4 responses to “High Cost Rail – Part 41 Borden to Corcoran??”

1. Mark

   December 14, 2010

   So $4.15 billion for 65 miles = $64 million per mile (and this is before equipment acquisition). Entire system will be 840 miles, so this will cost a minimum of $54 million before equipment/train acquisition(versus HSR estimate of $42 million). And the HSR authority is saying they’re starting in the central valley because it is cheaper to start building there (can easily say it’s “on time and on budget”). Once you hit the urban areas, will cost 2x-3x more per mile. A cost of $100 – $150 million is not a stretch when you work out the math with reasonable land acquisition and construction cost estimates. This project will help bankrupt our State (how will employment fare then?) and be a huge burden on the Federal Goverment, should they chose to fund this (highly unlikely).

2. Mark

   December 14, 2010

   Sorry $100 – 150 BILLION

3. jennifer

   December 16, 2010

   John Horgan: High-speed rail’s hopes for free lunch nearly gone
   By John Horgan
   San Mateo County Times
   Posted: 12/15/2010 07:15:13 PM PST
   As the November election recedes into the distance, it is becoming apparent that hopes for huge new outlays of federal money for high-speed rail through San Mateo County and elsewhere are grossly misplaced.
   With Republicans poised to take control of the House of Representatives next month, conservatives, and even the White House, are taking an increasingly careful posture on the insatiable financial needs of high-speed rail, both here in California and elsewhere.
   Already, fiscal year 2011 high-speed rail allocations have been trimmed back to a “modest” $1 billion, down from $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2010, which just ended. Skeptical GOP lawmakers are making serious noises about attempting to eliminate any further such disbursements in order to pay down some of the nation’s massive debt, now teetering on the brink of $14 trillion.
   All this is music to the ears of high-speed rail opponents here on the Peninsula. They have been sounding the alarm about the project for nearly two years. Although many of them voted in favor of Proposition 1A in November 2008, it didn’t take long for them to figure out that the potential impacts of high-speed rail construction here were many and damaging.
   Proposition 1A authorized bonds worth nearly $10 billion to jump-start high-speed rail in this state. But that’s ancient history. What matters is now. And now, for high-speed rail, isn’t especially pretty.
   That’s not good news for Caltrain. The Peninsula’s commuter rail line has entered into an agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority that allows it to use Caltrain’s right-of-way in exchange for full electrification.
   That arrangement, questionable from the outset, today seems to be resting on very thin fiscal ice indeed.
   Since the feds have mandated that all available dollars to date be spent in the wide-open spaces of the Central Valley, Caltrain’s upgrade to an electrical system appears to be many, many years in the dim distance. If ever.
   It’s becoming quite clear that high-speed rail is not going to be a reliable infrastructure savior in the near term and probably not in the long term, either. The bucks, public or private, probably aren’t going to be there.
   Maybe we all should just get real as the new year beckons.

4. jennifer

   December 16, 2010

   (And for those who are holding out hope for anything other than a 80-125 ft. wide aerial structure through Burlingame….)
   High Speed Rail CEO Roelof Van Ark tells Gilroy:
   “No one gets a trench unless the city is willing to pay for it…..”