6 ms·

And that's just for 119 miles of track in the Central Valley. How much will it cost once they get to populated areas?

by mrpippy 9y ago

sputknick 9y ago
In the article it says the cost for the entire project is currently $64 B. I can't fathom that kind of money
- QAPereo 9y ago
  Think of it this way... we’re going to end up spending about $7 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan having accomplished essentially nothing good. $64billion is a rounding error for our government.
  - BRAlNlAC 9y ago
    That doesn't really work though. If you earn 70k a year, $640 isn't a rounding error, that's still a significant part of your budget.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Yeah, but we’re not talking about total budget, not even the total military budget; that’s $7 trilllion just on two losing wars. You need to lose another decimal place, and remember that you also print your own money and can levy taxes.
  - lamarpye 9y ago
    You are confusing the Federal government with the CA state government.
    - acdha 9y ago
      Try dividing it by 50: every state could get two of these projects with half a trillion left over for DC and the territories. That’s even before you factor in that California’s population and economy would merit a larger chunk than, say, South Dakota. Seems like a better deal than paying to destabilize a region and create a lot of long-term enemies.
  - jeffbax 9y ago
    If you don't consider the 20T of growing debt, sure. At what point do we ever care about the budget at all then? Asking as an opponent of the wars.
    - QAPereo 9y ago
      Care about budgets, and cut the waste such as losing wars and corrupt, broken nonsense like the F-35. Care about price controls in the health sector, and care about investing in infrastructure.
- ebikelaw 9y ago
  California spends that much on our roads every four years. It is hardly unimaginable.
- Gibbon1 9y ago
  Divide $64 billion by 30 years.
  - sputknick 9y ago
    That makes it a lot more reasonable, thank you.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    But then add operating costs and debt service over 30 years.
    - Gibbon1 9y ago
      And then subtract fares. http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/ridership/ridership_revenue_source_doc5.pdf http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/ridership/ridership_revenue...
      - DrScump 9y ago
        Subtract actual farebox revenues, yes. But I don't expect that their revenue projections are any more accurate than their cost estimates were.
niftich 9y ago
I've long held the opinion that the Central Valley portion of the project, and/or the first phase of this project -- which in this case, refer to the same stretch -- is overbuilt in ways that make little practical sense. If you're putting stations into every major town, roughly 30 miles apart, it makes little sense to build things like curves with a radius of over 3.5 miles (~ 5.6 km) on a viaduct, comparable to open-line track radii in France for TGV lines, just outside of Fresno's station where you're going to slow down to 0 mph anyway. This kind of silliness is why they're over budget. The most acute impediments to long-distance rail in California is the lack of dedicated, quality track along which a trainset could speed along between towns without regard to freight, so it would stand to reason to solve that part first, while leaving a bunch of expensive niceties for later, when enough appetite for them has been built up. When France built the TGV, or Germany their equivalent, they didn't rebuild their downtowns to accommodate high-speed tracks; this is a uniquely American fetishism the same way the US took interstate highways into their downtowns in the 60s.
- ebikelaw 9y ago
  In order to meet the voter-mandated requirements of the proposition which started the project, some trains must run non-stop from San Jose to Los Angeles at 220 MPH. Many trains will go right through Fresno at very high speeds. That is why the track has the radius it has.
  - niftich 9y ago
    I think the original Prop 1 bill [1] lays out maximum nonstop travel time targets between major cities to be delivered, and a requirement to be able to bypass any station at "mainline operating speed", (which I strongly believe is an engineering detail that has no place in law), but not a requirement to actually have some trains on the books that will proceed through Fresno without a stop. The spirit of your post stands nonetheless; the Prop 1 bill codified a bunch of ambitious requirements ahead of time, ignorant of local conditions or engineers' opinion. [1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3034_bill_20080826_chaptered.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab...

And that's just for 119 miles of track in the Central Valley. How much will it cost once they get to populated areas?

sputknick 9y ago

In the article it says the cost for the entire project is currently $64 B. I can't fathom that kind of money

QAPereo 9y ago
Think of it this way... we’re going to end up spending about $7 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan having accomplished essentially nothing good. $64billion is a rounding error for our government.
- BRAlNlAC 9y ago
  That doesn't really work though. If you earn 70k a year, $640 isn't a rounding error, that's still a significant part of your budget.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Yeah, but we’re not talking about total budget, not even the total military budget; that’s $7 trilllion just on two losing wars. You need to lose another decimal place, and remember that you also print your own money and can levy taxes.
- lamarpye 9y ago
  You are confusing the Federal government with the CA state government.
  - acdha 9y ago
    Try dividing it by 50: every state could get two of these projects with half a trillion left over for DC and the territories. That’s even before you factor in that California’s population and economy would merit a larger chunk than, say, South Dakota. Seems like a better deal than paying to destabilize a region and create a lot of long-term enemies.
- jeffbax 9y ago
  If you don't consider the 20T of growing debt, sure. At what point do we ever care about the budget at all then? Asking as an opponent of the wars.
  - QAPereo 9y ago
    Care about budgets, and cut the waste such as losing wars and corrupt, broken nonsense like the F-35. Care about price controls in the health sector, and care about investing in infrastructure.
ebikelaw 9y ago
California spends that much on our roads every four years. It is hardly unimaginable.
Gibbon1 9y ago
Divide $64 billion by 30 years.
- sputknick 9y ago
  That makes it a lot more reasonable, thank you.
- DrScump 9y ago
  But then add operating costs and debt service over 30 years.
  - Gibbon1 9y ago
    And then subtract fares. http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/ridership/ridership_revenue_source_doc5.pdf http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/ridership/ridership_revenue...
    - DrScump 9y ago
      Subtract actual farebox revenues, yes. But I don't expect that their revenue projections are any more accurate than their cost estimates were.

niftich 9y ago

I've long held the opinion that the Central Valley portion of the project, and/or the first phase of this project -- which in this case, refer to the same stretch -- is overbuilt in ways that make little practical sense. If you're putting stations into every major town, roughly 30 miles apart, it makes little sense to build things like curves with a radius of over 3.5 miles (~ 5.6 km) on a viaduct, comparable to open-line track radii in France for TGV lines, just outside of Fresno's station where you're going to slow down to 0 mph anyway. This kind of silliness is why they're over budget. The most acute impediments to long-distance rail in California is the lack of dedicated, quality track along which a trainset could speed along between towns without regard to freight, so it would stand to reason to solve that part first, while leaving a bunch of expensive niceties for later, when enough appetite for them has been built up. When France built the TGV, or Germany their equivalent, they didn't rebuild their downtowns to accommodate high-speed tracks; this is a uniquely American fetishism the same way the US took interstate highways into their downtowns in the 60s.

ebikelaw 9y ago
In order to meet the voter-mandated requirements of the proposition which started the project, some trains must run non-stop from San Jose to Los Angeles at 220 MPH. Many trains will go right through Fresno at very high speeds. That is why the track has the radius it has.
- niftich 9y ago
  I think the original Prop 1 bill [1] lays out maximum nonstop travel time targets between major cities to be delivered, and a requirement to be able to bypass any station at "mainline operating speed", (which I strongly believe is an engineering detail that has no place in law), but not a requirement to actually have some trains on the books that will proceed through Fresno without a stop. The spirit of your post stands nonetheless; the Prop 1 bill codified a bunch of ambitious requirements ahead of time, ignorant of local conditions or engineers' opinion. [1] http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab_3034_bill_20080826_chaptered.html http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_3001-3050/ab...