A friend and I were discussing California's infamous high-speed rail to nowhere today, wondering why Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to support this boondoggle. The answer turns out to be fairly simple:
After passing in 2008 by a margin of 53-47%, the project has remained moderately popular. In fact, it's gained a bit of popularity: Even after excluding the latest poll, which seems like a bit of an outlier, it's trended up over the past decade. And support is far higher among Democrats, which explains why a Democratic governor continues to back it.
The 2022 poll is the most recent I could find. PPIC got bored with the question after 2020 and hasn't polled it since.
Anyway, we've spent $11 billion so far and continue to build the 200-mile segment between the bustling metropolises of Bakersfield and Merced. However, even this will require another $20 billion or so, and no one has a clue where the money will come from. Nevertheless, we have persisted.
Kevin has long been a high-speed train hater. James Fallows presents a different side of the story in the “Train to Somewhere” section of this article: https://www.wired.com/story/california-will-keep-moving-the-world-forward/
‘“If you listen to California’s political class, the high-speed rail project sounds like a textbook boondoggle,” Yousef Baig wrote on the nonprofit news site CalMatters in January. “Yet in communities across California’s farm belt, the discourse is refreshingly different. It’s a symbol of transformation for a region that’s already bursting with activity.” In part because of housing costs and traffic in the state’s biggest cities, communities in the Central Valley are the fastest-growing in the state; they are also some of the poorest, and the ones hardest hit by drought, particulate pollution, and climate change. These are the cities that will be the first to benefit from these futuristic new trains.
‘The logic of opening a semirural section of the larger project as soon as possible—and not waiting for the state’s big population hubs before any trains start running—is pretty clear at this point. “I’m firmly convinced that the first time the first customer buys a first ticket for the first true high-speed rail trip on US soil, there will be no going back,” I heard Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg say this spring in Washington. “People will expect and demand it everywhere.”
‘And lest Americans assume they will remain relegated to the kids’ table of railway systems, the world truly is watching California. At an international gathering of high-speed rail officials this year, I heard officials from France, Italy, Germany, Austria, and even the home of the Shinkansen, Japan, speak eagerly and admiringly about what they hoped to see and learn from California’s system. “It will be an incredible feat of civilization,” Ezra Silk, of the US High Speed Rail Coalition, told me. “It is something we should celebrate as visionary.”‘
I adore high speed rail. I've done a couple of dozen HSR trips. Americans don't now what they're missing. That said, I think it's entirely possible this atrociously ill-conceived boondoggle will set HSR back in America, not advance it. Also, I've been reading Kevin for nearly a quarter century, and my take is he's not in the least a "high speed train hater." I think, rather, he opposes this particular project because it spectacularly misses any semblance of cost-benefit analysis.
Imagine, if instead of a $100 billion train connecting a few small towns (that has still yet to transport a single passenger), America's first HSR project were, say, a train connecting the Texas Triangle* (Dallas, Houston, Austin-San Antonio) that had already come in at or near budget, and was already carrying tens of thousands of passengers a day...
The country will get HSR some day, I think. But this craptastic, dishonestly hyped monstrosity means that "some day" will be a lot longer off than need be.
*I know some find the "Texas Triangle" comparison unfair. They'll say something like "That project would be built in an area with much lower land costs, much less stringent environmental regulations, and much less challenging geography." And my response would be: "precisely."
That's right. This was simply the wrong project; there are several possible HSR projects throughout the country that don't present the challenges of LA-SFO.
And Fallows' argument, on its own terms, is kind of ridiculous. We're supposed to shell out $100 billion because some farming towns and small cities see the construction work as revitalizing their communities? You could literally spend that money on almost anything and it would benefit those towns more.
You're mistaking a midpoint for the end. Once the high-speed trains are running Fresno to Bakersfield, there will be more public support for extending to San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and Anneheim. Spending $100 Billion in the Central Valley is necessary for the whole line to be completed.
I am very offended by that argument. I think it is blackmail.
"We will build this useless stupid rail project nobody rides, and then that will force the public to spend well into 12 figures of money to get it to actually be useful."
If that's your theory of public policy, it's a terrible one and one that is incredibly disrespectful of any notion of public honesty.
What needed to happen is they needed to tell the truth, from the start, about the actual cost of this thing. And ask the public for the revenue (higher taxes) necessary to fund it. That's how this is supposed to work. If the public says "no", it means they don't want to pay the actual cost of it, and we have no business trying to force the public to complete the project by building something useless.
The "Texas Triangle" would only get High Speed Rail after Southwest Airlines declares bankruptcy and can no longer afford lobbyists. It would have been buried in lawsuits, and every dirty trick in the book to keep it from happening. Is it even on anybody's plans for High Speed Rail?
dear lord, you folks are not rational.
The snark belies the opportunity for Central California to expand beyond ag-centered conservative communities into metropolitan blues.
When the water runs-out what exactly will take the place of agriculture in some of the otherwise least hospitable climates of the state?
Easy answer.
Solar Farms. Farm the rays of the Sun for electricity.
But will the water run out?
We could also have a repeat of the Great Flood of 1862. Also known as the ARKStorm. 10 feet of rain in 43 days.