California High Speed Rail Thread

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Actually, we have been discussing the cost escalation of CAHSR and how this cost escalation was, in large part, caused by inflation. This is not an "out of state political discussion." Inflation, and what caused it, has EVERYTHING to do with CAHSR. I find reading this discussion interesting and productive and would prefer not to see it stomped out just because some people think politics can be kept separate from discussions about how public infrastructure spending (news flash - everything about this is political).

A quick Google search indicates that while overall inflation since 2008 is roughly 50% (meaning a $33 billion project ought to be roughly $50 billion), concrete prices have tripled during that same time. This single-handedly explains much of the cost increase.

Also, getting back to the Made-in-USA requirement, it might be the case that steel rail prices have not inflated internationally (I could not find a statistic), but the cost to buy even 50% of the rail domestically might be much, much higher.

I have personal knowledge of a streetcar project with Made-in-USA mandates that resulted in them laying much heavier and expensive rail than the streetcars require.

Sometimes prices unexpectedly crash. If this project had been approved in 2004, they would have gotten to the construction phase just as the 2008 collapse commenced. They would have been able to get far cheaper labor and materials. For example, I just looked up steel fencing costs and apparently fencing costs crashed 75% during that recession. Almost every mile of construction in the Central Valley will require two miles of very high-quality fencing. If you've ever gotten a quote on fencing for your house, you would know that fencing alone might comprise hundreds of millions of dollars or even a billion of CAHSR's budget.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

This was posted in some thread in City Discussions. I thought it was a good reminder of why HSR is being built through the Central Valley and not following the interstate through hundreds of miles of California where no one lives as some still advocate for.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by mr1138

I did say specifically what the cause is in my very first post. Land. Labor. Materials. All things that impact all construction project equally and that do not have their prices determined by the project management team.

Then you chimed in to say that it would be an "interesting revelation" to find out that the cost of land, labor, and construction materials has doubled in the past decade. No - it isn't. This is exactly what has happened and most of us already know this. This is not a good reason to question the fundamental need for high speed rail.

We are going in circles. The itemized cost breakdowns you are looking for for this project are almost certainly out there somewhere. It's not our job to go find this for you. Constantly casting doubt on the integrity of public officials and calling for investigations may work on the general pubic, but it sure as hell isn't going to work on me.

An accounting of the costs is not required unless you choose to make an assertion about the costs that can't be substantiated without knowing the actual cost components. I did not make a claim as to what caused the cost increase so I have no requirement to defend such a claim. But for anyone who does make such a claim, then yes, if the claim is challenged then it's on the person who made it to either retract/weaken the claim or provide substantiating details.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Inflation is always a factor. Interest rates are always a factor. Exchange rates are always a factor.

Inflation is not a factor when you account for inflation by translating the value of money at the time of the original estimate into what it's worth at the time of the later estimate which is what I did. When i said it doubled, it's because I looked at the original 2008 estimate and translated that into 2025 dollars to match the most recent estimate I saw. If the difference was just caused by inflation, the nominal 2008 figure would have basically become the 2025 estimate. But if I was just going by nominal dollar figures without equalizing them, I would have said the cost had nearly quadrupled rather than nearly doubled.

First approved by voters in 2008 with an initial budget estimate of $33 billion, the project’s costs have since skyrocketed. Current projections place the total price tag at as much as $128 billion—nearly four times the original plan

https://www.constructionowners.com/news/californias-high-speed-rail-faces-delays-rising-costs

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

It's not worth arguing with somebody who refuses to engage simple facts.

You haven't provided facts. You've made generalizations and unsubstantiated claims that you expect people to accept as facts, then got frustrated when you found out that isn't going to convince anyone capable of critical thought.

That said, if you don't want to engage with someone then don't. You're not required. These type of insults are a form of engagement; they're just a completely unproductive form.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Again, wrong. Anything involving tracks, be it a small streetcar project or subway project or intercity rail, attracts WAY more attention than anything involving roads or highways (or sewers).

That's total BS. First of all, any project in the 10s of billions of dollars would get more scrutiny than one in the millions. People might not turn against other projects as quickly based on cost overruns, but that's a different topic since I was not referring to the general public. I was referring to us in this thread, some of whom seem to question the project details like the alignment and question the cost escalation, few if any seem to outright oppose it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by mr1138

We are going in circles. The itemized cost breakdowns you are looking for for this project are almost certainly out there somewhere. It's not our job to go find this for you. Constantly casting doubt on the integrity of public officials and calling for investigations may work on the general pubic, but it sure as hell isn't going to work on me.

And this part is particularly absurd. At not one point did I "cast doubt on public officials". I didn't speculate on who or what caused the increase at all and I'm well aware that major projects tend to involve as many or more private individuals and companies as public ones. And I have no idea what it is that "isn't going to work". You seem to be assuming some type of goal or motive to my post for which there's no justification for assuming.

Ironically, it actually seems to be true that the major source of the cost overruns is known. But the ironic part is that it isn't any of the things you speculated. It seems to be a combination of the the initial estimate being flawed due to poor consultant work assuming costs would be much lower than reality, along with the organizational structure said consultants advocated for. Not that other things can't also be factors but it's odd how people's biases would create such a blind spot to one of such significance.

How California’s faltering high-speed rail project was ‘captured’ by costly consultants

[mr1138]

Cool man. Maybe someday you'll get that audit you are looking for.

[202_Cyclist]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

This was posted in some thread in City Discussions. I thought it was a good reminder of why HSR is being built through the Central Valley and not following the interstate through hundreds of miles of California where no one lives as some still advocate for.

But the cows in Coalinga would be so much fun to look at from the trains...

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by mr1138

Cool man. Maybe someday you'll get that audit you are looking for.

This has nothing to do with me or what I want beyond the fact that I'm interested in railways and public transportation projects in addition to urban issues. Which i assume everyone in the thread is based on their participation. It should be possible to have casual discussions without getting defensive and making weird accusations about imagined ulterior motives. Hopefully I can get that someday but unfortunately my hopes aren't high.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Inflation is not a factor when you account for inflation by translating the value of money at the time of the original estimate into what it's worth at the time of the later estimate which is what I did.

Any project like this that is funded primarily with a government bond issue runs the risk of inflation hindering the whole thing because while the costs can be affected by inflation, the original bond issue is still fixed at the same dollar amount. There used to be a different way to do this - to allow an agency to sell bonds based on a percentage of tax receipts, but that's not how Proposition 1A was worded. Same with federal grants - few if any federal grants are automatically adjust for inflation. Tons of 1970s transit projects were watered down or died (i.e. NYC Second Ave Subway) as that decade progressed because they received federal grants in the late 1960s/early 1970s that could only buy half as much by 1980.

You haven't provided facts. You've made generalizations and unsubstantiated claims that you expect people to accept as facts, then got frustrated when you found out that isn't going to convince anyone capable of critical thought.

Well where are your facts, then? Why haven't The LA Times and SF Chronicle audited the project themselves to point out all of the "facts" that you are certain lie under every unturned rock?

That's total BS. First of all, any project in the 10s of billions of dollars would get more scrutiny than one in the millions.

Per this current article, highway construction costs have risen 61% nationwide since 2020: https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2026-03-...gP7X_andGz3PQ_aem_UQC_lgiTEgd5JkEDoSMtBQ

And per this article, the cost of the discussed project has risen by $800 million in a single year - it's up from $3.6 billion in 2025 to $4.4 billion in 2026.

This project was only estimated to cost $1.1 billion when planning started in the mid-2000s, around the same time as CAHSR was in preliminary planning.

There is no controversy over this bridge cost overrun. Nobody cares. Because it's a highway, not a train.

[patriotizzy]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

And per this article, the cost of the discussed project has risen by $800 million in a single year - it's up from $3.6 billion in 2025 to $4.4 billion in 2026.

This project was only estimated to cost $1.1 billion when planning started in the mid-2000s, around the same time as CAHSR was in preliminary planning.

There is no controversy over this bridge cost overrun. Nobody cares. Because it's a highway, not a train.

Classic whataboutism.

Comparing criticism of a highway bridge to a new rail line is comparing apples to oranges.

Highway bridges are magnitudes more essential to the network of a city compared to a non-freight rail line, specially an unbuilt rail line where highway/roads are already tending to infrastructure needs.

Unlike a fixed-rail line (specially non-freight rail), road infrastructure serves a wider range of users, supports last-mile logistics, supports all freight, and provides crucial redundancy during emergencies.

You can stick to the point of contention with well thought out arguments, but as soon as you try to divert or deflect blame, it reeks of cognitive dissonance.

[electricron]

Latest Lucid Stew Youtube on CHSR report
https://youtu.be/nmy2X05FL8I?si=ZzY9c_lKuFAREJk8
Previously promised before 2030, it now looks like the aim for California High Speed Rail opening is 2040. But what PART will be open in 2040? What's the estimate price up to now?

[202_Cyclist]

Anyone who says we don’t have money for high speed rail or can’t afford to invest in transit can piss off.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/03/18/iran-cost-budget-pentagon/

[202_Cyclist]

This is in addition to the proposed $1.5 trillion defense (aggression) budget.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Classic whataboutism.

Comparing criticism of a highway bridge to a new rail line is comparing apples to oranges.

Highway projects are administered and funded through different state and local agencies than are most intercity passenger rail or local rail transit projects. They have different funding sources. There is pretty much NEVER a vote for any road or highway project - not since the 1950s. Meanwhile, rail projects often involve direct votes and taxes and/or bonds specific to them. This alone attracts scrutiny - plus the activities of individuals and organizations who attract free publicly by opposing...everything.

The opponents play the obstructionist game, some of which is just getting a project delayed. When a project is delayed, it a) becomes vulnerable to a different party taking office or at the very least the loss of a conspicuous supporter (i.e. Jerry Brown) for a game-player like Gavin Newsom and/or b)inflation takes hold and the budget is busted.

Highway bridges are magnitudes more essential to the network of a city compared

The particular bridge project I linked to still proposes a monster bridge for a crossing that has actually seen traffic decline over the past 15 years. But again, no controversy. Nobody cares that the DOT's circa-2007 doomsday predictions not only didn't come true, they reversed. Like an internet poster who makes a bold prediction that never comes to pass (i.e. Peak Oil), nobody pays a price for tricking the public.

You can stick to the point of contention with well thought out arguments, but as soon as you try to divert or deflect blame, it reeks of cognitive dissonance.

I've been active in this realm for 30 years. There are patterns of behavior, both pro and against, that are instantly recognizable to anyone with any experience. The size and location of the project don't matter - the games are the same.

[Bonsai Tree]

Originally Posted by patriotizzy

Classic whataboutism.

Comparing criticism of a highway bridge to a new rail line is comparing apples to oranges.

Highway bridges are magnitudes more essential to the network of a city compared to a non-freight rail line, specially an unbuilt rail line where highway/roads are already tending to infrastructure needs.

Unlike a fixed-rail line (specially non-freight rail), road infrastructure serves a wider range of users, supports last-mile logistics, supports all freight, and provides crucial redundancy during emergencies.

You can stick to the point of contention with well thought out arguments, but as soon as you try to divert or deflect blame, it reeks of cognitive dissonance.

For some reason I'm getting that you haven't been involved with or interacted with a DOT before? The idea that many of the highway and road projects we construct these days are essential is laughable.

Just like your argument.

[electricron]

https://youtu.be/btVyY0__elk?si=auBqrDSHFVLk3HL0

Worse yet, the newly released CHSR report states all new tunnels will initially be built as single track tunnels because the initial operating segment will operate as a single track line with passing sidings. They are single tracking the line to save enough cash to get something built sooner.

The double tracking and second tunnel will be built much, much later.

At the rate they are building CHSR, by the time they get to double tracking the line,, they will have to replace the original tracks.

[Illithid Dude]

Originally Posted by electricron

https://youtu.be/btVyY0__elk?si=auBqrDSHFVLk3HL0

Worse yet, the newly released CHSR report states all new tunnels will initially be built as single track tunnels because the initial operating segment will operate as a single track line with passing sidings. They are single tracking the line to save enough cash to get something built sooner.

The double tracking and second tunnel will be built much, much later.

At the rate they are building CHSR, by the time they get to double tracking the line,, they will have to replace the original tracks.

It makes sense to single track the IOS because it'll be so low ridership. Single boring the tunnels though is a much bigger problem.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Illithid Dude

It makes sense to single track the IOS because it'll be so low ridership. Single boring the tunnels though is a much bigger problem.

To lay a second track, will they have to run the trains at a super-slow speed in the construction area?

Also, they're getting crap deals on the trainsets because they're asking overseas manufacturers to build a custom train and then only build 8 of them.

[Busy Bee]

Any thoughts on the fairness of the 60Minutes segment? Obviously designed for a layman audience, but it seemed pretty balanced to me.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Any project like this that is funded primarily with a government bond issue runs the risk of inflation hindering the whole thing because while the costs can be affected by inflation, the original bond issue is still fixed at the same dollar amount. There used to be a different way to do this - to allow an agency to sell bonds based on a percentage of tax receipts, but that's not how Proposition 1A was worded. Same with federal grants - few if any federal grants are automatically adjust for inflation. Tons of 1970s transit projects were watered down or died (i.e. NYC Second Ave Subway) as that decade progressed because they received federal grants in the late 1960s/early 1970s that could only buy half as much by 1980.

Ok, but I'm not sure how this relates to the topic. The topic was some of us in this thread questioning why the cost ballooned to such a great degree. It had nothing to do with the government's ability to allocate funds for the project.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Well where are your facts, then? Why haven't The LA Times and SF Chronicle audited the project themselves to point out all of the "facts" that you are certain lie under every unturned rock?

I don't understand why people have so much trouble understanding how this works. If you make a claim about a matter of fact, you need to provide the source of said facts to show what you're basing the claim on if the claim is challenged. Examples of such claims would be, "The cost includes factor X but not factor Y" or "The decision was made by person A rather than person B" These are things a person can't know without access to external information. Which isn't an issue since you would need to have facts showing this information in order to make the claim to begin with.

The only claims of fact I made were that the cost approximately doubled after accounting for inflation, and I linked to a source showing that. Examples of things that don't require external verification include questions like, "Why are you so sure that X played a major role?" or statements of opinion like, "It's very important for government to be transparent about costs" or "That seems very expensive to me and I wonder if it's worth it."

A newspaper doesn't usually have sufficient access to do a full audit - particularly with projects that have a lot of private sector involvement such as contractors and consultants since they tend to have confidentiality requirements in their contracts. But that doesn't diminish what they did find out. I also didn't make any claim about how hard or difficult it is to find facts on the topic. It may very well be very difficult, but that just means you have to be more careful about making claims involving such facts unless you're willing to put in the work to verify the claim.

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Per this current article, highway construction costs have risen 61% nationwide since 2020: https://www.wvxu.org/local-news/2026-03-...gP7X_andGz3PQ_aem_UQC_lgiTEgd5JkEDoSMtBQ

And per this article, the cost of the discussed project has risen by $800 million in a single year - it's up from $3.6 billion in 2025 to $4.4 billion in 2026.

This project was only estimated to cost $1.1 billion when planning started in the mid-2000s, around the same time as CAHSR was in preliminary planning.

There is no controversy over this bridge cost overrun. Nobody cares. Because it's a highway, not a train.

Which is still a far cry from tens of billions. I'm not sure why it's so hard to grasp why sticker shock would be based more in huge numbers than in a large percentage increase.

[jmecklenborg]

Which is still a far cry from tens of billions. I'm not sure why it's so hard to grasp why sticker shock would be based more in huge numbers than in a large percentage increase.

Most of the public doesn't know how many millions are in a billion. And unfortunately the media is completely clueless about infrastructure and no high-flying journalist wants to cover state TODs or rail. Those beats are handed off to the interns.

I don't hesitate to blame Gavin Newsom's Presidential ambitions for why the state is not adequately backing the project. The state just ran a series of massive budget surpluses yet Newsom failed to award even 1% of the surpluses to this project.