Calif High Speed Rail project derailed

[thereisnospoon]

This thread isn't about our president.

It's about a business decision.

It's about a shitty business decision.

Yes - it might be.

But, we haven't seen any evidence of that posted here yet.

To use a pun, the track record of government when it comes to spending and operation of these projects has been very poor.

 

[Katzndogz]

Who is benefiting from this project, again?

The USA.

How so?
How does some California resident getting on a train that will go 180 MPH benefit someone on Grand Rapids, Michigan or Caribou, Maine?....Or for that matter new York City
Explain that one to me.

It can't. No more than California can benefit from a train going 180 mph going from one desert town to another desert town benefits the state.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yes - it might be.

But, we haven't seen any evidence of that posted here yet.

Dood. It's government. Specifically, it's CALIFORNIA government.

California government is notorious for gathering money in big piles, setting it on fire, and dancing naked around it.

That's not an excuse for basing the decision on anything besides sound business principles concerning how government SHOULD invest in America.

here's a solution. Require the State of California to write legislation guaranteeing the rail project will break even. This would be absent of ANY subsidies from anyone. The project will be built by issuing tax free municipal( in this case 'State') bonds. The bonds will be repaid by user fees and diverting state lottery money to satisfy the bind debt.
No federal money will be used. Labor and operating costs will be tightly controlled. Labor unions will be kept OUT unless they agree to market based wages and benefits. No worker will receive any defined benefit pension or health benefits not available in the private sector. Wages and salaries for workers WILL NOT exceed the average wage in the private sector for similar type work.
Open bidding for contracts will be tightly controlled and monitored for the slightest hint of any conflict of interest. All contractors late on their share of the project will have funds deducted from the agreed price for their work.
The project will be design-build.
The rail system will be operated as a non profit business with finite resources. If it fails, it is to be put up for sale to the private sector. There will be an absolute prohibition on any federal bailout or subsidy.
Figure all of that out and you may have your precious shiny new thingy. Not a minute before.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I just posted to you that Amtrak IS making money on specific routes.

CA is talking about a specific route with known demand that they can fill a route with a business plan for that route.

Posting stuff about Amtrak in general is not an adequate rebuttal.

It does not have known demand. The proof of that is that the California High Speed Rail Authority initially predicted between 65.5 million and 117 million passengers a year by 2035, and now is predicting between 19.5 million and 31.8 million riders by the 2.35. That means that, at best, they expect less than half the ridership their business plan initially projected for them to break even at a price that was a fraction of what they now say they need.

You lose.

No, I don't lose at all.

Getting back to discussing actual business decisions is fine by me. And, the answer may well be that the justification theyve put toether isn't sufficient.

I'm here because the total nonsense Party of "NO" nonsense of earlier posts needs to be stopped.


We had people who actually couldn't understand that business investment in a state project needs to be rebutted REGARDLESS of its business case.

The problem you as a train supporter face is this thing will not be run like a business. There will be no focus on fiscal responsibility. No concern as to whether ior not the system will make any of the taxpayer dollars back.
In other words, it will be just another money losing government(taxpayer) funded white elephant.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Most of the history of exploration would of been seen as wasteful to you people.

Conservatives don't stand for what America is....

Another useless drive by post.
Shut up.

 

[Misty]

This project was a payoff. Thank goodness it was canned. Useless waste of money.

 

[daveman]

Apparently, the Right can't see the advantage of two hours vs fourteen hours for the same trip.

And you would be wrong. I see a great deal of advantage.

I just don't see why I have to pay for it, since I'm never going to take advantage of that advantage.

Because it will help your betters get around, so you should be happy to pay for it.

And by "betters", you mean "those who think Amtrak is a success and CA's half-trillion dollar unfunded pension mandate is evidence liberals know how to effectively manage an economy".

 

[daveman]

Most of the history of exploration would of been seen as wasteful to you people.

Conservatives don't stand for what America is....

Go be stupid somewhere else.

 

[WillReadmore]

McConnell's dam. Pay attention.

As for CA's toy train, one word for you: Amtrak. Two more words: Money pit.

There is no sane reason to expect a high-speed rail line serving only one state to turn a profit.

Amtrak has lines that run in the black. The line from here in Seattle to Portland, OR is such a line. There are also such lines in the north east.

Plus, the fast rail being designed is competitive with air travel. So, making presumptions based on weak understanding of slow rail travel is a huge mistake.


Also, CA isn't "only one state" - it's the highest GDP state in the union and has distances that are greater than the size of most other states. The fact that you can go that far and not cross a state border certainly makes no difference to the GDP of the USA.

You should run for political office. You're full of shit.
For the most part Amtrak SUCKS.....it's inconvenient and slow. For example.To get from Savannah, GA to NYC is takes two trains 6-8 hours worth of layovers and 22 hours to complete the trip.
It's 3-4 hours by air at roughly the same fare as the trains. I can drive it in 12 hours and spend less than $100 on fuel.
Plus many Amtrak stations are in some of the worst crime ridden areas of cities through which is passes. The station near here is not secure. It is in a high crime neighborhood. It is poorly lit. It is not secured by fencing. Anyone at any time can access the property. Including criminals. and there are lots of them living near the station. So to avoid being robbed or shot, many people drive to other stations along the line and catch the train there. Who needs that nonsense.
Now why would I use Amtrak?
I would LOVE to use rail service to get to where I want to go.

Excactly! The old rail infrastructure is often too slow, sometimes doesn't have internet, isn't as comfortable as it could be, and doesn't particularly go where people need to go today. It often runs on unimproved rails that are bouncy with train cars that don't even tilt as they take corners.

But, it's rather silly to use THAT as a reason for not building trains that are competitively fast, comfortable, and go where you DO what to go, don't you think?

With roads, we're spend decades condemning land and paving beautiful freeways that are integrated with systems that get you right to where we need to go, spending hundreds of billions of dollars. With rail, we have pretty much just let it sit as it is. That takes a toll.

 

[Meister]

I find it strange that the libs who are all in on this high speed rail debacle have no issues with the winner of the first phase of this boondoggle.
If I were a lib and had any critical thinking abilities ( I know, I know ) would be a little upset about Feinstein's husband's company. If I were a lib, I would be calling shenanigans on this, and an obvious payback politically.....in other words......conflict of interest.
But, hey.....that's just me.

 

[Meister]

Amtrak has lines that run in the black. The line from here in Seattle to Portland, OR is such a line. There are also such lines in the north east.

Plus, the fast rail being designed is competitive with air travel. So, making presumptions based on weak understanding of slow rail travel is a huge mistake.


Also, CA isn't "only one state" - it's the highest GDP state in the union and has distances that are greater than the size of most other states. The fact that you can go that far and not cross a state border certainly makes no difference to the GDP of the USA.

You should run for political office. You're full of shit.
For the most part Amtrak SUCKS.....it's inconvenient and slow. For example.To get from Savannah, GA to NYC is takes two trains 6-8 hours worth of layovers and 22 hours to complete the trip.
It's 3-4 hours by air at roughly the same fare as the trains. I can drive it in 12 hours and spend less than $100 on fuel.
Plus many Amtrak stations are in some of the worst crime ridden areas of cities through which is passes. The station near here is not secure. It is in a high crime neighborhood. It is poorly lit. It is not secured by fencing. Anyone at any time can access the property. Including criminals. and there are lots of them living near the station. So to avoid being robbed or shot, many people drive to other stations along the line and catch the train there. Who needs that nonsense.
Now why would I use Amtrak?
I would LOVE to use rail service to get to where I want to go.

Excactly! The old rail infrastructure is often too slow, sometimes doesn't have internet, isn't as comfortable as it could be, and doesn't particularly go where people need to go today. It often runs on unimproved rails that are bouncy with train cars that don't even tilt as they take corners.

But, it's rather silly to use THAT as a reason for not building trains that are competitively fast, comfortable, and go where you DO what to go, don't you think?

With roads, we're spend decades condemning land and paving beautiful freeways that are integrated with systems that get you right to where we need to go, spending hundreds of billions of dollars. With rail, we have pretty much just let it sit as it is. That takes a toll.

Freeways are and have been a good investment that has paid dividends.....can't say that about the rails, and that also means this high speed overpriced rail that will cost taxpayers billions in the end.

 

[WillReadmore]

You keep pushing the merits of government spending.
We are pushing back. We're( the general public) have grown tired of watching government blow good money on "hey look what we did!" projects.
Unless California decides to pay for their own choo choo, the project goes nowhere.
And please, stop the nonsense regarding how we should kneel at the government altar.
Because as anyone willing to do the research will discover government wastes far more on garbage than it does spend wisely.

I pointed out that the claim concerning private funding and construction of the Golden Gate Bridge was wrong.

We can discuss which projects should be done, but I'm going to insist that we use reality rather than political platitudes in making these decisions.

The elected officials in my state have little influence on CA.

 

[WillReadmore]

It can't. No more than California can benefit from a train going 180 mph going from one desert town to another desert town benefits the state.

As explained multiple times now, it is being built in segments.

Suggesting that each segment must be fully justified as if no other segment existed is ridiculous.


A traveler from SF to LA will cross a number of segments - at 180 mph.

 

[WillReadmore]

Overall, Amtrak BLEEDS money. It should be defunded and privatized.

Comparison to Amtrak must be done with significant care, as the vast majority of Amtrak has little similarity to this system other than that it is on rails.

 

[Ernie S.]

How long before this project begins to pay for itself? If we say... 20 years, how many riders does the train have to carry. Remember, this is passenger only service so let's see.
Right now, you can fly from LA to San Francisco for $100. The project will cost roughly 100 Billion so, 100 B/20 years is $5,000,000,000 per year divided by $100 dollars per trip, or a yearly ridership of 50 million or 15 of every 100 US citizens.

 

[percysunshine]

I thought your question had already been answered a few times now.

Maybe I don't understand your question. If there is a part that is unanswered, please ask again.

For this specific project, what is the identifiable benefit to any of the other states or the nation as a whole?

You have not answered.

Transportation is key infrastructure needed by businesses, and thus benefiting GDP. US GDP is an aggregate of the states, of course. Growing our total product is a matter of growing the product of each state. All states benefit from a higher US GDP through interstate trade, federal tax dollars, global competitiveness of the US in general, strength of the dollar, etc., etc. The US gets involved when projects are of a size that is challenging for a single state and where there is benefit from the project being completed.

Businesses demonstrate the need for fast travel between these two cities by the fact that it is the second most used route in the US (LA / NYC being #1). Fast alternatives are rapidly becoming unavailable as they are limited to air travel and the air system in that area is growing toward capacity limits. The possible number of take offs and landings at an airport are not infinite.

Other alternatives to fast rail (such as new airports and runways) are also extremely expensive and have other issues. New freeways are also incredibly expensive and NOT fast. Of course, roadways have other advantages, disadvantages and capacity factors as well.

You can go read the studies on economic impact, etc., if you really want the blow by blow. I'm not going to get into the issue of calculating the exact pay-out date or even how that might be calculated.

You still did not answer the question.

As far as I can tell your answer stops at the point; 'government spending increases GDP'.

Which is a debatable deflection in Keynesian economics and is irrelevant to the question asked.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I just posted to you that Amtrak IS making money on specific routes.

CA is talking about a specific route with known demand that they can fill a route with a business plan for that route.

Posting stuff about Amtrak in general is not an adequate rebuttal.

It does not have known demand. The proof of that is that the California High Speed Rail Authority initially predicted between 65.5 million and 117 million passengers a year by 2035, and now is predicting between 19.5 million and 31.8 million riders by the 2.35. That means that, at best, they expect less than half the ridership their business plan initially projected for them to break even at a price that was a fraction of what they now say they need.

You lose.

No, I don't lose at all.

Getting back to discussing actual business decisions is fine by me. And, the answer may well be that the justification theyve put toether isn't sufficient.

I'm here because the total nonsense Party of "NO" nonsense of earlier posts needs to be stopped.


We had people who actually couldn't understand that business investment in a state project needs to be rebutted REGARDLESS of its business case.

No you aren't.

You are here because you believe the blather about the party of no. You are here because you prefer to have facts spoonfed to you by others than going out and learning for yourself.

The proof of that is in the pudding, if you really cared about putting this discussion on the basis of business you would have delved into the numbers yourself, compared the business plan that was originally used to win approval of the measure with what the same group is saying now, and made a decision based on the facts. Yet you simply staked out a decision, and attacked everyone who disagreed with it.

That makes you part of the problem, despite your lofty idea that you are making things better by opposing one side simply because you only listen to the other side.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And you would be wrong. I see a great deal of advantage.

I just don't see why I have to pay for it, since I'm never going to take advantage of that advantage.

Because it will help your betters get around, so you should be happy to pay for it.

And by "betters", you mean "those who think Amtrak is a success and CA's half-trillion dollar unfunded pension mandate is evidence liberals know how to effectively manage an economy".

Actually, I meant the new feudal lords of California who are quite happy to drive the middle class out of the state by restricting access to housing, high taxes, and policies that keep the serfs who make life easy for the lords from being able to leave.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Most of the history of exploration would of been seen as wasteful to you people.

Conservatives don't stand for what America is....

'Tain't the conservatives who are demanding that the government make it safe for people to travel into space.

 

[WillReadmore]

Freeways are and have been a good investment that has paid dividends.....can't say that about the rails, and that also means this high speed overpriced rail that will cost taxpayers billions in the end.

The freight capacity of our rail lines has been important from the early 1800's and before through to today.

During much of that time, it was by far the best way for humans to cross our nation.

We simply haven't invested in rail for passenger use, thus a lot of our rail system doesn't go where passengers want to go with the comfort and speed that passengers can demand today.

I doubt we'll be seeing long cross country fast rail anytime soon, as I doubt it can compete with air travel. But, for mid range distances where getting to (and through) airports is an appreciable portion of the air travel time, and where there is high demand for travel, ignoring rail can be a bad idea.