Skip to content
Subscribe

California high speed rail costs soar to $98 billion

Published:

The California High Speed Rail Authority has released a report saying costs for their own proposed high speed rail (HSR) lines from Anaheim to San Francisco have more than doubled to $98 billion and will take thirteen years longer to complete than previously estimated. Yet, ever perky, the Authority says the line will be profitable from Day One and will never need public subsidies. This rosy estimate apparently even includes the proposed first link of the line, the “line to nowhere” which will go from Corcoran to Borden in the Central Valley.

What’s that you say, you’ve never even heard of them? Neither had I, and had to look them up on a map. I’m sure they are fine towns, but spending a few billion to build high speed rail between them in hopes that this will somehow spur private investment to pony up tens of billions for the rest of the line seems like fantasy.

Even the most ardent supporters of the line have no idea where the funding will come from. A ballot measure in 2008 authorized almost $10 billion in bonds. But that’s nowhere near enough. And, ahem, does not the California taxpayer bear the burden of those bonds, including the interest on them, and does that not qualify as a public subsidy? I’d say it does. The US government has allocated $3.5 billion in funding but Congress has decimated that budget going forward. Future federal government subsidies, if they even happen, will be nowhere near that.

The primary reason for building the line to nowhere is that it would be the least expensive and besides, plans have already been drawn up and if construction doesn’t start by next year, then that federal funding evaporates. This is presented as a business plan. Taxpayer advocates call it folly and say ridership estimates are hugely overstated. No matter how you look at it, the proposed HSR line is tens of billions short of what it needs.

Another reason the Central Valley was chosen is because planners thought there would be little opposition to it from locals. Seemingly, planners must have thought those living there are yokels who could be ignored and who would present no problems. So, they carefully designed the new lines to be as intrusive, obnoxious, and noisy as possible. You think I’m exaggerating? Plans include a viaduct with trains roaring directly by Bakersfield High School at eye level doing 220 mph every 5 minutes or so. Gosh, that would be conducive to study, wouldn’t it?

It gets worse. The lines would destroy churches, manufacturing, apartments, fertile crop land, and more.  Fresno alone would lose hundreds of businesses in just 16 miles.  In Kings County, a dairy cow carcass processing plant would be bisected by the line. “Shutting down for even a few days would leave a mountain of carcasses,” says the L.A. Times. Farmers and ranchers, often quite wealthy and influential, have mobilized against it too. Really, this does seem like urban planners arrogantly assumed those in rural areas were bumpkins whose views need not be considered. But Sacramento has clearly underestimated Central Valley opposition.

Opposition in the urban San Jose corridor has been equally fierce. Plans have been revised numerous times and the cost is expected to be steep, as the HSR rail must either go aboveground or underground, as even the remote possibility of a car or truck being hit by a 220 mph train while attempting to cross the tracks must be avoided. But such plans, as with the Central Valley, mean large numbers of homes and businesses will be displaced. The entire HSR plan seems a rush to nowhere with little chance of ever being profitable.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

California high speed rail costs soar to $98 billion

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us