California High Speed Rail Thread

[FromSD]

Originally Posted by tech12

SFgate put out a giant "article" about the new HSR funding, but did it in the form of an advertisement for Brightline, where they tooted the horn of privatization (pun intended, heh), and barely mentioned CA HSR at all, except to imply that it's part of some bad trend that Brightline has "bucked" (headline has since changed), and to imply that it may not even be under construction yet, followed by the statement that it's "slow-moving". lol

People seem to think that Brightline West being privately owned will in and of itself allow it to avoid all the problems that CA HSR has had. They point to Florida's Brightline, ignoring the fact that that service isn't high speed rail, that it mostly runs diesel trains on other company's tracks, and that its one relatively short section of purpose-built track is single-track only. Kudos to Brightline Florida for getting people to take trains, but it isn't high speed rail.

I'm sure Brightline West wanted more than $3 billion from the feds, but even if $3 billion is a disappointment for them, they are still using right of way in the middle of I-15 which by itself constitutes a significant public subsidy. I hope the public gets something in return for that.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by FromSD

People seem to think that Brightline West being privately owned will in and of itself allow it to avoid all the problems that CA HSR has had. They point to Florida's Brightline, ignoring the fact that that service isn't high speed rail, that it mostly runs diesel trains on other company's tracks, and that its one relatively short section of purpose-built track is single-track only. Kudos to Brightline Florida for getting people to take trains, but it isn't high speed rail.

I'm sure Brightline West wanted more than $3 billion from the feds, but even if $3 billion is a disappointment for them, they are still using right of way in the middle of I-15 which by itself constitutes a significant public subsidy. I hope the public gets something in return for that.

The public won't understand these distinctions because the public doesn't understand the laws of time and space. And sadly, neither can many reporters.

[gochujang]

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

Awesome. . LA times Editorial finally in full supports of CA HSR.

Probably because Ralph Vartabedian's punk 🞵🞵🞵 left the paper last year.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by tech12

SFgate put out a giant "article" about the new HSR funding, but did it in the form of an advertisement for Brightline, where they tooted the horn of privatization (pun intended, heh), and barely mentioned CA HSR at all, except to imply that it's part of some bad trend that Brightline has "bucked" (headline has since changed), and to imply that it may not even be under construction yet, followed by the statement that it's "slow-moving". There were literally two sentences about it in the entire article, both negative, plus a passing negative mention in the headline.

They spent a whole lot of words hyping a non-existent train system that is far less impressive in scale than CA HSR, and benefits Californians far less, and made no mention of the ongoing extensive CA HSR construction, or the new funding for CA HSR at all. The SF Chronicle is an extremely lame excuse for a news outlet. Dishonest 🞵🞵🞵🞵 like this is part of the reason why the general public knows little to nothing about CA HSR.

But don't worry, because a day later SFgate released an article about CA HSR rail too...that was critical of it, and filled with false conservative talking points (such as the fake $100 billion price estimate that only ever existed in conservative propagandist's heads). And the last half of the article was about Brightline again, but with none of the negative framing used in regards to CA HSR. lol

Look, I'm a big supporter of high speed rail, including the California High Speed Rail project, but this is nonsense. The $100 billion isn't a "fake" price estimate that "only ever existed in conservative propagandists' heads". It's literally the official cost estimate provided by California High Speed Rail's 2022 business plan. It's not helpful to ignore California High Speed Rail's problems in order to cheerlead it. If we want high speed rail throughout the US (which I certainly do), then we need to call out problems in order to address them and prevent them from occurring in future segments and future projects. A good portion of these cost increases came from mismanagement and allowing local interests to extort the project. For example, look up the new, unnecessary elevated alignments in Fresno and Bakersfield that increased the budget by $2 billion, eating up most of the new federal funding. If we let this process become the norm and refuse to criticize any decisions made by California High Speed Rail, then cost to fund a national system will become so insane there will be no hope of ever getting a national system.

This project will be amazing if it ever finishes, but the process of building it so far has been flawed at best. Rather than trying to gloss over that, we as rail supporters should be trying to learn from mistakes made and demand a better process while simultaneously advocating for continued investment in rail.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Look, I'm a big supporter of high speed rail, including the California High Speed Rail project, but this is nonsense. The $100 billion isn't a "fake" price estimate that "only ever existed in conservative propagandists' heads". It's literally the official cost estimate provided by California High Speed Rail's 2022 business plan. It's not helpful to ignore California High Speed Rail's problems in order to cheerlead it. If we want high speed rail throughout the US (which I certainly do), then we need to call out problems in order to address them and prevent them from occurring in future segments and future projects. A good portion of these cost increases came from mismanagement and allowing local interests to extort the project. For example, look up the new, unnecessary elevated alignments in Fresno and Bakersfield that increased the budget by $2 billion, eating up most of the new federal funding. If we let this process become the norm and refuse to criticize any decisions made by California High Speed Rail, then cost to fund a national system will become so insane there will be no hope of ever getting a national system.

This project will be amazing if it ever finishes, but the process of building it so far has been flawed at best. Rather than trying to gloss over that, we as rail supporters should be trying to learn from mistakes made and demand a better process while simultaneously advocating for continued investment in rail.

I agree with you. We can both be supportive and criticize bad decisions.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Look, I'm a big supporter of high speed rail, including the California High Speed Rail project, but this is nonsense. The $100 billion isn't a "fake" price estimate that "only ever existed in conservative propagandists' heads". It's literally the official cost estimate provided by California High Speed Rail's 2022 business plan. It's not helpful to ignore California High Speed Rail's problems in order to cheerlead it. If we want high speed rail throughout the US (which I certainly do), then we need to call out problems in order to address them and prevent them from occurring in future segments and future projects. A good portion of these cost increases came from mismanagement and allowing local interests to extort the project. For example, look up the new, unnecessary elevated alignments in Fresno and Bakersfield that increased the budget by $2 billion, eating up most of the new federal funding. If we let this process become the norm and refuse to criticize any decisions made by California High Speed Rail, then cost to fund a national system will become so insane there will be no hope of ever getting a national system.

This project will be amazing if it ever finishes, but the process of building it so far has been flawed at best. Rather than trying to gloss over that, we as rail supporters should be trying to learn from mistakes made and demand a better process while simultaneously advocating for continued investment in rail.

He may have meant to say the blown "$33 Billion" estimate which was never official and seems to be a thing of legend in media coverage of the project for years now. You're right the $100 billion estimate is actually the real cost estimate from CHSRA but the elusive $33 billion number that was ran with from the Prop never actually existed. Anybody that knew anything would have known the project was going to cost more than that. I theorize CHSRA always knew the program was north of $60 billion but I think the ballooning above that number has come as a surprise over the last 10+ years.

[SoCalKid]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

He may have meant to say the blown "$33 Billion" estimate which was never official and seems to be a thing of legend in media coverage of the project for years now. You're right the $100 billion estimate is actually the real cost estimate from CHSRA but the elusive $33 billion number that was ran with from the Prop never actually existed. Anybody that knew anything would have known the project was going to cost more than that. I theorize CHSRA always knew the program was north of $60 billion but I think the ballooning above that number has come as a surprise over the last 10+ years.

Ok sure but the $33 billion number was still what was presented in the official ballot measure when it was given to the voters. Let's not forget that was in 2008 - back then that was a massive number, so I think most people probably believed it. So to say any of the numbers are coming from "conservative conspiracy theorists" isn't fair or helpful. People feel let down and misled by this project, and I understand where they're coming from. Leaders advocating for High Speed Rail (and the organization itself) need to be honest and transparent with the public going forward in order to regain trust. Yes, journalists like Ralph Vartabedian were often unfair in their critiques of CAHSR, but the organization and California's government gave them plenty of material to criticize.

[TWAK]

Costs have gone up since 2008, it's not rocket science. Notice that year is around the Great Recession, which made things worse and slowed the project down along with all the lawsuits. It's all transparent since everything is in the EIR, but I get the average person ain't gonna go through a 300 page PDF that shows how much a concrete pillar costs.

Does this have anything to do with So Cal not being part of the first phase of construction? If people are feeling mislead it's because they aren't taking anything into account or are salty for their area not being included. No way in hell my area ever gets HSR but IDGAF, I like trains.

[Busy Bee]

Prop 1A mentioned nothing about the full program budget. It only asked for bond issuance approval of $9.95 billion.

Because the media, both critical and "neutral" ran with the $33 billion number, many people seem to think that project estimated cost was in the 2008 bond measure language and thus "official". It was not.

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Bond_Measure_(2008)


Scroll to about 6:00...
• Video Link

[craigs]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Ok sure but the $33 billion number was still what was presented in the official ballot measure when it was given to the voters.

Source?

[JDRCRASH]

I seem to recall a projected figure of $42 Billion (or maybe $40) thrown around in the TV ads that year. Maybe some subtracted the $9 Billion in the prop from that number and got $33 Billion?

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I seem to recall a projected figure of $42 Billion (or maybe $40) thrown around in the TV ads that year. Maybe some subtracted the $9 Billion in the prop from that number and got $33 Billion?

33, 42 or whatever billion was probably from a "John Doe" making up some number for the total cost, then that got reported, and snowballed from there. 9 billion was basically the seed funding to the get CA HSR project get started.

[SoCalKid]

Ok fine the ballot measure campaign said $40 billion, not $33 billion. Here is the link to the original voter guide:
https://web.archive.org/web/201304130346...008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm

At the bottom, there's a link for more information on the project. At that link you can find this financing plan:

https://web.archive.org/web/201304111034...%201A%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Financing.pdf

My larger point though is that this project has truly had 200%-300% increase in costs, and that isn't just some conservative fearmongering narrative, it is fact and is something that should be addressed transparently. A good portion of that is because of inflation, and another big portion is because it's impossible to accurately project costs without doing a ton of design work. BUT there has also been a lot of mismanagement and politically expedient design decisions that have significantly inflated the budget. So while we should continue to fund and work on this project, we also need to use it as a case study for what can go wrong with large projects and try to improve the process for the next segments. Pretending that all the very real problems are just conspiracies or political attacks is not helpful.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Pretending that all the very real problems are just conspiracies or political attacks is not helpful.

I really don't think anyone is saying that.

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Ok fine the ballot measure campaign said $40 billion, not $33 billion. Here is the link to the original voter guide:
https://web.archive.org/web/201304130346...008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm

At the bottom, there's a link for more information on the project. At that link you can find this financing plan:

https://web.archive.org/web/201304111034...%201A%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Financing.pdf

My larger point though is that this project has truly had 200%-300% increase in costs, and that isn't just some conservative fearmongering narrative, it is fact and is something that should be addressed transparently. A good portion of that is because of inflation, and another big portion is because it's impossible to accurately project costs without doing a ton of design work. BUT there has also been a lot of mismanagement and politically expedient design decisions that have significantly inflated the budget. So while we should continue to fund and work on this project, we also need to use it as a case study for what can go wrong with large projects and try to improve the process for the next segments. Pretending that all the very real problems are just conspiracies or political attacks is not helpful.

Thanks for providing the source and agree with most of your points.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

Ok fine the ballot measure campaign said $40 billion, not $33 billion. Here is the link to the original voter guide:
https://web.archive.org/web/201304130346...008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm

At the bottom, there's a link for more information on the project. At that link you can find this financing plan:

https://web.archive.org/web/201304111034...%201A%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Financing.pdf

My larger point though is that this project has truly had 200%-300% increase in costs, and that isn't just some conservative fearmongering narrative, it is fact and is something that should be addressed transparently. A good portion of that is because of inflation, and another big portion is because it's impossible to accurately project costs without doing a ton of design work. BUT there has also been a lot of mismanagement and politically expedient design decisions that have significantly inflated the budget. So while we should continue to fund and work on this project, we also need to use it as a case study for what can go wrong with large projects and try to improve the process for the next segments. Pretending that all the very real problems are just conspiracies or political attacks is not helpful.

I pulled this from your link (ditto with twinpeak's comments):

Proposition 1A is a $9.95 billion bond measure for an 800-mile High-Speed Train network that will relieve 70 million passenger trips a year that now clog California's highways and airports—WITHOUT RAISING TAXES.

That's the part that matters most and that is really terrible that they included the no raising taxes part....like costs are gonna go up so there needs to be a way to raise funds, unless another bond and stuff. So if it's a "they said" thing and not solid language in the proposition then it really doesen't matter because what we all voted on was this. Costs go up with large projects, I mean that's just how things work. Let's say they did something like lock-in 2008 prices for stuff....what contractor would want to or be willing to be paid at 2008 levels? That would be a huge loss for anybody.
-I don't touch the political aspects in the subforums, so there will be no argument from that side of your point.

I'd like to know how it's inflated and what the mismanagement is, since you will actually address it. As a base...of course a 2008 price tag will be less than a 2023 price tag. Does it 🞵🞵🞵🞵? Yes, but that's just how or economy and stuff works. As far as "politically expedient design decisions", well yeah that's how you convince people to support something if they won't do it on their own. A lawsuit was dropped by Burbank airport because HSR sweetened the pie for them.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by TWAK

I pulled this from your link (ditto with twinpeak's comments):

That's the part that matters most and that is really terrible that they included the no raising taxes part....like costs are gonna go up so there needs to be a way to raise funds, unless another bond and stuff. So if it's a "they said" thing and not solid language in the proposition then it really doesen't matter because what we all voted on was this. Costs go up with large projects, I mean that's just how things work. Let's say they did something like lock-in 2008 prices for stuff....what contractor would want to or be willing to be paid at 2008 levels? That would be a huge loss for anybody.
-I don't touch the political aspects in the subforums, so there will be no argument from that side of your point.

I'd like to know how it's inflated and what the mismanagement is, since you will actually address it. As a base...of course a 2008 price tag will be less than a 2023 price tag. Does it 🞵🞵🞵🞵? Yes, but that's just how or economy and stuff works. As far as "politically expedient design decisions", well yeah that's how you convince people to support something if they won't do it on their own. A lawsuit was dropped by Burbank airport because HSR sweetened the pie for them.

True, costs will rise as this project gets delayed. The question we must ask is WHY it got delayed. They promised that further studies were not needed, that further designs were not needed, and that further taxes were not needed. They lied on all three promises. 25% of the eco taxes was added, more studies and more designs are continuously being done, and 14 years later, are still being done.

[markb1]

The $33B estimate is in the 2008 business plan: https://www.hsr.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/docs/about/business_plans/BPlan_2008_FullRpt.pdf

They probably should not have, nor should they continue to make, estimates for the full phase 1, when no one has any idea when it will be done, nor has the necessary scoping been done for give a reliable estimate. Perhaps they are legally required to do that, though?

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by SoCalKid

My larger point though is that this project has truly had 200%-300% increase in costs, and that isn't just some conservative fearmongering narrative, it is fact and is something that should be addressed transparently. A good portion of that is because of inflation, and another big portion is because it's impossible to accurately project costs without doing a ton of design work. BUT there has also been a lot of mismanagement and politically expedient design decisions that have significantly inflated the budget. So while we should continue to fund and work on this project, we also need to use it as a case study for what can go wrong with large projects and try to improve the process for the next segments. Pretending that all the very real problems are just conspiracies or political attacks is not helpful.

It's worth noting that a cost overrun of this scale is not at all unusual for a major infrastructure project. Britain's HS2 increased in estimated costs from £37.5 billion in 2009 to over £100 billion before significant portions of the project were cut earlier this year.

Nor are non-English speaking countries immune. France's Turin–Lyon high speed rail line estimated costs have increased from €12 billion in 2002 to €25 billion in 2012. The latter cost estimate was legally capped in 2015, meaning if it's breached it would throw the entire project in jeopardy, so essentially everyone has agreed for the past decade not to do any more cost estimates...

Even China isn't able to avoid overruns. Indonesia's first HSR line, built by China, saw the eventual increases from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $7.3 billion when it opened in August (after some negotiations, China and Indonesia agreed to say the overrun was only $1.2 billion for the purposes of Indonesia paying back its loans to China).

All of which is to say is that engineering is hard and there aren't easy ways around it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

It's worth noting that a cost overrun of this scale is not at all unusual for a major infrastructure project. Britain's HS2 increased in estimated costs from £37.5 billion in 2009 to over £100 billion before significant portions of the project were cut earlier this year.

Nor are non-English speaking countries immune. France's Turin–Lyon high speed rail line estimated costs have increased from €12 billion in 2002 to €25 billion in 2012. The latter cost estimate was legally capped in 2015, meaning if it's breached it would throw the entire project in jeopardy, so essentially everyone has agreed for the past decade not to do any more cost estimates...

Even China isn't able to avoid overruns. Indonesia's first HSR line, built by China, saw the eventual increases from $4.5 billion in 2015 to $7.3 billion when it opened in August (after some negotiations, China and Indonesia agreed to say the overrun was only $1.2 billion for the purposes of Indonesia paying back its loans to China).

All of which is to say is that engineering is hard and there aren't easy ways around it.

Do highway projects also escalate in cost? Or are they more immune since we are building highways all the time and have a better handle on costs.

The positive is that once rail projects are built, we have permanent new infrastructure. It is too bad that rail improvement had little investment between 1950 and 1990, but that was a product of highways being public and rail being private and the railways only saw investment in freight as beneficial to them, until Brightline anyways. At least now, we are finally realizing the benefit of public rail projects.