Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Streetsblog.net

Bullet Train Bombshell: CAHSR Spurned Cost-Cutting Offer From the French

11:05 AM EDT on July 12, 2012

The news keeps flying in the California high-speed rail saga: Just days after the California Senate (barely) released the first round of construction funding, the LA Times broke the story that the French national rail company, SNCF, had offered to finance and build the project in 2010 for a substantially lower cost.

false

An official with knowledge of the SNCF plan said it would have cost $38 billion, far less than the $68 billion currently estimated by the California High Speed Rail Authority. But SNCF insisted on a route that ran along I-5, outside the central areas of Fresno and Bakersfield, which the authority dismissed. Sources told the LA Times that the agency was under political pressure to directly serve the two smaller central metros.

Alon Levy at Pedestrian Observations sorted through math and offered his take on the implications:

The problem: the cost of the Central Valley segment is a sufficiently small portion of the cost that it can’t possibly make the entire or even most of the difference between $38 billion and the current price tag...

So if it’s not just I-5, what is it, and what can we learn from this? I believe the results should if anything make the HSR Authority look even worse than it already does in light of this story and its lackluster response. This is because it means the entire amount of money required to build to SNCF’s specs but serve Bakersfield and Fresno, at edge-of-urban-area stations if the cities object to the noise of trains through downtown (which at least Fresno does not), is a small number of billions of dollars. This means that if service to those two cities was the true dealbreaker, the Authority could have asked SNCF to change the alignment back to the chosen route or a greenfield route just west of it, and then demanded that Fresno and Bakersfield pay for the difference.

As noted by Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic, CAHSR had plenty of good reasons to insist on the inclusion of Fresno and Bakersfield in the system design.

Freemark writes that these areas have a combined population of more than 3 million. He also notes that these two cities, which lack major airports, have a lot to gain from inclusion. Finally, there's important political considerations: "Without support from some residents and politicians in the Central Valley, the program could not have been passed either in 2008 or last week," Freemark said. "Avoiding Fresno may have made building any high-speed rail impossible."

Elsewhere on the Network today: Shareable ponders the prevalence of tiny apartments and adding more of them will be good for cities. Cyclelicious uses Craigslist job ads that require "dependable transportation" to gauge the strength of transit systems in cities around the country. And World Streets examines the research on pedestrian plazas and determines they can be successful, but they must be carefully designed.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

NYC Debuts Public E-Bike Charging for Delivery Workers

Finally, they’re taking charge! The city’s first public e-bike charging station opened in Cooper Square on Thursday — the start of an overdue six-month pilot that is part of a “Charge Safe Ride Safe Action Plan” for delivery workers that Mayor Adams announced last year.

March 1, 2024

Friday’s Headlines Have Questions

What's an optimal rebate to get people to buy e-bikes without wasting money on those who were going to buy one anyway?

March 1, 2024

To Recruit Transit Workers, More Than Just Higher Pay Is Needed

Labor shortages continue threatening public transit systems, and a new report adds another layer to the conversation.

February 29, 2024

Talking Headways Podcast: Streets for Skateboards

Aaron Breetwor on skateboards for transportation and designing streets for safer skateboarding.

February 29, 2024

Agencies Need to Use Federal Funding to Buy Land for Transit Oriented Development

Transit agencies do not prioritize transit-adjacent housing development often because they lack funding to acquire land.

February 29, 2024
See all posts