Posted on 10/27/2015 7:29:07 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
California's high-speed rail project will never make its current 2022 arrival time, according to the Los Angeles Times. Doesn't this strike anyone in charge of this costly boondoggle as ironic?
The Los Angeles Times does a commendable job of providing a reality check to the increasingly out-of-touch project. After reviewing project documents and talking to various experts, the paper concluded, "The deadline and budget targets will almost certainly be missed," and state officials have "underestimated the challenges ahead."
Officials still haven't settled on a route, they're behind schedule in acquiring land, getting permits and financing, and the project faces several lawsuits.
Boring on the 36 miles of planned tunnels isn't likely to get started until 2019, the Times notes, and by any reasonable estimate it will take another 7 to 14 years to complete. Even that's probably optimistic, since several parts will traverse known fault lines, vastly increasing the complexity of the effort.
It could easily take another four years after the tunnels are finished to install all the track and equipment. That means that completion of just Phase 1 of the bullet train will be closer to 2030.
Costs, which have already more than doubled, are likely to be higher than the current $68 billion estimate, the Times notes. Project-management firm Parsons Brinckerhoff said in a secret 2013 report, which the Times obtained, that it saw cost overruns "in almost every phase of the project." The state hasn't figured out how to finance the current costs.
Officials have already backpedaled on the lofty promises of travel time and ridership. To keep costs down to $68 billion, for example, the trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles won't be on high-speed rail at either end. And instead of 90 million a year, ridership is expected to be about 30 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
RE: I got a ‘Reported Attack Site’ warning when going to this page.
I got a pop-up asking me if I want to subscribe to Investors Business Daily.
It’s supposed to be a legitimate site....
He was banned/suspended for a while; apparently it was a suspension rather than a ban.
Bummer he didn’t come back. I’ll bet you disagree, but still, the articles he posted were interesting to me.
“It would be fun to achieve some useful goals while tweaking all those pinheads that prattle on about global warming and such. Using an enemies weapons against themselves is fantastic.”
We don’t do it. Shame. The liberals telegraphed that making fun of them is Alinky’s biggest fear. And yet, we play by a book of rules that liberals ignore.
Can’t we put it to another vote? No one wants this stupid train. Or is there one guy in Burbank who goes to Merced every Tuesday?
There is no problem. If you have all day, you’re going from SF to LA no problem in your car. You need a car when you get there anyway. And for not much money you can fly there in an hour. THERE IS NO PROBLEM.
The train, if it were completed, would mean that anywhere in LA / OC you’d have a two hour ride to Burbank to get the train. And once you arrive after a low speed ride most of the time with a few short bursts of speed, you will be somewhere outside the cities in the Bay Area and will need transportation into the city.
It’s 100% a joke for a state where middle class people don’t have enough for food, medicine, or gas.
You started out good until you got to “will cure global warming.”
Global warming is a follow-the-money, wealth distribution myth.
CO2 is necessary for plant and animal life.
Yes, that is my point, precisely. And the “solution” is insanely expensive. I’m sure it could be spent much more effectlively, but nobody really cares about repairing a thousand little bridges named for a dead cops dog because it’s not polotically expedient.
No, I really mean cure global warming. What are they going to say? No, it won’t? Ok Mr. Envirowhacko, what will? You complain about this oceans rising. That’s in here. You talk about all the co2. Plan also takes care of that. You are worried about funding? There is 60+ Billion that can be diverted from the rail project. The project has been funded, right?
I would press this to the max. Television, radio, news, everything. And then I would call the democrats out that they only care about the 1% who will ride the train to nowhere instead of truly caring about the environment. I would go even further and have congress pass a bill. Up/down vote. Put it on Obama’s desk. Make the California coastline a national park dedicated to the environment. Force all the 1%ers off their property.
That’s how you win wars.
Yeah, some of his articles were interesting, but he himself was rather arrogant and nasty with anyone who disagreed with him.
Oh, I see where you’re coming from. Interesting. Perhaps some CA people will take up your gambit.
Of course the Dems will want to have their cake (bullet train) and eat it too (build desalination plants or other spending)
Re: So, did the original estimate take the above difficulties and challenges into account and factor in the cost? I think not.
No, that’s what the article is about. They were absurdly optimistic about what it would cost and how long it would take. It is a planning disaster on a massive scale.
We don't have to. We have the Bay Bridge. Amazing anybody thinks Californians need instruction in how to screw things up.
Or even Detroit for smaller projects with the union label attached.
Well it wasn't unions that screwed up the Bay Bridge project. It was Arnold Schwarzenegger and his payoff to Warren Buffett.
The Delta Smelt apparently hasn't done enough damage to make "fair market value" sufficiently pleasing to Richard Blum. They must need another cause. Pesky landowners looking to cash in on the subsidized real estate deals they did under Pat Brown. Who do they think they are?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.