GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

What’s the matter with California? (High-Speed Rail Edition)

by

Drive through some streets in Hollywood and you’ll wonder when was the last time they repaired the potholes.  Some of our freeways need resurfacing.  And the governor just signed an “$8 billion bill to kick off high-speed rail construction“:

The centerpiece of SB 1029, however, is $6 billion to start building the first tracks in the Central Valley early next year. The remaining $2 billion will beef up transit while laying the groundwork for high-speed rail in the Bay Area and Southern California, including electrification of the existing Caltrain line between San Francisco and San Jose.

. . . .

Despite the governor’s enthusiasm, high-speed rail has become increasingly unpopular around the state, and polls show a majority of voters now oppose the plan largely because of its record costs and uncertain prospects for completion. Brown, who was silent publicly when the Legislature debated his bullet train plan two weeks ago, now needs Californians back on board but said Wednesday he wasn’t concerned by the polls.

Doesn’t seem he’s concerned about the cost either.  “Bay Area Democrats,” we read further in the article, “unions and business leaders applauded Brown for improving a wobbling high-speed rail plan in the last year, helping to reduce the most recent cost estimates by $30 billion . . . ”  Reduced cost estimates by $30 billion?  Sounds like a huge chunk of change, but that lowers the “projected cost” to just $68 billion.  And the state’s budget is $16 billion in the red.

And let’s not forget cost overruns endemic to big-government projects.  Particularly in California.

FROM THE COMMENTS:  EssEm reminds us that there are also “the maintenance and repair costs over the years…”

Comments

  4. #3.. there is more of that “hope”. So, far not much as come from it.

    I ‘hope” all cost overruns will be extracted from public employee union pension funds and not from the US taxpayer.

  8. #5 – my bad – after reading the entire article, in the funding section, the full federal commitment is $12 – $16 Billion. Thats billion with a capital “B.”

    My bet is the US taxpayer bite will be bigger if the idiots that run Kalifornia go ahead with this silly project. But hell, what do I know – the government has always done everything “under budget,” RIGHT??

  11. Who in California (or anywhere else for that matter) would spend 4-6 hours on a train ride (v. a 1 hour plane flight), and pay 4x the money for the priveledge?

    And the train can’t really stop in-between LA and San Jose, because each stop will cost around a half-hour: you have to slow down, load/unload, then speed up again. Do that a couple of times, and it’ll be faster both in time and money to just drive the 5 freeway. Plus a lot more convenient: you can go direct, whenever you want, without advance ticket purchases, and you really save on not needing a car when you get there.

    I suppose it works great for someone who is very wealthy but has a fear of aircraft and doesn’t own a car.

  14. It could be profitable for a brief period of time if they would route it from LA to some place on the eastern border. All the people fleeing CA for a more economically and politically sane state could make a quick run for the border. Of course they would all be one-way fares, and as the population evacuated into other states the profits would dwindle. Still, the Dems in charge would have a year or two where they could crow about what a success the HST service is, at least until the last one out has to turn out the lights.

  15. I just finished watching an old Twilight Zone episode where a kindly old couple got four wishes from a genie. Fortunately for them, the fourth wish got them right back where they started.

    The genie warned them to be careful with what they wish for. California wished a high speed rail line from the Green Genie. They’re stuck with it unless granted another wish.

    I have to wonder why laying a rail line is so expensive. How did they ever afford the transcontinental railroad?

  16. #15 ” How did they ever afford the transcontinental railroad?”

    Don’t you mean the “intercontinental” railroad?

    Interesting :
    “Despite the transcontinental success and millions in government subsidies, the Union Pacific faced bankruptcy less than three years after the golden spike as details surfaced about overcharges Crédit Mobilier had billed Union Pacific for the formal building of the railroad. The scandal hit epic proportions in the United States presidential election, 1872 which saw the re-election of Ulysses S. Grant and became the biggest scandal of the Gilded Age. It would not be resolved until the congressman who was supposed to have reined in its excesses but instead wound up profiting from it was dead.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Transcontinental_Railroad#Construction

  18. Weren’t railways built mainly by private companies before? Why is the government building a train? If it was going to be profitable, a private company would have already built one (a high speed train). That is, unless government regulations were too restrictive or taxes were too high.

    I have to wonder why laying a rail line is so expensive. How did they ever afford the transcontinental railroad?

    Is that rhetorical?

  21. Don’t forget, the fast majority of the work will be union-only. What parts of the project that don’t have non-union trades in CA will be covered under union-only Project Labor Agreements.