High speed, high cost for rail system

November 1, 2011

A double-digit hike in costs of California’s proposed high speed rail project will be revealed in a report today. [SacramentoBee]

Estimates now top $98 billion for the plan, which would eventually move passengers through the Central Valley between Southern California and the Bay Area. Officials of the California High Speed Rail Authority have been under fire for the escalating costs as well as the system’s planned routes.

Critics contend the route now under consideration would ravish churches, schools, homes, and destroy a wide swath of commercial enterprises though one of this country’s most productive agricultural regions.

Voters approved a $9 billion rail bond in 2008. But proponents claim that even with the emerging higher costs, the plan still is less expensive than an expansion of infrastructure to handle California’s burgeoning population.

Legislative approval is needed before construction could start, initially in the Central Valley.



  1. mrcyberdoc says:

    And how many people do you think it would take and at what ticket price to pay for that train. First they might make sure people would take the train to begin with.

    (1) 1 Total Votes - 1 up - 0 down
  2. rallyraid says:

    I heard the escalated costs were to pay off the Kangaroo rats for crossin their turf.

    (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down
  3. Rawhide says:

    Nutrs and Bolts…
    $1,000 dollar nuts…
    Who know what the bolts will cost ?

    (4) 4 Total Votes - 4 up - 0 down
  4. whatisup says:

    The price is up to over $37,000 per foot. Does anybody still support this except the people who currently have jobs administering this or people who think they will get a contract from this?

    (13) 15 Total Votes - 14 up - 1 down
  5. jimmy_me says:

    “Ravish”? Might as well run the train through Los Osos also. Rumor has it that there is going to be a lot of ravishing going on with the sewer thang.

    (3) 5 Total Votes - 4 up - 1 down
  6. The Gimlet Eye says:

    It’s funny how the world keeps changing all the time and government can’t keep up. Prices fluctuate, inflation ruins the best of boondoggles. They never seem to be able to figure it out.

    (6) 6 Total Votes - 6 up - 0 down
  7. SLORider says:

    $9 Billion… $99 Billion… eh, what’s the difference? The first $9 Billion was just to pay off friends, right?

    (14) 14 Total Votes - 14 up - 0 down
  8. BeenThereDoneThat says:

    They say costs will go up? So what else is new. I would love to hear JUST ONCE, wow we where wrong and it is going to be less than we thought. Yea I know, will never happen. I just wish they would fire these people who do the budget projections and are as about right as the weatherman.

    (12) 14 Total Votes - 13 up - 1 down
    • LittleAcorn says:

      It is easy to understand small increases in the cost from inflation or a cost increase of a portion of the project, but a 100% increase? To me it feels like the original figures were a con job to get the project going, after which we get the bad news.

      I didn’t like the cost at 43 billion, the new figure is worse. It feels like we’re putting all of our transportation eggs in one expensive basket, without first demonstrating that it fills a need.

      (2) 2 Total Votes - 2 up - 0 down

Comments are closed.