Orange County Register: Hit the brake on bullet train, before we're broke

The sweet spot for rail is high demand city pairs ~250-550 miles apart. Anything less and driving is going to be economical, anything more than flying is.

There is a reason that the Acela is the only Amtrak line that comes close to/covers it's operating costs (depends on how you do the accounting).

Unfortunately the way the meat grinder of Congress works, instead of just focusing on these corridors instead the money has to be spread around.

Here's what I said about the idea back in '09: http://www.wordforge.net/showpost.php?p=1770071&postcount=4

Of course, the cost overruns and delays exceeded even my pessimistic expectations. Where the state is involved it's becoming clear that, where the initial estimates are concerned, a multiplier of 5-10 is needed for all costs, one of 3-5 for time required, and one of 0.25-0.50 for service rendered. Those kinds of overruns in the private sector would be absolutely fatal; no business would survive that kind of ineptitude.

But you wanted it, California. So you're going to get it good and hard.

And is there a better example of the twisted priorities government planning produces than this?

In other words, better we SPEND $3.7 BILLION ON SOMETHING USELESS than to have Washington reclaim that money.

$3.7 BILLION. Think about that. It's like walking up to EVERY working person in America, taking $37 in cash away from them, and setting fire to it. FOR JUST ONE USELESS SECTION OF TRACK.

Goddamn, I don't know how any of you can defend this. I really don't.

If it had really been a viable profitable idea they would have done it without the attempt at taxpayer ripoff. It was not. They wanted to hedge their bets with lots of free land to sell.

Very true. However, most of the benefit is at the state and/or local level, which is who should bear the expenses.

What a canard. The very first stretch of interstate highway was laid down in a rural part of Missouri and at the time wingnuts were calling it the road to no where. Guess what? It was only the first part of a nationwide interstate network and now that the whole system is in place it gets tons of traffic. It's the same with a rail network.

Also, I think you're ignorant of the actual details and that's why you're blindingly throwing around junk from an opinion piece. In fact, the two main reasons for cost over runs in the projects right now are because of 1) NIMBYs in certain extremely wealthy neighborhoods are trying to block the project and are making highly unreasonable demands (such as turning sections of the track into a subway or wanting it to be elevated both of which are unnecessary and result in most of the cost projection changes) and 2) the state Republican Party has been extraordinarily obstructionist intentionally delaying the project (thus costing further over runs) by voting to change the route dozens and times then voting to change it back; it's a game they've been playing. Their reasons are obviously political, to sabotage the project just so they can say "see, the costs were so much higher so we should just kill the entire project." The opinion piece in the OP is just more of the same game; the dishonesty and obstructionism they've shown is just down right criminal.

BTW ultimately I don't think the NIMBYs will win and we won't be forced to build tunnels or huge amounts of elevated tracks. Eventually the court system will work through it and tell the NIMBYs to fuck off just as it always does but, sadly, this will delay the project and drive up costs due to delays and court fees.

The difference is that the money existed to pay for the Interstate highway system. It does not in this case.

Evidence for both of those claims, please?

Even if you think the costs were unnecessary, the costs are still there. And the argument is no longer SHOULD the rail line be built, but CAN we afford to build it?

It's all been covered for several years here in the local news. Several bay area cities want tunnels built so it goes under their city or elevated tracks so that it goes over their city, both of which massively drive up costs, but in the end neither will likely be built. Also the Republican gamesmanship with changing the proposed route and rechanging it were well documented in the California HSR blog which you can read there if you feel like it. A big part of this gamesmenship has been if they can delay things long enough we'd lose the Federal matching funds so then the Republicans could say "See? We lost those funds so let's just scrape the whole thing". Fuck'em because they're a huge part of the problem because they're bad faith actors.

Lastly, the reason they started first in the central valley is because, not surprisingly, the environmental impact review was cleared first for rural areas (few people to whine about it there) while in the urban areas tons of interest groups and NIMBYs came out of the woodwork challenging it so they're still tied up in the review process. They decided to go ahead and start building first in the section which had already cleared all of the legal hurdles hoping that by the time they were finished with that section one of the other sections will have gotten through the legal process. It's pretty logical and common sense to me.

One of the many valid points in this article was that the state couldn't convince private investors to come up with their relative pittance to prove their interest. If the plan wasn't good enough to attract any real investment then it must be pretty shoddy.

Basically, they couldn't give away free money because the cost was too high.

There were several interested parties but most of them essentially were demanding the state put up most of the capital, take all the risk, yet the private companies would magically get first dibs on all revenue. That, as Captain J rightly called it, is a taxpayer rip off so the state decided it could do it better on it's own. In fact, virtually every HSR project in the world is state owned (in France, in Germany, in Spain, in Japan, in South Korea, in Russia, in China, in Turkey, even in Taiwan) and they're all doing relatively well so I refuse to believe Americans are less capable of doing the exact same thing. There is no need for the cronyism which comes when public funds are diverted to private pockets; we publicly run the roads, most canals, the ports, and the airports so we can do the same here).

It's not about us being less capable, it's about facts on the ground. Our vast distances plus cheap large air travel infrastructure make HSR impractical in most areas. The other countries do not have either one or both of the above criteria. A long distance HSR ticket would cost as much or more than a plane ticket and take much longer. No one will take that option. There are small areas where it can be viable, but again private industry or local govt if they want can build there.

Define "relatively well." Do ticket sales cover the costs of operation? Or is there some state subsidy?

I doubt there is a single HSR that doesn't have a subsidy of some kind.

Hell I doubt there are any subways, bus lines, metro rails (like in Miami) that aren't subsidized in some way.

Does anyone know of even one?

OH MY GOD! It was going to be so cosmopolitan! Won't somebody please think of the lost prestige?!?!?!?!

I have a plan to fix that.

Wow, what better way to start off an article than with a horrible lie? High speed rail ticket prices between the LA area and SF are going to be at least half the cost of a plane ticket. And while the train ride may take nearly an hour longer than the plane ride, that doesn't factor in that you have to show up to the airport at least 90 minutes early to get harassed by TSA agents.

Californians voted on this...

There certainly are some problems interfering with the development of CA HSR (the global economic crisis, for one) and I don't like the fact that the bill keeps growing, but this high speed rail is something that will not only create jobs but also improve state transportation.

First, do you really think the TSA is not going to jump all over HSR if it ever comes out? Second, the same plane can fly to SF, then go on to Memphis, Chicago, wherever. The HSR requires huge infrastructure and is useful in that one location only. The cost will also probably be higher that you think per ticket.

It may create some jobs (temporary for the most part as once the thing is built you don't need construction workers anymore) and it may help transportation. The question is at what cost and is it a worthwhile expenditure. It's like military procurement. It keeps getting bigger and bigger and is probably FUBAR.

The same way there's a TSA agent on every Amtrak train and at every train station? Oh, wait.

Depends on the plane, I suppose. But the primary purpose of this high speed rail won't be vacation but commuter travel. Plenty of people make the NorCal/SoCal commute every week (as well as the Bay Area/SoCal and Bay Area/NorCal commute). And so long as the cost remains lower than a plane ticket (as I said, it's projected to cost roughly half) it will be preferable for me and others to take the train. I already frequently take both planes and trains between NorCal and SoCal and trains are much more comfortable, tickets are cheaper to buy on short notice, and I don't get molested by the TSA. The only downside is that it takes around 5-6 hours by train and then I have to take the bus for an hour. With high speed rail, my travel time would be 2-3 hours.

150,000 temporary jobs (as you said, probably construction workers) and 450,000 permanent jobs (ticket agents, conductors, engineers, food vendors, etc.). But yes, of course if the cost does get much bigger it will stop being worth it. There are a lot of foreign companies competing to invest in the project, however.

Says who?

True, but given the huge cost overruns, maybe they should get another vote on it...

In fact, I'd be in favor of a law requiring an AUTOMATIC referendum on any bond-backed infrastructure scheme whose projected cost runs more than 50% over the initial budget.

It isn't fair to taxpayers and it's bad for our republic that a public project can run tens of billions of dollars out of control.

Uh, you do know the TSA is branching out, don't you? That they have an interest in moving into rail?

The cost to you may be lower, but if the thing is subsidized, the cost to the economy isn't. Other people have to work to pay the taxes for your subsidy.

Cost projections are already close to 200% over the initial estimates and you think it's still worthwhile?!? Just how much are you willing to pay for a public sector job?

And how you do think that when TIIC keep projecting that more and more money will be spent just to get the thing built? The costs are gonna come from somewhere.

I voted for a HSR that went from Sacramento to LA and cost $33 billion. And now, it costs triple that, there hasn't been a single private backer for this project and they've cut out two (I think) rather big places that one would think you'd want an inner-state rail to go to.

And Anc is right in that there are other steps we can take first. It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing thing, and even if Californians voted to get this going, there's no money for it now.

Sounds a lot like the story of the Golden Gate Bridge. It ended up being more than double the projected cost by the time it was finished, was built during a massive economic crisis, and faced heavy opposition every step of the way.

In what capacity?

You mean people like me? The point of constructing a public good with public funds is that it's subsidized (see: roads, airports, etc.)

Again, I'll refer you to the history of the Golden Gate Bridge.

You've also got to factor in the time to get to Airport and back again. In most cities the train station is centrally located whereas the airport is outside the city, sometimes a pretty good ways.....

^Yup. I believe I used the same argument when KIRK1ADM was blathering on about this exact same issue. Train stations take up far less real estate, which is why they can be placed within a city instead of the outskirts. Not only that, but train stations tend to be hubs for (or at least close to) other forms of public transit (buses, subways, lightrail).

Of course it isn't suitable for every where and that's why not a single person ever made such a claim. We're talking about two of the largest population centers in the country (NorCal and SoCal) with one of the heaviest flight corridors daily between those two areas. That's why California is one of the few places where HSR will actually work in this country and the projections show the cost to be roughly comparable with massive numbers of people saying they'd prefer it to flying because they 1) get more leg room & can walk around & even buy food or drink if they want 2) the time schedule for travel time would be almost the same but you wouldn't have to arrive 1 hour prior to take off plus you don't have to wait for baggage 3) HSR will feed directly into local mass transit so you often won't even need a rental car as long as you're staying in the city center area.

Yes, it only works if you connect densely populated urban areas with lots of people traveling between them but guess what? We're talking about two densely populated urban areas with lots and lots of people traveling between them and that's why it can and will work in California. I wouldn't do it in the midwest, in Texas, or even in Florida but in California (like the Northeast corridor) it would work.

On the current Coaster (Amtrak service; I used to pay $14 each way San Diego to Santa Barbara with military discount; to compare flying was about $200 and required a stop in LAX while driving took ~3.5-4 hours and cost about $30 in gas [this was 10 years ago]) the seats in business class are almost like a lazy boy, that's how large and comfortable they are, plus you get jacks for your internet devices, you can use your cellphones throughout, there are plugs to charge your laptop, there is storage space for your bags so you don't have check them (you can even bring a bike if you want), and best of all there is a stop about 1.5 miles from my house so I use it to go downtown or to L.A. just as I used to use it to go to Santa Barbara back when I was in college ~10 years ago.

It's just a better way to travel if you're going to the city center area. The key is to make sure it goes quickly from city center to city center and doesn't stop at all the little towns along the way. That's how it works in the EU and Japan. You take a commuter train to get to the city center but from the city center you get a direct express train to the next city center. This model only works over medium distances as over long distances flying is faster and cheaper but it works very well for medium distances (like SoCal to NorCal or SoCal to Vegas or SoCal to Phoenix or even NorCal to Tahoe or NorCal to Portland). The numbers actually work here even if political pundits paid by detractors are claiming they won't (and remember the local Republican antis are getting lobbyist money from airlines so they're not exactly impartial).

Of course there is some state subsidy just as there are state subsidies for roads, for airports, for ocean ports, for river channels, for canals, and for every other for of transportation.

Wait. So you're saying...that in a couple years I may be able to poke around online to find a train schedule, purchase a ticket, and then either spend a half hour driving into town and lining up parking or an hour on the Max to get there and that'll get me to Seattle in a little under three hours!? And then I can either rent a car or deal with Seattle's mass transit to get from the train station to whereever I'm going up there?

And my alternative is to get in the car that is parked right outside my window and drive to Seattle in three hours. Well shit, sign me up!

The train is a novelty. It is a solution, looking for a problem. It is slower and more expensive than driving for a three hour trip and it is more inconvenient to boot. God bless President Eisenhower for building the US Interstate system. For that matter, Kudos to Hitler for giving him the idea.

Sorry but you are just plain wrong.

If that was the case Alaska Airlines wouldn't be operating flights EVERY HALF HOUR from PDX-SEA and back again.

http://splash.alaskasworld.com/Newsroom/QXNews/QXstories/QX_20071204_095525.asp