The liberals $43 billion train to no where...

[K1052]

That's a valid point, but the fact remain that passenger trains lose money. A LOT of money with respect to other modes of transportation. Something that loses a lot of money is not an ideal thing to invest in when one is suffering from crushing debt.

The true economics of a US HSR project won't be known until one is actually built and operated for a number of years. At a minimum we would be getting a piece of hard infrastructure that will last for decades or centuries (parts of the NE corridor are over 100 years old) in place where it will actually be used.

Given the costs and airspace limitations that we are looking at to expand airport capacity to accommodate all the short and medium haul air travel those airports deal with HSR should be considered at least an option.

 

[theeedude]

It's definitely a better idea than having all these would be HSR builders sitting at home collecting welfare and unemployment. You can argue if having all these people building HSR is the best way to allocate these resources, but it's hard to argue that it's not better than having them do nothing. That would be like having a brain to nowhere

 

[werepossum]

The true economics of a US HSR project won't be known until one is actually built and operated for a number of years. At a minimum we would be getting a piece of hard infrastructure that will last for decades or centuries (parts of the NE corridor are over 100 years old) in place where it will actually be used.

Given the costs and airspace limitations that we are looking at to expand airport capacity to accommodate all the short and medium haul air travel those airports deal with HSR should be considered at least an option.

Nothing government does gets cheaper than expected. Nothing. At best government could underestimate the number of people using a project - but with infrastructure, that merely raises the cost.

As I said, I could support the project once we become fiscally sound.

 

[cirrrocco]

Yes god spoke to me and told me this was the best path.

Jesus came and told me the same as well. Jesus said the plebeians needs a HSR so that the rich aristocrats can have the roads to themselves and their 200K cars. Since the rich pay so much tax, jesus said it is only just that they get to drive at the max speed. All those stupid tourists and poor ppl on the roads are preventing gods chosen economic demographic from being able to drive at > 160 mph.

I will follow what Jesus told me. At the very end Jesus also told me that we need to go to war with Eye Ran and Syria.

 

[OutHouse]

It's a bridge that connects two huge parts of the area. It's not optional.



It's high speed rail. There are a lot of people who travel between SF and LA. People will take if the prices are reasonable.

Amtrack is fricking $$$$$$ compered to flying or driving

 

[HendrixFan]

Nothing government does gets cheaper than expected. Nothing. At best government could underestimate the number of people using a project - but with infrastructure, that merely raises the cost.

As I said, I could support the project once we become fiscally sound.

Once we became fiscally sound under the Clinton watch, the right railed mercilessly to give the money back to its "rightful owners", the taxpayers. Any surplus was money stolen and was needed to be given back.

Deficits = we can't afford it
Surplus = it is wrong to pay for it when it should be a tax cut instead

Besides, who cares if it costs $48B or more? Where do you think that money goes? Right now companies are sitting on trillions in cash. This gets money moving again, which is sort of an important aspect in this struggling economy.

 

[werepossum]

Once we became fiscally sound under the Clinton watch, the right railed mercilessly to give the money back to its "rightful owners", the taxpayers. Any surplus was money stolen and was needed to be given back.

Deficits = we can't afford it
Surplus = it is wrong to pay for it when it should be a tax cut instead

Besides, who cares if it costs $48B or more? Where do you think that money goes? Right now companies are sitting on trillions in cash. This gets money moving again, which is sort of an important aspect in this struggling economy.

If you really think getting money moving again is the key, why not advocate borrowing an extra $3,000 trillion, giving everyone earning under $250,000 a $1 million Earned Income Credit, and use the surplus to build every city a giant golden Obama idol? Money would be flying!

Suppose we borrow an extra $48 billion to fund this thing. We both know that the final price tag will be a quarter trillion or more, but let's go with $48 billion. First off, that money will be paid to workers and companies to build this rail system, so it's going to circulate. However the workers and companies receiving the money are going to set on every bit of that $48 billion they don't absolutely have to spend, because the underlying fundamentals of the economy have not changed. Second, once this thing is built, we'll have to borrow additional billions to operate it, because not even its strongest supporter has any illusions it will not operate at a serious loss. The rosiest assumptions are that HSR will allow economic activity to shift from one section of California to other sections - nice for the people who can live in cheaper areas, but no net increase in wealth produced.

We cannot borrow our way to prosperity, and the sooner we as a country learn what hopefully every teenager has been taught, the better we'll be. If we are to borrow and spend yet another $48 billion, let's spend it wisely, on something that creates or at least conserves wealth. Build alternative energy power plants, fund point-of-use solar arrays, add insulation, replace old inefficient equipment and buildings. By building things that create or at least conserve wealth, we reduce the amount we have to borrow in the future. By building things that consume wealth, we increase the amount we have to borrow in the future. Neat as it is, high speed rail is going to consume wealth on balance for the foreseeable future.

 

[K1052]

Suppose we borrow an extra $48 billion to fund this thing. We both know that the final price tag will be a quarter trillion or more, but let's go with $48 billion. First off, that money will be paid to workers and companies to build this rail system, so it's going to circulate. However the workers and companies receiving the money are going to set on every bit of that $48 billion they don't absolutely have to spend, because the underlying fundamentals of the economy have not changed. Second, once this thing is built, we'll have to borrow additional billions to operate it, because not even its strongest supporter has any illusions it will not operate at a serious loss. The rosiest assumptions are that HSR will allow economic activity to shift from one section of California to other sections - nice for the people who can live in cheaper areas, but no net increase in wealth produced.

Actually many HSR systems operate at a profit or at least break even. For most railroads it is the slower regional or local services that loose money. Such is the case with Amtrak where the faster NE corridor services (particularly Aclea Express as HSR lite) operate profitably.

Nobody practical is endorsing the construction of a nationwide HSR network but connecting city pairs and corridors that can support the systems should be starting. the SD-SF (and probably a line to Vegas) route is one of those along with the NE corridor and the Chicago hub.

 

[werepossum]

Actually many HSR systems operate at a profit or at least break even. For most railroads it is the slower regional or local services that loose money. Such is the case with Amtrak where the faster NE corridor services (particularly Aclea Express as HSR lite) operate profitably.

Nobody practical is endorsing the construction of a nationwide HSR network but connecting city pairs and corridors that can support the systems should be starting. the SD-SF (and probably a line to Vegas) route is one of those along with the NE corridor and the Chicago hub.

I remain highly skeptical, but assuming that it can run at a profit or break-even by unbiased analysis then I'd support it.

 

[Zargon]

Amtrack is fricking $$$$$$ compered to flying or driving

not always


if you book a few weeks in advance some of the tickets are darn cheap

 

[BeauJangles]

I remain highly skeptical, but assuming that it can run at a profit or break-even by unbiased analysis then I'd support it.

Put it this way, the Acela is profitable despite the fact it runs slower than your average car. Lots of my friends prefer it to flying and lots more would prefer it if it could run even close to the 150 mph it is capable of. A true HSR network between SF and LA (and eventually Vegas) would rake in money.

 

[HendrixFan]

I remain highly skeptical, but assuming that it can run at a profit or break-even by unbiased analysis then I'd support it.

Aside from the money it would pull in, it would create half a million private jobs in support as well. But of course you will remain skeptical and look for bias in anything that says it will do well. There have been plenty of people in this thread to show how successful rails have been in other areas, yet you ignore it because it doesn't fit your ideology.

We are talking about sound infrastructure. This is something that would alleviate some of the growing population boom pains in California. All while pumping $48B into a stagnant economy. That is completely different than handing people checks (like Bush did) to go out and spend. That kind of thing doesn't provide infrastructure and only reinforces the consumption society model we need to move away from. That is a weak strawman argument from you.

You just got done saying you would support this project if we were fiscally sound, and now you are back tracking and saying you would need to see unbiased research on it. You are dancing around trying to find something firm to stand on but as it crumbles beneath your feet you keep moving. Why would it be something you could support if we were fiscally sound, but not support in our current condition?

 

[theeedude]

California is expected to grow in population, we need to build infrastructure to prepare and to make central valley more attractive place to live and not just a sh!thole famous for manure smell and giving name to Tularemia. And that infrastructure needs to be diversified. We already have airports and highways. We need high speed rail.

 

[werepossum]

Aside from the money it would pull in, it would create half a million private jobs in support as well. But of course you will remain skeptical and look for bias in anything that says it will do well. There have been plenty of people in this thread to show how successful rails have been in other areas, yet you ignore it because it doesn't fit your ideology.

We are talking about sound infrastructure. This is something that would alleviate some of the growing population boom pains in California. All while pumping $48B into a stagnant economy. That is completely different than handing people checks (like Bush did) to go out and spend. That kind of thing doesn't provide infrastructure and only reinforces the consumption society model we need to move away from. That is a weak strawman argument from you.

You just got done saying you would support this project if we were fiscally sound, and now you are back tracking and saying you would need to see unbiased research on it. You are dancing around trying to find something firm to stand on but as it crumbles beneath your feet you keep moving. Why would it be something you could support if we were fiscally sound, but not support in our current condition?

To be even more clear:
IF we were fiscally sound, I would support the project as useful infrastructure, as long as it is funded as part of a balanced budget.

As we are currently NOT fiscally sound, I would support the project ONLY if it is proven to my satisfaction that the project will be self-funding after completion. That is, the federal government gives California $48 billion and stops - forever. Cost overruns? California pays 100% of the extra. Operates at a loss? California pays 100% of the negative balance.

I remain deeply skeptical that this project will ever operate at a profit. If I am correct, then funding this project while we are not fiscally sound is doubly irresponsible because it will continue to eat. In that case, it would be more practical to just scatter $48 billion in the streets of poor neighborhoods; at least when that $48 billion is thrown away, you don't need to borrow billions more to keep anything operating.

Creating jobs by borrowing money is stupid; the jobs last only as long as we keep borrowing more money to fund them.

 

[K1052]

As we are currently NOT fiscally sound, I would support the project ONLY if it is proven to my satisfaction that the project will be self-funding after completion. That is, the federal government gives California $48 billion and stops - forever. Cost overruns? California pays 100% of the extra. Operates at a loss? California pays 100% of the negative balance.

The Feds are not footing the entire $43B. Initial funding has come from a $9B bond issue approved by CA voters in 2008 and various federal grants which amount to about $5.5B over the last few years. Federal participation has been stepped up since a number of states rejected rail funds and some of the extra money was allocated to CA's project. That is one of the primary reasons work is starting in the central valley first other than it being the easiest to build first, that last round of Federal dollars required that segment to be built first.

Federal government funding will not cover any operating costs for CA HSR. The state and local governments will have to cover those. This is true for every transit system in the country except Amtrak which also provides interstate service (as this will not) and was originally chartered by the federal government.

 

[werepossum]

The Feds are not footing the entire $43B. Initial funding has come from a $9B bond issue approved by CA voters in 2008 and various federal grants which amount to about $5.5B over the last few years. Federal participation has been stepped up since a number of states rejected rail funds and some of the extra money was allocated to CA's project. That is one of the primary reasons work is starting in the central valley first other than it being the easiest to build first, that last round of Federal dollars required that segment to be built first.

Federal government funding will not cover any operating costs for CA HSR. The state and local governments will have to cover those. This is true for every transit system in the country except Amtrak which also provides interstate service (as this will not) and was originally chartered by the federal government.

Personally I think that states should have to pick up at least 50% of the budgeted costs (and any overruns) of a project serving only that state. But at least it will be a state-run program.

 

[JS80]

loliberals strike again http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_19236454

Bullet train project nearly triples in cost -- $98.5 billion -- from earlier projections

Faster than a speeding bullet train, the cost of the state's massive high-speed rail project has zoomed to nearly $100 billion -- triple the estimate given to voters and more than enough to run the entire state government for a year.
What's more, bullet trains won't be up and running until at least 2033, much later than the original estimate of 2020, although that depends on the state finding the remaining 90 percent of the funds needed to complete the plan.
The new figures come from a final business plan to be unveiled by the California High-Speed Rail Authority on Tuesday, though some of the details were leaked to the media, including this newspaper, on Monday. Officials at the rail authority did not respond to repeated requests for comment Monday.
Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday was expected to endorse the long-awaited plan, the first major update to the project in two years and the last before the federal deadline to begin construction next year. But state legislators, who were already skeptical, will tear through the plan starting Tuesday before deciding whether to start building, or to kill the project.
The new business plan pegs the price tag at $98.5 billion, accounting for inflation -- more than double the estimate of $42.6 billion from two years ago, when it was already the priciest public works development in the nation. It's a little less than triple the estimate of $33.6 billion voters were told when they approved the project
in 2008. By comparison, the total state budget this year is $86 billion.
Costly construction
Much of the cost increase is due to the increased time of construction.
"We don't have anywhere to get that kind of money," said Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, a Southern California Republican who has led the charge against the project. "I don't think there's any way you can do any part of this and keep the promise that was made to the taxpayers and (the voters). It just doesn't make any sense at all."
With the Golden State nearly broke, it now plans to secure funding largely by borrowing more, the Associated Press reported, though specifics were unclear. About 20 percent would come from the private sector.
Until now, the state had been relying on more than $15 billion from the federal government, $10 billion from private investors and $5 billion from local governments. But the state hadn't gotten any closer to raising the money in the three years since voters approved the plan.
The bullet train project, which would link San Francisco and Los Angeles with the nation's first high-speed rail line, has seemed to be a dream for job-hungry politicians, unions and business groups.
Like Brown, the mayors of San Jose, San Francisco and Los Angeles are also in favor, saying it is pivotal to start quickly and create jobs by taking advantage of a $2.2 billion federal grant that would expire next year.
Honest numbers?
Supporters still think the funding can be raised.
"Everyone knew (the cost) was going to be higher because they're in this process now of actually designing the project," said Rod Diridon, a former board member for the rail authority. "It's just a matter of time" for them to find the money.
But a large and vocal group of skeptics, including most nonpartisan groups, have regularly blasted the project as too expensive, adding the funding plans and ridership estimates are too optimistic. The updated figures are likely to add more fuel to the fire.
Already, as news leaked Monday, lawmakers said they need to be convinced that the project would churn a profit and that much of the funding for construction would come from outside the state budget.
"If those are honest numbers -- and we still need to check that -- it certainly is a higher number than expected," for cost, said Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo. "That certainly is a lot." The decision to start construction is no cinch.
If they kill the project, the state loses the huge federal grant that promises to create temporary construction jobs. But support would require them to spend $6.3 billion, split between state and federal funds, to build a stretch of track that would not be long enough to support bullet train service.

 

[chowderhead]

I am pretty liberal and I don't support HSR especially this boondoggle. California is broke and there should be no way they should spend 100 billion dollars to build a rail system to subsidize mostly business travelers when other transit options that millions of people actually use should be the priority i.e. BART, MUNI, buses, freeway upgrades, bridges, transit hubs, etc. This plan will never work and will be too expensive to maintain and hasn't even started yet and is already double the cost. Again, no one but some business travelers who now fly are going to use this. It's a waste of money.

 

[Theb]

that depends on the state finding the remaining 90 percent of the funds needed to complete the plan.

High-speed rail would be awesome, but come on CA. This just isn't a good idea unless some part of the equation changes dramatically.

 

[Throckmorton]

Try 98.5 billion http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20111101,0,1124440.story

 

[Genx87]

loliberals strike again http://www.mercurynews.com/california-high-speed-rail/ci_19236454

I am shocked! But think of how many more jobs this will create now that it costs three times as much!

 

[Throckmorton]

High speed rail is like the liberal equivalent of starting unnecessary wars. You can't oppose even the worst boondoggle, because then you'd be a fascist who hates America and hates the children. With us or against us.

 

[evident]

even if the investment doesn't make a profit, if it makes the quality of life for those living in the area better, isn't that a positive as well? Isn't it true that even the trains in japan barely break even or operate at a loss, but how would people live w/o them. might be comparing apples to oranges since the population density is vastly different here.

 

[JS80]

even if the investment doesn't make a profit, if it makes the quality of life for those living in the area better, isn't that a positive as well? Isn't it true that even the trains in japan barely break even or operate at a loss, but how would people live w/o them. might be comparing apples to oranges since the population density is vastly different here.

Is $100 billion just a number to you?

 

[ShawnD1]

I don't quite understand the need for high speed rail. The road between my city and the next major city is also about 4 hours, and it seems to be doing fine with regular bus service. Taking the bus is far less than $100 each way, it's reliable, and it uses existing infrastructure. The bus station is also very close to the middle of this city, so people coming in by bus are right in the thick of things.
Maybe someone can explain the situation a little better. Why do you need a train between these cities? Why is the bus and air service not enough?

100 billion is an awfully big number. Like it's really hard to imagine what that can build. You could probably repave every road in Canada for that much. It's a big country too.