Passenger Trains > Article Claims CAHSR Dead Within 4 Years (or sooner)

According to this article (this word was changed from "report"), California High Speed Rail will be dead in four years, or perhaps even two years.


 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/18 14:24 by norm1153.

norm1153 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> According to this report, California High Speed
> Rail will be dead in four years, or perhaps even
> two years.
>  

Was there supposed to be a link to a report or something?

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/12/californias-high-speed-rail-project-will-collapse-within-four-years.html
It's an opinion piece on a blog.
 

Ho hum, this is not exactly news. It's not even old news...

Blog links to the California State Auditor report dated Nov 15, 2018
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2018-108/summary.html

Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the California State Auditor presents this audit report regarding the California High-Speed Rail Authority's (Authority) contracting and cost control practices. This report concludes that the Authority's flawed decision making regarding the start of high-speed rail system construction in the Central Valley and its ongoing poor contract management for a wide range of high-value contracts have contributed to billions of dollars in cost overruns for completing the system.The Authority began construction in the Central Valley in October 2013 despite being aware of the risks associated with beginning construction early—the fact that the Authority had not acquired sufficient land for building, had not determined how it would relocate utility systems, and had not obtained agreements with external stakeholders. These unmitigated risks have contributed to $600 million in costs overruns thus far for the three active Central Valley construction projects, with another $1.6 billion in additional costs needed to complete the projects. The Authority has cited the terms of a 2010 federal grant—which originally required construction to be complete by 2017—as the primary factor in its decision to begin construction when it did. However, we determined that even with a grant deadline extension until December 2022, the Authority could miss the new deadline unless Central Valley construction progresses twice as fast as it has to date. Missing the deadline could expose the State to the risk of having to pay back as much as $3.5 billion in federal funds.The Authority has partially offset Central Valley cost overruns, as well as those projected elsewhere in the system, by planning to share existing rail infrastructure where possible. However, the Authority acknowledges that it has identified every feasible option to do so and therefore cannot continue to use this approach to offset costs. Moreover, despite its challenging financial situation, we determined that the Authority has failed to implement sound contract management practices. As a result, it cannot demonstrate that the large amounts it has spent on its contracts have been necessary or appropriate.Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE, CPA
California State Auditor

The sky is falling; the sky is falling!

November 15 is not old news, and state (or federal) auditors do not deal in opinions.
On the contrary, they follow a tortuous process that requires every numerical statement or conclusion in a report to be documented more than the proverbial "six ways to Sunday."
The fact that this is an official of the state government signing this report leads to a choice: she's telling the truth, or she's lying. 
I choose the first, but would be interested to hear from any who take the second. 

 



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/18 15:57 by hazegray.

If the project is halted, do CA taxpayers get their money back for what has been spent so far? 

Kill it... We have something novel called SWA that gets you to LA in a little over an hour... HSR with CA’s challenging geography— a brilliant idea, indeed. This isn’t a “transcon” that built America, folks. It is pure folly.
What a pathetic waste of taxpayer dollars— modern day robber rail barons at work.

Plus it took almost 10 years to break ground, what a joke, and that report doesn't surprise me if it actually happens!

Add some ramps to the bridges being built over Fresno and use them for cross the block overpasses since there are not enough that connect to make it a cross town bypass.

The comment about SWA (presumably Southwest Airlines) illustrates my fustration with CAHSR Authority:  They aimed at the best public transportation service in California.  
With a little thought many lower cost, very  useful transportation investments could have been made throughout the state which would have benefited communities and populations that do not have access to airlines.
Examples include enhanced regional services (more frequencies, speed improvements, highway grade separations, better local connections etc.) on existing and new corridors, including some on highway alignments.  
Almost any of these could be inplemented incrementally compared to the CAHSR which is almost useless until it is completed.
This version of the "Robber Barons" the thieves are not "empire builders" but are consulting engineers (disclosure: I am one and actually worked a small bit of CAHSR) and their political enablers.  Instead of a useful transcontinental railroad all taxpayers get are documents and reports.

The tipping point of support for this fraud is near. The last $ will be squeezed, then collapse will be rapid. Taxpayers will be the bagholders, esp SoCal chumps. Schadenfreude!

While I do agree that the current version of CA HSR should be killed and killed as soon as possible, i still believe a modern well designed passenger rail network needs to be built in CA. The current highway and airport infrastructure will not handle the projected demand over the next 20 years so we will need to build more highways and airports if we don't have a workable rail alternative -- maybe running the line down the I-5 corridor. 

And specifically about IC_2024's appreciation of WN, I don't want to rain on the airline too much ( since I too love WN), but I need to point out that while the flight may take a little over an hour, the time from  push back from the gate to wheels up may take up to 30 minutes and then 10-15 minutes at the other end. And you the passenger needs to arrive at least an hour before departure to clear security and hike to the gate. So the overall trip time from arrival at the airport to leaving the other airport is a lot longer than just over an hour.

WP17


IC_2024 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kill it... We have something novel called SWA
> that gets you to LA in a little over an hour...
> HSR with CA’s challenging geography— a
> brilliant idea, indeed. This isn’t a
> “transcon” that built America, folks. It is
> pure folly.
> What a pathetic waste of taxpayer dollars—
> modern day robber rail barons at work.

Sounds like what folks were saying when the freeways were being built and when SP & Greyhound were trying to kill the ATSF Golden Gate, which operated at 110 mph in places and when horseless carriages were replacing all the livery stables.
 

Bill Deaver
Tehachapi, CA

andersonb109 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If the project is halted, do CA taxpayers get
> their money back for what has been spent so far? 

What do you think?

Gavin Newsom’s priorities are likely to be universal healthcare, pre-K education, and free community college while moving to 100% renewable energy. Add money for homeless housing and affordable housing while protecting sanctuary policies. The lists vary slightly, but you get the idea. 

Killing high speed rail rail in this transportation-challenged state won’t put more money back into the taxpayers pocket. The money will go to those priorities, somehow.

As an aside, that proverbial one hour Southwest flight turns can easily turn into a six hour trip...if not more...if you add 60 miles of surface transportation on each end. Moving around this state is a challenge. 
 

IC_2024 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kill it... We have something novel called SWA
> that gets you to LA in a little over an hour...

That's why the CAHSR! The airports are clogged and new airports--with tax subsidies--would cost more than the CAHSR. I guess on a website populated by aging boomers, the very thought of publicly-owned transport instead of PSA mini-skirts and muscle cars is too much to bear.  



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/18 09:13 by RRBaron.

I read the blog, bypassed the audit report, and then opened up the Comments to the blog article.  THOSE were entertaining.  One in particular compared the effort to forcing the proverbial round peg in the square hole.  Simplistic, but fundamentally effective. 

WP17 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And specifically about IC_2024's appreciation of
> WN, I don't want to rain on the airline too much (
> since I too love WN), but I need to point out that
> while the flight may take a little over an hour,
> the time from  push back from the gate to wheels
> up may take up to 30 minutes and then 10-15
> minutes at the other end. And you the passenger
> needs to arrive at least an hour before departure
> to clear security and hike to the gate. So the
> overall trip time from arrival at the airport to
> leaving the other airport is a lot longer than
> just over an hour.
>
> WP17


All true, but replacing an airport with a train station changes what exactly? Instead of driving to Burbank or LAX I'd drive to where Palmdale, Bakersfield? If the thing is built as advertised, and people flock to ride it "airport style" security is sure to follow. Unless one lives closer to a proposed station than an airport where are the time savings found?