Good News: High Speed Rail Company Declined To Work On California Project Due To State Being “Politically Dysfunctional”

First the shot


(Hoover) Back in 2008, California voters approved about $10 billion in bond funds to partially finance a HSR system that would stretch across the state, from the south to north, and from the valleys to the coast, promising travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles in just two and one-half hours, with trains traveling at 220 miles per hour. The system was to be operational by 2020, for a cost of about $34 billion. Too date, the cost has escalated to about $105 billion, just for the 520-mile Los Angeles–San Francisco leg. And now that we are in 2022, the only certainty is that costs that will rise further, and that a completion date—“completion” meaning whatever bits and pieces of the system ultimately are finished—will stretch further into the future.

A bit more than “multi-billion”, and, so far, nothing is operational

A company hoping to help California with its high-speed rail built one in North Africa instead, saying the region was ‘less politically dysfunctional’

The Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF), a French state-owned railroad operator, came to California in hopes of helping the state build a high-speed rail system from Los Angeles to San Francisco but left for North Africa in 2011 because the region was ‘less politically dysfunctional’ than the Golden State.

Within 7 years, they built a functioning high-speed rail system in Morocco, the New York Times reported.

California sought to have the first high-speed rail system in the country, but a new report from the Times showed political disagreement on the train’s route slowed the ambitious project to a near halt — and raised construction costs by billions.

That Times piece notes that the Peoples’ Republik Of California is now thinking $113 billion. That Hoover piece is from mid-August this year.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority continues to build: The first section of the rail is under construction in Central California. The authority hopes to begin testing the section in 2025.

Some rail operators told the Times the entire project could potentially be a bust.

“I don’t think it is an existing project,” Quentin Kopp, a former rail chairman, told the Times. “It is a loser.”

The same types of Leftists want to force Everyone Else to take the train.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “Good News: High Speed Rail Company Declined To Work On California Project Due To State Being “Politically Dysfunctional””

  1. JimS says:

    The US already has a high speed rail… sort of …. The Amtrak Acela train hits 150mph but only on about 50 miles of it’s 500 mile route. The Acela runs between Boston and Washington DC, where there is enough passenger traffic to justify it.

  2. Hairy says:

    Going over a 100yo+bridge in CT Acela slows to 10mph
    Amtrak loses big bucks on it’s cross country runs “fly over country” but in order to get funding from the Congressional representatives of those states AMTRAK. Can’t end those trains.

    • Doom and Gloom says:

      RAILROADS are considered National Security infrastructure. As are Highways.

      How else is FT. Hood, Texas or any other inland Military base going to effectively get 1000’s of tanks and vehicles overseas in the event of war?

      Railroad or Highways. It is why our highways are rated for 80,000 lbs. The typical weight of a large tank pulled on a flatbed truck.

      Railroads get money to keep the tracks maintained. States get money to keep the Highways maintained.

      The Strategic Oil Reserve is also a national security infrastructure deal that BIDEN IS ABUSING FOR POLITICAL GAIN.

      Vote Republican if you want your country back!

    • JimS says:

      Yeah, most of the track infrastructure is owned by freight haulers who gave up on passenger service when it became unprofitable. Routes like the East Coast corridor still make sense for commuter service. But the cross country runs do seem to more for tourists, train buffs and folk afraid of flying.

  3. UnkleC says:

    Rail is a 19th century solution for 21st century transportation. Rail still works for bulk commodities such as coal, sand, gravel, and the like. These products aren’t usually perishable or time sensitive and rail is an efficient mode of transportation for them. The problem is that someone once told a lefty that rail was energy efficient and thus rail became a transportation touchstone for the left. That was good for the 19th century, but things have changed. Moving people in the 21st century now makes time, comfort, convenience, and cost important considerations over simple energy efficiency.
    The very vocal supporters of rail are cheered on by developers and contractors who stand to make huge sums from these hyper expensive projects that will never carry anything near their ‘projected’ average load predictions or meet cost projections. Not to mention the campaign contributions and kickbacks to the politicians. Also, no mention is ever made of the substantial maintenance expense coming in the future.
    Buses, planes, and automobiles work better for moving people.

  4. captainfish says:

    “The hell you say!”

Pirate's Cove