OT: The Great California High-Speed Rail/Train Scam

[The-Shoveler]

These guys have it all wrong, they need to make rail lines down the center of all the major freeways and make that work first, then think about high speed rail, the high speed rail will NOT reduce traffic delays.

[enron_by_the_sea]

I was also amused to read this in the above link about the report from the legislative analyst

[quote]
Further, it criticizes the Brown administration’s new backup plan to use potentially tens of billions of dollars from the state’s new “cap-and-trade” program in which big polluters buy credits in electronic auctions to offset greenhouse gas emissions, with the revenue going to environmentally friendly programs. The LAO argues there are more cost-effective environmental programs that could use the money, that it’s unclear whether high-speed rail would actually reduce greenhouse gases quickly enough , and that it may be illegal to use the funds to build the bullet train.
[/quote]

There it is! “High-speed-train-saves-the-environment” argument is gone too!

[paramount]

Why not just improve Amtrak between SD/LA/SF?

Not unlike the Acela; except with high speed diesel and upscale cars?

[Coronita]

[quote]
Somehow I don’t think “lets start building it first and then we will figure out” mentality is going to care much about it![/quote]

Well, we are talking about the CA government…..Not that it’s been the first time they “first started buling something and figure it out later” before…

Apparently it didn’t stop California’s Franchise Tax Board to build a brand new tax system to monitor whether people cheated on their taxes by reporting Mello Ruse(sic) as part of their property tax deduction before double checking with the IRS if the IRS considers Mello Ruse(sic) tax deductible….

http://piggington.com/deductibility_of_melloroos_on_taxes

Dumbasses….

And yet, folks want to increase taxes to fund all this stupidity?

[Coronita]

[quote=paramount]Why not just improve Amtrak between SD/LA/SF?

Not unlike the Acela; except with high speed diesel and upscale cars?[/quote]

Hell, I’d settle for a decent bus system first.

[mike92104]

What annoys me is the thought that people will actually use the rail. I would be willing to bet that the TSA will make it a nightmare to board the thing, and at that point it will be just as quick to drive. Even if it was quicker on the train, I would probably still drive so that I would have some form of transportation when I got to my destination. I also feel that we should be spending money on our national airspace system rather than ground based transportation. That is where the future is.

[Coronita]

[quote=paramount][quote=bearishgurl][quote=paramount][quote=CA renter]What “public employee union thugs” are you talking about, paramount?

This debacle is going to line the pockets of PRIVATE contractors, which is where most of the fraud and abuse of taxpayer money occurs.

http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/03/01/2743540/rail-project-will-accept-contractors.html%5B/quote%5D

The dems are pushing this sham project very hard, therefore the union thugs can’t be far behind.

Besides, much of the contract work will be outsourced to China. Including the financing.[/quote]

paramount, are you referring to card-carrying American tradesmen here? Or do the Chinese have unions??[/quote]

If one American unionized skilled worker (obviously not a bureaucrat) touches this project in the next 20 years I’d be in shock.

No, no – only a bunch of parasitic government groupies will likely ever benefit from this sham.

Just take a look at the rail authority board members – political flunkies who end up on these BS boards all the while collecting big paychecks and pensions for a project that will not materialize as mentioned in 3 lifetimes.[/quote]

Reality Paramount.. our CA government will probably waste most of the money in bureaucracy, and then when they actually need to do something, they’ll complain that “it’s too expensive to hire american workers” and probably try to outsource it… Go figure.

[enron_by_the_sea]

Now I hear that even if we somehow build this thing, its operation will cost the taxpayers of the state of CA forever! Real white elephant!!!

[quote]

If the bullet train project is to pencil out, it must operate far more economically than any high-speed rail system in the world, according to the experts, who include former World Bank executive William Grindley.

Unless these extraordinary economies are achieved, the train will require alarmingly high annual operating subsidies “forever,” as the experts wrote in a report last month. The annual operating deficit could top $2 billion, they wrote.

The rail authority’s business plans indicate that the bullet train would cost about 10 cents per passenger mile to operate, Bushell said in a recent interview.

That means it would cost 10 cents to carry one passenger one mile on the rail system. But international high-speed rail systems cost on average about 43 cents per passenger mile, he said.

[/quote]

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/04/29/2179385/bullet-trains-operating-costs.html#storylink=cpy

BTW if real operating cost of the project is more like 0.43/mile as it has been observed elsewhere in the world, then the cost of transporting 1 person from LA to SF is about 300 miles* 0.43 = $129 one way. If HSR has to make any money then it will cost >$300 round trip to transport a person and this project is not viable.

Therefore they might have just made a number of $0.10/mile…

[briansd1]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea] its operation will cost the taxpayers of the state of CA forever! Real white elephant!!![/quote]

Oh my God, the state has to provide transportation services forever!!

And roads and schools don’t get funding forever?

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=briansd1][quote=enron_by_the_sea]
And roads and schools don’t get funding forever?[/quote]

Road funding comes from gas taxes (not general fund).

To do the same to high speed train, you will have to charge 300+ for the ticket (see above) and no one will use it.

In general for most transportation user pays.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea]Now I hear that even if we somehow build this thing, its operation will cost the taxpayers of the state of CA forever! Real white elephant!!!

[quote]

If the bullet train project is to pencil out, it must operate far more economically than any high-speed rail system in the world, according to the experts, who include former World Bank executive William Grindley.

Unless these extraordinary economies are achieved, the train will require alarmingly high annual operating subsidies “forever,” as the experts wrote in a report last month. The annual operating deficit could top $2 billion, they wrote.

The rail authority’s business plans indicate that the bullet train would cost about 10 cents per passenger mile to operate, Bushell said in a recent interview.

That means it would cost 10 cents to carry one passenger one mile on the rail system. But international high-speed rail systems cost on average about 43 cents per passenger mile, he said.

[/quote]

Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2012/04/29/2179385/bullet-trains-operating-costs.html#storylink=cpy

BTW if real operating cost of the project is more like 0.43/mile as it has been observed elsewhere in the world, then the cost of transporting 1 person from LA to SF is about 300 miles* 0.43 = $129 one way. If HSR has to make any money then it will cost >$300 round trip to transport a person and this project is not viable.

Therefore they might have just made a number of $0.10/mile…[/quote]

Agreed, enron. Especially since (dtn) LA to (dtn) SF is actually about 425 miles…

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=briansd1][quote=enron_by_the_sea] its operation will cost the taxpayers of the state of CA forever! Real white elephant!!![/quote]

Oh my God, the state has to provide transportation services forever!!

And roads and schools don’t get funding forever?[/quote]

My biggest beef against backers of HSR is that they seem to have this attitude that they know best what is good for the state. if they use any realistic estimates, their proposed project does not make any financial sense (and it is debatable if it the best thing for the environment either). So they just make numbers up and assume that the rest of us are stupid or not paying any attention!

When I see such white elephants in the making, why should I vote for any tax increase for funding anything in this state?

[briansd1]

It’s a chicken and egg thing.

Public transport is predicated on higher density. The assumption for HSR is that high density will materialize and is desirable.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=briansd1]
…And roads and schools don’t get funding forever?[/quote]

Road funding comes from gas taxes (not general fund).

To do the same to high speed train, you will have to charge 300+ for the ticket (see above) and no one will use it.

In general for most transportation user pays.[/quote]

Precisely. It only costs $160 to $170 (reg price – not sale price) to fly RT from BUR, ONT, SNA or SAN to SFO on Southwest Airlines ($120 – $140 sale price). Whether one flies or rides a train, they will in both cases have to get picked up at SFO or rent a vehicle there.

[AK]

Out of idle curiosity I did some back-of-the-envelope comparisons between air travel and low-speed train travel.

I found an unsourced figure of 0.0171 gal per passenger-mile for the Airbus A320, which is pretty typical of the older short-haul narrowbodies that dominate the SAN-SFO route. This comes out to 1.335 megajoules per passenger-km.

Per Wikipedia, Amtrak claims energy consumption of 1.9 megajoules per passenger-km. This is a pretty direct comparison as diesel locomotives and aircraft both use liquid fuel, thus external generation and transmission losses aren’t a factor as they would be for electrified trains.

[Author]

Posts