HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3381  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2021, 2:26 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Biden's just-announced extension of the federal student loan waiver will bring the total cost the treasury to $110 billion, so far, far more than the worst-case budget for completion of CAHSR Phase 1:
"Forbearance cost the government about $95 billion since the Treasury hasn’t received a reprieve on its debt to fund the loans. The Administration’s latest extension will bring the taxpayer tab to $110 billion, most of which hasn’t been appropriated by Congress."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-forever...-joe-biden-11640211426?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

I posted this because people don't really seem to have a grasp on how much money there is in California, let alone the whole of the United States, and how the country has the capability to literally print the money to build a high quality passenger rail network without stressing the federal budget in the least.
Exactly right. The debt, inflation, etc.. didn't even seem to be of the slightest concern with the recent $800B defense bill for next year. We can easily afford this but we don't make modern, efficient, transportation a priority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3382  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2021, 3:53 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Exactly right. The debt, inflation, etc.. didn't even seem to be of the slightest concern with the recent $800B defense bill for next year. We can easily afford this but we don't make modern, efficient, transportation a priority.
"Defense" has made a lot of huge purchasing mistakes since the downsizing in the 1990s. It's really one after another. The new ships and aircraft are so complicated that the programs are cancelled after just a few are built since some newer technology appears that promises to make them redundant.

Meanwhile, a lot of what I remember being in the Air Force back in the 1980s is...still going. B-1, B-52, F-15, F-16, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3383  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2021, 4:38 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 13,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
I posted this because people don't really seem to have a grasp on how much money there is in California, let alone the whole of the United States, and how the country has the capability to literally print the money to build a high quality passenger rail network without stressing the federal budget in the least.

The true-ist truth that ever was.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3384  
Old Posted Dec 24, 2021, 2:02 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,616
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist View Post
Exactly right. The debt, inflation, etc.. didn't even seem to be of the slightest concern with the recent $800B defense bill for next year. We can easily afford this but we don't make modern, efficient, transportation a priority.
Anything is possible if you are willing to throw money at it. But that does not mean everything should have money thrown at it.
First off, DOD budget is entirely funded by the Federal government and CHSR is funded by both the Federal and State governments. Were talking about apples and oranges here, just on funding.
Now, just for the sake of even distribution of Federal Transportation funding to all the different states, plus a few territories, How much more the USDOT budget would have to be to have the Federal government fund the rest of the CHSR project.
The present DOT budget is $86 Billion
https://www.naco.org/blog/fy-2020-us-department-transportation-dot-appropriations-motion
California gets around 18%. That means the rest of the nation's share is around 82%
15.5 / 86 x 100 = 18.023
The 2020-21 Budget: Transportation
Specifically, the budget includes $15.5 billion for the California Department of Transportation
The 2021-22 Spending Plan: Transportation
The 2021‑22 budget provides $31.7 billion for the California Department of Transportation
The new Administration has doubled the amount of funding budgeted for USDOT.

Let's assume the remaining portions of CHSR is funded over a 10 year span. With $70 Billion more needed to fund it, that would be a simple $7 Billion more per year going to California just for CHSR.
Remember, California's share is 18%. The rest of the country's share is 82%.
82% /18% = 4.555.
4.555 x $7 Billion / year = 31.885 / year.
31.885 + 7 = 38.885 Billion per year increase just to maintain funding levels half way equivalent between the various states within the USDOT budget.

It's easy to suggest all that is needed to build CHSR with Federal funding alone as a $7 Billion per year budget line item, but the political reality to find that $7 Billion for California is to take a $39 Billion per year budget item hit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3385  
Old Posted Dec 27, 2021, 8:02 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Let's assume the remaining portions of CHSR is funded over a 10 year span. With $70 Billion more needed to fund it, that would be a simple $7 Billion more per year going to California just for CHSR.
Nearly all government capital bonds are 30-year. The bonds are sold when each construction contract commences, meaning the total sum is staggered, and each bond sale pays a different interest rate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3386  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2022, 12:57 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,447
California High-Speed Rail Authority meets federal grant requirement

By Pete Menting
23ABC
Jan. 6, 2022

"The California High-Speed Rail Authority announced it has fully met its state funding match requirements for federal dollars one year ahead of schedule.

The Federal Railroad Administration required the Authority to match the expenditure of federal funds with state funds for qualified expenses by December 2022..."

https://www.turnto23.com/news/state/cali...uthority-meets-federal-grant-requirement
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3387  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2022, 2:51 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,295
^It sure would be nice if that article included a dollar figure along with plans for how the sum is expected to be spent. You know, basic newswriting.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3388  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2022, 5:56 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,447
Agreed, an article more than two sentences long would have been useful.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3389  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2022, 10:27 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
TL;DR
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 17,006
It's super complicated, just look up "tapered match". I wouldn't expect reporters to figure out all the finer points of this.

Long story short, California got $2.5bn of Federal money from ARRA (the 2009 stimulus) and they had to put up matching funds from state/local sources. In 2017, the Federal money was all used up but California had yet to finish the matching funds so the Feds set a deadline of 2022. Looks like they met the requirement, so they should be in good standing to receive further grants from the new infrastructure bill.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3390  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2022, 8:49 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,447
Governor Newsom's 2022 - 2023 budget proposes spending at least $4.2B in state money on high-speed rail.

"The Budget includes an additional $9.1 billion ($4.9 billion General Fund and $4.2 billion Proposition 1A bond funds) to support the continued development of a first-in-the-nation, electrified high-speed rail system in California, regional transit and rail projects, bicycle and pedestrian projects, and climate adaptation projects, with a particular focus on aligning the state's transportation system with its climate goals."

https://www.ebudget.ca.gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3391  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2022, 9:02 PM
jtown,man jtown,man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,162
How much money has been spent on this insanely expensive airline route?


I ask because let's see what could have been spent on other transportation objectives in the state if it were not for this horrible project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3392  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2022, 9:15 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
How much money has been spent on this insanely expensive airline route?
About $8 billion. The full system build-out will have 24 stations, meaning there will be over 500 origin/destination combinations. So thousands of flights per hour to deliver the same service, assuming that an airstrip could be built immediately adjacent to each station.


Quote:
I ask because let's see what could have been spent on other transportation objectives in the state if it were not for this horrible project.


Whatever the plan is, critics always have another plan.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3393  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2022, 10:12 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 13,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man View Post
How much money has been spent on this insanely expensive airline route?


I ask because let's see what could have been spent on other transportation objectives in the state if it were not for this horrible project.
You lost my man
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3394  
Old Posted Jan 10, 2022, 10:13 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 13,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
About $8 billion. The full system build-out will have 24 stations, meaning there will be over 500 origin/destination combinations. So thousands of flights per hour to deliver the same service, assuming that an airstrip could be built immediately adjacent to each station.
Beautiful
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3395  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2022, 8:44 PM
curt-pdx curt-pdx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: portland oregon
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmecklenborg View Post
Whatever the plan is, critics always have another plan.
So true! If we all agreed, or better yet, realized that there is an extensive process in place used to plan the best possible project (with adequate time for public feedback to help shape the ultimate project), then what would the trolls do with their life?

This forum would just be interesting information, instead of a bunch of complainers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3396  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2022, 9:56 PM
jmecklenborg jmecklenborg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 4,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by curt-pdx View Post
So true! If we all agreed, or better yet, realized that there is an extensive process in place used to plan the best possible project (with adequate time for public feedback to help shape the ultimate project), then what would the trolls do with their life?

This forum would just be interesting information, instead of a bunch of complainers.
I didn't make up that "plan" comment - a guy I knew who led a failed transit initiative in my home town used to use it all of the time.

If you've ever answered the phones at a pizza place, people have 4-5 strategies for getting free food. You can hear the attempt at free food from the second the phone call begins. Same with people who criticize public works projects - it's one of the same 4-5 strategies every single time:

-the project is too big - we should start small to see if that works
-the project is too small - needs to be more ambitious to have any positive effect
-instead of spending $ on this, they could be better spent on that
-project needs to "pay for itself" even though suggested alternative does not
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3397  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2022, 10:44 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 13,244
Tell me more about this free pizza stuff...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3398  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2022, 1:27 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,447
More high-speed rail money in Gavin Newsom’s CA budget. Here’s what it would do


By Thaddeus Miller
Jan. 11, 2022
Fresno Bee

"California’s high-speed rail would get about $4.2 billion toward finishing the central San Joaquin Valley portion in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed state spending plan, which he unveiled Monday.

The budget describes the money going to the rail from Merced to Bakersfield as advanced work, while dollars would also go to advanced planning for the entire project.

Originally planned from Los Angeles to San Francisco, the rail project has been pared down to connecting the Central Valley without the larger city destinations on either end. In his first state of the state in 2019, Newsom said the project didn’t have the pathway to the longer route..."

https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/high-speed-rail/article257203447.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3399  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2022, 3:41 PM
shivtim's Avatar
shivtim shivtim is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Midtown Atlanta
Posts: 2,624
With the infrastructure bill, and in general a big push on infrastructure from the Biden administration, wouldn't we expect CA will apply for additional funds and we could see the plan go back to SF-LA?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3400  
Old Posted Jan 13, 2022, 4:02 PM
Busy Bee's Avatar
Busy Bee Busy Bee is offline
Closeted Normie
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 13,244
The plan has always been SF-LA for phase 1 CHSR. That's never changed. The emphasis on fully constructing the IOS in the Central Valley is an intentional political strategy on the part of the Authority and the Governor to deliver a tangible that the public can see and/or use while simultaneously using that to hedge for funding commitments on both the state and federal level for the mountain crossings into SF and LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Transportation
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:26 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.