House GOP whip: Folly to expect fed $ for bullet train

train_wreck_num_2April 12, 2013

By Chris Reed

There’s a double-whammy targeting the bullet train on the op-ed page of Friday’s U-T San Diego newspaper.

First House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, tees off on the state’s assumption that federal dollars will cover most of the cost of the project.

“CHSRA’s reliance on additional dollars from a cash-strapped federal government nearly $17 trillion in debt is naive and misguided at best. As GAO correctly concluded, ‘HSIPR grant program has not received funding since 2010 and that the future funding proposals will likely be met with continued concern about the general level of federal spending, the largest block of expected money for the California project is uncertain.’

“And that’s not even the whole story. The plan still depends on $13 billion from private investment – not a single dollar of which has been committed. This is assuming the $68.4 billion price tag remains unchanged, which is questionable since GAO found that CHSRA’s project plan lacked detail about risk assessment and post-construction costs of running the rail, noting the omissions could lead to ‘increased risk of such things as cost overruns, missed deadlines, and unmet performance targets.’”

Think tank: Ridership numbers still grossly exaggerated

Then Reason Foundation’s Wendell Cox and Joseph Vranich take a close look at the rail authority’s number-crunching and find some huge problems.

“CHSRA claims that most train riders will be attracted from their cars. However, driving with the family or even driving alone will be less expensive than taking the train. In Europe, despite gasoline prices that hover between $8 and $9 per gallon, relatively small numbers of drivers choose high-speed rail over their cars. Based upon the international experience in luring drivers out of their cars and onto trains, we project that the California rail system’s ridership will fall 65 percent to 77 percent short of CHSRA’s claims.

“With far fewer passengers, and not enough ticket revenue, someone else will have to pay to keep the trains running – the taxpayers of California. It will likely cost taxpayers between $125 million and $375 million each year to cover the train’s operating losses.”

What a bekerja tanpa bagaimanakah.

That’s the Malay term for “boondoggle.”

3 comments

Write a comment
  1. Bill Hough
    Bill Hough 12 April, 2013, 11:11

    The reason foundation link also goes to the UT article. You might want to fix that.

    Reply this comment
  2. Hank
    Hank 12 April, 2013, 11:23

    Let’s pretend we are our addled Governor, a train believer. A sorta high speed train he dreams about but how to build it? Well he goes to China and secures the Chinese financing by pledging the right away,land. Land the State can acquire by any means necessary. The actual construction and equipment would come from China as well, there is no “Buy America” clause in any of this dreamy notion.
    Of course the train never gets built, but. The “default” by California means China gets the land. Jerry will be gone, just like he left Oakland and the Bay Bridge. China becomes a major land holder in the very rich Central Valley. A unfortunate and unforeseen outcome.
    I ‘m just pretending, this is a nutty idea.

    Reply this comment
  3. CalWatchdog
    CalWatchdog Author 12 April, 2013, 14:35

    Bill Hough, the Reason link goes to a second U-T article. The articles were paired.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment



Related Articles

Some CA government jobs proving tough to fill

The cost of housing has been an increasingly hot topic in California political circles since late 2012. That’s when a

LAO: No ‘fiscal cliff’ with end of Prop. 30 taxes

Someone should come up with a T-shirt reading, “STAY CALM AND LET PROP. 30 END.” Maybe sell it and make

$50 Million-A-Day Budget Talks

Katy Grimes: Sen. Bob Dutton showed an appropriate level of impatience with the continuing spending bills in the Budget Conference