High-speed rail price tag drops by $30B in new plan Other Issues, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Apr 2, 2012 at 2:45 pm
California's proposed high-speed rail system would extend from the Central Valley to the Los Angeles Basin within the next decade and would cost $30 billion less than previous estimates indicated under a new business plan that the agency charged with building the system released this morning, April 2.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, April 2, 2012, 10:32 AM
Posted by jupiterk, a resident of the Gemello neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2012 at 3:24 pm
If we all whine more, the price may drop another #30B by next week. Wow, how does something drop by $30B. Something is really fishy here. Are they going to lay the tracks with matchsticks now instead of meta?
Posted by Observer, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Apr 2, 2012 at 4:42 pm
But Mountain View will still get four tracks according to this plan.
A plan that is 30 billion less than 6 times the original estimate, but all of a sudden sold as a savings to the taxpayer while only 1/20 has been raised and therefore the rest will somehow have to be borrowed. Well, more or less. Only in California. But we should all be grateful.
Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community, on Apr 3, 2012 at 12:34 pm
When I voted for HSR, the 9 billion dollars was only to get it started, so much needs to be done, yes looking for ways to getting the cost lower is good, if needed we can spend the money on improvements. We will have to market the system, we have visitors from out of state who would love to ride the train, see the state. S.D. with stops at Disneyland, Hollywood, Yosemite, and San Francsico. The business traveler from San Francsico with stops in San Jose, L.A, Orange County and S.D. The interstate traveler who just would like to catch a ride with transfer points. 3 classes, tickets prices, family prices, business traveler pass, monthly, yearly passes, Wi-Fi, dining car, bar, vista car, cars with rooms, meeting space, etc I would rather spend the money and ride on the train, then getting stuck on a airplane with peanuts and cramped seats, delays, airport traffice, parking lots fees
Posted by Illogical, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Apr 3, 2012 at 3:13 pm
The amount of people that will travel this train won't pay for 1% of the operating costs, let alone the cost to build. This will be another money pit the state will fall into. I'd rather take my prius down there, that way I won't have to rent a car.
Posted by Steve, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Were you here in 1962? Did you know BART was never put to a public vote in San Mateo or Santa Clara Counties? That's right, Silicon Valley never got a chance to join the 21st century until it's first decade was already over. We can agree that HSR has done a bad job so far. We can also agree that widening I-5 and SR 99 as well as building more runways somewhere would not be cheap either. Everything beyond that is my crystal ball vs yours. How much will jet fuel cost? How much solar would be used for HSR? I don't know either. I do know that the Peninsula's approach to arguing with HSR has mostly succeeded in adding cost and time. If that kills it, maybe our kids will have to do what we did not have the guts to do.
Posted by Jim Neal, a resident of the Old Mountain View neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm
This is exactly why I voted against the High Speed Rail project to begin with. California was broke when this passed and the money is supposed to be coming from a bond (i.e. borrowed money that must be paid back with interest!). Does anyone know of any Bank that loans money to bankrupt people? No? Then why should the people be loaning money to a bankrupt State?!!! It is a project that is not needed, not wanted, and that will never be profitable. The projections for profitability are based on 2 million riders which will never happen at the rates they will have to charge for the service. The airlines will kill them and if they don't, the fact that you can drive your own car to LA in roughly the same time as taking the train will!
I also don't like the fact that the State is seeking to exempt itself from the same environmental laws it wants to shove down our throats every time we want to use our fireplaces or barbecues. I think they should get to enjoy the same restrictions they apply to us every time we try to use one of our constitutionally protected rights! Let them get tied up in court for the next century because there's an endangered cockroach in King County that absolutely cannot be relocated to a new habitat.
HSR, it's an idea whose time has never come. Talk to us AFTER YOU GET RID OF THE STATE'S DEBT!
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Apr 5, 2012 at 3:45 pm
"If that kills it, maybe our kids will have to do what we did not have the guts to do."
This is where I have the most concern with folks who still support HSR in its current form. A project of this size and complexity is a poor candidate for Hail Mary leaps of faith.
Considering the poor performance we've seen with the HSR management team thus far, the incentives that motivate their advocacy of this project, and the current finances of the State, this is NOT the project to be decided upon based on something as whimsical as "guts".
A good gambler knows to set aside his money and play with the house money as soon as he can. In this case, we're implementing an exactly opposite strategy.
Posted by kman, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2012 at 9:45 am
If I have a choice between driving an electric vehicle verses taking a train, it will most definitely be an electric car. Look at the history of train use and you'll see they can barely stay above water. There is really no need for a train like this.
For those that insist on taking a train, there are already trains available for such a journey.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2012 at 12:27 pm
"All were first of their kind, bond funded projects begun during financially challenging times."
You're glossing over the details, and as we all know, the devil is in the details:
1. Most of the projects you listed did not have competing venues that offered alternatives. These was no other way to travel from Marin to San Francisco without the Golden Gate, nor was there any other existing alternative that could compete with Hetch-Hetchy.
HSR has to not only make budget sense, it needs to make business sense, and common sense. With alternatives like air travel, and electric vehicles, HSR has tough competition to overcome.
2. Size matters. The Golden Gate Bridge would have cost $1.2 billion, in 2003 dollars.
Even at that cost, it is only 1/100th of the PROJECTED cost for HSR. This also illuminates another point: construction is much more expensive nowadays, than in the past. The Golden Gate bridge project did not have nearly the amount of environmental review, safety factors, and enhanced engineering requirements due to improved building codes in a seismically active area, than projects now do.
To sum it up, making comparisons to past accomplishments, ignores the current added risks and cost that are unavoidable in construction today.
Posted by Old Steve, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Why do you not consider ferries to be competition for the Golden Gate?
San Francisco already had Spring Valley Water when they went ahead with Hetch Hetchy.
No project this large (or larger,like Hoover Dam) can accurately estimate construction costs at this stage of development. Sure we have more environmental reg's. We also use computers and have better educated engineers. It is ok with me if we disagree on the vision thing. Throughout history, most visionary projects have had to overcome rabid opposition, since most people are not visionary.
I'm not asking for a blank check. Since the HSR bond money cannot be reallocated to other worthy government expenses anyway, we should all vigilantly stay on the HSR while they do their work. Even after the legislature votes in June, we'll still have more opportunities to cut them off if need be.
Once we cut them off, can you guarantee we won't need more freeway lanes or runways? That videoconferencing will eliminate business travel? That Jet fuel won't triple in cost over the next 20 years?
Working on HSR is a hedge against any of those things.
Posted by Hardin, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Apr 6, 2012 at 2:54 pm
"Why do you not consider ferries to be competition for the Golden Gate?"
Not to get into too much detail, but HSR does not provide a cheaper, faster, or more convenient method of travel over existing transportation options. Compare this to the Golden Gate Bridge, which was (as still is) cheaper, faster, and more convenient than the options available when it was built.
If anything, HSR is the ferry-like option of today.
Vision, without successful planning and execution is what leads to the proverbial "pipe dream".
The results of the planning and execution by the HSR so far leads me to believe this is a disaster waiting to happen, and that by continuing with this, we are just throwing good money after bad.
Don't get me wrong, I want to see mass transit improvements. But the amount of money we are dedicating to this singe mass transit project, coupled with the current performance of HSR management's team tells me we should pass on this one.
We need to consider opportunity cost in the case, as well as the financial commitments we are making for a state that is already teetering financially. Consider how many smaller, focused regional projects could be completed with this same amount of money, and consider that having a group of projects is more scalable, allowing us to control spending as the state's finances permit.