Log in

No account? Create an account

Journal of No. 118

April 3rd, 2012

All aboard? @ 02:18 pm

I'm still dreading the overall result of prop 1A from 2008, a bond issue for $10 billion or so to build highspeed rail in CA. If you recall, I came out agin it, back when the cost of the entire project was $45 billion. More recent estimates put the number at $98 billion. Currently, after some jiggery-pokery and scale-back, the new number is $68 billion.

"But there remain significant doubts from analysts and even supporters over whether the new strategy is financially feasible or politically viable. It concludes by asking the Legislature in the next two months to start building the project even with a $55 billion funding shortfall. The plan is banking on the federal government to provide $42 billion and private investors to contribute $13 billion in hypothetical funding -- or else risk losing existing federal grants and seeing the project fold altogether."

As I said before: Ever hear of Ogdenville and North Haverbrook?

For reference.
Share  |  Flag |


[User Picture Icon]
Date:April 4th, 2012 08:25 am (UTC)
Well... okay, yes, let's just go ahead and say that the CAHSR agency seems to have been utterly incompetent. Recently they've changed some of the folks on the agency. And this new change, well, it's not *entirely* jiggery-pokery. The initial estimate was almost certainly ridiculous. But...

But, the way the new estimate came about was due to the idea that they would take existing tracks in the urban areas (where it would have cost a lot of money to buy new land to put down new tracks) and electrify them, so that the high-speed rail could run on existing tracks - albeit not above 90 mph. Thus saving billions.

I dunno. I am in favor of high speed rail, and California seems like an ideal place for it, but unfortunately this agency seems to be singularly incompetent. I am also in favor of the government building infrastructure, but... surely we can also ask for the agencies tasked with doing so to be vaguely competent?

Journal of No. 118