Debt is also a public problem. And as you add to it you subtract money available for other things that were being paid for before. Not only do we lose the money needed( to pay past debt) we pay an extra fee for interest. As the debt level increases it destabilizes the credit rating of the government and the cost of borrowing goes up.
It is morally criminal to borrow money for projects like HSR because it takes away legitimate funds needed for other things. If you truly care about the poor you should be picketing any politician that even hints at the idea.
Pure fantasy, I am afraid. Now for a dose of reality - while I agree the train “could” make that trip as you propose, there is no way the HSR is going to get you from downtown SF to LA in 3 hours…
SF to San Jose - about 50 mile, and all dense, urban corridor - the train will not reach top speed - maybe a 40 minute ride, then a stop in San Jose, cause they are going to want to have a stop, of course. 10 min there to load all the passengers you are talking about.
San Jose to Los Banos, out in the Central Valley - about 80 miles, but more urban-scape in the south Santa Clara valley, then a climb over the Coast Ranges - no top speed here yet, either, If lucky, this will take maybe an hour.
Let’s see, you have been on the train for about 2 hours now, and you are passing Los Banos heading for Fresno - the train can finally reach high speeds and now you are making progress. About 75 miles and maybe 50 minutes later you arrive at Fresno, where there is another stop (if it has not already had to stop in Merced, cause they want a stop, too).
Now you have been on the train for about 3 hours, and you are finally heading top speed toward LA, but wait, there is another stop in Bakersfield, cause they want a stop, too. Then, shortly afterward, there is another mountain range at the Tehachapis, and the train has to slow down again, and more mountains the rest of the way to LA, where any town the train goes thru it will need to slow down more.
Finally, 5+ hours later, you arrive at LA, but sorry, your client was expecting you a couple hours ago, and you lost the account, and now you face another 5 hour trip home.
I am not trying to pick on you here, but your scenario, and that which is advertised by the HSR authority, will not be able to withstand contact with the reality of the geography of CA. You’d be better off telling your client you can meet them the next day, work on that demo in the afternoon from your office, and take one of the dozens of 1-hour flights from the Bay Area to one of the LA area airports the next morning.
LA to San Diego may make sense. SF or San Jose to Sacramento may make sense - because the distances are too short to make a flight economical, but too long and/or congested to make driving a good option - people would likely see HSR a good alternative there (altho Amtrak does operate regular trains today in both corridors).
I think your scenario is too pessimistic. High-speed trains run on dedicated tracks with no grade crossings, so the urban section from San Francisco to San Jose will not be constrained by other traffic. The stops are more like 2 minutes than 10; there are only a few passengers to load and unload at the intermediate stops, and there are doors at both ends of every car. You have 50 minutes to go 75 miles to Fresno. That’s only 90 mph, high-speed trains routinely travel at twice that speed. And speed through the mountain ranges will depend on the route, with tunnels and such.
This. It’s not like HSR is some kind of unproven technology that may or may not function. High speed rail has worked successfully around the globe for the last 46 years. It’s not some crazy thing that can’t be done.
My point exactly. Libertarianism ignores that some things have a public value far beyond what the bottom line would indicate.
:rolleyes:
Don’t even know how to respond to this. Public transportation is a public issue, and it absolutely can be far more valuable than the bottom line would indicate. I haven’t looked into calculations on this rail system, but hypothetically this could absolutely be worth far, far more than the bottom line would indicate by increasing the range of job-seekers, by enabling more transit between areas and encouraging tourism, et cetera.
Or, you know, maybe we consider HSR a priority? Because investing in infrastructure is kind of a good thing? :rolleyes:
that’s self sustaining because people use it. The ridership for trains doesn’t exist in most locations. Passenger train traffic died off years ago. Making it more expensive to use isn’t going to make it more viable.
It has also failed innumerous places around the globe. Just because HSR makes sense in some places does not mean it makes sense in every place, which is why you have to deal with the practicalities. In fact, in economic terms, it fails more often than it succeeds:
Please note also:
[ul]
[li]There are no mountain ranges to cross on the Tokyo/Osaka or Paris/Lyon routes. [/li][li]The French and Japanese are also two populations that already make extremely heavy use of mass transit, whereas Los Angeles is one of the most auto-centric cities on the planet. [/li][li]Tokyo and Paris are also cities with dense urban residential populations. In America, especially in cities like Los Angeles, much large percentages of the population live and work in suburban/exurban areas The vast majority of people are not travelling city center to city center-- they would be driving into the city and then parking their car, and then they likely have to take a cab to get from the train station to their actual destination. When you start adding those costs in time and money, rail loses much of its value in comparison to air and auto travel. And of course the more stops you add to make it accessible, the less high-speed it is. Every two-minute stop probably adds about 10 minutes to the travel time.[/ul][/li]
It requires immense amounts of “We’re Americans so we can do it better” arrogance to think that a technology that has so often proven to be a boondoggle in places much better suited for it is going to work here.
Sorry Furt, but a libertarian think tank, the Daily Mail, a politically active Spanish newspaper and a random blog from Hong Kong are not usually the places I look for objective financial analysis. It’s not like this topic hasn’t been studied to death.
Anyway. Transport is not profitable. Roads do not make profits. Airlines do not make profits. Subways don’t make profits. Nobody makes profits out of the enormously expensive and logistically complicated business of moving people around
But that doesn’t mean transport doesn’t make economic sense. Public services and infrastructure rarely turn a direct profit, but rather they create the conditions that foster a vibrant, lively economy- be it educating people, helping businesses collaborate, or fostering strong communities.
The two technologies are radically different.
[ul]
[li]Interstate highways, when they were put in place, were jumping on an already-ascendant technology; passenger rail has been in decline for a century.[/li][li]Interstate highways are much cheaper to build on a per-mile basis. (If we’re talking about the 1950s, dramatically cheaper, since there weren’t years and years worth of environmental-impact studies then, nor was nearly as much legislation dictating what kinds of companies would get various percentages of the contracts, etc). [/li][li]In comparison to rail, interstate highways are much cheaper to maintain. It’s not free, but repaving once a decade costs less than operating a high-tech transit system day-in-day-out.[/li][li]They are accessible 24/7 to all comers, you can put in new off-ramps nearly wherever you like without affecting anyone else, You can add in a extra lane if traffic gets too heavy in a given section; highways are dramatically more flexible. This is also why busses are so much better than light rail for intercity transit.[/li][*]Above all “Interstate” highways also have immense value to locals as well. I routinely use the one next to me for knocking 5 minutes off my drive to church, getting downtown in 15 minutes instead of 30, etc. This is in fact one of the major uses of highways, and HSR is useless for that.[/ul]
Yes, it has. Do you have any cites indicating that the examples I’ve provided are inaccurate or out of the ordinary, or are you just playing “I don’t listen to facts when they come from people I don’t like.”
Yes, they do (or can). I don’t think any economist would argue that the highway system was anything other than an excellent investment.
Not a problem, since they are private businesses. (Except of course, when pols decide to bail them out).
Excepting of course, Hong Kong, Tokyo, and the other places where they do.
This will be news to the Southwest Airlines, to say nothing of the dozens of profitable charter bus operators in the US, in addition to the international examples above.
Look, this will be a lot better if you actually check your facts before giving confident opinions.
The question is not whether “transport” makes sense, but whether the specific proposal under consideration makes the most sense. As noted above, the highway system was an excellent investment. It does not therefore follow that all investment in transportation is equally excellent.
Embedded in that paragraph is the assumption that these conditions cannot be possibly be created by anything other than the government; this is demonstrably incorrect. In fact, there are no shortage of people that would argue that government involvement in education, “helping businesses collaborate,” and community-fostering does as much harm as good.
I am in agreement with you here. That doesn’t mean every project is a good match for every situation. In the case of the current CA HSR plan, I fear the benefits have been oversold, the costs (initial and ongoing) have been underestimated, the negative impacts have been glossed-over, and it will be sucking resources away from more deserving and practical projects that would benefit more businesses, communities, and individuals.
And as I have been saying - it is a solution looking for a problem. Air travel, even with driving to the airport, parking, and security checks, still connects the two metro areas well enough for thousands of people every day. I am not against HSR on principle - it’s just that the particulars of this project don’t add up for me.
Well, then, that’s where we disagree. I believe it’s a project that’s a long time coming, will get built sooner or later, and might as well be built now rather than pushing it off.
And yes, I am aware there are a few cases where transportation companies manage to scrape together a profit. But you can’t disagree that transportation is usually lucky of it breaks even, and when there are profits they are usually marginal.
They can but most roads generally don’t. There generally aren’t that many private roads in the US, and they generally exist where a profit can actually be made. That doesn’t make it a particularly good measuring stick. Historically, roads have not been profitable, but they made economic sense anyway (see Rome).
But that’s really a digression. It’s still true that the IHS, subways, rail, etc are not profitable in the US, and that their value is not solely measured by their lack of profitability.
Measuring the value of the California HSR solely or even mostly on these terms is a mistake. The project might not make sense (as other posters have noted) but not necessarily on these terms.
I guess they technically do. As long as you don’t consider the massive government subsidies (nice to be partly owned or backed by the government in these case) and infrastructure spending - things like digging the tunnels and taking care of rights of way. And yeah, the profitability of those semi-private subway companies don’t have to include purely governmental spending on infrastructure necessary for the operation or expansion of those systems.
It’s analogous to the internet situation in South Korea and Japan. ISPs make good profits and lower cost to consumers than in the US. But the governments spent tons of money setting up the infrastructure for them.
So, I guess you’re right it’s possible for a semi-private subway company to turn a profit - if much of the infrastructure spending is shouldered by the government and they get subsidies on top of that.
And there used to be thriving air shuttle services between Boston, New York City, and Washington, until something better came along.
I’ve always thought it odd that the U.S. runs passenger rail service almost opposite to every other type of transport. That is, with highways and air routes the government creates and maintains the infrastructure, and private companies (or individuals) operate the vehicles. Amtrak is the other way around; government owns and operates the trains running on mostly privately owned rails.
This is a chicken-egg argument,
almost like the ones that extreme libertarians make that “X can’t be a case of market failure, because if it was the market would have fixed it.” It may be that a privatized highway system would be unprofitable, but I see no reason to assume that it must necessarily be so. I know private highways are much more common in Asia and Europe and AFAIK most of the companies that build them make a buck, but correct me if I am wrong.
It would undoubtedly be a very different system than what we’re used to, and has a real possibility of making travel more expensive … but given that I keep hearing calls for people to drive less and reduce their carbon footprint, I think that would be a plus.
Yes and no. We can’t assess the profitability of the US highway system (or any other public works), but we undoubtedly can do economic-impact analysis. The highway system had a tremendously positive impact; not all public works do.
Sports stadiums are a prime example of this, and resembles HSR in several respects: they are cool and sexy infrastructure (unlike, say, a new sewer system), they are showoffable and make your city look up-to-date, they make great “legacy” pieces for politicians, they provide a great way to funnel public money to favored contractors, and above all, while the majority of the city may not ever use it, the people who want and stand to benefit from the construction (sports fans) really, really want them … and they always come with claims about how building the stadium will revitalize neighborhoods and create all kinds of positive multipliers.
And so city after city has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on sports stadiums, and in city after city … with maybe one or two exceptions, the economic impact never comes, and the only ones that benefit are the minority of citizens who go to games and who now have their hobby subsidized by the public. HSR is much the same story … outside of a handful of places, it has been a waste of public money. But it fans, much like sports fans, see other cities getting one and say “we need to be cool like them.”
Both HK and Tokyo operate without subsidies.
Clearly, if there were no government subsidies, it would cost a lot more to ride. But again, there’s no reason that “take the money from everyone, and then subsidize the travel choices of some” is the only possible model.
Yup, this discussion keeps reminding me of the perennial manned space programs/Mars colonization/moon colonization/Olympics/solar highway discussions. It’s like when something is high-tech and large scale enough, the opportunity cost/benefit parts of the brain is liable to stop functioning in favor of the “Ooohh, cool & shiny!” part of the brain.