Ninety-eight point five billions dollars. That’s the new cost of California’s high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, according to a business plan released yesterday by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
At least, that’s the cost reported (a half day in advance of the plan’s release) by the Los Angeles Times. The reason why the cost has more than doubled from previous estimates is that the Authority is now proposing to not finish the line until 2033 (vs. 2019 in the previous plan–see p. 52), and the added years of inflation make the cost higher in “year-of-expenditure” (YOE) dollars. When adjusted for inflation to today’s dollars, the cost is “only” $65 billion.
The media doesn’t seem to get the distinction between YOE and inflation-adjusted dollars. The same LA Times article notes that the previous business plan estimated a cost of $33 billion in 2008, which mysteriously went up in 2009 to $45 billion–in fact, the $33 billion was inflation-adjusted dollars while the $45 billion was YOE dollars.
The bad news for rail advocates is that the media, which happily printed the lower, inflation-adjusted numbers before the 2008 election, is now highlighting the higher YOE numbers, making appear costs have tripled from $33 billion to $98.5 billion in just three years, when in fact they “only” doubled.
(Actually, the original cost estimate, in 1996, was a little more than $10 billion, which is about $15 billion in today’s dollars, so costs have more than quadrupled since then. Even with the low 1996 estimate, researchers at the University of California calculated that “high-speed rail would be California’s most expensive mode of intercity transportation”–see pp.21-25.)
The span of sexual exercises can keep going for a long time and it is dependent upon the cause and the severity of the condition of your penis? buying viagra in usa If you answer is close to forever, there is this wonderful product that does the magic you’ve been hounding the heavens for. It’s like a battle field sometimes. sildenafil 50mg mouthsofthesouth.com When chronic prostatitis, urethral stricture or prostatic hyperplasia appears, the corresponding symptoms can be displayed. generic cialis buy However, some symptoms are harder to notice since they are the ones that will be affected greatly and to avoid too much hassles, letting them know that you’ve taken the time to think of them adds a sense of intimacy and caring to that relationship. discount for cialis
Other media reports are playing up the path of destruction the rail line will take through cities and opposition to the rail line from the Union Pacific Railroad and “farming giant J. G. Boswell.” “All Aboard the Train to Bankruptcyville,” read signs in California’s Central Valley. All these things make clear that rail advocates have lost the public-relations battle: If it were on the ballot today, high-speed rail would lose by a much larger margin than it won by in 2008.
Since it isn’t on the ballot, the question is what opponents can do about it. “Scrapping the railroad would all but send $650 million down the drain, as the rail authority has spent that much planning the project since 1998,” warns the San Jose Mercury-News. This is an idiotic argument, of course; more persuasive to some elected officials is the fact that giving up on the project would mean returning $2.2 billion to the federal government: no politician wants to lose face by giving up that kind of money. Maybe opponents should lobby Congress to allow California to keep the money if it spends it on more worthwhile transportation projects that won’t require further federal infusions and bailouts.
The scary thing is that, unless the legislature decides to halt the project, the Authority is almost certain to begin construction next year of a high-speed rail line to nowhere. It has less than $9 billion in hand, which might be enough to build (if there are no more cost overruns) from Corcoran to Borden–i.e., from the prison town where Charlie Manson lives to a ghost town. As the Mercury says, building this line will “provide a 45-minute shortcut for the 3,000 [daily] riders on Amtrak’s San Joaquin line” (and that optimistically assumes Amtrak will have trains that can operate both at conventional speeds and high speeds).
From out in right field, former General Motors executive Bob Lutz suggests that the feds raise gas taxes to “pay for upgrades of the nation’s aging rail system.” Apparently, Lutz, whose company was bailed out by the feds, hasn’t heard the news that America’s railroads are healthier than ever been if you don’t count that obsolete portion of them dedicated to passenger trains.
The real news in the Authority’s new business plan is the projected 14-year delay in completion. That means that a whole lot more people who voted for the project in 2008 won’t live to see it completed.
More relevant, perhaps, it also means that any projections of future needs or benefits are just that much more uncertain. The big argument for the rail line is that it will save energy, but the Authority’s 2005 environmental impact report erroneously assumed that cars in the future would be no more energy efficient than they are today. In fact, if auto manufacturers meet Obama’s fuel-economy standards, cars in 2033 will use only about half as much energy, per passenger mile, as cars today, which is a lot more than Amtrak uses. Airplanes are also expected to become far more energy-efficient, so the case for high-speed rail comes down to little more than pork barrel.
The Antiplanner wrote:
Ninety-eight point five billions dollars. That’s the new cost of California’s high-speed rail line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, according to a business plan released yesterday by the California High-Speed Rail Authority.
Tell me again how high-speed rail in California is a business? It may be an excuse to spend huge sums of federal and taxpayer dollars building a new choo-choo train line and choo-choo trainsets, but it sure does not sound or look like any business I have ever heard of.
L.A. Times: Bullet train’s $98-billion cost could be its biggest obstacle
Sorry Mr. Morebucks, ain’t nobody landing on these railroads.
This only goes to show how corrupt and inept America has become. Despite the intellectually dishonest exhortations against passenger trains often expressed in this blog’s comments, such absurdities are not inherent in the technology but are in our crony capitalist “system” whose goal is not transportation but to line the pockets of the contractors.
The latest incarnation of the CAHSR proposal makes the Chinese HSR scandals look down right competent. I’m sure the highly successful French TGV folks are laughing their heads off at California right now when they’re not sulking over the lost business opportunities thrown away by unfortunately now typical U.S utter incompetence.
It is time to drop HSR and start planning for Super Sonic air. 2,500 MPH and 1.5 hours SFO to NY.
About 100 billion and 30 years???
Judging from his post above, msetty, who usually makes sense, must have been exposed to excessive second hand smoke at one of those “occupy” rallies. Despite the presence of Parsons Brinckerhoff on the CHSRA team, the fault behind this bumbled project must be placed squarely with the CHSRA board and the elected officials who appointed and continue to support them, up to and including Governor Moonbeam. It’s the left-wing politicians in this state who allow the crony capitalists, including but not limited to, PB and Solyndra to get away with fleecing the “99%.”
Oh pleeze, Jardonn…
HSR and intercity rail is still an excellent idea, which you’ll never get me to disavow, JUST NOT the way we do it in this country!!
The way the “left-wing politicians in this state” (sic) have fucked up the entire HSR idea doesn’t invalidate the idea, just shows their utter incompetence and desire to be hangers-on to the 1% parasite kleptocracy that runs the U.S.
I’m not sure what you’re implying, but the Republicans are worse because they don’t wish to be hangers-on, but are owned lock, stock and barrel by the kleptocracy.
If we must “die” I’d much rather “drink the Obama kool-aid” (Democrats) rather than be “burned at the stake” by the Repugnants and their kleptocracy apologist libertarian fellow travelers (not all, Randal, just most libers).
As for the $100 billion, Mr. Grattan, where would we get the fuel to run the SSTs flying over the U.S.?? At this point, until sense prevails about how to do 220 mph HSR right in this country, I’d much rather spread the $$ on 110-mph corridors, building 15-20 times the mileage even at $10-$15 million/mile with full electrification and a large percentage of grade separation. But I digress…
My first thought is that we can’t even properly calculate the cost of a government boondoggle because of the government’s policy of dollar inflation. It tends to make one conspiracy-minded.
msetty,
Can you explain how you would do 220 mph HSR right? Is there a trick that would allow HSR to cost orders of magnitude (or even 50%) less per mile then what California is estimating? My guess is that the airlines are transporting people for much less than 10% of the cost of HSR.
CAHSR’s apologist in chief pretty much explodes:
http://www.cahsrblog.com/
That is possibly the most insane spin I’ve seen ever.
You can’t make this stuff up:
The 2012 Business Plan is a huge leap forward for the California HSR project. It is the in-depth, thorough, complete, and clear document that we didn’t realize we needed until we actually sat down and read it. It’s a very different document than the plans that came before, reflecting a great deal of planning and analysis as to how we actually get high speed rail built. It is very conservative in its assumptions – unnecessarily so in some cases – but that was also done to err on the side of caution.
Hate to say it HSR homers, but yeah, I told you so.
Rick:
Cost per mile could be cut by 70%-80% by
(1) eliminating unnecessary viaducts and tunneling, mainly by using existing rights of way for entry into the big cites as the TGV does in France. Viaducts and tunnels are 50% of the revised costs presented in CHSR’s latest “business plan” (sic);
(2) Rerouting the main stem of HSR down the middle of I-5, as I’ve suggested a few times here and discuss in my paper. This would dramatically reduce right of way purchase costs, wouldn’t disrupt farmers, and would dramatically reduce construction costs since the I-5 median is straight and wide and more than level enough for HSR, over 250 miles between Tracy and Bakersfield.
Despite whatever politicians might say, direct 220 mph service to Fresno is NOT required, since upgrading the existing San Joaquins service to 110 mph and feeding into the Bay Area via Altamont and Sacramento via the Ship Channel, and LA Basin via a new Bakersfield-Santa Clarita line, would still give Fresno service to each major urban area in no more than ~2 hrs, 15 min.
It is important to point out–AGAIN–that the HSR market needing 220 mph trains to be competitive is Bay Area/Sacramento to the LA Basin, NOT either end to the Central Valley. This particular market, which is about 5% of total intercity trips in California over 50 miles (~25-30 million/yr out of 500 million+, the lion’s share quite well served by 110 mph regional corridors)–would be well-served by 220 mph surface alignment trains down the middle of I-5, costing $5-$6 billion for 250 miles, not the CHSR boondoggle costing triple or quadruple that for the current ill-considered route. The I-5 route would not require any takings from Central Valley farmers anything near the scale of the current proposal.
I’m really, really, really getting tired of responding to lazy HSR opponents who haven’t read my paper, which I’ve also linked here more than once. But for your edification, here is the link, AGAIN: http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/whitepapers/CaliforniaNetworkedTransit.pdF.
I’ve had the same idea too about HSR in the center of I-5 & SR99 in stretches.
msetty -I would read your paper if the link worked. 🙁
Sandy, try this
http://www.publictransit.us/ptlibrary/whitepapers/CaliforniaNetworkedTransit.pdf. Funny, when I tested it just now it worked…weird.
Capitalized F at end might have screwed it up. If you still can’t get to it with this link, go to my home page at http://www.publictransit.us. Link is still on that page towards bottom.
Sorry msetty. I can’t get the document from Chrome or IE. If I just download it, Adobe Acrobat says it is a broken document. 🙁
msetty: “HSR and intercity rail is still an excellent idea, which you’ll never get me to disavow.”
Please re-read my post and tell me where I said HSR and intercity rail is a bad concept in general. My post was silent on that issue as the topic at hand is the deeply, DEEPLY flawed California project. We’re all aware of the technical success on the Shinkansen and the TGV, and, because I’m not a Japanese or a French taxpayer, the economics are irrelevant to this discussion.
Since we’ve veered into off-topicland, let me remind you that the democrats, through bailouts, stimulus etc are just as much part of the kleptocracy as the Republicans. Obama took Bush’s messed up economy and make it orders of magnitude worse. But more to the point, it’s Democrats at the state and national level that are pushing CHSRA so you can’t blame the Republicans for this boondoggle.
But I digress. In your paper and response to Rick above, you have a few valid points like “existing rights of way for entry into the big cites as the TGV does in France.” Oh wait, isn’t this the “blended” approach that they’re talking about on the Caltrain line between Ess Eff and San Jose?
If CHSRA would route itself down the I-5 like you propose, they’d deflate much of the opposition that has arisen in the Central Valley, where they seem to be going out of their way to antagonize farmers. And why does CHSRA insist upon two crossings of the Coast Range: the “Pacheco Pass Alternative†route and the “Altamont Corridor Rail Project?†They need to eliminate the former and concentrate on the latter since you could upgrade ACE and provide an HSR route at the same time at less cost than 2 routes.
But of course, CHSRA will have none of it. They’ll stick with their expensive plan no matter what any critics say. You should submit your paper as a formal comment to the draft “business plan.” Make CHSRA respond to these issues.
Finally, I’m pretty sure lgrattan’s comment about Super Sonic air was made in jest, but if anyone took it seriously, go read “Supersonic Non-Sense: A Case Study in Applied Market Research” by the late R. E. G. Davies.
msetty, I get an error message similar to the one described by Sandy Teal above when I try to open the file through Firefox – and when I attempt to open it “directly” with Adobe Acrobat.
I read this article with my law partner the other morning. We like to play this game with the LA Times over breakfast. Who can spot the “dog bites man” article first. This one was vintage. California high-speed rail project overbudget and behind schedule? Ya don’t say! I love that the Bosley family is going to get paid out — I thought that the people with the land picked the route for the ballot measure? Epic. In the same issue was an article that stated the entire gross, per year, for home entertainment in the US is 15 billion.
Why doesn’t California simply buy down the price of Southwest fares for the next 50 years with 100 billion dollars? I suspect that would be much cheaper and faster for everyone travelling between LA and SF.
I’m quite baffled by the problems you’re having with downloading my white paper. This is the first time I’ve had this particular complaint.
Send me an email at msetty@publictransit.us and I’ll send you a slightly different, low res graphics version that might work that way. Again, this is baffling…perhaps I need to save it in as an earlier version of PDF files…
In case there’s still any lingering doubt about the wisdom of spending $100 billion on HSR in California, read Dan Walters’ column in today’s Sacramento Bee:
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/08/4037645/dan-walters-california-is-ignoring.html#storylink=misearch
He points out that the California Transportation Commission is circulating a report documenting a huge backlog in repair needs for California’s transportation system. Why, exactly, does the state continue to push HSR in the face of several billion dollars in unfunded backlog?