info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Did the federal government make the right call giving money to California high-speed rail projects?
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Newsom - Pelosi Crimes
Dec 31, 2023, 1:50:04 AM12/31/23
to
tRUMP VERMIN Inmate P01135809 <el...@protonmail.com> wrote in
news:umqleq$1jis6$6...@dont-email.me:
> Gavin Newsom should be indicted for fraud and misuse of federal funds.
The Biden administration announced recently that it would give $6 billion
to two high-speed rail projects in California.
While only a fraction of total costs, it was seen by some transportation
advocates as a win for California because it is getting a big portion of
infrastructure funds largely because it already had two high-speed
projects started.
Critics argue the California high-speed rail project, from L.A. to San
Francisco (and eventually extended to San Diego), has gone too far over
budget and it is time to cut losses and end it.
The L.A. to Las Vegas rail project is seen as more politically favorable
because it is private-public partnership. Yet $3 billion from taxpayers
puts the project under more scrutiny. Skeptics have questioned if a rail
line to Las Vegas is necessary when travelers could just fly or drive.
Also, current plans for the Brightline rail have it starting in Rancho
Cucamonga, which will likely mean a long commute (by car, Metrolink rail
or bus) just to get on it.
Proponents say the U.S. is behind on high-speed rail, which they say will
ease traffic construction and reduce pollution.
Q: Did the federal government make the right call giving money to
California high-speed rail projects?
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: Stop putting good money after bad. The federal government is
subsidizing these projects that even with this additional funding, will
not be enough to finish them. More funding will be required that
California can’t currently sustain and continues to be a waste of taxpayer
money. Cost overruns, poor planning, and poor decision making have
unfortunately plagued the rail projects from the start.
David Ely, San Diego State University
NO: The rail project connecting the Bay area to Southern California does
not have a high probability of ever being completed. Even completing the
Central Valley section will be challenging. The $3 billion going toward
this project could be better spent elsewhere. The case for supporting the
Brightline West project is stronger given the lower construction barriers
and the involvement of a private partner who has demonstrated success in a
high-speed rail project in Florida.
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
YES: High-speed rail would yield immense economic and environmental
benefits. The U.S., with no fully functional high-speed rail service, lags
far behind Asia and Europe, where governments have strategically invested
in thousands of miles of tracks. Limited public investment and
overregulation lead to delays and high costs in the U.S. Buy American laws
prevent the use of low-cost imported materials further boosting costs.
This is just a start; more ambition and investment are needed.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: In 15 years since the HSR was approved, no rail lines or project
conditions have been completed. Projected costs are more than quintupled
so far and at current pace will not likely be completed this century.
Final costs for the nation’s “biggest boondoggle in history” are
impossible to realistically project. Better to put more money into lower-
cost projects linking disparate parts of the existing state rail network
than sinking more into a bottomless money pit.
Lynn Reaser, economist
NO: Both physical and monetary constraints will doom the two projects. The
Brightline project serving the Las Vegas market would make sense if it
extended to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles rather than just Rancho
Cucamonga. The budget shortfall for the California project will still be
about $78 billion. Businesses, residents, and utilities would need to be
moved, making the high-speed train only distant vision for the entire San
Francisco to Anaheim route.
Phil Blair, Manpower
YES: Many outlandish projects need government support to get off the
ground. The differentiating factor here is a private company sees
potential in the route. They have experience and will build the line and
manage it. These are not the government’s strengths.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
NO: It is time to reevaluate the concept of high speed rail in California.
I do not see the social utility of an L.A. to Vegas line: it is not about
commuting or economic expansion. The L.A. to San Francisco line is fraught
with intractable complications. And the central California route is
ridiculous. I like fast trains, but it may be an outdated approach. High
tech solutions, involving autonomous, personal vehicles just might make
more sense.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
NO: That’s not to say that high-speed rail isn’t important. Its benefits
include reduced congestion, reduced pollution, and reduced dependence on
foreign oil. But the U.S. just can’t seem to build rail systems anymore.
Cost overruns lead to projects going way over budget, and there are often
protracted battles over routing. For California in particular, there is
too much urban sprawl, which reduces the density necessary to support rail
systems.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
NO: The “train to nowhere” (no offense intended to residents of Merced and
Bakersfield) is projected to cost more than $20 billion — several billion
dollars more than a previous projection made in 2019 and is likely to grow
more expensive. It will duplicate an Amtrak route and go nowhere in
helping the L.A. to San Francisco route, as promised by Gov. Newsom. Give
back to taxpayers the $4 billion to $5 billion of remaining funds from the
original $9 billion bond that was approved.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES and NO: Half the $6 billion is well spent, the other half not. The
dream of a high-speed rail connecting L.A. to San Francisco is never going
to happen, and any new federal contribution to that is throwing good money
after bad. By contrast, connecting L.A. to Las Vegas could make economic
sense, as evidenced by the substantial commitment of private investors.
Building on public-private partnerships is a promising way to temper
politician’s dreams with the reality of economic costs and benefits.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: I remain baffled by the exponential cost inflation associated with
infrastructure projects. That money could fly more than 60 million people
to Vegas without the drive to San Bernardino. I am also uncomfortable with
tax dollars substantially subsidizing a private venture. If we believe
public, environmentally-friendly transit is a priority, we should consider
options that make these projects more economically viable. It may be time
to consider new solutions like automated e-buses that don’t require
substantial infrastructure.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: Unless the projects are funded by federal resources, and the governor
and legislature can commit to doing a better job of staying within budget
and on schedule, I can’t support them. While I do believe there is a need
to improve transportation in the state, I think there are higher needs and
priorities for funding with state resources right now, especially given
that California is looking at record budget deficits.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
NO: While I love high speed trains and good public transit systems, this
project has too many impediments and unknown costs. I would prefer an
underground vacuum tube system (like the hyperloop) that allows near
airflight speeds and requires much less demolition of existing structures.
Unless we use more advanced technology and can assure completion before
the next wave of technology makes it obsolete, our taxpayer funds would be
better applied to reducing our national deficit.
Not participating this week
Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Assoc.
Ray Major, SANDAG
Have an idea for an EconoMeter question? Email me at
phillip...@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2023-12-15/did-the-
federal-government-make-the-right-call-giving-money-to-california-high-
speed-rail-projects
news:umqleq$1jis6$6...@dont-email.me:
> Gavin Newsom should be indicted for fraud and misuse of federal funds.
The Biden administration announced recently that it would give $6 billion
to two high-speed rail projects in California.
While only a fraction of total costs, it was seen by some transportation
advocates as a win for California because it is getting a big portion of
infrastructure funds largely because it already had two high-speed
projects started.
Critics argue the California high-speed rail project, from L.A. to San
Francisco (and eventually extended to San Diego), has gone too far over
budget and it is time to cut losses and end it.
The L.A. to Las Vegas rail project is seen as more politically favorable
because it is private-public partnership. Yet $3 billion from taxpayers
puts the project under more scrutiny. Skeptics have questioned if a rail
line to Las Vegas is necessary when travelers could just fly or drive.
Also, current plans for the Brightline rail have it starting in Rancho
Cucamonga, which will likely mean a long commute (by car, Metrolink rail
or bus) just to get on it.
Proponents say the U.S. is behind on high-speed rail, which they say will
ease traffic construction and reduce pollution.
Q: Did the federal government make the right call giving money to
California high-speed rail projects?
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere
NO: Stop putting good money after bad. The federal government is
subsidizing these projects that even with this additional funding, will
not be enough to finish them. More funding will be required that
California can’t currently sustain and continues to be a waste of taxpayer
money. Cost overruns, poor planning, and poor decision making have
unfortunately plagued the rail projects from the start.
David Ely, San Diego State University
NO: The rail project connecting the Bay area to Southern California does
not have a high probability of ever being completed. Even completing the
Central Valley section will be challenging. The $3 billion going toward
this project could be better spent elsewhere. The case for supporting the
Brightline West project is stronger given the lower construction barriers
and the involvement of a private partner who has demonstrated success in a
high-speed rail project in Florida.
Caroline Freund, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy
YES: High-speed rail would yield immense economic and environmental
benefits. The U.S., with no fully functional high-speed rail service, lags
far behind Asia and Europe, where governments have strategically invested
in thousands of miles of tracks. Limited public investment and
overregulation lead to delays and high costs in the U.S. Buy American laws
prevent the use of low-cost imported materials further boosting costs.
This is just a start; more ambition and investment are needed.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research
NO: In 15 years since the HSR was approved, no rail lines or project
conditions have been completed. Projected costs are more than quintupled
so far and at current pace will not likely be completed this century.
Final costs for the nation’s “biggest boondoggle in history” are
impossible to realistically project. Better to put more money into lower-
cost projects linking disparate parts of the existing state rail network
than sinking more into a bottomless money pit.
Lynn Reaser, economist
NO: Both physical and monetary constraints will doom the two projects. The
Brightline project serving the Las Vegas market would make sense if it
extended to Union Station in downtown Los Angeles rather than just Rancho
Cucamonga. The budget shortfall for the California project will still be
about $78 billion. Businesses, residents, and utilities would need to be
moved, making the high-speed train only distant vision for the entire San
Francisco to Anaheim route.
Phil Blair, Manpower
YES: Many outlandish projects need government support to get off the
ground. The differentiating factor here is a private company sees
potential in the route. They have experience and will build the line and
manage it. These are not the government’s strengths.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors
NO: It is time to reevaluate the concept of high speed rail in California.
I do not see the social utility of an L.A. to Vegas line: it is not about
commuting or economic expansion. The L.A. to San Francisco line is fraught
with intractable complications. And the central California route is
ridiculous. I like fast trains, but it may be an outdated approach. High
tech solutions, involving autonomous, personal vehicles just might make
more sense.
Alan Gin, University of San Diego
NO: That’s not to say that high-speed rail isn’t important. Its benefits
include reduced congestion, reduced pollution, and reduced dependence on
foreign oil. But the U.S. just can’t seem to build rail systems anymore.
Cost overruns lead to projects going way over budget, and there are often
protracted battles over routing. For California in particular, there is
too much urban sprawl, which reduces the density necessary to support rail
systems.
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates
NO: The “train to nowhere” (no offense intended to residents of Merced and
Bakersfield) is projected to cost more than $20 billion — several billion
dollars more than a previous projection made in 2019 and is likely to grow
more expensive. It will duplicate an Amtrak route and go nowhere in
helping the L.A. to San Francisco route, as promised by Gov. Newsom. Give
back to taxpayers the $4 billion to $5 billion of remaining funds from the
original $9 billion bond that was approved.
James Hamilton, UC San Diego
YES and NO: Half the $6 billion is well spent, the other half not. The
dream of a high-speed rail connecting L.A. to San Francisco is never going
to happen, and any new federal contribution to that is throwing good money
after bad. By contrast, connecting L.A. to Las Vegas could make economic
sense, as evidenced by the substantial commitment of private investors.
Building on public-private partnerships is a promising way to temper
politician’s dreams with the reality of economic costs and benefits.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth
NO: I remain baffled by the exponential cost inflation associated with
infrastructure projects. That money could fly more than 60 million people
to Vegas without the drive to San Bernardino. I am also uncomfortable with
tax dollars substantially subsidizing a private venture. If we believe
public, environmentally-friendly transit is a priority, we should consider
options that make these projects more economically viable. It may be time
to consider new solutions like automated e-buses that don’t require
substantial infrastructure.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health
NO: Unless the projects are funded by federal resources, and the governor
and legislature can commit to doing a better job of staying within budget
and on schedule, I can’t support them. While I do believe there is a need
to improve transportation in the state, I think there are higher needs and
priorities for funding with state resources right now, especially given
that California is looking at record budget deficits.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego
NO: While I love high speed trains and good public transit systems, this
project has too many impediments and unknown costs. I would prefer an
underground vacuum tube system (like the hyperloop) that allows near
airflight speeds and requires much less demolition of existing structures.
Unless we use more advanced technology and can assure completion before
the next wave of technology makes it obsolete, our taxpayer funds would be
better applied to reducing our national deficit.
Not participating this week
Haney Hong, San Diego County Taxpayers Assoc.
Ray Major, SANDAG
Have an idea for an EconoMeter question? Email me at
phillip...@sduniontribune.com. Follow me on Threads: @phillip020
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/story/2023-12-15/did-the-
federal-government-make-the-right-call-giving-money-to-california-high-
speed-rail-projects
0 new messages