With SB 350 and the new High-Speed Rail....

On Nov 9, 8:44*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
How much is Amtraks subsidy a year?

For HSR? *Zero. *First of all, Amtrak doesn't operate any HSR trains.
Second, the fastest train they operate, Acela, turns a profit, including
its share of the NEC capital expenses.

Then have a private company build the HSR. *Seems to be a profitable
endeavor according to you.

Operations is profitable (projected: $1B/yr); building the initial
infrastructure will not be (one-time cost of $30B). *I

The median cost estimate for running CAHSR is $3.6 B each year for its
lifetime. Nobody outside the CAHSR organization thinks CAHSR will
ever make a profit. That also tells you that no private company is
likely to pay for construction

f
The more important question is how you'd pay two to three times as much
for the additional highway and airport capacity that would be required
to keep California's economy strong if CAHSR isn't built -- modes that
pay back far less in local jobs, operating surplus, etc.

The total cost of all the additional highway and airport spending
saved by CAHSR is estimated to be $0.9B, a lot lower than the $45B to
$80B estimated total cost for the high speed rail

On Nov 9, 9:08*pm, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
...
The more important question is how you'd pay two to three times as much
for the additional highway and airport capacity that would be required to
keep California's economy strong if CAHSR isn't built -- modes that pay
back far less in local jobs, operating surplus, etc.

It is not going to require hsr to keep the economy running. *Maybe less
government spending, but not a HSR.

Not necessarily, no. *However, the economy _does_ require transportation
to stay strong, and so the matter facing California (in fact, every
state) is how best to provide it. *HSR will cost half to a third of what
providing equivalent capacity via freeways and airports would cost. *So,
if you want the least amount of spending for the most benefit, the
obvious choice is to spend your transportation funds on the mode that
gives the most return per dollar spent.

More of your god damn lies. The highways and airport construction
replaced by CAHSR is $0.9B You are apparently using CAHSR published
which are well know from everybody including the Federal Goverment to
be a total lie far from any reaistic estimate. I have sat through
the briefing by the CAHSR and it extemely obvious that almost
everything say is a lie for the sole purpose of selling the project so
that Kopp and others can get very rich with the real estate deals that
are beiing put together with the land they have bought near the route
of the rail.
If your government is indeed that incompetent, I suggest you talk to
your elected officials and, if they don't listen, replace them. *Other
states have no problems finishing multi-billion-dollar public works
projects on time and under budget

I think the same company that built the "Big Dig" in Boston is also
building the CAhSR. Any body want to estimate the real cost of CAHSR.

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Not necessarily, no. However, the economy _does_ require transportation
to stay strong, and so the matter facing California (in fact, every
state) is how best to provide it. HSR will cost half to a third of what
providing equivalent capacity via freeways and airports would cost. So,
if you want the least amount of spending for the most benefit, the
obvious choice is to spend your transportation funds on the mode that
gives the most return per dollar spent.

That's the key issue here that many people don't understand. Spending
$25-30B on freeways and airports is done piecemeal versus spending
10-15B on a single project.

Every country that's done HSR has benefited enormously from it, even
though there was grumbling about the cost.

Now that Bush will be gone soon, the U.S. can begin working on
infrastructure projects. We've really become a third world country in
terms of our transportation infrastructure, thanks to the Republicans.
Go to any modern Asian or European country, and look at their
transportation systems.

SMS writes:

Stephen Sprunk wrote:

Not necessarily, no. However, the economy _does_ require transportation
to stay strong, and so the matter facing California (in fact, every
state) is how best to provide it. HSR will cost half to a third of what
providing equivalent capacity via freeways and airports would cost. So,
if you want the least amount of spending for the most benefit, the
obvious choice is to spend your transportation funds on the mode that
gives the most return per dollar spent.

That's the key issue here that many people don't understand. Spending
$25-30B on freeways and airports is done piecemeal versus spending
10-15B on a single project.

Denver International Airport cost $4.8 billion in the early 90s. A
similarly-sized airport would cost considerably more today.

-- Patrick

SMS wrote:
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Not necessarily, no. However, the economy _does_ require
transportation to stay strong, and so the matter facing California (in
fact, every state) is how best to provide it. HSR will cost half to a
third of what providing equivalent capacity via freeways and airports
would cost. So, if you want the least amount of spending for the most
benefit, the obvious choice is to spend your transportation funds on
the mode that gives the most return per dollar spent.

That's the key issue here that many people don't understand. Spending
$25-30B on freeways and airports is done piecemeal versus spending
10-15B on a single project.

Very true. Nobody bats an eye at an annual highway spending bill of
$150B, but that's because it's done in chunks of a few million dollars
at a time. California alone spends $12B/yr on highways -- far more than
building the an HSR line will cost in any given year, which will is
projected to be profitable after completion rather than needing annual
subsidies forever like highways.

S