California High Speed Rail Thread

[tech12]

Originally Posted by homebucket

^ More on that here:


https://cal.streetsblog.org/2023/12/...egas-to-la-hsr

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 shit 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

[Busy Bee]

It matters little. They're just one more member in the irrelevant naysayers club which will look like absolute idiots once 200mph trains are streaking across the IOS making everyone in the state and the country slobber, demand more and wonder outloud "how did we ever live without this?" - just as predicted and just like everywhere else where high speed rail has ever been built.

[sopas ej]

Brightline West is private and for-profit, so even though it got 3 billion bucks from the feds, I assume the rest of the 12 billion dollars it supposedly will cost to build the line will have to come from private funding?

Why does that sound like it might run into problems?

[AndrewK]

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…

…The SF Chronicle is an extremely lame excuse for a news outlet. Dishonest shit like this is part of the reason why the general public knows little to nothing about CA HSR...

The Chronicle and S.F. Gate are no longer directly related (though same parent company). The Chronicle might have its biases, but isn’t corporate shill clickbait the way S.F. gate is.

[craigs]

Today's LA Times editorial is upbeat about CAHSR (and Brightline). I am posting this in full because it is behind a paywall:

Funding for California’s bullet trains puts the high-speed rail revolution back on track

Editorial Board
Los Angeles Times
December 8, 2023

Finally, the federal government is putting serious money behind a greener and faster transportation system.

This week, the Biden administration announced $6 billion in funding for two high-speed rail projects that will eventually whisk passengers across California and Nevada on electrified trains that can travel 200 mph or faster. It’s a landmark investment in technology that is common in Asian and European countries, but missing in the United States, where the nation’s political leaders have prioritized funding for car and air travel.

The planet is paying the price. The transportation sector is now the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gasses that are fueling global warming and more extreme weather events. Climate change demands visionary, ambitious projects, such as electrified bullet trains, to end our dependence on fossil fuels.

The nation is going to have to invest in transportation infrastructure anyway. Roads are jammed with cars and trucks, and U.S. airports saw a record number of travelers over Thanksgiving weekend. The biggest challenge is building the high-speed rail lines fast enough to meet the need for alternatives to driving or flying.

The federal funding, which comes from the $1-trillion infrastructure package signed in 2021, will help accelerate two major projects: California’s bullet train through the Central Valley and a high-speed route between Southern California and Las Vegas.

Brightline secured $3 billion to build a 218-mile line that will carry passengers between Rancho Cucamonga and Las Vegas in slightly more than two hours. That’s significantly faster than it would be to drive, and it would avoid the soul-crushing traffic along the way. The funding infusion is supposed to get the bullet train operating by 2028, in time for the Olympics in Los Angeles.

Brightline is a private company that sees enormous potential in developing fast trains between large cities. This year, the company launched a higher-speed rail line between Miami and Orlando, Fla., that reaches 125 mph, which isn’t fast enough to be considered high-speed rail.

The Florida route was the first privately operated rail line to begin operations in the U.S. in a century, although, like most major transportation infrastructure projects, it has received public funding. The L.A.-Las Vegas route would also be privately operated. Aside from the $3-billion federal grant, the $12-billion project is expected to be funded through private capital and bonds.

California’s High-Speed Rail Authority received $3.1 billion, which is the largest infusion of federal funding to date for the beleaguered project. The money will help complete the 119-mile segment that is under construction between Madera and Shafter in the Central Valley, buy six electric trains and build a train station in downtown Fresno. The authority still needs $8 billion to $10 billion to finish the first segment that will carry passengers between downtown Merced and Bakersfield, but officials with the authority said the Biden administration has indicated this is a priority project that will be eligible for additional funds.

That federal support is essential. California’s bullet train is the nation’s most ambitious high-speed rail project so far, but it has suffered from overly optimistic projections, patchy political support and inconsistent funding. Now that the project is moving forward, it’s important to have federal, state and local governments working together to get it built.

The value is not just the bullet train itself, which will eventually link San Francisco and Los Angeles. The line will become the backbone of the state’s rail system, connecting to commuter lines, such as Metrolink in Southern California, and other high-speed rail lines, including the Brightline route to Las Vegas.

The work of building out a robust high-speed rail network isn’t easy or cheap. Neither were the development of the nation’s interstate highways and its air travel system. High-speed rail is a wise investment for a cleaner, faster, more comfortable traveling future.

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by craigs

Today's LA Times editorial is upbeat about CAHSR (and Brightline). I am posting this in full because it is behind a paywall:

Funding for California’s bullet trains puts the high-speed rail revolution back on track

Editorial Board
Los Angeles Times
December 8, 2023

Finally, the federal government is putting serious money behind a greener and faster transportation system.

.....

The value is not just the bullet train itself, which will eventually link San Francisco and Los Angeles. The line will become the backbone of the state’s rail system, connecting to commuter lines, such as Metrolink in Southern California, and other high-speed rail lines, including the Brightline route to Las Vegas.

The work of building out a robust high-speed rail network isn’t easy or cheap. Neither were the development of the nation’s interstate highways and its air travel system. High-speed rail is a wise investment for a cleaner, faster, more comfortable traveling future.

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

[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 ass 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 shit 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_P..._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/20130413...u-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/20130411...0Financing.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.