I wish there were a way we could just do this stuff without the damned bond referendums. The voters never seem to know what's good for them. They refuse to pay even the slightest tax now ignoring how much more that refusal will cost them in the long run. My boyfriend's sister lives out there, though, so you can bet I'll be pushing him to work on her about it. ;-)

by Sean Robertson on May 20, 2008 6:29 pm  

Considering CA is facing an $8 billion and growing deficit, I doubt they can afford this anytime soon. They have been kicking this idea around for decades and always fall short; but it would be fantastic. Although I can see the desert Xpress happening before the central valley segment as it will be privately funded, mostly through the casinos.

http://www.desertxpress.com/need.php

by RJ on May 21, 2008 8:36 am  

Economic downturns are actually the best time for major public works programs such as HSR. The state bond amounts to just 30% of the total and will be repaid over 30 years. Based on experience in other countries, the SF-Anaheim trunk line is expected to turn an operational profit within a few years of opening in the 2018-2020 time frame. That means fare receipts will make a small but positive net contribution to the state's general fund after obligations to creditors and private investors are met. So much for not being able to afford it.

Besides, with California's population growing by roughly 5 million every 20 years and oil already at $130 a barrel, what's the alternative? Th Authority estimates it would take 3300 lane-miles of highway expansion plus several additional airport runways (good luck with that at LAX and SFO) to deliver comparable capacity expansion. The construction cost alone could be twice as high as that for all-electric HSR. The cost of hydrocarbons and the air quality issues they engender will only get worse.

Constructing neither HSR nor additional highways/runways would severely impair quality of life and sharply reduce the state's ability to grow its economy. For once, California voters need to look beyond the permanent budget crisis and make a long-term investment.

by Rafael on May 21, 2008 9:17 am  

Amen Rafael. There is no legitimate alternative. There isn't one for most of this country. I just hope the rest of us don't wait till 2030 or beyond to see how this is going before embarking on a massive and much needed HSR construction campaign across the country.

by NikolasM on May 21, 2008 10:42 am  

@ RJ -

afaik, both DesertXPress to Victorville and Sen. Reid's maglev project to Anaheim are more or less on hold until California voters decide if they want to have HSR or not.

If voters do approve the bond measure, the most sensible response from Nevada would be to drop both existing projects in favor of an HSR spur from Las Vegas to just south of the town of Mojave, bypassing Barstow to the north. There would be no stops between Las Vegas and either Palmdale or Bakersfield, so speeds could average 200mph+. While California would almost certainly not pay a dime for this network extension, there would be obvious benefits to pooling purchasing power, operations staff and training, maintenance facilities etc.

California probably wouldn't permit any actual gambling on the trains until they cross the border, but Vegas-bound trains originating anywhere in California could provide a superior travel experience in a "High Roller" class offering video-on-demand and/or live entertainment plus first-rate food service. Drinks, too ;^)

Rough estimates of downtown-to-downtown travel times:

01:45 Las Vegas - Burbank

02:00 Las Vegas - LA

02:15 Las Vegas - Anaheim

03:15 Las Vegas - San Diego

03:00 Las Vegas - San Jose

03:15 Las Vegas - San Francisco

03:00 Las Vegas - Sacramento

by Rafael on May 21, 2008 1:40 pm  

1:45 from Burbank to Vegas is brilliant. If ever built, I bet this will become a commuter rail and it will be become common for people living in Vegas to work in LA.

by RJ on May 22, 2008 8:40 am  

I'm sick of paying for projects based on outright lies about how much they will cost and what they will do. Is there anyone who doesn't seriously think that California HSR will cost 2 or 3 times what they are claiming, and not reach the speeds they claim either? Our system for building all transit encourages everyone to lie through their teeth. It doesn't lead to rational decisions.

If you find a contractor who will guarantee to build the project at the stated cost with the stated performance, and handle all cost overruns at their own expense, I'll be the first to pull the lever for it. In fact I'll kick in an extra million dollars out of my own pocket. But somehow I think my money is safe.

by David desJardins on May 24, 2008 2:45 am  

OK, so you'd be supportive if we had 100% certainty there'd be no cost overruns. What if we were 95% sure that it would cost at most 20% more than projected (just making these numbers up)? Would it then be worth supporting anyway?

In my opinion, it's worth it even at somewhat more than projected, but everyone has to judge what their own comfort level is, I guess.

The Washington Metro ended up costing much more than originally projected, and Congress only authorized the money thinking that revenues would pay costs. However, it saved downtown and kept Washington a livable, walkable city (which is now in extremely high demand). I think it was worth the cost.

Meanwhile, our highway projects also keep on costing way more than projected and we keep building those (Robert Moses famously would get the New York legislature to approve a falsely low estimate for a highway project, tear down all the buildings and put a big trench in, then go to lawmakers for the rest . Should we now hold transit to a different standard than all other projects public and private?

Infrastructure made the country grow and we need it for continued economic growth. I'd love to see a system where private companies just want to build these lines on their own, but the economics of transportation—road, rail or air—don't work that way.

by David Alpert on May 24, 2008 9:56 am