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

"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
Stupid people of this state. We are bankrupt and they pass a $2
Billion bond issue for a train.
Actually, the bond election was for $9.95B.

They do not use Amtrak now, or buses.
They are, in record numbers.

How do they expect a high speed train to pay for itself?
The same way HSR service does everywhere else on the planet. Even the
relatively slow Amtrak Acela pays for operations and its share of the
infrastructure, and CAHSR would be significantly faster and thus able to
attract more riders at lower costs and higher fares.

BART pays it's drivers and station agents in excess of $80k a year.
Good union that goes on strike when they do not get the excess salaries
they want.
If you're unhappy with standard union activity in your state, pass Right
To Work legislation.

How much do you think a ticket on the high speed rail will need to cost
if it is to cover the $2 Billion plus operating costs?
First of all, it is not claimed that fares will cover the initial
infrastructure costs, just operations and maintenance plus a small
profit.

Second, if you care so much about this, try reading the published
financial plan, which answers this specific question.

Probably more than the $80 airplane ticket.

No. See above.

And the airplane ticket is on a taxpaying entity.

Barely. The airline is losing money and they're operating from airports
and terminals that cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

Airports are paid for by fees on airplanes that the fed's collect.

Airports are mostly paid for by local property taxes and parking revenues;
the fees on tickets and fuel are a minor contribution. And there are no
federal taxes on airplanes.

Unions are OK until they over reach. And that is what the "Public
Service" unions do. Private company unions have to base their demands
on what the company can pay and stay in business.

Hardly. There are hundreds of examples of industry unions demanding more
than the company can pay, forcing it either into bankruptcy or off-shoring
all the jobs -- either way leaving all those union workers on
unemployment.

Most of the highspeed trains are in areas with lots of people and not
real far distances. Europe is not real big, and the TGV from Avignon
is still 3.5 hours and there is good public transport on the other end.

It is well-known from experience that HSR is competitive with air for
trips of up to four hours, and Paris-Marseilles shows that the limit may
actually be five hours. LA-SF/SJ will be under three hours.

Lack of good transit at the other end may cut that down a bit, but that
hurts air _more_ than it hurts rail. Either way, at the other end, the
passenger must use a rental car or taxi if there is no transit available.
However, since rail can more easily stop in more places than air, that
improves access. In practice, most US airports are reluctant to connect
to the rail transit that _does_ exist because it cuts down on their
profits from parking structures, whereas intercity rail is almost always
connected to the local rail transit infrastructure (if any exists).

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.

S

Then have a private company build the HSR. Seems to be a profitable
endeavor according to you. We are a bankrupt state. Double the spending in
the last 10 years, and running a 15 billion deficit this year. How you
going to pay for this debacle?

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:31:47 -0600, Stephen Sprunk
wrote:

wrote:
On which side of the San Andreas fault-line will those railroad folks
be laying the rails? East or West?

I'm not all that familiar with the exact locations of various faults,
but I know that the proposed HSR system, by miles, will be mostly
constructed in the Central Valley, which I presume is east of any major
faults. The segment from the Central Valley into LA will cross one
major fault zone, and I presume the segment from the Central Valley into
SJ/SF will cross at least one as well. Worse, the SJ-to-SF segment
travels right up the SF Peninsula, which IIRC is parallel to or even on
top of a fault line.

That's not great, but many freeways have the same problems that CAHSR
will have, and for the same reason: Californians seem to prefer living
on top of active faults rather than somewhere safe, so there's no other
option.

S

Stephen, thank you.

DCI

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). If the entire thing
were going to be publicly funded, operations would be able to pay off a
significant part of that debt, but the way California has chosen to do
it, paying off the public debt will have to come out of tax monies and
the operating surplus used to pay off the private investments.

The economics of this corridor aren't ideal, either. The HSL from Paris
to Lyon paid off its own construction within a few years; there are
numerous other routes in the US that could probably do the same, or at
least come close.

We are a bankrupt state. Double the spending in the last 10 years, and
running a 15 billion deficit this year. How you going to pay for this
debacle?

Me? I don't live in California, so how (or if) _I_ would pay for it is
irrelevant.

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.

S

"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
...
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). If the entire thing
were going to be publicly funded, operations would be able to pay off a
significant part of that debt, but the way California has chosen to do it,
paying off the public debt will have to come out of tax monies and the
operating surplus used to pay off the private investments.

The economics of this corridor aren't ideal, either. The HSL from Paris
to Lyon paid off its own construction within a few years; there are
numerous other routes in the US that could probably do the same, or at
least come close.

We are a bankrupt state. Double the spending in the last 10 years, and
running a 15 billion deficit this year. How you going to pay for this
debacle?

Me? I don't live in California, so how (or if) _I_ would pay for it is
irrelevant.

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.

S

It is not going to require hsr to keep the economy running. Maybe less
government spending, but not a HSR. And $30 Billion to build? That number
is some PR persons dream. BART as proposed was $700 million. Was about $8
billion to build the first 50 miles of track and stations. The Pleasanton
BART station they are building is expected to cost $80 million dollars. And
that is for a station on track that is already built.

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.

And $30 Billion to build? That number is some PR persons dream. BART
as proposed was $700 million. Was about $8 billion to build the first
50 miles of track and stations. The Pleasanton BART station they are
building is expected to cost $80 million dollars. And that is for a
station on track that is already built.

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.

S

"Stephen Sprunk" wrote in message
...
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.

And $30 Billion to build? That number is some PR persons dream. BART
as proposed was $700 million. Was about $8 billion to build the first
50 miles of track and stations. The Pleasanton BART station they are
building is expected to cost $80 million dollars. And that is for a
station on track that is already built.

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.

S

Very few do. Look at the Big Dig for a small boondoggle.

On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:31:47 -0600, Stephen Sprunk
wrote:

wrote:
On which side of the San Andreas fault-line will those railroad folks
be laying the rails? East or West?

I'm not all that familiar with the exact locations of various faults,
but I know that the proposed HSR system, by miles, will be mostly
constructed in the Central Valley, which I presume is east of any major
faults. The segment from the Central Valley into LA will cross one
major fault zone, and I presume the segment from the Central Valley into
SJ/SF will cross at least one as well. Worse, the SJ-to-SF segment
travels right up the SF Peninsula, which IIRC is parallel to or even on
top of a fault line.

Depending. CalTrain does not lie on the fault line, but I-280
runs right along side the San Andreas Fault.

That's not great, but many freeways have the same problems that CAHSR
will have, and for the same reason: Californians seem to prefer living
on top of active faults rather than somewhere safe, so there's no other
option.

Do you know of a safe place to live in California?


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:31:47 -0600, Stephen Sprunk
wrote:
That's not great, but many freeways have the same problems that CAHSR
will have, and for the same reason: Californians seem to prefer living
on top of active faults rather than somewhere safe, so there's no other
option.

Do you know of a safe place to live in California?

If we're speaking only of earthquake fault zones, this map makes it
pretty clear:

http://quake.usgs.gov/info/faultmaps/San_Francisco.html

Now, take a look at the two major places where the faults converge and
you'll see where the vast majority of Californians have chosen to live.
Most of California is reasonably stable -- but almost nobody lives
there. Just like trailer parks "attract" tornadoes, Californians
"attract" earthquakes.

S

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 08:33:11 -0600, Stephen Sprunk
wrote:

Hatunen wrote:
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:31:47 -0600, Stephen Sprunk
wrote:
That's not great, but many freeways have the same problems that CAHSR
will have, and for the same reason: Californians seem to prefer living
on top of active faults rather than somewhere safe, so there's no other
option.

Do you know of a safe place to live in California?

If we're speaking only of earthquake fault zones, this map makes it
pretty clear:

http://quake.usgs.gov/info/faultmaps/San_Francisco.html

Now, take a look at the two major places where the faults converge and
you'll see where the vast majority of Californians have chosen to live.

That maps hows faults, not zones. I'm not really sure what you
mean by "fault zone". There are Alquist-Priollo seismic zones
defined by law, but I don't think that's what you mean.

The faults on that map actually converge south of San Jose down
closer to Hollister.

Most of California is reasonably stable -- but almost nobody lives
there. Just like trailer parks "attract" tornadoes, Californians
"attract" earthquakes.

Could you give some examples? One of the strongest earthquakes in
California history was the Owens Valley earthquake of 1872 which
struck mostly empty countryside. The Landers earthquake of 1992
was even stronger and hit mostly empty area.

I suppose it depends on how you want to classify El Centro and
nearby towns as to "almost nobody lives there" in 1940, but the
Imperial Valley shake of the year was preety big. Even caused a
glitch in the Mexico-US border.

The Kern County earthquake of 1952 was stronger than those
already menitoned, and some Central Valley towns got hit pretty
hard, but most of the earthquake hit empty desert and irrigated
farm fields.

There's been lots of earthquakes in more or less empty country in
California, but, obviously, dollar damage was minimal.

Far northern California, away from the coast, is "reasonably
stable" (if you don't count the possibility of volcanic
eruption). Some of the Sierra would also be considered
"reasonably stable" as long as you don't get too close to Mammoth
Lake.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Nov 7, 6:43*am, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Calif Bill wrote:
I realise that is just a design drop in the bucket. *Be cheaper to give free
airline tickets.

Assuming you didn't have to spend the tens of billions of dollars needed
to expand (or even maintain) airports and highways to handle the same
volume of passengers.

The total cost of the airport and highway expansions replaced by CHSR
is estimated to cost $0.9B. CHSR is expected to cost way over
$45B.

Yes, CAHSR will be expensive. *It's cheaper than the alternatives, though.

A total lie as expected from train fetish people. CAHSR will be tens
of billions of dollars more expensive than the alternatives which will
cost less than a billion dollars.


Maybe if you could drive your car on to the train and go
to LA cheaper and quicker than driving, they might have something.

Nobody in the world has ever built high-speed auto trains, nor are the
economics promising. *Lots of places have profitable high-speed
passenger trains, though. *Better to build what we _know_ works.

Are you going to suggest that the only way air service will be effective
is if people can drive their cars onto the plane? *That is the primary
market that HSR competes with.

S