in the first place, the high-speed train backers had to promise that it would not overrun its initial projected cost. When more money was needed, “suitable and ready,” language from the initial bond proposition became the subject of the losing Atherton court case that claimed voters needed to approve more money for the project.
Your article neglects to mention other reasons why this project was so flawed in the first place: proponents promised it would be self-funded and require no subsidies; many stations would have to be placed on the outskirts of town because acquiring property in major cities, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, would have been prohibitive; the cost of securing right-of-way was vastly and some say purposely underestimated to sell it to voters; and underestimating the technical challenges to build a tunnel in the Pacheco Pass.
Polls have shown that voters realize money doesn’t grow on trees and want the funds to be spent elsewhere.
5
The challenge of building “big” in the 21st century is not unique to California. The ability to build today’s versions of yesterday’s mega-projects has become vastly more complex due to federal environmental regulation, population sprawl, governmental budgets over-stressed by non-discretionary spending mandates, and prevailing wage laws in 27 states – none of which existed when we built the Pentagon, Hoover Dam, or the Interstate highway system. So long as these impediments, most of which were born in the latter half of the 20th century, remain as perquisites to new and improved infrastructure, the future of building much-needed mega-projects is in fact likely doomed.
9
@Brent Bahler Environmental regulation and wage laws are not impediments. Environmental cleanups and lawsuits after the fact - yes.
1
@Patrick M
How can impact studies lasting up to a decade and the ease of made to order lawsuits not be an impediment? The history of it is prettt clear. (And during those delays the costs of materials, land acquisition, labor, etc. all keep growing with inflation and boosting the bottom line cost of these projects.)
3
@George S
'How can impact studies lasting up to a decade and the ease of made to order lawsuits not be an impediment? '
Exactly, we've done it to ourselves. We've been asleep as the outside world runs past us with civil 'engineers' providing the talent to modernize as we pack our undergrads into law school.
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see how high speed rail would help the impoverished residents of Fresno. High speed train tickets are often more expensive than plane tickets. They tend to be used by well heeled business people and tourists.
11
@Bob
The problem in CA is it's difficult to afford housing near the good jobs. Huge mountain ranges make it harder. being able to go from Fresno to San Jose in less than an hour instead of the usual 3 would make take to drive.
Yes the Bay Area and LA have enough venture capital to fund entire countries. But many people even with job offers of 50, 60, 80k can't afford housing. So they stay in the central valley where it's cheap but jobs are scarce.
6
@Bob
Three ways, but it really all comes down to spreading wealth out of the cities to the rural communities.
First, if you can commute all the way to downtown SF from Fresno in about the same amount of time it takes to get around the Bay by car (with the abysmal traffic), then outlaying communities will begin to attract investment from the big cities. People will want to live there for the relatively lower prices and they'll bring their money with them, which will help the local economy.
Second, looking at it the opposite way, current residents of poorer rural communities will suddenly be able to commute to the city for better jobs if they want. Landing a job in Sacramento would no longer mean you have to uproot and move, which for poorer people is often not even an option. You can just hop on the train and jump over to the city for better wages, wealth which will then come home to your small town and, again, give the local economy a boost.
Third, thanks to all this new wealth flowing to outlaying communities, there will be more and better local jobs.
Or, that is the theory sold by Cali politicians anyway.
5
@Bob Yes, I think you are missing something. Those well heeled business people and tourists are exactly the people that our region needs to come spent and invest. Further, it makes it possible for people earning good wages to live in the valley and comfortably commute from an nice home in the valley to a job in the city--a job that pays enough to ride the train and have a living wage. Take a look at the cost of homes in the Bay Area or LA and ask yourself where can we build homes that people can afford in California? These trains would allow small business to move their small high value products to high density market fast. California's population doubled during the last 45 years and is likely to redouble during the next 35 years and where are we going to build freeways for the cars and feeder roads and at what cost? And why would the people of the valley who would most benefit from these connections to markets and jobs be against this project? And where is it most logical to build and maintain these trains and rails from but the valley creating good stable paying jobs that can't be exported. Newsom spoke about helping rural areas and nothing would help rural areas like transportation. The foothills and mountains offer excellent tourist destinations and local economies that could prosper on a tourist based local economies.
1
Of course we can build whatever we are willing to pay for and has value. This project has neither. In addition we have plenty of infrastructure, it needs to be properly maintained, and somewhat expanded. We are in general unwilling to pay for this, the New York transit system is a great example of how corruption and lack of attention creates massive issues.
3
I can relate very closely to the tribulations of rail in California, and have witnessed something similar when I lived in the Metro DC area near the Beltway, being the author of a "Citizen's Guide to the Missing Green Rail Vision for the MD/ Metro DC Region" in 2008.
Yes, the environmental regulatory process can be misused by those trying to stop anything large in their neighborhoods, often for ignoble reasons. People with better reasons, to slow down a fossil fuel infrastructure which many want to replace ASAP with renewables, must fight the vast gas pipeline juggernaut waived through by FERC with weak provisions of laws based on other problems from other decades.
However, the greatest obstacle to rail in my experience is the alignment between the dominant ideology of the past 40 years, Neoliberalism, where the anti-tax and anti-state Republican Right joined forces with the "Era of Big Government is Over" Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. Speaking of the party as a whole, with rare exceptions, the Republican Right hates rail transportation in all its forms except perhaps privatized freight.
If you believe as I do that the Green New Deal is the proper direction for the country, it's the best hope to restore rail, including passenger rail, in as many places where it makes sense. Maybe not today, Mr. Summers, but when we come to ours senses over Climate Disruption. Flying and trucking account for a growing percentage of our green house gas emissions.
14
@William Neil
You make some great points, but I think you ignore some of the reasons for the “dominant ideology”, that being the actual performance and history of such projects, which have left a bad taste in the mouth of much of the taxpaying public. Cost overruns, unrealistic promises (if not outright lies) about completion times, the impact such projects will actually have, the failure to actually make such systems “pay for themselves” (almost always part of the unkept promises), etc. Additonally we must recognize that government, whether Democrat or Republican are terrrible at follow through, in this case meaning upkeep. Sure let’s build a shiny new system (BART, DC Metro, etc.) but fund its upkeep and improvements? Nope, too boring, not enough good press for politicians who prefer a ribbon cutting “event”, so let’s spend the money on employee bonuses and benefits, and wasteful work rules (MTA) to maintain the union support/donations at election time, and then claim we have no funding, and so on.
So it’s no wonder many are disbelieving and unsupportive. Fix that and you’ll go a long way toward achieving the successes we need.
5
@George S
Hi George:
Thank you for the kind words - and the critical dialogue as well. There is some carry over from ideology into the upkeep and maintenance troubles as well: in the Metro DC region the multi-state regional agency and the need to raise the revenues for capital improvements and maintenance . My short book didn't get into those details, which would require at least another volume, maybe two. But fair enough.
Here are some macro qualifiers that I do feel competent to comment upon:
Historically, passenger revenue never paid for itself, even at the hay day of rail in the late 19th century, before the auto: freight charges did in a mysterious system even courts could not unravel. So temper your expectations. But still, Summers had a point: some destination densities for future rail will be poor choices even if we expect passenger rail to do better on the revenue side. And an electrified expanded rail system whose new projects are designed to get the maximum number of cars off the road should be at the heart of new evaluation system; I don't think Summers quite yet grasps what a Green New Deal means: that the questions businesses must be asking are very different than just the financial aspects of the older ways: how do we operate so as not to externalize the cost upon nature, and especially upon the climate aspects. In particular, British scientist Kevin Anderson does a splendid job in speaking about this; he should go on an American tour.
The American people need to be able to dream, and nowhere is that more true than in California. Newsome got elected because he was seen as a visionary yet his muddled decision on high speed rail seems visionless. His decision to curtail the project was the moral equivalent of Kennedy after delays saying that we would no longer go to the moon. We expect more from our governors in California. We don’t like to be told that we can’t do big and great things, and build a new future. Either he’ll build high speed rail, or get voted out of office.
17
@Barney Rubble Dreams without reality are worthless. I have dreamed of a star trek type universe since I was a child, reality keeps this from happening.
6
@vulcanalex
This was going to be an excellent commuter rail for many. Of course some long term investment is pointless and there is no housing crisis, right?g
1
@vulcanalex True, except that we happen to live on the same planet as Germans, Japanese, Chinese, French, and Italians (to name a few), who already live in this reality. Context is what matters, but don't argue as if high-speed rail infrastructure isn't common elsewhere in the world, in countries we like to posture ourselves as "better than."
3
My wife rides Metronorth to Grand Central from CT every day. The trip takes 80 minutes one way. And she is by far the only one. This is the fastest way to get to Manhattan from a place only 54 miles away, an average speed of just 40 mph.
The train is an old diesel and all along the track you notice innumerable junctions and switches that slow down the train, most probably historical and no longer necessary. Grand Central itself is a beautiful but very congested station.
Rather than building pie in the sky projects, how about overhauling existing track, straightening and electrifying it, and purchasing faster, more efficient engines and rail cars. It would cost a lot but most likely much less than building something from scratch.
We are still capable of large infrastructure projects - witness the new Tappan Zee bridge in Westchester County and the Big Dig in Boston. What's missing is the funding and the political will.
22
@Alec Exactly but why actually commute, some days many could do their work remotely. And that Big Dig was mostly waste.
1
Airlines have long used actually passenger numbers between destinations as a primary component to calculate fares. The more fliers on a specific route the cheaper the route is to fly and the fares reflect this.
Considering that the airfare from Los Angeles to Orlando is less expensive than the airfare from Los Angeles to Sacramento, how much spin was put on projected revenue for this project?
Commercial flights from Los Angeles to San Francisco continue to be far less expensive than taking Amtrak. Business traveler are the customers who are needed to make the project viable. The poor population of the San Joaquin Valley will never use this railway without massive continual subsidies.
5
I see these reports continually on infrastructure and realize that we (US) have lost our will to remain a 'first world' country.
I look closely at the NE/NY/DC region and see the same retreat for decades by legislators to build new high speed light rail intrastate systems. These systems are not new ideas, they've been in place in E/A for decades and are constantly being expanded and improved.
We never followed through with plans long tabled for modern rail infrastructure because Fed. budgets for defence used allavailable funds. Adding to the budget for this purpose was called " inflationary" was we just continued to do 'band-aid' repairs resulting in today's collapse.
The California project now proves our pol. system is so fractured that it can't deliver and manage any large modern project which requires teams of engineers and legislators to cooperate and proceed.
Infrastructure is expanding in the '1st world' , but we're not in that world any longer.
26
@Steve Crouse Almost nobody wants or needs your high speed rail in the US, what they do need is local systems to get to work without a car. Mass transit systems that actually work and are properly maintained.
8
@Steve Crouse “California’s High-Speed Rail Authority, which is running the project, was established 23 years ago. During that time China has built 16,000 miles of high-speed rail.“
Yes, it's a shame the US is falling so far behind. There is too much me me me and not enough us.
Most politicians seem only concerned about their next election like it’s the only job they can get.
Why not put Trump's $25 billion into high speed rail?
3
I'm certain we can still build big projects - but they need to be good and necessary projects to justify the cost.
Rather than spending $98 billion for a single rail line, CA would be better served by a rail line that can handle speeds of 100 mph - a huge improvement over the current slow and meandering Amtrak route. Let's spend $50 billion on that rail line and then the other $50 billion tackling other needed infrastructure projects: old bridges, water supply, electric grid etc..
12
@Hugo Or no rail line but those bridges, roads, water supplies. Electric grids are private things that also need improvements, not by the government.
1
At one time America could be characterized as the land of sprawl. Yet most articles and studies about current demographics point to a greater concentration of population in certain urban areas some of which Like San Francisco are located in California. Many in the younger generations are losing their appetite for lawns and McMansions and opting for a more urban lifestyle. Building high speed rail now will serve the aspirations of those future riders. Yet, too many of the decisions are being made by those in their senior years. We need to start thinking ahead in this country. Too often we have built sprawl first and the infrastructure required to support it after, when it is much more expensive. Does California still suffer from an illusion that "Freeways" are actually free?
56
@John Warnock
"Many in the younger generations are losing their appetite for lawns and McMansions..."
They haven't LOST their appetites; they never had any appetites...NOT YET! Wait 'til Little Jimmy wants to play wiffle ball with Daddy...and has to walk 4 blocks to the nearest park. Millennials have postponed coupling, but when the urge finally becomes overwhelming, that "greater concentration of population in certain urban areas" is going to disperse like dust in a windstorm.
2
@John Warnock
This calls out the elephant in the room: Millennials who don't understand that in the real world, in most parts of California - not to mention the Western US - you need a car.
Millennials who raise taxes to find feel-good projects like this that aren't operationally revenue-neutral are exactly what the GOP can point to to say: "However bad we are, we're not as crazy as these guys."
HSR in California as this was envisioned *literally* only makes sense if you do, in fact, ban air travel and tax road trips out of existence -- thereby forcing residents to use your new, expensive project. The error of the GND FAQ was in not-subtly-enough indicating this.
Overreach by super-progressive Millennials lurching the Democratic party into throwing money at projects requiring broad swaths of the economy to be re-jiggered will lead to a backlash among anyone not already a true believer.
@John Warnock
Actually that isn't true. The millennials, especially when they have kids, are moving out to the suburbs\exburbs when they get a chance. Maybe not McMansions but to places with more space then a rabbit hutch apartment.
It is worth noting that this particular high speed rail would be heavily under utilized compared to the optimistic estimates of ridership put forward when it was proposed.
At this point, I believe it would take 50-80 years of operation just to offset the pollution caused by building the rail.
On the bright side, the new transbay terminal in San Francisco (also over budget and currently closed for safety concerns) doesnt have the capacity to service projected Caltrain numbers, so no high speed rail to S.F should help with that!
7
Cost/mi. of interstate in rural areas conservatively $10M/mile, $1B/100 mi., or as applied from the bay area to the grape-vine ~$3B. Now drive two lane I-5 for awhile and experience the what 35 replacement highways might do.
2
@zzyx California is filled with freeways, it doesn't need another road.
Ok - so here we are with a big infrastructure project the left likes but they are bemoaning all the environmental lawsuits and the 20 year regulatory ramp-up before anything gets down. Now, imagine a private business trying to build a factory. Over-regulation is an economy killer.
38
@SAL
If over-regulation is an economy-killer why is California booming?
4
@Ian
Who said California is booming (besides the liberals at NYT?) California emigration to Texas has increased every year. And this is only the FIRST of the messes Jerry B. left for Newsom.
3
@Connecticut Yankee $29.3 billion budget surplus is a mess I can live with.
4
Well, we dont NEED a high speed train, but it sure would be fun!
ps 9 billion is the bare minimum.
Does anyone really believe it wont be years behind schedule at billions over budget?
2
oh, it already is over budget and behond schedule. at this point, even the person responsible for spearheading the ballot measure is against it.
1
Good Lord...The great nation that built our (now crumbling) infrastructure between the 40s and 60s that was the envy of the world has become the boxer who can't get out of his own way.
What do we have to get this done. . hire the Chinese? They'd finish it in a few years. And, while they're at it, maybe we could hire them to renew our aging freeways, water delivery, sewage treatment plants, and electric transmission infrastructure.
I'm a liberal who believes government can be a force for good, except in the case of CalTrans. Anything they touch is snake-bit by their institutionalized incompetence.
13
We've done this to ourselves, with the layering on of ever more regulations and legal complexities, with the lawsuit industry fully engaged, with unaccountable bureaucrats and advocates knowingly making overly rosy cost and time estimates that grow and get pushed back with little to no consequence. Yes, as we will hear as we do in every story of this type, "Well China was able to build blah, blah, blah", but then their government just does as it pleases, the peasants be damned.
We do not need to become China, but if we really want to be able to expand our infrastructure and make such improvements (and no, while I love trains, high speed rail does not make sense everywhere in the country), then we need to dial back some of our ridiculous self-constraint. No environmental impact study should take ten years, a routine occurrence today; somehow places like Germany can do it in two years without bringing ruin upon the nation. Not everyone should just be able to file one lawsuit after another to halt any project they don't like. Government officials and contractors need to be held accountable for false estimates and promises. Major projects should be an end unto themselves - stop making them union pleasing giveaways or more designed to appease one interest group or another with promises of future largesse - if it's worth doing, then do it, but don't make it contingent upon (oh we're going to boost wages or employment" - in other words, be realistic!
65
China has built about 16,000 miles of high speed rail. The US has a rail line along the East Coast which is semi-high- US speed, but certainly doesn't achieve the speeds of the Shinkansen in Japan, the TGV in France, or the high speed rail in China.
The California project would have been the first genuine high speed rail in the US.
And it would provide jobs for a large segment of left-behinds in the US economy, construction workers.
So phasing out or postponing the high speed line from LA to SF is a bad decision by the California governor.
Of course, long distance rail between LA and SF is only part of the problem. Los Angeles still has a very limited subway system, too fragmentary to help much with a primary problem in LA, congested freeways and a semi-permanent layer of smog that afflicts the health of those living in LA.
The SF area has a much better rapid transit system although it too is limited and doesn't serve all communities in the Bay Area.
Why can't America build large-scale infrastructure projects? It doesn't bode well for America's future.
32
@Jake Wagner
Again with China. If we followed their model, where Party officials just call the shots, where environmental issues and eminent domain are irrelevant, where people impacted by such huge projects have no say, then sure, we could build 16,000 miles of high speed rail too!
4
@George S the blame is with local politicians who don't get it, and don't have any vision for the future, Devin Nunes, I am talking about you. This project is not having a problem aquiring property, it has a problem with the no-nothings inabilty to see the need for transportation alternatives, and the economic value improved transport brings. Newsome thinks housing is more importatnt than good transport. Wrong. I suggest you get out of your car and take a train, then you will see the milions of humans whose lives will be imporved. Try taking a bus for that matter - I used to take buses around fresno - they are packed, again, a LOT of people use them! surprise surprise! open your eyes!
@grace thorsen
No argument about the bad political decisions (though Nunes is a Congressman, not a California politician with say in the matter). But even this “know-something” experts have somehow not managed to bring this to any reasonable point without blowing through budgets and timelines.
2
I know a lot of folks think high-speed rail is inevitably good because it appears to reduce carbon emissions, but what if CA if 50% or more electric cars by the time the track is finished? What if most of the riders are upscale commuters and it ends up as a regressive tax on the rest of us? Infrastructure can be regressive just like taxes and promote inequality. It can further undermine poor areas that aren't served by the few stations along the line.
I don't know if high-speed rail in CA makes sense. But given the changing nature of other forms of transit and the difference between suburban CA and the population density of other areas where rail succeeds, by no means is it an obvious solution to congestion and pollution. Cancelling the project may be the best choice.
12
@Dave Pomerantz Good points, but electric cars do not solve the problem: for the forseeable future their fuel is generated either by fossil fuels, nuclear (being obstructed in many areas, especially California), and hydroelectric, which degrades watersheds. Their carbon footprint is marginally smaller than gasoline or diesel, but neverless substantial. That said, concentrating on local and regional mass transit while leaning in hard against single driver cars with punative regulation and fees would be far more effective at reducing pollution and congestion, especially in communities like the Bay Area.
3
@Dave Pomerantz Cars and roads take up more physical space than trains on a per person-per mile basis. Trains will always be more efficient and environmentally friendly, even compared with electric cars. Roads themselves cause greenhouse gasses.
As far as your regressive tax comment goes, that is far from true for several reasons:
1) Global warming will hurt the poor a lot more than it will hurt everyone else.
2) If you look at who takes public transit in California, it's not the wealthy. The wealthy take Uber and have their own cars.
3) We need to tax enough that we can subsidize public rail and transit so that it just doesn't make sense to drive most of the time.
4
The central valley is one of the poorest places in America, prior to Newsom's recent announcement, the project had already been scaled back to be San Jose to the valley.
The cynic in me suspects this would be most heavily utilized by poor/middle class people commuting to the bay for the non 6 figure jobs.
Thousands already commute 2 hours each way into the bay area from cities like Stockton and Los Banos
1
The California rail project costs too much and has taken too long to complete because leadership for the project has tried to remain popular--as opposed to tackling the hard questions and pushing the project forward. Look at the derailing of the New York City subway restoration project. We have lost our will for such endeavors.
21
@lavozderazon One other thing that also deeply confused me: why did we hire an American firm to help build our high speed rail infrastructure when a Japanese or French firm (you know, with actual experience building high speed rail) could've used their operational knowledge to get the project off the ground faster? This project shot itself in the foot 100x before it even got off the ground.