Brown will request billions for high-speed rail project

posted at 2:30 pm on November 14, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

I missed this during my travel to BlogCon 2011 in Denver, which I reached by airline travel — an economical and safe choice on a route served by multiple carriers and requiring little government subsidy to use.  The competition for this route falls short of that for the Los Angeles-San Francisco route, though, where more than a half-dozen carriers offer flights between California’s two largest metropolises, complete with choices of departure and arrival airports on either end.  Despite the lack of need for fast and reliable transportation between the two cities, Governor Jerry Brown told the LA Times editorial board that he intends on requesting the funds for a high-speed rail line — a project whose anticipated costs have tripled while still on the drawing board, and which dwarfs the annual state budget:

Gov. Jerry Brown said Thursday that he will formally request that the Legislature approve billions of dollars to start construction of the California bullet train next year and will work hard to persuade skeptical lawmakers that the project is critical to the state’s future.

In his first extended remarks on the $98.5-billion project since a controversial business plan was unveiled last week, Brown said that the state will have a broad need for the system in the long term and that it represents a significantly cheaper alternative to additional highway and commercial aviation investments.

“As an idea, if you think of California as growing and expanding, then it fits into it,” Brown said at a meeting with The Times’ editorial board. “It is based on an optimistic assessment of where California is going.”

The California High-Speed Rail Authority last week approved a new business plan that more than doubled the project’s cost and a related financing plan that would ask for the first construction money, tapping $2.7 billion in state bonds and $3.3 billion in federal grants.

“More than doubled”?  The projected costs have nearly tripled.  When first proposed, backers predicted that the rail service would cost $33.6 billion, a figure that eventually won the bonding approval needed it 2008.  Without laying a single piece of rail, the costs have exploded to the $98.5 billion figure noted in the article — but that doesn’t reflect the potential for $20 billion in extra costs depending on route “options.”  And that assumes that costs don’t inflate further as the project actually continues.

So what will the first few billion in state and federal money buy?  Not much:

Rail officials hope the money can cover construction of a 140-mile Central Valley segment from Chowchilla to Bakersfield, though it would not pay for electrification, trains or other necessary parts of an operating system. To actually carry passengers will require more than $20 billion of additional investment in track and equipment, money that the state now does not have.

For $26 billion, the state of California could buy fifty brand-new Boeing 777-300ER passenger jets.  All California and US taxpayers will get from the initial $6 billion will be track laid between two population centers that won’t produce any significant transportation demand on their own.  It won’t even pay for the power connections to this supposed green-energy project, let alone answer the question of where California — a net importer of electricity, not a net exporter — will get the power to run even this remote segment of track.

On top of this good news, the state is already projecting that its tax receipts will fall $1.5 billion short in 2011.  Why pursue this project in the middle of a fiscal disaster?  Brown has an answer for that:

Even though the cost of the project has doubled, Brown said it is manageable over the 23-year construction period.

“Lincoln built the transcontinental railroad during the Civil War, and we built the Golden Gate Bridge during the Great Depression,” Brown said.

First, Lincoln didn’t build the transcontinental railroad; the railroads built the line themselves with minimal support from Congress.  But Brown misses the larger point, which is that there were no other technologies for efficient transcontinental travel in the mid-19th century.  Fixed rail and locomotives were the cutting edge of transportation technology at that time.  If we had had airports in St. Louis and San Francisco at that time, there would have been little incentive to build a fixed-rail system at all.  Air travel is both more efficient and much more scalable than rail service regardless of how fast the choo-choo travels — and in this case, it doesn’t move fast enough to beat airplanes anyway.

Fixed rail as a modern passenger transportation solution makes as much sense as requiring motorcycle riders to carry buggy whips.  It is a 19th-century solution for a 21st-century problem, and one that will probably cost us in debt and subsidies well into the 22nd century if California proceeds with its boondoggle.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Plenty of other states pay more in taxes that go to other states.

CW on November 14, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Yeah and CA is still a net contributor. Your links are based on state and local tax burden. This report shows which states are contributors and burdens at the federal level.

lexhamfox on November 14, 2011 at 7:34 PM

The Tax Foundation does some interesting analysis by state about where taxes are collected and where that money is spent. CA is a net contributor. Go look for yourself.

lexhamfox on November 14, 2011 at 7:08 PM

You don’t get it, do you? California is not a net contributor. California is not a contributor at all. The individuals and businesses who happened to be located in California are the “contributors.” The state in which a “contributor” is located is immaterial to the federal government.

SukieTawdry on November 14, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Actually, no. The building of the transcontinental railroad was subsidized out the wazoo by the Federal Gov’t.

OregonMuse on November 14, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Well, not exactly. The federal government provided engineering and federal land grants and rights of way at no cost to Union Pacific and Central Pacific. Additionally, it issued government bonds to the two companies based on completed tracked grade. Those bonds, plus six percent, were repaid as due. Considering the government’s vested interest in connecting east with west, such arrangements don’t seem out of line. The federal government, however, has no vested interest in a high-speed rail line from SF to LA. Neither do the tens of millions of non-Californians who taxes will be used to construct and subsidize the operation of this dopey thing.

SukieTawdry on November 14, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Trains are like pornography to liberals.

Mark1971 on November 14, 2011 at 2:53 PM

(add the word ‘passenger’) Trains are like pornography to liberals.
In the U.S., “Steel wheel on steel rail” transportation is for FREIGHT, period.

listens2glenn on November 14, 2011 at 8:24 PM

Har!

1. Chowchilla a population center? The population was 18,720 at the 2010 census.

2. Private enterprise also built the Golden Gate Bridge.

3. With this, California businesses will be fleeing; the state will be contracting, not growing.

As I said: “Har!”

foxymike on November 14, 2011 at 9:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2