Bullet Train: Will You Ride the California Rocket?

I've never actually traveled from LA to San Francisco, nor have I ever needed to be in Sacramento.

Los Angeles to Phoenix would do me a lot of good.

$68 billion dollars?

This from a state that is the most in-debt state in the union ($390 billon). How are they going to pay for this?

Obviously, the legislators have no self control over spending. I am forced to ask how this project will ever make a positive contribution toward increasing state revenue, let alone pay for itself.

In the end I would bet it never gets finished, suffers from cost overruns that push it over the $100 billion mark (this is a union job), and fails to fulfill the volume of riders it was promised to serve, leaving the state 1/2 trillion dollars deeper in the hole because the state has a track record of failure.

Wisconsin governor Scott Walker turned downed federal grant money for a high speed rail to the twin cities in Minnesota. All because it was unsustainable. I heard people complained, I had asked if they use public tranportation more less rail. They said no.

I then ask, how would they support the rail.

Their response was, other country's had high speed rail and we should too, my response to them was, the United States wasn't an island like Japan, or a place like Europe.

Their reply was, well it would be convenient.

And I understand Stockton, CA, declared bankruptcy last week. I'm not surprised. When they think they are to big to fail, they should.

You beat me to this response. I don't understand how they can keep spending like this when they are in such debt. I'm sure they're getting federal backing (and everyone knows our federal budget is in great shape).

Can we get someone to guarantee this $68 billion dollar price? And I don't mean a guarantee that says, "OOPS! we goofed! Too bad." No? I didn't think so. How many tickets will it take to pay back this $68 billion? If it costs $68 billion to build, how much to run it each year? Or will the govt subsidize ticket prices making it cost even more? Does California's govt even know how to set up a profitable entity?

Then the next question is, can we get people to actually use it to above a break even point?

Aren't Los Angeles and San Francisco getting closer to each other by about that speed anyway, due to plate tectonics?

Only using your own money, or poverty, creates financial responsibility.

The sooner the public reward public irresponsibility with no job, and no money,
the sooner they will start making the right decisions, and making them pay.

The current "reward failure with bonuses!" structure (in the UK) is appalling,
and I believe the principle cause of the financial mess in the UK.

jt

They said go for it..... but it had went...

Here in the UK they are also trying to do something similar, and we are also broke, at least that is what our politicians are telling us, and as to the question of if it will ever get paid for by the travellers, well the answer is never..!!!

Xanasax

As with your country and ours, the driving force behind these projects has little to do with actually filling a need for the public, but filling the greed of various people's pockets.

The way this works is that people in power are talking to people with money (influence) that all see a way to get their thumb into a mega-billion dollar project.

Once the overall budget potential is discussed/discovered, then the politicians start looking for a foot that fits the shoe they just created. You will also notice the medieval shoe horns they carry because the foot often does not fit the shoe, but they will find a way to jam it in there.

It's the politicians' job to sell this mega-billion dollar pork project to the people whether they want or need it. Once the people have voted for it the vulture capitalists swoop in and so do the cost overruns. Usually it gets finished, but it doesn't have to in order to satisfy the vulture capitalists because they still get their money. Eventually you get something like AmTrack, which constantly runs in the red and never produces its promised deliverables.

While the technology sounds delightful, it has never succeeded in the US, at least as promised, but those failures are not a deterrent for the politicians and the vulture capitalists to keep on trying. Their determination is enough to bring a tear to your eye.

It's always about the money, not the community needs, unfortunately, but that is the way it works.

I thought that this was on topic.

Well, this sure beats the cost of having our troops in Iraq for four months and getting nothing in return. If I lived in either city, this would certainly be a nice option, especially if they had a link to Las Vegas!

Now if they built one between Chicago and Denver, I would have used it to escape last week's heat!

There's currently a rail system between Chicago and Denver...

There is, but it's not high speed rail.

Falls under my earlier post of convenence..., yet not being u$ed.

Without getting too far into the debate about Iraq and if the strategy employed was a good one, you need to understand that we will always need to pour dollars into places that you would rather not get involved in. Such is the world of geopolitics and each nation trying to maximize their political, economic, and social standing.

If you don't, someone else will and they will not have your self interest at heart.

Plato said, "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.".

When it comes to word dynamics, simply substitute the word geopolitics for politics.

For the case of California (as it has for many other states and countries) it should be clear that the lack of political participation on the part of its citizens has led to the brink of economic turmoil and ruin. While we party we will leave our children with paying that bill, our retirement, and health services. Some parents, we are.

And you call yourselves engineers! Crack some numbers, which is better than I am reading here. 6.8x10¹⁰ dollars for 400 miles is about 1.7x10⁸ dollars per mile. This is substantially higher than the typical cost per mile for a 4-lane limited-access highway (range 1x10⁷ to 1x10⁸ dollars per mile). In the mountains, the cost is probably comparable, but in the long central valley, the highway cost is lower--despite the vocal complaints of the agriculture people there. The article projects 2-5x10⁶ riders per year. If the cost is amortized over 25 years, this is a range of 500-1300 dollars per ride plus operating expenses. Compare that to current automobile ownership and running costs of about 160-200 per ride for that distance (plus the construction costs mentioned earlier). I don't have figures for current traffic counts on I-5 (primary route between SF and LA) or airplane traffic, but the 2-5x10⁶ riders per year is about 6-15x10³ riders per day, which sounds high to me, but is probably less than the current total for traffic.

Would I ride it if I were there--probably depends on ticket costs and schedules.

Environmental effects? Yes, the bullet is much more environmentally OK than air or car travel.

About the economy? The present spending authorization is very small, only about 5% of the total tag. It is small, compared to the places we waste money in government today.

--JMM

They will still spend the $68 billion plus overruns in the end should the project go to completion.

However, there is a good chance it will never get completed and then whatever has been spent will be totally wasted.

Typically, with projects like these you try to spend as much as fast as possible so that cancellation is difficult because you have so much already invested.

I see this like a household that is so deep in debt that they may default, yet running out and taking on a new loan for a new luxury SUV.

And you call yourselves engineers! Crack some numbers, which is better than I am reading here.

This being just a forum, and the discussion is informal.

The problems is, that the numbers you stated are more than likely based on statistics from answer to questions such as this.

Would I ride it if I were there--probably depends on ticket costs and schedules.

I'm sure there is other statistics such as demographics, growth and such.

But, what kind of justification is this?

About the economy? The present spending authorization is very small, only about 5% of the total tag. It is small, compared to the places we waste money in government today.

It's my opinion that I believe you missed the whole point of what is being discussed here. It's not about being progressive, which is nothing more than an excuse for boondoggle projects such as this. It's more about fiscal responsibility.

Ok so you ran the numbers...what's the conclusion?

It sounds like you're for the high speed rail but I can't really tell.

But if we're comparing the cost of the NEW rail system to an existing road then the cost is 6.8x10¹⁰ dollars vs 0 dollars.

Thanks for the discussion, AH, Phoenix, & Cingold. I'm strongly in favor of the concept of high-speed rail, but this one does sound too expensive for the projected use and ability to pay. Yeah, I probably ranted a little more than needed.

--JMM

No. I enjoyed your posts.

Honestly, this is the first arguement I've seen for the high speed rail system that uses numbers so I didn't mind.

I think our problem is that we currently have transportation systems, so it's not the same as going from nothing to high speed rail. We will most likely benefit more from the next "upgrade" in transportation.

I mirror AH and cingold sediments, with the division of public fiscal policy and needs these have to be discussed. This forum is a good place for it on the justification while balancing (limiting) the political aspects.

Actually, the trains won't be going anywhere close to 200 mph, by the addmission of their own sponsors. They'll actually only be allowed to go about 60 to 80 mph, even along the farm country in the San Joaquin Valley...

They're suppoed to be able to go from El Lay to Sacto faster than commercial airplanes because of all the time-consuming delays of getting into, and then out of, airports. But I have to ask just how much airport ingress-egress infrastructure could be streamlined with 42 Billion dollars, the originally stated cost of said bullet train project?...

It's called a "bullet train" because that's what other countries, with other cultures, and other economic systems, under other geophysical conditions, call their versions of it, and some do highly subsidize their trains, in spite of high ridership rates...

But some (politicos) have latched on to the concept and continue to try to ram it down our economic throats, no matter how much it costs us, and subsequent generations... all so they can point it and say something like "California is better for the bullet train and I helped create/build/make-it-happen, etc..." Bleugh!!!

By the way, California already has an entire department of State government promoting such a train... Just what California needs is more bureaucrats...

It's more accurately described as a "white elephant express" because it is going to bankrupt the State, just like a white elephant is supposed to do...

Besides, there already is a rail system in California that could put 48B-$ to good use all by itself. It's called Amtrak... Why should taxpayers be forced to finance a second rail system, when the first one still needs so much fixing?...

Because the (sponsors) think that Washington will bail out the entire State from bankruptcy, that's why. So then, it can become America's Train?...

And I'm sure that, once it's built, the San Andreas Fault will never move again...

P.S. It has been announced that the first link in the route has been given the "go-ahead" anyway. It will connect the medium-sized City of Bakersfield to the smaller-sized City of Madera, both in the San Joaquin Valley, and be done by 2020...

No, neither city is a truly major transportation hub, or commuter/tourist source or destination...

It's supposed to create 1,000's of jobs... (but how many additional jobs have been created per each million dollars of additional money given to Amtrak?...)

(Oh, by the way, Bakersfield has also filed for bankruptcy, along with Stockton, and the City of Mammoth Lakes..., with 5 to 10 more cities facing (impending bankruptcy...)

So, how does this all add-up, even using the fuzzy-ist of "new math"?..

...and the (political) "beat" goes on...