For reference, the current amount of identified funding from state and federal sources is an optimistically forecasted ~$25.2 billion (p. 38). $200 million is a lot for a single grant, but only a...
For reference, the current amount of identified funding from state and federal sources is an optimistically forecasted ~$25.2 billion (p. 38). $200 million is a lot for a single grant, but only a small portion of overall project costs. Still, this is great and necessary. Grade separations are essential for high-speed rail and it's good that the CAHSR Authority is trying to leverage multiple funding sources, in this case through CRISI.
The CAHSR Authority believes the cost of the entire Phase 1 system as originally envisioned would be $88.5–$127.9 billion (p. 59), with a "base" expected cost of $106.2 billion (not $69.01–$99.9 billion; this estimate is outdated), though the article mysteriously provides a figure of $108 billion. This would connect San Francisco, San José, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, and Anaheim; but not Sacramento or San Diego.
The Northern California segment to San Francisco would cost $21.2–$35.5 billion (p. 57), though the article states $25 billion. They've already made a decent bit of progress on electrifying Caltrain tracks between San Francisco and San Jose, though, which would have been the most difficult NoCal section to built dedicated tracks in, had they not upgraded existing ones. (Perhaps the article is referring to unallocated funding only.)
The Southern California segment to Los Angeles, including the extension to Anaheim, will apparently cost $31.9–$52.8 billion (p. 58). In absolute terms, most of the NoCal costs will be from Gilroy to Merced (intuitive: it's a long distance, and that means a lot of land acquisition and a lot of tracks); and most of the SoCal costs will be from Bakersfield to Palmdale/Burbank (same reason). The LA to Anaheim portion would actually be pretty cheap in comparison, only $2.5–3.4 billion. I kinda would have expected the LA-area portion to be more expensive due to higher land costs, but apparently not.
As of March 2023, the CAHSR Authority had a target of $8 billion in additional grants (p. 38), which I guess is now more like $7.8 billion, or maybe a little less—I think they've gotten some other grants recently which I can't be bothered to dig up. That's a total of $33.2 billion, which the Authority believes will let them build the first section of Phase 1, i.e. that Central Valley segment between Merced and Bakersfield. They could probably scoop up $8 billion, but there's going to be fierce competition from Brightline West, which is currently hoping for about $3.75 billion; and various rail projects in literally every other part of the country. The pool of money they're both applying for, the rail infrastructure portion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, excluding funding for Amtrak, is about $44 billion (?) total, minus however much of the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail is allocated to the Northeast Corridor (my brain seems to think this is $20 billion, though the website states $9.0 billion for the NEC). (Full disclaimer: I can never keep track of exactly how many billions are allocated to Amtrak, or the NEC, or CRISI, or this or that or whatever, so I may occasionally quote an incorrect figure for one of these sub-allocations.)
Edit: "The Authority has identified more than $75 billion in funding from the BIL for which the Authority is eligible to compete" (p. 45). This figure includes advanced appropriations as well as authorized (but not yet appropriated) funding. CAHSR is definitely not getting all $75 billion because they are just one project in just one state, but I would expect quite a bit more than $8 billion if they can get their act together.
The critical part is that while California High-Speed Rail is expensive, the alternative modes of transportation—expanding highway and airport capacity by an equivalent amount—would cost ~1.5x as much as high-speed rail (p. 61). Cars are inherently inefficient and their infrastructure is pretty expensive, in addition to having a worse physical footprint than rail, causing more emissions, more groundwater and soil pollution, more noise, and more local traffic. It goes without saying that airports and airplanes are overwhelmingly expensive and environmentally damaging, in addition to being relatively inaccessible and generally unpleasant. The argument for high-speed rail is very much there: economically, socially, and environmentally. High-speed rail would be comparatively affordable while maintaining strong time-competitiveness.
Check out the California High-Speed Rail 2023 Project Update Report from March, which is fairly comprehensive and up-to-date. This has far more information than any online news article will ever give you about the project.
For reference, the current amount of identified funding from state and federal sources is an optimistically forecasted ~$25.2 billion (p. 38). $200 million is a lot for a single grant, but only a small portion of overall project costs. Still, this is great and necessary. Grade separations are essential for high-speed rail and it's good that the CAHSR Authority is trying to leverage multiple funding sources, in this case through CRISI.
The CAHSR Authority believes the cost of the entire Phase 1 system as originally envisioned would be $88.5–$127.9 billion (p. 59), with a "base" expected cost of $106.2 billion (not $69.01–$99.9 billion; this estimate is outdated), though the article mysteriously provides a figure of $108 billion. This would connect San Francisco, San José, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, and Anaheim; but not Sacramento or San Diego.
As of March 2023, the CAHSR Authority had a target of $8 billion in additional grants (p. 38), which I guess is now more like $7.8 billion, or maybe a little less—I think they've gotten some other grants recently which I can't be bothered to dig up. That's a total of $33.2 billion, which the Authority believes will let them build the first section of Phase 1, i.e. that Central Valley segment between Merced and Bakersfield. They could probably scoop up $8 billion, but there's going to be fierce competition from Brightline West, which is currently hoping for about $3.75 billion; and various rail projects in literally every other part of the country. The pool of money they're both applying for, the rail infrastructure portion from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, excluding funding for Amtrak, is about $44 billion (?) total, minus however much of the Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail is allocated to the Northeast Corridor (my brain seems to think this is $20 billion, though the website states $9.0 billion for the NEC). (Full disclaimer: I can never keep track of exactly how many billions are allocated to Amtrak, or the NEC, or CRISI, or this or that or whatever, so I may occasionally quote an incorrect figure for one of these sub-allocations.)
Edit: "The Authority has identified more than $75 billion in funding from the BIL for which the Authority is eligible to compete" (p. 45). This figure includes advanced appropriations as well as authorized (but not yet appropriated) funding. CAHSR is definitely not getting all $75 billion because they are just one project in just one state, but I would expect quite a bit more than $8 billion if they can get their act together.
The critical part is that while California High-Speed Rail is expensive, the alternative modes of transportation—expanding highway and airport capacity by an equivalent amount—would cost ~1.5x as much as high-speed rail (p. 61). Cars are inherently inefficient and their infrastructure is pretty expensive, in addition to having a worse physical footprint than rail, causing more emissions, more groundwater and soil pollution, more noise, and more local traffic. It goes without saying that airports and airplanes are overwhelmingly expensive and environmentally damaging, in addition to being relatively inaccessible and generally unpleasant. The argument for high-speed rail is very much there: economically, socially, and environmentally. High-speed rail would be comparatively affordable while maintaining strong time-competitiveness.
Check out the California High-Speed Rail 2023 Project Update Report from March, which is fairly comprehensive and up-to-date. This has far more information than any online news article will ever give you about the project.