
California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project: governor - pseudolus
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-governor-rail/california-will-not-complete-77-billion-high-speed-rail-project-governor-idUSKCN1Q12II
======
wwweston
> Newsom said the state will complete a 110-mile (177 km) high-speed rail link
> between Merced and Bakersfield.

Wow. Merced to Bakersfield. I mean, why not light the money on fire instead?

The point of something like this is to essentially warp the topology regarding
what constitutes "nearby" between smaller cities and large metro areas. If you
can do that, you've massively changed how both labor costs, real estate
prices, and even tourism/recreation work.

OK, "light the money on fire" is probably overstating the case -- there's
probably some multiplying effect in making the central valley more connected,
and maybe it's also the easiest segment to actually get built. But the
magnitude of positive effects is also probably an order down.

~~~
rubicon33
Someone PLEASE explain to me WHY the governing bodies on this project decided
to start with Merced -> Bakersfield.

I'm seriously dumfounded. I have lost a ton of faith, what little I already
had, with this government.

Does ANYONE have a reasonable explanation?

~~~
Varcht
Because Moonbeam's buddies could buy 1000's of acres of worthless desert for
pennies and then sell it back for a nice little profit[1].

[1]
[https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article218398575.html](https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article218398575.html)

~~~
rrdharan
For those who don't know (I didn't) - Governor Moonbeam is a nickname for
Jerry Brown, former governor of California:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.html)

~~~
Varcht
How Jerry Brown Became ‘Governor Moonbeam’? [0]

[0]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/weekinreview/07mckinley.html)

------
erentz
$77B is outrageous. We have to fix infrastructure costs in this country.

California would be better establishing an agency that progressively acquires,
upgrades, and runs rail throughout the state as a single integrated system.
We've been planning CAHSR for over a decade, and yet we still haven't
electrified Caltrain, or Capitol Corridor. Incremental upgrades like that and
improving curves and so on would've yielded huge benefits for the state by
now. HSR would be the natural product of this this down the line when you
would simply go the next step of adding a dedicated passenger high speed line
connecting the Northern and Southern systems.

~~~
hinkley
Look up how much it costs to build a mile of highway. On level ground, in
undeveloped areas it's still amazingly expensive.

Now try to build something through developed areas, maybe not at grade, and
dealing with traffic rerouting, other infrastructure interruptions, and
NIMBYism.

~~~
rbritton
Does California have something like the following? It could explain some of
the cost.

In Washington state we have laws that require workers to be paid Prevailing
Wage, the premise of which is that working in a county pays the corresponding
wage for a position based on the largest city in that county. The reality is
often that the wage set is significantly higher than the true market wage,
which causes costs to ramp up quickly.
[http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/PrevWage/WageRates/def...](http://www.lni.wa.gov/TradesLicensing/PrevWage/WageRates/default.asp)

~~~
WillPostForFood
Of course California has a prevailing wage law.

[https://www.dir.ca.gov/Public-Works/Prevailing-
Wage.html](https://www.dir.ca.gov/Public-Works/Prevailing-Wage.html)

------
marcell
I don't agree with the claims that $77B is an outrageous amount of money. I
also don't agree that a project should be killed because it's cost has
increased ~$20B over what was approved in 2008.

First, 10 years of inflation alone from 2008 to 2019 accounts for $10B of
price increases. While the 10 year delay can be blamed on poor management, the
fact that the cost increased due to inflation is not really a reason to cancel
a project.

Second, $77B sounds like a really big number, it is not paid all at once. It
is a bond paid over many years. To put it in context, California has 40
million residents, so that comes out to a $2000 loan on a per person basis.
The annual payments on the bond would be around $1B/year, out of a total
annual budget of $200B. You can explore the budget here [1] to see if you
think the opportunity cost is owrth it, eg. would it be ok to reduce
unemployment insurance from $11.4B/yr -> $10.4B/yr if it means we can build a
HSR from San Jose to Los Angeles?

I think the Governor's choice is very short sighted, and the laughable
assertion that a train from Bakersfield to Merced is a good idea is clearly a
face saving measure. In 2040 are we still going to be flying from SFO/SJC to
LAX? I wish our government was more willing to take on long term
infrastructure projects.

[1]
[https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2019CAbs_...](https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_2019CAbs_20bs2n_1020604070#usgs302)

~~~
mikeash
$77 billion doesn’t sound like a big number because of the absolute amount of
money involved. It sounds like a big number because similar projects in other
places cost far, far less. That number represents an incredible amount of
waste. I think they should focus on getting the project to cost a reasonable
amount and then do it, rather than either accepting it as-is or abandoning it.

~~~
zimpenfish
Crossrail[1] is currently projected to cost £15.4bn (~$19.8bn) for 73 miles of
non-high-speed rail (~90mph).

For the 520 miles California was proposing, you'd be looking at £110bn
(~$140bn) and that's ignoring the fact that London has no mountain ranges to
contend with and that HSR requires much stricter paths.

In that context, $77bn looks like an absolute bargain.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail)

~~~
mikeash
I’m not sure an urban line with substantial underground sections and a bunch
of new stations is entirely comparable.

------
ohazi
It's not just that $77 billion is outrageously expensive. It's that it's not
what Californians voted for in 2008.

If you go back and read the original text and fiscal impact estimate of
proposition 1a, it was supposed to cost around $10 billion dollars to build,
and was expected to cost the state around $20 billion after accounting for
interest and bond fees. There needs to be some sort of circuit breaker that
trips when your original assumptions are so utterly out of touch with reality.

Just like the actual text of the brexit was essentially "Would it be cool if
we, like, left the EU?" \-- the public should not be voting on things that
have not been fully fleshed out.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If you go back and read the original text and fiscal impact estimate of
> proposition 1a, it was supposed to cost around $10 billion dollars to build,
> and was expected to cost the state around $20 billion after accounting for
> interest and bond fees.

No, it wasn't. The $9.95 billion was the state direct costs (before bond fees,
interest, etc.) for HSR ($9B) and the associated other transit improvements
($0.95B), with the remainder of the system costs envisioned coming from
federal and other sources. High (though hostile) estimates at the time of the
total system cost, referenced in the opposing ballot argument, actually
_exceeded_ the most recent $77B estimate @ $90B.

~~~
masonic

      actually exceeded the most recent $77B estimate @ $90B
    

That's disingenuous. The original figures are for the _entire finished project
as originally scoped_ ; the modern $77B is for the current, useless scaled-
down fragment.

~~~
dragonwriter
> The original figures are for the entire finished project as originally
> scoped; the modern $77B is for the current, useless scaled-down fragment.

No, the $77B is for the entire project, and is the reason cited for limiting
substantive state-funded work (outside of completing environmental reviews and
efforts to secure outside funding) to the 119 mile segment previously
identified as the initial construction segment.

~~~
masonic
The "entire project" was the full 800+ mile network as promised in Proposition
1A. Quoting from the ballot pamphlet[0]:

"Proposition 1A is a $9.95 billion bond measure for an 800-mile High-Speed
Train network that will relieve 70 million passenger trips a year that now
clog California's highways and airports—WITHOUT RAISING TAXES (emphasis
theirs)."

As aside from your misdefinition of the "entire project", we're not even
getting the Phase 1 we were promised at that $77B price point:

"The current price tag is $77 billion, up from $33 billion when the project
was approved. Funding has become a problem for the rail authority, which can’t
afford to complete even a partial operational segment — slow or fast. In its
2018 business plan, _the authority deleted construction of a 13-mile tunnel
under the Pacheco Pass from its first phase_ because it did not have enough
money. _The decision will leave about 80 miles of track in the Bay Area
disconnected from 119 miles of track in the Central Valley_."

This is _not_ the 520-mile, contiguous, 220MPH LA-Sacto-San Jose project that
was promised for Phase 1. Not remotely close.

And I'm not even counting the promised Phase 2.

[0] [http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-
re...](http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm)

[1]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20180816125913/http://www.marini...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180816125913/http://www.marinij.com/general-
news/20180729/california-bullet-train-might-not-attain-states-mandated-speed#)

------
buxtehude
I love fast trains but we need them much more inside our metro areas than
between distant parts of the state.

Commutes within the major metro areas in California (SF bay area, Los Angeles,
Sacramento) are horrendous and just imagine how much good $77bn could do for
those.

A well designed and fast transportation network within metro areas would do
much more to improve the lives of Californians and the environment, as well as
make our cities much more livable.

~~~
slg
I would even argue that transit systems within a city are somewhat of a
prerequisite to high speed rail adoption. It is the last mile problem. If you
are planning a trip from San Francisco to Los Angeles, one of the major
reasons to drive is so you have a car in LA. If you could reasonably get
around LA without a car, taking a train from SF to LA becomes much more
appealing.

That is one of the big advantages for high speed rail in Japan. The high speed
rail service is closely integrated with the local rail network of the cities
it stops in. You get off the high speed rail, walk two minutes, and you are on
a subway to your final destination.

~~~
iaabtpbtpnn
It surprises many people to learn this, but LA actually has metro rail, which
you can catch from Union Station. It services almost double the number of
stations that BART does. My experience with the express buses on the west side
is also far superior to MUNI.

~~~
simonbyrne
It's also a matter of integration (common ticketing, timetabling of
connections, sharing stations): the Bay Area is atrocious for this. LA is
slightly better, but still leaves a lot to be desired.

~~~
inferiorhuman
LA is a LOT better with this, and that's why they're actually building rail
out. They've consolidated administration whereas the Bay Area is a fragmented
rat's nest with BART being the best example of how toxic and provincial
transit politics can be.

------
Johnny555
_Newsom said the state will complete a 110-mile (177 km) high-speed rail link
between Merced and Bakersfield_

I suspected this would happen -- the project would get canceled and we'd end
up with a small segment of rail that few will use. Merced -> Bakersfield is
only a 2.5 hour drive and you almost certainly will need a car when you get
there.

They should have started with a corridor that would see real usage, like SF
(or even Oakland/emeryville) -> Sacramento (but afaik, the proposed route
didn't even include a direct SF to Sacramento segment)

Then as (if?) that route demonstrated the technology and had good ridership,
they could expand from there.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
Or LA to San Diego. There's already a rail line.

~~~
jonas21
I think the key word there is " _a_ rail line." Much of the LA to San Diego
route is currently single-tracked -- trains traveling in both directions share
a single physical track and have to be scheduled so that only one train
occupies the track at a time. If your train falls even a few minutes behind
schedule (and this seems to happen a lot), it starts missing its slots and
ends up spending time stopped on sidings waiting for trains going the opposite
direction to clear the track. Now your 3-hour trip turns into a 5 or 6 hour
trip.

But yeah, if you wanted to start building high-quality inter-city rail in
California, LA/San Diego seems like an obvious place to start. They're the 2nd
and 8th largest cities in the US and only 120 miles apart. You wouldn't even
need "high-speed" rail to make it work. A train that reliably averaged, say,
80 mph could make the trip in 90 minutes, which is a lot faster than driving
most of the time.

On the other hand, I guess "reliable rail that's not terribly slow" doesn't
get people excited like "high-speed rail" does.

------
opopopoopo
It is amazing that Japan was able to complete a project like this in the 60s,
yet the US is so shortsighted we cannot dream of having even just one high
speed rail system in the entire country. Absolutely embarrassing.

~~~
screye
I think Density may play a huge role here.

India has an amazing rail network, but literally not a seat goes empty.

Here in the US, I often book long distance peter pan / grey hound buses and
them being empty is par for the course. This is in the NE corridor too.
Doesn't get more dense than that.

The culture problem is another factor. People love cars a bit too much. I hope
taxation on oil goes up in the US. But, that would be political suicide here.

~~~
empath75
Amtrak is more expensive than flying and takes many times longer, and is way
more unreliable. The only people that use it outside of the eastern corridor
are people afraid of flying and train enthusiasts.

~~~
drilldrive
For short distances, Amtrak is better than flying. A ticket from LA to San
Diego costed me $35 compared to $80 flying one-way.

~~~
ghaff
There are a few other city pairs outside of the Northeast Corridor. But not a
lot. Even in the Northeast Corridor Amtrak (and the Acela in particular )
aren’t consistently cheaper than flying. In part, I expect this is because
really price sensitive people will take Megabus or whatever anyway.

~~~
drilldrive
I suspect that the high price may be in part due to Amtrak renting the private
railroad tracks for its use, though I definitely do not know the exact cause.

~~~
ghaff
That’s probably one reason. Amtrak just also isn’t utilized heavily on most
routes. Basically the Northeast Corridor profits subsidize Amtrak’s losses in
the rest of the country.

My understanding is that Amtrak does own its tracks in the Northeast but they
can price Acela high enough to just be competitive enough with planes for
business travelers.

------
martythemaniak
Ironically, just last week the Green New Dealers said the entirety of the US
should move to high speed rail.

One thing climate change debates have taught me is that people generally can't
think past implementations and have incredible difficulty updating their
implementation-specific mindsets.

Cars and planes have been 'bad' for climate change as they were inevitably
burning fossil fuels, so the natural answer was public transit and high speed
rail. Today, we have EVs and within about a decade short-haul electric planes
(ie, exactly the routes high speed rail aims to serve). The answer to climate
change (at least as far as transportation goes) should very clearly be "EVs",
with these "electric vehicles" being cars, trucks, semis, and short-haul
planes. Unfortunately, you won't see this reflected in GND thinking.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
> Ironically, just last week the Green New Dealers said the entirety of the US
> should move to high speed rail.

It also said we should get rid of cars, planes, "farting cows", and provide
for people "unwilling to work"... while also being anti-nuclear, and pro-
government involvement in Tesla. [0]

I'm surprised the DNC allowed that to stay up as long as they did!

[0]
[https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Gree...](https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-
New-Deal-FAQ)

edit: Um... you can think it was bad PR because it was, but those are true
things that were in there. I didn't write it :)

~~~
geofft
Yes, the original document that was posted was too politically incorrect for
the right-wing faction of the DNC to be comfortable with it. Providing for
people even if they're unwilling to work is a defensible strategy, and is
rather popular on HN under the name of "universal basic income" and among rich
people under the name of "inheritance".

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
>right-wing faction of the DNC

Wha?

>Providing for people even if they're unwilling to work is a defensible
strategy

.... Ok... Go on then. Please expand on how providing for people unwilling to
work is defensible. I'm open minded, convince me.

~~~
CamperBob2
_Ok... Go on then. Please expand on how providing for people unwilling to work
is defensible. I 'm open minded, convince me._

We do that now. It's called "prison." The question is, could we spend a
similar amount of money in other ways and get a better society in the bargain?

It's analogous to how our private healthcare system costs us more money for
worse results than other countries' "socialized" systems do. It's usually a
bad idea to let politics and ideology take precedence over objective metrics.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
In what.... No. Prisons are not filled with people who were unwilling to work.
Nor are prisoners prohibited from working.

Why would you make that case that people in prison were put there because they
were unwilling to work? Do you think prisons are filled with unfortunate souls
who got caught stealing bread to feed their families? I suggest you try
spending a weekend in lock up sometime, you'll get that idea fixed right away.

~~~
geofft
> _Why would you make that case that people in prison were put there because
> they were unwilling to work? Do you think prisons are filled with
> unfortunate souls who got caught stealing bread to feed their families?_

You're contradicting yourself. Valjean was quite willing to work, it just
wasn't enough to feed himself and his family. (And in fact he worked quite
hard, both in prison and in the rest of his life.) If you think that prisoners
are willing to work, then they _are_ unfortunate souls who got caught stealing
bread.

On the other hand, if they are people who wish to work on the black market, or
wish to work in ways that society deems impermissible (fraud, theft, etc.), or
wish to engage in conduct on the job that society deems impermissible (perhaps
conduct like theft that lets them avoid working), then they aren't unfortunate
souls precisely because they aren't willing to work, at least as "work" is
defined. If they are justly in prison, it is precisely because they brought it
on themselves, and even so, society feeds and clothes and houses and heals
them (though not very well, mind you), and this is generally believed to be a
worthwhile thing for society to spend money on.

If this is worthwhile for people convicted of a crime, why is it not
worthwhile for people not even convicted of a crime, who are merely unwilling
to work?

(Unless your position is that society should be supportive of people who are
willing to work in any possible definition of work, whether they choose to be
a programmer, a hitman, or a drug lord, and instead of housing and feeding
hitmen and drug lords in prison, it should let them earn their keep?)

------
martinald
It's simply crazy there is no decent rail link between SF and LA. It is really
the perfect distance for HSR, and I imagine once it was up and running there
would be a lot of very valuable customers willing to pay top dollar for a sub
3 hour ride.

I really can't see what the solution is without HSR, the journey by car is
long and very congested. SFO has very little land to expand on with its
location.

Does this also kill Caltrain electrification? Also, the transbay transit
center is also pretty useless without this as I believe CaHSR was going to pay
for the expansion of the tunnels to the TTC.

~~~
radicalbyte
You can travel from Amsterdam to Paris - a similar distance as SF-to-LA - in
3.5hrs. That's through three different countries.

Paris to London is 2/3rd of the distance and takes 2.5hrs and one of them is
an island. Plus the British and the French aren't exactly known for their love
of each other.

Both are faster than flying once you factor in the huge amount of queuing for
safety checks, customs and passport control at airports.

America has been generally fantastic at building big stuff so it's hard to
understand why they fail at rail. Is it just that the will isn't there because
internal flights are fairly painless?

~~~
01100011
I can fly from SJC to SAN in about two hours, curb-to-curb, with TSA Precheck.
HSR will never beat that in my lifetime.

~~~
pas
The added value would have been connecting smaller cities with a frequent
transport service. And of course close to downtown. (And less jet fuel
burned.)

But these are very big and sort of abstract goals, so it's understandable that
simply spending less money won (a much more concrete and short term goal).

~~~
ghaff
You do have security on the Chunnel. It’s probably more streamlined than
flying but you still need to budget time for that and passport control.

------
uxp100
Some are saying this is inaccurate, that Newsom is instead trying to
reorganize the project to reduce cost overruns an focus on the central valley
portion first, but that SF to LA is not canceled.

[https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1095414245024362496](https://twitter.com/Scott_Wiener/status/1095414245024362496)

------
Teknoman117
I don't know if this has anything to do with the decision, but there is also a
massive amount of lobbying of the California government by the airlines as Bay
Area to/from LA/OC/SD is a major cash cow. Should someone create a more
convenient method of getting between the two, it'd be a major loss for them.

The Shinkansen in Japan has to be the most convenient thing I've ever traveled
on. Show up 20 min before the train, buy a ticket, two hours later I'm over
200 miles away. Sure the ride itself is longer than the flight, but there are
all those other time sinks from flying that no one thinks of - commuting,
boarding, security, waiting for your baggage, etc. that add up.

Say I travel from Santa Ana to San Francisco. It takes me 30 minutes to get to
the airport, if I'm parking there, say 15 minutes to find a spot and walk to
the terminal, up to 30 minutes to get through security, probably 30 minutes at
the gate because you make time in case things go wrong, and 30 minutes of
boarding. That's 1.5 hours spent (without the commute) before the plane leaves
on its 60 minute flight.

A modern high speed train would complete that trip before the plane even left.

------
jmpman
Sacramento to San Francisco at 210mph, would be a 25min commute. East Bay
commuters would be jealous. Zone the Sacramento terminal area as residential,
minimum 10 stories, and you might have a solution to the Bay Area housing
nightmare.

~~~
hinkley
Only if it's non-stop. Everyone wants the train to stop in their little town.
Similar problem with buses.

~~~
jmpman
Absolutely non-stop. Everyone else needs to connect into Sacramento. That’s
the only way to make the commute work.

~~~
burfog
Non-stop rail doesn't have to be that awful. Airlines have figured this out,
in recent decades providing lots of point-to-point service. This is possible
with trains. Use tickets, an accurate schedule, and passing tracks to avoid
waiting for other trains. You could even do air-compatible baggage handling
and ticket purchase.

~~~
hinkley
I thought airlines had to figure this out because the major airports are
saturated. Planes taking off as frequently as FAA safety windows allow.

It doesn’t hurt that Boeing boosted distance by 500ish miles on all of their
redesigned models, opening up a lot more potential routes.

------
apo
_California Governor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday the state will not complete a
$77.3 billion planned high-speed rail project, but will finish a smaller
section of the line._

Is this really the Governor's call? Doesn't the legislature need to, you know,
pass a law to rollback the earlier plans?

 _In June 2014 state legislators and Governor Jerry Brown agreed to apportion
the state 's annual cap-and-trade funds so that 25% goes to high speed rail._

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-
Speed_Rail#Leg...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-
Speed_Rail#Legislative)

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
And we have Jerry Brown to thank for Prop 13.

~~~
muzz
Voters voted for it. Governors cannot sign it or stop it.

------
40acres
Very discouraging. It's hard to see how we'll be able to reach any climate
goals without world class high speed rail across the country. Perhaps the
sticker shock and lack of political will is too much to tackle climate change
before it's too late.

~~~
rlanday
At this point it’s looking like we should just spend the money on air
conditioning, sea walls, and disaster relief and call it a day.

~~~
zanny
The threats of climate change to humanity are more about the ecological
collapse from temperature rise that will destroy our food supply and leave
most of starving.

We can already see it happening with dramatically reduced insect populations,
fish populations, bird populations, etc. Whats hard is to distinguish what is
caused by the global temperature changes vs just general human habitat
destruction, but the general decline of insect populations at certain
equatorial belts in the last decade definitely hints towards a global
influence from climate change.

If all we had to do were just relocate our coastal metros a few meters up
after the polar ice melts and just proceed as usual with 3c hotter days on
average it wouldn't be this severe of an existential threat. It is probably
half of why its so hard to argue towards fixing - the real danger seems
"impossible" to most people because they can't wrap their head around how
delicate biomes can be and the domino effects our mass extinction event is
causing.

~~~
rlanday
I think the effects of loss of biodiversity are often overstated. Humans
mostly depend on a small set of domesticated animals; as far as I’m aware, no
one is seriously suggesting that cows, pigs, sheep, or chickens are going to
go extinct, or that farmers will be unable to feed them.

------
dqpb
I love California, but it's government is a disaster.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
As a Californian for 5 years now, I'm slowly realizing something is seriously
wrong with this state. I'm sure that's true of every state, which is sad. But
my whole life I had this idea of California as a Utopian society, and then I
get here, and all I can do is marvel at how systemically broken it is, and how
completely similar it is in many ways.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
>But my whole life I had this idea of California as a Utopian society

Wow. You and I are very different people :)

Now imagine the people in neighboring states watching Californians leave,
bringing the same ideas that have clearly not worked with them to their new
home states. Some people find that very frustrating.

~~~
thebradbain
It's not the ideas that are wrong. Most people who know of its benefits aren't
against high speed rail! It's the government's own execution consistently
getting in the way of its plans. It's that the layers of bureaucracy in such a
big state get in the way of governing - I'd argue California's state
government is closer to the Federal Government in practice than, say, Kansas'
state government.

At some point a cell becomes too big to perform its vital functions on its
own. I'd argue in many cases the same is true of government. Hence why
California has municipal governments which do more than most states' state
governments. Human government isn't Java; we can't just keep abstracting away
core functions and not lose efficiency and context in the handoff.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
I am to understand what you are saying is that it’s not the idea that
government should be involved in everything, it’s that the government needs to
be larger and more centralized?

~~~
ummonk
More specifically that institutions of government with larger jurisdiction
should have more capability and institutions with smaller jurisdiction should
have less capability. It isn’t about the amount of power that government as a
whole has, but the distribution of it. It is better to centralize power in a
central institution to maximize efficiency and enable anti-corruption
watchdogs to concentrate their attention.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
>More specifically that institutions of government with larger jurisdiction
should have more capability and institutions with smaller jurisdiction should
have less capability.

But not overhead and bureaucracy?

------
smilekzs
Genuinely curious: From a purely economical / engineering PoV (i.e.
conveniently ignoring politics for now), I wonder how much would it cost had
it been built by Chinese instead? While China has a tried-and-true HSR
formula, would the labor market difference be large enough to throw the plan
off balance?

~~~
1024core
Thalys (SNCF, the group that runs France's HSRs) had proposed to build the
entire route for about $55B _without any government subsidies_ ! But their
offer was rejected, probably because it didn't provide for any skimming off
the top.

~~~
bilbo0s
In fairness, that also doesn't sound like reality to me.

No need to go into all the engineering details, but suffice to say that
France, and its cities, are relatively geologically stable. California is
just, yeah, it's just not. I think the Japanese, who have actual _experience_
on the ring of fire, were a good deal less optimistic in their assessment of
the project. Of course, the Japanese could be said to be _overly_ cautious. So
there is probably some reasonable middle ground maybe??? Though I don't know
where that would be, I'm pretty sure it's not in the rosy assessment of the
French.

------
TheMagicHorsey
This was the predicted outcome when this project was first announced and
financed. People at the time criticized the Cassandras saying they lacked
faith in the California government's ability to execute a complex long term
project like this on budget.

The Cassandras were right.

Anyone who has worked with the government in Sacramento knew it was going to
be a boondoggle where unions, politicians, and connected private contractors
would get paid, and the public would get screwed. But the California
electorate and its money are quickly parted.

If you are frustrated by the amount of looting of the public purse that you
see in this state, you should move. There is no mechanism through which it
will stop short of state bankruptcy. The tax base is so large and diverse that
the money faucet will keep pouring lucre into filthy pockets until the
unfunded pension liabilities destroy the public finances (should be around
2035).

------
bruhbruhbruh
> "Abandoning high-speed rail entirely means we will have wasted billions of
> dollars with nothing but broken promises and lawsuits to show for it,” he
> said."

Sounds like sunk-cost fallacy.

> "And by the way, I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal
> funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.”

Sounds like a misleading personal appeal to CA residents that dislike Trump.

Why would we settle for a high speed line ONLY between Merced and Bakersfield?
Merced is a dinky little town of 80k and is several hours out from SF and San
Jose via public transport and via car. Who is going to use this high-speed
rail?

Traveling SF to LA using this new line would mean: 1\. Either driving 2.5
hours to Merced or taking a 3 hour, $30 Amtrak 2\. Getting on the high-speed
train (ticket price tbd) 3\. Taking a 3 hour, $45 Amtrak from Bakersfield to
LA

So using this new line I can take 6 hours + (high speed rail time hours), two
transfers, and cost $75 + (high speed rail ticket cost).

Or I could take a $30 dollar greyhound in eight hours

------
johan_larson
Maybe it's time to contract out the entire operation of the California state
government to some more trustworthy entity. Someone who can actually build
public infrastructure. Someone like France. Or possibly Singapore.

------
dragonwriter
Completing HSR is expensive and defensible.

Abandoning HSR is cheap and defensible.

Building a uselessly short stretch of HSR is less cheap and indefensible.

This decisions fits in with the lack of focus that has been one of the most
commented on features of Newsome’s ml short tenure as governor so far.

EDIT: Reviewing the source again, it's even worse: despite abandoning any
intention of the state _building_ the rest of the system, Newsome wants to
complete environmental reviews on the whole SF to LA líne and seek federal and
private funds for it, as if the state abandoning the rest of the line makes
outside funding more realistic.

The least incompetent interpretation I can see for this is that the Newsome
Administration just horribly botched an attempt to announce that they were not
going to expend state resources on land acquisition or construction outside of
the initial 119-mile segment until and unless new external financing (which
has always been envisioned as essential to project completion) is secured;
that this is a refocussing not a cancellation. Otherwise, it's just flat-out
bonkers.

------
jlmorton
> Newsom said the state will complete a 110-mile (177 km) high-speed rail link
> between Merced and Bakersfield. > ... > “Abandoning high-speed rail entirely
> means we will have wasted billions of dollars with nothing but broken
> promises and lawsuits to show for it,” he said. “And by the way, I am not
> interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to
> this project back to Donald Trump.”

It's hard to overstate how bad this argument is.

First, it's the very embodiment of the sunk cost fallacy. We don't want to
feel bad that we wasted a lot of money, so we're going to waste even more on a
scaled-down project that will almost certainly never be financially viable.

Second, what does this have to do with Donald Trump? The fact that we would
need to refund FTA their contributions has nothing to do with Trump. He won't
be able to appropriate the money. It will just go to the Treasury.

~~~
drak0n1c
Newsom should be more gracious. That is tax money from all other states that
the federal government decided to provide to California. Sad to see him be so
entitled and speak so dismissively about the funding for the sake of local
political optics.

~~~
kevin_b_er
No, its just tax money California got back from itself. Unlike many states,
California's citizens put more money toward the federal government than the
federal government provides to California.

California is estimated anywhere from $0.87 up to $0.99 inward per $1 outward.

[https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/do...](https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/does-
california-give-more-it-gets-dc/)

~~~
kodablah
What a poor way to look at it. There are more recent studies that disagree[0],
but that doesn't matter. Wasting money matters, and you can't pretend the
federal dollars earmarked for this transportation initiative are the
equivalent of all in state dollars or that they wouldn't have been put to
better use elsewhere.

0 - [https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-
of-...](https://rockinst.org/issue-areas/fiscal-analysis/balance-of-payments-
portal/)

------
stunt
If governorate|governments were companies in the private sector they would
quickly go bankrupt and out of business.

~~~
Larrikin
Personally I believe major infrastructure projects that are an obvious public
good but may not be profitable for decades are the exact things my tax money
should be funding since private companies never would. The Tokyo subway just
recently became profitable and it's such a major net positive for the city.

~~~
exabrial
counterpoint: NYC Metro. The MTA Union has prevented any sort of automation,
convenience, or safety technology from coming near the system and now it's
being left in the dust compared to other cities worldwide. The taxpayers are
left to keep throwing money at it because it's the only thing they have.

~~~
gamblor956
Counterpoint to your counterpoint: The NYC Metro is actually 4 or 5 separate
rail systems, all formerly private companies that went bankrupt. The MTA was
created to salvage those rail lines in the face of private failure.

It's FUD that the MTA Union has prevented "any sort of automation...etc"
because it's simply not true. They've resisted specific types of automation
while supporting other types.

Changes were never implemented because the system lacked sufficient funding--
it's controlled by the NY state government, not NYC itself. Most of the state
is actually extremely conservative compared to NYC and generally resists
implementing improvements to the MTA.

~~~
tropo
That "private failure" was forced by a price cap on subway fares that was left
unchanged for decades worth of inflation. It was a sneaky way to bypass the US
Constitution's prohibition of taking private property without compensation.

------
melling
I wonder what kind of competitive advantage China will have by being able to
build infrastructure more effectively than the US.

For example, China already has 18,000 miles of high-speed rail. They’ll have
another 7,000 miles in 6 years.

I imagine there are many other examples where they are more effective.
Subways, airports, roads, etc?

------
hyperpallium
> I am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was
> allocated to this project back

That would be Boring.
[https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Boring_Test_Tunnel](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Boring_Test_Tunnel)

------
ananonymoususer
Wasn't the construction of this train mandated by a state ballot measure? Can
Newsom legally decide this alone? Everyone knew this was coming, but what a
colossal waste of money the state does not have... Bankruptcy is coming.

~~~
lamarpye
Choo-choo or no choo-choo, bankruptcy is coming. Just look at the amount of
unfunded pension liabilities.

Then look at the Governor and Legislature, can anyone even imagine that crew
solving any real problems?

------
andromaton
Surprised top comments are not talking about hyperloop. The whole genesis of
the project was that this high-speed rail had the worst superlatives [1]: most
$ per mile and slowest high speed in the world.

1: [https://www.khanacademy.org/college-careers-
more/entrepreneu...](https://www.khanacademy.org/college-careers-
more/entrepreneurship2/interviews-entrepreneurs/copy-of-khan-academy-living-
room-chats/v/elon-musk) 43:42

------
manigandham
So what is the actual cost of this smaller section? $77B is for the entire
plan and only half was even allocated.

It seems this is a move to just spend the federal grant money instead of
sending it back, although on a rather wasteful construction project that will
accomplish nothing and will probably be used to show how bad trains are for
any future projects.

------
Tomminn
For scale: At the price of $10/tonne, $77B is enough money to offset the US
CO_2 emissions for 1.5 years.

~~~
tomatotomato37
Another comparison: that's the inflation-adjusted cost of the entire F-22
program, which was generally considered to be a massive boondoggle until the
F-35 came about

------
trophycase
How hard is it to just build it (SF to LA) over the water? Serious question
here?

~~~
taobility
Don't even think about it. Liberal would say you pollute the water/ocean.

------
fipple
This was always a fun duck idea made mainly to serve Central Valley towns
whose population could not justify such an expensive boondoggle. Glad to see
Newsom speak some truth and put an end to this lunacy.

------
SovietDissident
The road and bridge infrastructure in this state is completely falling apart.
The water infrastructure was built for a population half or a third of what
exists currently, during the Pat Brown era. Calpers has half a trillion $$ in
unfunded liabilities, which the younger generation---many of which still live
with their parents---is supposed to pay for.

And the Democrats chose to spend $100 billion on an effing train to nowhere.

------
DoubleCribble
Everyone seems to be missing the elephant in the room. This was obviously a
ploy for special interests. Let's follow the money here because the big
winners are the students of UC Merced and Cal State Bakersfield. Trainspotting
and train riding are quickly going to be the #1 and #2 most popular activities
in each city.

------
sneakernets
Affordable high-speed rail won't work in America at all. It's not because of
logistics, or cost, or even resources.

It's because high-speed rail would let the poorest have roughly the same
freedom of movement the rich have now. And we can't have _that_ now can we?

~~~
hnaccy
You can already find "affordable" travel between LA and SF using greyhound or
craigslist ad-hoc rideshares etc.

Is there anywhere in world where HSR is cheap enough for poor people to use it
much?

~~~
sqd
China I suppose? It relies on government subsidies though.

------
ummonk
The comments here are full of the sunk cost fallacy. Which was clearly what
the hsr creators were banking on when they decided to initially build hsr in
the least useful part of the state.

------
true_tuna
What. The. Fuck. Why not high speed rail like down the peninsula. Or invest in
feeders to existing lines.

Or build it literally anywhere where people are.

I quit. We aren’t worth saving.

~~~
Animats
High speed rail down the Peninsula ran into Atherton. Big NIMBY problem.

Personally, I think high speed rail should terminate in Oakland, with a
station designed to get you off high speed rail and onto BART in less than two
minutes.

I have a paper copy of the Corps of Engineers master plan for the SF Bay Area,
1960-2020. Google scanned this during their book-scanning days, and it's
online.[1] They didn't scan the big foldout maps, so it's hard to get the
transportation plan from the scanned version.

They thought big. Fill in SF bay south of the Dumbarton Bridge, and part of
the north bay, too. Marin was to be for heavy industry. Steel mills in Marin,
aluminum smelter at Tiburon. (During WWII, there was much heavy industry in
the Mare Island / Richmond area, and some of it was still around in the 1950s,
so that didn't seem unreasonable.

Five freeways up the Peninsula - US 101, I-280, CA 1, CA-35 (Skyline Blvd),
and one out in the bay on stilts. Traffic jams would be a thing of the past.

A second Bay Bridge was proposed for Candlestick Point to the East Bay.
Another bridge to Marin - Embarcadero to Alcatraz to Angel Island to Tiburon.

Little mention of rail.

They saw "electronic business machine manufacturing" and "future products" as
the coming thing for the Peninsula. That was insightful for 1958.

Environmental considerations were mentioned in maybe one paragraph. "All
available marshlands will be reclaimed by 1975".

[1]
[https://books.google.com/books?id=7141AAAAIAAJ](https://books.google.com/books?id=7141AAAAIAAJ)

------
Hernanpm
does it mean Elon won again?

------
pastor_elm
what an embarrassment. Can't escape this country soon enough .

~~~
reaperducer
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

------
Simulacra
It's just money...

