When We Don’t Build It, We Won’t Build It Here Instead of There

Once the envy of much of the rest of the United States, the California high-speed rail project is increasingly viewed as being run by a bunch of buffoons who can’t see the handwriting on the wall. Actually, a few of them may see it: last week the authority’s executive director and board chair both resigned. The former said he wanted to “spend more time with his family,” code for “I no longer want my name associated with these crackpots.”

The board chair remains on the board, and the board as a whole still can’t read the handwriting. Last week they decided that, when they fail to find the money to build the portion of the line from Bakersfield to Los Angeles, they won’t build it through Lancaster and Palmdale instead of not building it over the Grapevine, which had previously been given serious consideration. To even bother to make the decision shows they haven’t realized the project is hopeless.

Continue reading

One More Nail in the Coffin

The California high-speed rail funding plan is “not financially feasible” says a peer-review committee created by the state legislature to review that plan. Various media reports suggest that this finding significantly reduces the likelihood that the legislature will approve the plan.

This is after the rail authority admitted that it inflated job estimates, claiming that the line would create a million jobs when in fact it meant a million job-years. No more than 60,000 jobs would be created by construction at one time, which is still a lot but a lot less than a million. This admission cost the authority the editorial support of the San Jose Mercury News, a paper normally eager to support any wacky rail plan that comes its way.

Continue reading

When the Facts Change, Some Minds Don’t

John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” For many politicians including President Obama, the answer is, “I ignore the facts and stick to my preconceived notions.”

Back in 2008, California voters approved high-speed rail based on the promises that, at a cost of $43 billion, California would have trains by 2020 that would go from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours and forty minutes. Attracting 60 million riders a year, the trains would earn such great operational profits that private investors would provide $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion worth of capital funds.

Now the California High-Speed Rail Authority admits that cost will be more than double that amount, it will carry fewer passengers than expected, it won’t be done until 2030 at the earliest, and no private investors are interested in supporting a project based on phony premises. Moreover, the latest word is that the trains will take longer than two hours and forty minutes, which means they will be far less competitive with air travel than promised. So it is not surprising that most California voters want to reconsider the project.

But not the Obama administration. Even though Congress has not authorized or appropriated more than a tiny fraction of the funds needed to complete the California boondoggle, the Obama administration says it “is not going to flinch” on its support for the project. “The worst thing we could do is make obligations to folks and start to renege on our word.”

Continue reading

Moving in for the Kill–or to Be Fleeced?

The Voice of Orange County reports that opponents of California’s high-speed rail boondoggle are “moving in for the kill.” But the article presents no clear path for killing the train to nowhere. While there are lawsuits, opponents in Congress, and critics in the state Legislative Analyst’s Office, the final decision will be made by the Democrat-dominated state legislature, which takes its cue from Governor Jerry Brown, who has endorsed the spending of $7 billion on a rail line that few will ever use.

The latest objective poll shows that 37 percent of the people who voted for high-speed rail in 2008 have changed their minds and would vote against it today now that the cost has doubled and the admitted benefits declined. (Only 3 percent of people who voted no say they would vote yes today.)

Continue reading

A Recipe for Decline

Thanks to high housing prices and a poor economy (which is also partly due to high housing prices), more Americans are leaving California than are moving to the state. In the last decade, 1.5 million more people moved out than moved in from other states, and the poor economy is also reducing foreign immigration, leaving the state’s future in doubt. For the first time in more than a century, a majority of the state’s population was actually born in California.

Back in the 1970s, when California cities were adopting anti-growth policies, it was all the rage for people to talk about a “steady-state” economy rather than a growth economy. But, says historian Mike Davis, “A steady-state California is both a contradiction in terms and a recipe for decline.”

Oatmeal is the best snack before sexual activity! Grapefruit Is a https://pdxcommercial.com/multnomah-ahead-wapato-sale/ cialis tablets 20mg Big NO! Consumption of grapefruit is generally not recommended safe for consumption with highly acidic foods including citruses, tomatoes, and vinegar. + The grapefruit is to be done? Think to yourself for a moment. In uncommon cases, Generic Visit This Link purchase generic viagra offers ascent to some unending sick impacts too. Causes of online order viagra Sexual Problems in Women: The causes of erectile dysfunction and finding treatments to reverse its effects. A browsing of a playboy center page where photos of undressed beautiful ladies nevertheless may possibly generate cialis online mastercard stimulation and sexual thoughts. High housing prices are “driving out working-class families,” says a representative of the center-left Public Policy Institute of California. Not just working-class families: young college graduates find lower living costs in other states and so the state is suffering a “brain drain.”

California Governor Jerry Brown persuaded the state legislature to eliminate local redevelopment agencies, and now the state is trying to seize $1.7 billion in assets held by those agencies. If the state is willing to take such drastic action to save itself, maybe it will also be willing to revoke some of the insane land-use laws that are the underlying cause of its economic doldrums.

Brown’s Folly

Jerry Brown didn’t think up the idea of a California high-speed rail line, but he endorsed it last week despite the estimated doubling of its price tag. Brown has recommended that the legislature release funds so construction can begin in 2012.

“Lincoln built the transcontinental railroad during the Civil War, and we built the Golden Gate Bridge during the Great Depression,” Brown said, trying to deflect attention from the state’s financial straits. Bad examples. The Golden Gate Bridge was built with bonds that would eventually be repaid by tolls; the bonds required to build high-speed rail will have to be repaid out of general taxes.

Meanwhile, the transcontinental railroad (which was neither built by Lincoln nor finished during the Civil War) was one of the most corrupt projects of nineteenth-century America, as historian Richard White pointed out in an LA Times op ed piece that Brown should have read a little more closely.

Continue reading

High-Speed Fail, v. 2.0

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.

Continue reading

California High-Speed Rail in Trouble

New reports have raised questions about and spurred opposition to California’s grandiose high-speed rail plans. First, last April, the California state auditor reported that the state’s high-speed rail authority suffered from “inadequate planning, weak oversight, and lax contract management,” which is not exactly what you want to hear about an agency that is about to build the most expensive state-sponsored public works project in history.

Second, a new report from the University of California found that the state’s ridership forecasts “are not reliable.” Based on a re-assessment by economist David Brownstone (who is fast becoming one of the Antiplanner’s favorite economists) and two UC engineering profs, the fares needed to cover the trains’ operating costs would have to be more than double the original projections, which is also more than the cost of flying. Since the measure approved by voters in 2008 forbade any state operating subsidies, such high fares would doom the project.

Continue reading