The liberals $43 billion train to no where...

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
This is nuts. Completely nuts.

The state can't balance its budget nor can the federal government, but we can build a $43 billion train route from San Fran to LA??

Some estimate it could cost closer to $80 billion before they are done. And remember that this is the state that paid $6 billion for ONE bridge...

The cost has already jumped by at least $3 billion and they haven't even started construction.

How much longer till California goes broke?

California's High-Speed Rail Draws $179 Million in Federal Aid as Cost Soars
The Obama administration announced this week it's giving California $179 million to fill in portions of a high-speed rail that will travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco, but the project is increasingly being portrayed as a local transportation boondoggle, with the cost for building the first section billions more than originally estimated.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, while governor, said the total $43 billion cost was too prohibitive to create the 220-mile per hour system, but his successor, Gov. Jerry Brown, has accepted federal cash, in what will now be divided between three areas.

“California voters and train passengers have said it loud and clear, they want access to a world-class rail system in California,” Secretary Ray LaHood said Monday. “These projects ensure passenger rail is built to support a thriving California economy in the 21st century, while creating thousands of new construction and manufacturing jobs today.”

Across the country, 32 states and the District of Columbia are laying the groundwork for high-speed rail corridors. President Obama’s controversial stimulus package along with annual spending bills have provided $10.1 billion for the project.
But in California, a cautionary tale is emerging.

A 2009 business plan developed for the California High-Speed Authority, the entity overseeing the project, estimated costs at about $7.1 billion for the equivalent stretch of tracks in the first section. Officials say those estimates were made before detailed engineering work and feedback from communities along the proposed route.

Now the cost is $2.9 billion to $6.8 billion more than that original estimate.
The rail authority's chief executive, Roelof van Ark, said planners anticipated the higher costs as more information about land acquisition and other details related to actual construction became known.

"We've had cost increases, but I believe the costs are now realistic and fair," he said.
Van Ark also said he expects the estimated total cost of the project, originally pegged at $43 billion, to rise.

Construction of the first stretch of tracks -- as much as 140 miles from south of Merced to just north of Bakersfield -- is scheduled to begin by September 2012 using $3.5 billion in federal money and an estimated $2.8 billion from the sale of state bonds approved by voters.

The higher cost estimates already have been factored into the federally funded construction, van Ark said.

The decision to start the planned 800-mile system in the Central Valley, linking relatively small towns, has generated criticism that the project could become a high-priced "train to nowhere." In a critical report earlier this year, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's office said the rail line should start near coastal population centers and recommended moving control of the project from the largely independent rail board to the state Department of Transportation.

Critics say the higher cost estimates contained in the environmental reports, the first detailed look at the project, is another warning sign that the rail line should be halted until cost and routing questions can be worked out.

State Sen. Doug La Malfa, R-Willows, said he is preparing legislation that would ask voters to reconsider the project in June 2012. Voters authorized $9 billion in bonds for the project in 2008, although most of those bonds have not yet been sold.

"This thing is well on its way to massive cost overruns," La Malfa said.
Supporters of the rail project, the nation's most ambitious, said the private sector will be a significant source of funding and that the money will start flowing once work begins.

La Malfa and other critics say the fiscal problems facing the federal and state governments, and the likelihood that Congress will continue to cut federal spending as it tries to reduce the nation's debt could choke off funding.

"The costs are starting to escalate, and we need to take a time-out," he said.
Federal transportation officials remain supportive of California's project. The per-mile cost for the Central Valley segment is expected to be less than or in line with international averages for high-speed rail projects, said Roy Kienitz, undersecretary for policy with the U.S. Department of Transportation.

"Our goal is to help the state's decision-makers choose a design that avoids unnecessary costs, and we're pleased the authority has embraced many of the recommendations from the high volume of public response," he said.

Moving the initial section of tracks from the Central Valley would jeopardize federal money received for construction because it was granted with a strict timetable and requires that the work be done in the valley.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-in-federal-aid-as-cost-soars/#ixzz1UaLlP5mH
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerem

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
Sounds good to me. Not only are we building needed infrastructure, but it's going to bring in more federal money than expected at a time when state is cutting spending.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cytg111

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Perspective...

The big dig...
9 years behind schedule.
Almost triple its original cost.

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge
5 years behind schedule
Over double its original cost
And that is just ONE fucking bridge!!!
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
Probably crap but I've railed against government spending money except NOT on infrastructure and this is, for once, infrastructure. Probably a better use of money than smart bombs.
 

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Perspective...

The big dig...
9 years behind schedule.
Almost triple its original cost.

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge
5 years behind schedule
Over double its original cost
And that is just ONE fucking bridge!!!

So? They just need to provide better estimates. Both of those projects were good ideas.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
FYI Amtrak had 28 million passengers in 2008 and that is for the WHOLE country!!!!

Some how this LA to San Fran train will have double that many riders????
 
Jan 25, 2011
17,176
9,701
146
If a democrat cured cancer you'd bitch that it's just more people to fund through SS and Medicare later wouldn't you?
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,198
126
We need an Oakland Bay Bridge. CA pays a hell of a lot more tax money than it takes in, at least you leeches can do is stop whining about us building bridges to let the workers you are leeching off get to work on time.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Hey! Jobs and infrastructure... What a great idea!

ESAD, rightwing twits!
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
The decision to start the planned 800-mile system in the Central Valley, linking relatively small towns, has generated criticism that the project could become a high-priced "train to nowhere." In a critical report earlier this year, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's office said the rail line should start near coastal population centers and recommended moving control of the project from the largely independent rail board to the state Department of Transportation.
IIRC, they are building a "test" track in the Central Valley before the extend it. But staring there is the ideal place. The terrain is relatively flat. Construction won't affect traffic. Brings jobs to high unemployment areas. Geographical center of California. etc.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
So? They just need to provide better estimates. Both of those projects were good ideas.
Here is your estimate...

Take the time they claim and double it.
Take the amount of money they claim and double or triple it.

$80 billion for a train that might get 20 million people a year?
How many years will it take to break even?

I can fly between the two for $150 round trip. So most you can charge for train might be $75-100.

At $100 a person you will only need 800 million people to ride the thing before it pays for itself. And that assumes NO operating costs...
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,866
6,396
126
FYI Amtrak had 28 million passengers in 2008 and that is for the WHOLE country!!!!

Some how this LA to San Fran train will have double that many riders????

<2 hours will mean a lot of people will make that trip. That's <1/3 the time by road
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
17,020
5,083
136
Only Puffy-Jo could call high speed from S.F. to L.A. 'a train to no where' (sic).
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Perspective...

The big dig...
9 years behind schedule.
Almost triple its original cost.

San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge
5 years behind schedule
Over double its original cost
And that is just ONE fucking bridge!!!

It's a bridge that connects two huge parts of the area. It's not optional.

Some how this LA to San Fran train will have double that many riders????

It's high speed rail. There are a lot of people who travel between SF and LA. People will take if the prices are reasonable.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
High speed trains aren't infrastructure, the are black holes.

Build some freeways if you want economic benefit.

And you know that how? We don't have high speed trains in the US, not real ones, anyway...
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Investments worth it if it makes a profit.
Do the math...

$43,000,000,000 to build. How many people need to ride it just to pay construction costs?

BTW Amtrak lost $32 per passenger in 2008.

More great info...
"Last year, Amtrak's high-speed Acela Express train carried a record 593,000 passengers from Boston to New York" <--2008 data.

So traffic between the largest city and fifth largest city was only 593,000.

NY & Boston have a combined population of 29 million.

La + San Fran... 25 million...

So please explain to me how they expect to get millions of people on this freaking train?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
loliberals fail project is fail

You fucktards with blinders are comical
 

ch33kym0use

Senior member
Jul 17, 2005
495
0
0
I'm not really the guy to look for financial projections. I think someone else should do the financial projections for me.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
It's a bridge that connects two huge parts of the area. It's not optional.
It isn't about whether to build the bridge. It was about how bad they government is with estimates.

This $43 billion project will hit $100 billion before they are done. At that cost it will take a billion fucking people to ride it at $100 each just to pay for it!!!!

Hell even at 43 billion it will take 430 million riders at $100 each just to cover the cost of building the damn thing.