California High-Speed Rail (CAHSR) System

djlong wrote:I wasn't ignoring or highlighting "union featherbedding" because my point was to show what it costs, per mile, in a European country that's known for having VERY strong unions - far stronger than the ones we have here.

Now, the political aspect? That's a different story. From speaking to people when I've been in France, the opinion on taxation is "we want our money's worth" versus "we should pay as little as possible". Mind you those are just MY observations - purely anecdotal.

"Low tax" political parties have never really gained traction in Europe and Australasia( currently struggling for survival in NZ with just 1 % of the vote). I think you are correct to surmise that Europeans will generally support using tax money for HSR, and other public transport. Same with "gas" tax , people may moan , but I don't think they would vote against it . Even the Yellow jacket movement had very mixed up emotions on it.

David Benton wrote:"Low tax" political parties have never really gained traction in Europe and Australasia( currently struggling for survival in NZ with just 1 % of the vote). I think you are correct to surmise that Europeans will generally support using tax money for HSR, and other public transport. Same with "gas" tax , people may moan , but I don't think they would vote against it . Even the Yellow jacket movement had very mixed up emotions on it.

People do not block traffic dressed in yellow jackets with mixed emotions! They disliked an increase in fuel taxes enough to protest and put the France's economy into a temporary tailspin.

Whereas the French may be more willing to pay ever increasing taxes than Americans, they still have a limit.

The protests were mostly about the perceived inequality between the rural poor,and the urban rich.The diesel tax was seen to impact the rural poor more than the urban rich,who have more access to trains buses and airplanes , as alternatives.Many of the yellow vests agreed with actions to address climate change, but saw the tax as been unfair , with no compensation for the rural poor. Thus , the mixed emotions , they saw the tax as unfair, but also saw the need for climate change action. Then of course, anybody who wanted to protest anything jumped in to the chaos. It was no longer about the diesel tax. Most of these kind of tax increases should be revenue neutral, a increase in fuel tax is balanced by a decrease in income tax for example. A increase in railway funding is balanced by a decrease in road funding( as there is less wear on the roads due to people using the railway ).

David Benton wrote: A increase in railway funding is balanced by a decrease in road funding( as there is less wear on the roads due to people using the railway ).

If the Federal government actually owned more than 1,000 miles of railway corridor to spend all that increase funding on? Amtrak owns just 625 miles of the 21,300 miles of railway corridors they operate on. In 2011, there was 139,679 miles of railway corridors in the USA.
Sources:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44973.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tr ... ted_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let's do some math just for some fun.
625 / 21300 x 100 = 2.934%
625 / 139670 x 100 = 0.447%
That means over 99.5% of the railroad corridors in the USA are owned by private enterprises.

Another statistic worth mentioning in the second link...
Table 1 U.S. Intercity Passenger-Miles by Common Carriers, 2015
Common Carriers Passenger Miles Carried (millions) % of Total
Airlines 641,905 64.7%
Buses 344,073 34.7%
Amtrak 6,536 0.658%
Total 992,515 100%
Notes: Bus figures include transit. Amtrak figures do not include contract commuter passengers.

Also take a look at Table 4 in the second link. The smallest amount appropriate to Amtrak was in 2013 with $1.344 Billion. The entire USOT budget for 2013 was $72,764 Billion.
So Amtrak received 1.847% of the total budget while carrying 0.658% of the intercity passengers.
That's almost three times more funding than its' passenger-mile share.

The question we should be asking is if we spent ten times more yearly on Amtrak, or another entity providing intercity rail, will it provide ten times more service (in passenger-miles)?

Trump Administration Cancels Nearly $1 Billion In California High Speed Rail Funding : NPR The Federal Railroad Administration also wants back the $2.5 billion in Federal money that has been spent so far.

However, Governor Newsom is not giving up without a fight, and he intends to complete the Central Valley segment of the line.

I can't be sure what this Journal report adds to that of the NPR linked by Mr. Petrich, but here it is.

Has it become a boondoggle? I defer to those with more "on the ground" knowledge than one who has not set foot on California soil since 1991 - not a boycott, just no reason.

But to this outsider, maybe the best hope to salvage something would be to comple the "nowhere to nowhere" line allowing an H(er)SR corridor for the San Joaquins to enable more of such and lessen interference with BNSF freight operations.

That's what I've been hoping they'll do--it'll be advantageous for San Joaquin service, as stated, and things change over time: if there's a change of heart at some time in the future they can extend it in both directions then. And the old maxim may still apply: even without true HSR, once people actually experience a ride over that stretch, some demand--and determination--to complete the route may develop.

Yeah, we’ll, the government funded a banquet for 150 with prime rib, and California ordered a couple of 10 packs from Taco Bell. They’re in default of the agreement.

Just because a normal Amtrak or state sponsored train can use what was built is irrelevant. The grant was for high speed rail, and the state failed to deliver. They forfeit the money and the government can claw it back. Newsom can refuse, but the DOT will simply withhold highway funds or something else to make up the difference, and there’s no court I can imagine who would rule against the DOT on this...

I'm talking post-Newsom, post- the entire present cast of characters, after everyone reading this is dead and gone--the grandkids will need transportation, and the infrastructure, if it somehow gets built, will still be there.

Exactly. They've made a start , and they should finish it. Its going to cost big bucks , now or in the future.

It seems the the current politicians and leaders , of all political persuasions , are not grasping the costs involved , both of completing these projects , and more, the cost of not completing them.
I don't think the private companies , like Texas Central and brightline have a good grip on the costs either. Thier ptroponents forget they havent really done any true HSR yet either.

California, under Gov Moonbeam and now Newsome, squandered billions on the project, with very little to show for it. Corruption and overcharging all over the place. Wonder who's pockets got lined?

David Benton wrote:Exactly. They've made a start , and they should finish it. Its going to cost big bucks , now or in the future.
It seems the the current politicians and leaders , of all political persuasions , are not grasping the costs involved , both of completing these projects , and more, the cost of not completing them.
I don't think the private companies , like Texas Central and Brightline have a good grip on the costs either. Thier proponents forget they haven't really done any true HSR yet either.

There are costs associated with maintaining the rail corridor often overlooked. CHSR builds 100 miles or so of tracks capable of running trains at 200 mph, but will only run trains capable of 110-125 mph on them for the foreseeable future. Do you really think they are going to spend twice as much to maintain these tracks for 200 mph trains? Or do you think they will save money and maintain the brand new rail corridor for just the lower speed trains? By the time they actually buy new HSR trainsets capable of 200 mph speeds, will the rail corridor still be able to support it? I do not have a crystal ball, neither do you.

I was referring to construction costs , not running costs . But without heavy freights , I doubt the cost of maintaining to the higher speed would be substantially more.
I think they should go with the higher speeds from the outset. Once people ride it, they will want more. With PTC or better control, I can't see why the HSR cant share the R.O.W with the current trains.

CarterB wrote:California, under Gov Moonbeam and now Newsome, squandered billions on the project, with very little to show for it. Corruption and overcharging all over the place. Wonder who's pockets got lined?

Dunno, maybe the landowners who went to court to get higher prices for their land just because they could?

and then claim that the project is a failure and over budget…when they literally caused it to fail?

btw, don't think for one second that this is anything other than a politically-motivated move. the deadline was 2022, not may 2019.

lensovet wrote:and then claim that the project is a failure and over budget…when they literally caused it to fail?

A tried and true method of killing a project--halt progress by any means available while costs escalate and then claim that it's going to cost too much. (Granted, they evidently had plenty of assistance from those who were supposed to be managing the project.)