Comments on: “Shovel Ready” High Speed Rail? CA Is Ahead of the Game

By: Dana Gabbard

Dana Gabbard — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:07:32 +0000

At least land acquisition in the mid-section could commence with these funds. Some of us have worried ROW acquisition could get dicey if delayed too long.

Of course we have oddles of obstacles for this project to overcome. It is an epic undertaking, in every sense of the word. But at least more plausible than it was a year or so ago.

By: Gary Kavanagh

Gary Kavanagh — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:39:49 +0000

Of course CA will not get all of the 8 billion, no expects it to. However it could a substantially large share. This would of course not be enough to build very much of the route, but it would be enough to get real work done, which I think is a critical step. Ambitious projects such as this have been killed long before shovels hit the ground, when it is easy to kill such a project. But once real work is going it builds momentum to finish. I'll rest a lot easier knowing the project has gone from paper to construction.

By: John Thacker

John Thacker — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:14:02 +0000

There's no way, politically or otherwise, that California is getting all of the $8 billion. The share that California gets won't go very far towards building this. If it's a choice between making a small down payment on a tens of billions of dollars project in California for 200mph trains, or completing several 110-125mph lines elsewhere, I'm not sure that California will do so well. There are other places that have been spending state money and have environmental impact studies and plans ready to go for admittedly less ambitious but higher speed plans. The Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, for example. Yet everywhere around the country right now you see hopeful articles from papers and blogs about how their state is ahead of game.

By: Gary Kavanagh

Gary Kavanagh — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:21:22 +0000

I don't know enough of the wonk stuff to know how accurate these estimates or what the most costly expanses will be, but it was not long ago there were zero dollars going toward HSR, and we are actually getting somewhere now, with real work to be done and real dollars being committed. When people get their first taste of traveling on one of these things I think the momentum will be strong not only to finish the project, but continue on a path toward greater train connectivity between and within cities. With existing transit hubs being the stops it will be much easier to make travel plans without driving than at airports. I know a lot of people made the prop an either or proposition, but I think ultimately HSR and inner city transit will compliment each other in a way that will bring momentum to all transit as it has done in other countries.

By: FixHighways

FixHighways — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 00:32:16 +0000

good grief I hope so. We need alternatives to the congested airspace overhead and the congested highways on the ground around California.

By: Andy K

Andy K — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:11:01 +0000

Still, $80 million a mile for the line from SF to SJ seems way to low.

By: LAofAnaheim

LAofAnaheim — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:41:21 +0000

Rich - I believe the $40 billion was for the first phase, which is Anaheim to SF. Because Orange County has given the most to high speed rail, they were included as part of Phase 1. Once the $40 billion was spent on Anaheim to SF, the expectation was that revenues earned from the high speed rail or another bond issuance would cover the remaining extensions (i.e. Sacramento, Riverside, Irvine, and San Diego).

By: Rich Alossi

Rich Alossi — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:25:39 +0000

Andy: I'm not sure, but isn't the $40 billion figure for the entire system, meaning Sacramento, Oakland, San Diego and Irvine branches?

The Central Valley portion would need much less funding not only because of its sparse population along the route, but its relatively flat terrain. Few or no tunnels and bridges to be built, vs. the San Diego-to-LA route which would need many.

By: Andy K

Andy K — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:11:49 +0000

So, $8 billion for these first short segments, which leaves $32 billion for the rest of SJ to LA. Doesn't add up, does it? I know, these two segments are in urban areas, but even these cost seem unrealistic. At $5 billion, the SF to SJ segment is about $80 million per mile. Seems low - many bridges will need to be built, substations installed, etc, etc.

I'm all for improving our rail systems, however these unrealistic estimates do a real disservice. It makes it hard to make good decisions when estimates are so faulty.

Am I missing something?

By: Gary Kavanagh

Gary Kavanagh — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:31:18 +0000

Choo choo!! I've had my moments of doubt, but I had high hopes for this and it looks like CA may well become home to the first proper high speed rail system in the United States. Woo hoo!