Bureacracy and politics and bungled project mgmt aside, I feel there is a cultural aspect to this where the US loves its cars versus Asia and EU down with trains and subways from long ago days.
LA had an amazing light rail system everywhere and then the tire companies killed it and they started building freeways.
One nice thing about a train, compared to flying, is that there's no TSA checkpoint for the train. Another is that the seating isn't as cramped.
When the high-speed rail project was first proposed, I remember being excited about the possibility and also unsure about whether it was actually a viable business venture. As I recall, there was at least one out-of-state company--with relevant experience in this area--that was interested in getting involved. But Jerry Brown apparently wanted the project to be some sort of showpiece for can-do California, so there was an emphasis on doing as much as possible in-house (so to speak).
I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion as you, particularly since (AFAIK) we still don't really have a clear picture of how much it would cost to actually get something usable. (Last I heard, there were still problems with acquiring all the right-of-way.) Surely there are other things we could spend the money on, things that will likely have a better return on investment.
well, you'd need some kind of reform of litigation laws, environment regulations, and labor agreements for that to be true. Otherwise it's just showing off "can't do anything" California.
As long as politicians can grift off the funding, the funding will continue.
Bureacracy and politics and bungled project mgmt aside, I feel there is a cultural aspect to this where the US loves its cars versus Asia and EU down with trains and subways from long ago days.
LA had an amazing light rail system everywhere and then the tire companies killed it and they started building freeways.
One nice thing about a train, compared to flying, is that there's no TSA checkpoint for the train. Another is that the seating isn't as cramped.
When the high-speed rail project was first proposed, I remember being excited about the possibility and also unsure about whether it was actually a viable business venture. As I recall, there was at least one out-of-state company--with relevant experience in this area--that was interested in getting involved. But Jerry Brown apparently wanted the project to be some sort of showpiece for can-do California, so there was an emphasis on doing as much as possible in-house (so to speak).
I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion as you, particularly since (AFAIK) we still don't really have a clear picture of how much it would cost to actually get something usable. (Last I heard, there were still problems with acquiring all the right-of-way.) Surely there are other things we could spend the money on, things that will likely have a better return on investment.
"some sort of showpiece for can-do California"
well, you'd need some kind of reform of litigation laws, environment regulations, and labor agreements for that to be true. Otherwise it's just showing off "can't do anything" California.
Yeah, it does look like Brown's strategy backfired, pretty spectacularly.