California's high-speed-rail project would cost the state about $65 billion under projections released Wednesday afternoon (Feb. 9) by the Palo Alto-based rail watchdog group Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD).
The group estimates that the cost of the voter-approved project would be about $22 billion more than the latest official estimates from the California High-Speed Rail Authority, the state agency charged with constructing the rail system. Voters approved $9 billion for the project in November 2008 and the authority is banking on federal grants, private investments and contributions from local agencies to make up the balance of the cost.
The rail authority's 2009 business plan, which is now undergoing revisions, estimates the cost of the project to be about $42.6 billion. The price tag was listed at $33.6 billion in 2008, when the project was brought to the voters.
In analyzing the cost of constructing each segment of the proposed San Francisco-to-Los Angeles line, CARRD concluded that the $42.6 billion estimate was "inaccurate, even at the time it was made." The group noted that the rail authority plans to build the rail line in parallel to existing transportation corridors and that this objective requires "expensive civil works which were unaccounted for in the 2009 number."
"Even as environmental and planning work has advanced, no update to the official capital cost estimate has been made," CARRD stated in a news release. "This is true even when the only alternatives in most segments still being studied are significantly more expensive than those used to calculate the $43 billion number."
The group used official documents such as the rail authority's applications for federal stimulus funds and its environmental documents for each segment to tally the costs of the overall line. It concluded that the cost of the San Francisco-to-San Jose segment is now estimated at about $8.8 billion -- about $2.6 billion more than the estimate in the rail authority's 2009 business plan.
According to the CARRD analysis, constructing the San Jose-to-Merced segment would cost about $14.3 billion. The rail authority had estimated this cost at $6.9 billion in its 2009 business plan. The group also estimates that the cost of the Fresno-to-Bakersfield segment is now about $11.1 billion. The rail authority's business plan estimates the cost of this section at $5.1 billion.
Though the rail authority had not reviewed CARRD's report as of Wednesday afternoon, one state legislator put out a statement calling the analysis "invaluable."
State Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said in her statement that she suspects "even this $65 billion dollar estimate may be low," given the projected $4.3 billion cost of the first Central Valley segment.
"Citizens up and down the state are learning more every day about this multi-billion dollar boondoggle," Harkey said in the statement. "At a time when our state is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and Sacramento is contemplating cuts to education, public safety and taxing us more, do we really need to spend untold billions on another train?"
Comments
Old Mountain View
on Feb 10, 2011 at 1:19 pm
on Feb 10, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Why do I get the very strong feeling that the brighter minds are working for the watchdog group than the rail authority? Like wildly more bright....
Whisman Station
on Feb 10, 2011 at 2:17 pm
on Feb 10, 2011 at 2:17 pm
This project is looking more and more like a loser - too bad they can't divert some of the funds to help save CalTrain service up and down the peninsula - something we know people use on a daily basis.
Sylvan Park
on Feb 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm
on Feb 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm
In the entire history of mankind...has there even been ONE public works project that came in on budget? Why would we be surprised this one won't?
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Feb 10, 2011 at 3:54 pm
Registered user
on Feb 10, 2011 at 3:54 pm
So how much of our $9 billion have they already pissed away?
Sylvan Park
on Feb 10, 2011 at 5:59 pm
on Feb 10, 2011 at 5:59 pm
We need a repeal proposition to end this project. It will never be built for anything like the budget and then will consume money to operate. Of course it's not needed as we have several airlines competing to fly us quickly to L A and actually to the entire world.
Cuesta Park
on Feb 10, 2011 at 7:05 pm
on Feb 10, 2011 at 7:05 pm
What I'd like to know is how expensive this project should be based on benchmarks from similar systems around the world, and why the fact that it is expensive - which these projects always are - causes people to call it a "boondoggle." I'd think that a "boondoggle" would be something that a) costs much more than similar projects and b) is unwanted or useless. At this point, we don't know the answer to (a) except that people say just keep building freeways instead when oil is running out. And the voters have spoken that they see it IS useful so (b) is not a valid argument. Until we have relative cost facts, I'd say all the criticism is purely grandstanding.
Cuesta Park
on Feb 10, 2011 at 7:16 pm
on Feb 10, 2011 at 7:16 pm
"It will never be built for anything like the budget and then will consume money to operate."
Yes, that's true of every rail system in the world. Doesn't keep them from being built or providing tremendous economic and lifestyle benefits for the people where they are build. As I've pointed out many times on here, farebox recovery is not a criterion for successful public transit, just as it is not used for freeways (paid for by taxes) or airports (paid for by taxes.)
"Of course it's not needed as we have several airlines competing to fly us quickly to L A and actually to the entire world."
The major failures of planning in public policy are the result of assuming that all circumstances will always remain the same. By 2020, when the system will be operational, the world demand for oil will have far exceeded oil production and all the calculations of air fares driving costs will be worthless. I guarantee you that when oil is $400 a barrel, the countries that have put in HSR will be far better off than us. As a user of HSR in Asia and Europe, I invariably get to my business destination far faster by HSR than by plane. Those of you who haven't tried this probably can't imagine it, but it is so.