SACRAMENTO — The latest version of the business plan for California’s high speed rail system has dropped a plan to build a single track for its initial 171-mile segment, instead returning to the original two-track plan.
The Los Angeles Times reports the draft version of the 2022 business plan released Tuesday by the California High Speed Rail Authority estimates the cost of the full system has risen to $105 billion, a $5 billion increase from the 2020 plan. The newspaper says some of that increase reflect recent changes to reduce impacts on communities in the San Joaquin Valley; some likely is simply a reflection of current inflation.
The single-track plan had been suggested as a way to save up to $1 billion in initial construction costs [see “California high speed rail authority approves business plan …,” Trains News Wire, March 26, 2021]. But critics said building the two tracks separately could end up being more expensive.
The full business plan is available at the rail authority website.
My great grand kids are going to love it.
What would it cost to build the TGV in todays dollars, that’s the only comparison that can be made that makes any sense when people complain about the price of the system(as well as having to figure in costs that didn’t exist for France).
Well I have to agree with Charles on this. Before you turn a shovel you had better have your alignment from end to end all set. You don’t build anything unless all your ducks are in a row. Otherwise, you are just throwing money away.
Did anybody ask the cost of a few more planes at the airports compared to this massive expense?
I believe those who authorized it are more interested in spending money (I.e., enriching themselves and their friends) than in moving people.
I’m reminded of Credit Mobilier.
Its not just a few more airplanes, but more runways and terminal space. In some cases whole new airports, often in areas with expensive real estate. Furthermore one trainset can be built to carry far more passengers then a passenger jet and one trainset can serve multiple cities and city pairs on one trip then can one flight.
I’m not sure I concur completely with assertion that no construction should have started before the entire alignment end to end was determined. However I feel that the alignment between Bakersfield and the LA basin should have been decided before anything else happened and then all available resources (mostly funding) devoted to constructing that segment. That would ensure that even in nothing north of Bakersfield was ever constructed, we would at least have a through passenger rail route from northern CA into the LA basin. That would be an incredibly valuable addition to the CA rail network, Instead we will end up with an essentially useless high speed line between Merced and Bakersfield.
Unfortunately, any initial segment would be fiercely attacked by the opponents of this project., so LA to Bakersfield would have been attacked.
So if there is an enormous budget surplus, why is this project languishing? Pay the folks off and you will be fine
Besides, LA County alone has 10 million in population.
Don’t think it will slide away in this lifetime.
My only thought, if Brightline had built the line, it would now be up and running. First step should have been funding. Second step, building the two major tunnels. The rest, all at once.
Which tunnels? Do you know of an alternative alignment?
Lawrence, if CalHSR doesn’t even know the alignment a decade into the project, it won’t get built. The alignment comes first, followed by local review of alignment followed by environmnetal documents followed by r/w purchase followed by utility relocation followed by re-routing of local streets. That’s five years ahead of construction. Therefore any change in alignment adds five years to the project.
Even that’s assuming no further delays such as a court challenge to the environmental impact statement.
This project shouldn’t have turned the first shovel of grade until the entire alignment was determined from one end of the project to another.
Charles…the entire alignment has Environmental reviews completed now, not sure what you’re talking about. The last section to have it’s Environmental review finalized was last month(or was it December), and there are not just one type of Environmental Review in California, there’s the draft EIR before the final EIR. As for the 2 tunnels, the one through the Grapevine(I5) and the one through Pacheco Pass(State Highway 152). As for alternative alignments, I still think it would be less expensive to use 3 – 4% grades instead of tunnels, and speed could still be maintained if you used ICE3 and ICE4 trainsets(both designed to operate at high speeds up those gradients).
At the rate people are leaving Cali, will there be anyone left to ride it, let alone pay for it?
Current CA population 38.9 million. CA GDP as of 2021-3.35 trillion, with an enormous budget surplus. CA, if it were a nation, would have one of the world’s largest economies. I’m not sure what the basis is for your opinion.
California does NOT have a surplus by any legitimate accounting standard. No state has a “surplus”. No local unit of government has a “surplus”. All state and local governments are supported by federal subsidies which are based on billion dollar bank notes printted by the Federal Reserve. That’s not revenue, it’s funny money.
https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article256589561.html
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-15/california-exodus-pandemic
https://youtu.be/Ez90rXhMWjE
https://nypost.com/2022/01/22/former-residents-reveal-why-we-left-california-for-good/
https://calmatters.org/commentary/2021/05/newsom-budget-surplus-lao/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adammillsap/2021/08/27/businesses-are-fleeing-california-along-with-its-residents-and-president-biden-should-pay-attention/?sh=6178a64e2327