California Bullet Train Costs Soar To $77.3 Billion, Will Take 5 Years Longer To Complete

The California High-Speed Rail Authority announced today that the cost of connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco would total $77.3 billion, an increase of $13 billion from estimates two years ago, and could potentially rise as high as $98.1 billion. They also said the earliest trains could operate on a partial system between San Jose and the farming town of Wasco would be 2029, five years later than the previous projection. Los Angeles Times reports: The disclosures are contained in a 114-page business plan that was issued in draft form by the rail authority and will be finalized this summer in a submission to the Legislature. The rail authority has wrestled with a more than $40-billion funding gap, which would increase sharply under the new cost estimates. The biggest immediate driver of the cost increase has been in the Central Valley, where the rail authority is building 119 miles of track between Wasco and Merced. The authority disclosed in early February that the cost of that work would jump to $10.6 billion from an original estimate of about $6 billion. Roy Hill, one of the senior consultants advising the state, told the rail authority board, "The worst-case scenario has happened." In its 2014 business plan, the rail authority optimistically projected that it could begin carrying passengers in just seven years. But the warning signs of uncontrolled cost growth had already started mounting then, even though until this year the rail authority has vehemently denied that it was facing a problem. The project began having trouble buying property for the route almost immediately after it issued its first construction contract in 2013.

Comments

Race between Texas and California

[Tony Isaac]

The official web site of the proposed Texas bullet train, from Houston to Dallas, says that the Texas project will cost "over 12 billion" and start construction in 2019. Like the California project, the Texas project has been plagued by delays and cost increases. I wonder who succeed first, or at all.

We still need good trains

[Bruce Perens]

I've been to a lot of different countries, and it's always ironic how much better their mass transit is than in the U.S. I have rarely had to rent a car or even take a taxi to get anywhere I want to go - outside of the U.S. And it's very rare for me to have to take a bus in another country. Train go everywhere, except in the country I live in.

Given the insane amounts we spend on airports and aircraft, and roads, there just isn't any justification for not having the good trains they have in other countries. Consider little Switzerland, and its incredible transit systems. Take the train from London to Paris. Nothing you would see in the U.S.

So-called "smart roads" (which aren't going to work except for those leased vehicles with locked-down hoods) and autonomous vehicles might work for urban transit eventually. For inter-city routes they are still molasses-slow and inefficient.

And I am not really sanguine about the hyperloop. The safety issues make my mind boggle, and companies are having trouble even getting a model to go fast in one.

Re:We still need good trains

[Solandri]

Agreed we need good trains. But regular railway track through rural areas costs about $1.5 to $3 million per mile.

This stretch of track is going to cost $10.6 billion / 119 miles = $89 million per mile.

The U.S. bet on highways in the 1940s and 1950s. While highways are probably a good idea for personal vehicles in a country the size of the U.S., they had the side-effect of subsidizing the trucking industry. The higher tire pressures of trucks cause almost all the damage to our roads and highways, but their fuel taxes only pay for about half of it. So in effect, passenger cars are subsidizing the trucking industry, dropping the economic cost of truck transport below that of rail (where you have to pay for labor to transfer cargo from a ship/truck to the train in the source city, then from the train to a truck in the destination city). That's what we need to fix if we want to spur more railway development in the U.S. Make trucks bear the true cost of the damage they do to our roads, and suddenly rail transport will be more financially attractive.

Re:Hard to believe

[Spy Handler]

Iraq war was funded by the US govt. It was a national effort. This train is a state project.

Secondly, just because you wasted a lot of money on a big worthless project in the past, doesn't make it okay to keep on wasting money on further worthless projects. And yes I do agree that Iraq was a clusterfuck and that US should GTFO of the middle east completely.

I'm hoping Elon will put this matter to rest with his Boring company. By that I mean, the Senate Launch System, which at $1 billion+ per launch is a wasteful pork barrel project designed only to line the pockets of former Shuttle defense contractors. But with the successful launch of the Falcon Heavy (which currently costs less than 1/10th of the SLS but eventually with reusability will probably reach 1/100th the cost of the SLS) not even the most pork-doling corrupt senator will be able to justify the SLS's existence.

Anyways I'm hoping Boring company will do to worthless pork barrel trains what SpaceX has done to worthless pork barrel rockets.

Re: Hard to believe

[jeti]

In 2017, twenty-nine orbital rockets were launched from the US. Nineteen of those were a Falcon 9.

http://spaceflight101.com/2017...