California's High Speed Rail Project Runs Out of Money

The boondoggle everyone saw coming.

"It's the latest setback for the project, originally expected to cost $33 billion and be completed last year. Today the vision of shuttling passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco in less than three hours is a distant dream. The first leg of rideable track, connecting two cities in the Central Valley, won't start until at least 2029, and the project's costs have ballooned to $98 billion."

Now, just IMAGINE what would happen to the cost of the 12 TRILLION dollar Green Deal idiocy.

 

but i thought california had a 20 billion dollar surplus.

 

$75 billion. This is about appropriations.

 

Wait, I thought I had heard it was either going to be Free or Mexico would pay for it.

 

We didn't dodge it. We just had to wait until a crony of Scott's was willing to do it and that's what is happening.

 

There are a lot of issues for HSR to work and mostly it's our love of our cars and being used to going anywhere at anytime and not having to schedule things.
Like most things it sounds like a really good idea until you start getting into the details.

 

I was one that voiced my opinion opposing that potential boondoggle. The boondoggle that I knew it would be.

Also, didn't someone here just post that California had $85 billion budget surplus? Or some amount in the area.

 

I would absolutely take a HSR train to Miami to spend the day or weekend there.

 

Man, if there was an easy way to take HSR from S FL to Gainesville for football games, absolutely sign me up. The turnpike traffic has been horrible for YEARS now. And apparently "your toll dollars at work" would rather build sound/noise walls everywhere rather than add a third traffic lane. It's maddening...

 

Miami/Orlando/Tampa HSR would be great for international flights (or air travel in general) too.

 

How come when we spend money on high speed rail it is a boondoggle, but when we build new roads it is "infrastructure spending."

ALL government (and corporate) spending has the potential to be poorly used. However, it is idiotic to ignore that rail plays a role in relieving congestion and addressing climate change. Anybody who has been to Europe or Asia knows how effective high speed rail can be (and how great the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka is).

As for HSR in Florida, bright line is on its way from Miami to Orlando (then Tampa). Count me as one that would love not to pay $20+ to park at the airport.

But back to the topic - seems that this sums up the entire analysis from some:
Government spending to support carbon based transportation (from fighting wars in the middle east, to subsidizing gas extraction thru taxes/leases, to paying for roads) is good. Any spending on non-carbon energy sources is bad.

 

Cars sound like a really good idea too until you start getting into the details of how they've locked us into a system of transport that is going to make the earth a pretty hot and bad place to live (not to mention the countless ways automobiles have made current life bad for anyone near a city). But yeah, I dont have to memorize a train schedule to go most places.

 

Or get an Uber when you get there. The train system in NYC, Boston, Chicago etc. are very good and if you live there, you don't need a car. With HSR, it's kind of a replacement for an airplane ride (to Miami to Tampa). I don't think HSR will be a replacement for cars like in those big cities. Not sure if that is the intent or not.

Even the trolley here in downtown Tampa isn't heavily used (by locals anyway).

 

It'll be 250 billion by 2028.

 

I used to be a fan of it. Not so much now. One of the problems is where do you have stops. There is good rail service in the NE, including subways. The country is just too big. I would love one between Asheville and the airports in Atlanta and Charlotte, or to Gainesville for football games. Everyone has their wish list.

 

At one time, trains stopped even in the tiniest of towns because that's how people got around. The issue is more in how you connect those stops to all the sprawl encouraged by widespread use of cars.

 

And the problem is, once you add all those wish list stops, the train is not high speed because it has too damn many stops. Or you add in your time driving to the train station, and transportation (uber? rental car?) at the destination and you're not saving any time.

NYC has great train/subway service. Europe too. But with the suburban sprawl and typical city designs we have, that stuff just doesn't work the same way here, because everything is designed to be car centric. A train that dumps me on the outskirts of Orlando is of limited benefit when it's a headache to get anywhere from there.

I've done trips to London where we just set up base camp in a budget hotel across the street from King's Cross / St Pancras. Easy access to anywhere you want to go via the tube (in London) or rail (outside London). From that as a base we've literally taken day trips to Dover and York. You have easy access to/from Gatwick airport.

Heck, an express train from London to Edinburgh is basically a wash with flying, at around 4 hours. To fly the same route, you need 45 minutes to get to the airport, an hour and a half to clear security, sit at the gate, board, etc. Then a short hour and a half flight. But the train is far more comfortable and scenic. And dumps you a block off the royal mile. Trains here don't work that way...