Dumb And Dumber: California's Voters Ride The Train
I was one of the losing group -- the people who voted against the train from San Diego to San Francisco that we couldn't afford at the projected cost of $33 billion...which I knew would go up. The price tag always goes up.
And this is a totally unnecessary train (and I say that as a train lover). It's $59 from LA to SF on Southwest if you book in advance. (And the train couldn't really run high speed -- so it was really a "high speed" train.) Steve Lopez writes (opinionlessly) in the LA Times:
The projected completion date has gone from 2020 to 2033. The anticipated cost has ballooned to as high as $117 billion, and no one seems to have a clue where the bulk of the money would come from. The state auditor and the state Legislative Analyst's Office have raised serious concerns, and the rail authority's own peer review group said the project represents "an immense financial risk" to the state. And two weeks ago, the railroad authority's top executive resigned.To top it off, a poll last fall said nearly two-thirds of registered voters would run this train off the rails if they had a chance to vote again.
I wish voters would be smart before the money is spent but it seems, no matter how often stuff like this happens, you can always count on them to be gullible.
Tim Cavanaugh in reason on Lopez here:
Lopez has the good fortune to answer to the newsroom rather the opinion section, where bullet-train belief still reigns as supremely as it does in Gov. Jerry Brown's rumpus room. The important thing is that one more prominent Golden State blowhard is sealing the case against the vacant and bankrupt high-speed rail project.
At the link within, Cavanaugh writes about the moronism from the LATimes' pro-train opinionoids:
In a piece I missed earlier this month entitled "Keeping faith with California's bullet train," the ed board praised the High-Speed Rail project because it is similar to Boston's notorious Big Dig and the building of the pyramids by slaves.
If there was a market for Bullet Train tickets at a profitable price, private investors would have built one already.
You can make money owning and operating airliners, so the companies that build them keep bringing out new better models, the there are several year long waiting lists to buy new ones, and most of the the problems with air transportation come from the government and unions interfering with the market.
Given that Americans constantly vote with their wallets for automobiles and airliners as their preferred transportation devices, (Even the TSA can't keep us off airliners.) why is it that Government keeps trying to force us onto trains and buses? Wouldn't the people of California be better served by spending the same amount of money to increase the capacity of those roads most prone to traffic jams during rush hour?
Old Guy at February 3, 2012 8:13 AM
Isn't your state flat broke?
By the way, anyone announcing that a project will be completed in 2033 is actually saying this:
"We have absolutely no idea whether this project will ever actually get finished. But we don't really care because in the interim we will spread billions of dollars around to our chosen friends who will then make contributions back to our political campaigns. You see, everyone wins."
Well, except for the taxpayer. And democracy with a level playing field.
Robert W. (Vancouver) at February 3, 2012 8:18 AM
It's too bad that there isn't a requirement that any propositions that involve spending don't have to include specifics on where that money is coming from, including how cost overruns are to be paid.
How many people would have voted for this if the questions was something like, "Proposition 46: To build a high speed train from San Diego to San Francisco estimated to cost $33 billion. This will be financed by a 1% increase in (whatever) tax. Any increase in the cost beyond $33 billion will see a corresponding increase in the tax.
Steamer at February 3, 2012 8:21 AM
Whenever I see things like this about California, I think, "wow, it must be so beautiful there, the weather so awesome, the food incredibly delicious." Why else would anyone want to live with so many crazy people?
Sara at February 3, 2012 8:50 AM
Isn't your state flat broke?
If California were just flat broke, that would be an improvement. But they're deep in debt, they owe a boat-load of money to the CalPERS retirment system (defined benefits), they're spending money like it's going out of style, and they likely don't have enough cash on hand to make it to the end of the current fiscal year without handing out IOUs in lieu of tax refunds or payments to vendors. Businesses are fleeing for less burdensome pastures.
People laughed at Gov. Rick Scott (FL) last year for turning down $2 billion from Teh Won to build a high speed train between Tampa and Orlando. He who laughs last laughs best. Rick Scott should be laughing long and hard.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 3, 2012 8:51 AM
Been thinking about how to curb some of the out of control spending. One possible idea is to make the numbers real. 33 billion means nothing to people the also don't internalise it as their own money. So a more honest way of voting on it would be what is the cost to taxpayers, now thers 37 million Californians. Not everyone pays taxes, but on average say half do. OK the original price would be an average $1800 per Californian taxpayer to get this built, now it is $7000 per Californian taxpayer.
The proponents will argue much of the money is from the Fed, and some city, but that just is different taxes. It ultimately comes from taxpayers.
I think if bills were proposed in that way we would see more reasonable voting. Is this worth almost 7000 to anyone?
As to radical ideas how to aleviate traffic problems, how about promoting the idea live close to where you work, partially by breakig up zoning laws, part by just introducing the concept to people.It is an obvious concept that never seems to come up.
Joe J at February 3, 2012 8:55 AM
The cost structure is very different between bullet trains and airlines.
The airline doesn't have to pay for the infrastructure. Airports and the FAA are paid for by taxpayers and the operating costs of those are spread among several airlines.
Bullet rails will be built by the company operating the train (or built by the state and maintained by the company).
This means the capital investment is much higher for building a true bullet train than it is for starting up an airline. It also means the operating costs are much higher for the train company.
Switching routes in an airline mean finding a new place to land (an already built airport) and getting the government to approve the new route (so the FAA can make sure planes on crossing routes don't run into each other, etc.). Switching routes for a bullet train mean laying new "rails" - which involves massive construction projects, not to mention legal battles for the rights of way.
The solution is to have the state run the bullet train, disbursing the costs across the tax base. Unfortunately, efficiency, cost control, and reliability are not hallmarks of state-run enterprises. The California bullet train system will cost as much as the space program, provide the customer service of the DMV, and will, due to construction delays, politician interference, labor issues, and environmental concerns, deliver riders from Chowchilla to Bakersfield in twice the time it would take if they had used a bus service.
Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2012 9:35 AM
People laughed at Gov. Rick Scott (FL) last year for turning down $2 billion from Teh Won to build a high speed train between Tampa and Orlando. He who laughs last laughs best. Rick Scott should be laughing long and hard.
Rick Scott is the criminal who bought himself the governorship of Florida after defrauding Medicare of half a billion dollars. Of course he turned it down. 2 billion didn't allow him his margins.
Christopher at February 3, 2012 9:59 AM
The airline doesn't have to pay for the infrastructure. Airports and the FAA are paid for by taxpayers and the operating costs of those are spread among several airlines.
No different than roads. Airlines pay large landing fees, high rent for their ground operations at airports, and a substantial fuel tax, plus many localities tack on ticket taxes. They also get huge amounts of revenue from car rental, food, and other vedors. They even charge taxis for picking up customers. At many large airports, major airlines build and operate their own facilities on land leased from the government. That the government cannot operate an airport on all that revenue is normal. The government never seems to be able to provide a service at a reasonable price. They are more concerned with taking care of various constituencies than boring stuff like maximizing value per dollar.
The difference is, the citizens prefer cars and airliners and do not want trains and buses. It will be worse with trains, because there will be no part of the system subject to the discipline of the marketplace.
Old Guy at February 3, 2012 10:10 AM
Here's an idea: What if California offered advance seat licenses to ride the choo-choo when it's ready? Offer year-long passes for some hundreds of dollars apiece, enough to take numerous train trips at some discount over what they'd pay at the gate. That would accomplish two things. First, it would indicate how many people are interested in actually paying for the train, versus how many would like merely to be able to say they had one. Second, it would add pressure to finish the project, as people with passes are going to want to use them sooner or later.
Old RPM Daddy at February 3, 2012 10:29 AM
Road, airport, gas and other ground transportation fees and taxes are spread among many users and many different types of users.
A true high-speed rail track would be usable by at most a few transit companies.
The initial capital investment would never be recovered and the cost to the users of maintenance and operations would be prohibitive.
Such a set-up would require massive state subsidies to only one or two entities (the rail company) in order to be competitively priced.
That kind of cozy relationship is an open invitation to political corruption (see the country's earlier experiment with government-subsidized railroad construction).
Don't build the train!
Conan the Grammarian at February 3, 2012 10:59 AM
Had this very argument at work the other day.
None of my co-workers seemed to understand that the cost of the land and the construction of the rail made trains an expensive form of transportation, not likely to see enough investment return to be worth our tax dollars. If there were extra dollars laying around, they should be directed to highway maintenance and new construction. But my co-workers also didn't seem to understand that these should be state issues and not federal issues either.
Cat at February 3, 2012 1:16 PM
How in the world could it possibly take 21 years to build a rail line? Well, no matter. The new sugar taxes will pay for it.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 3, 2012 4:01 PM
"and getting the government to approve the new route (so the FAA can make sure planes on crossing routes don't run into each other, etc.)."
That hasn't been true since the CAB was abolished in 1979 (one of the few good things Carter did). The FAA does not control routes. The only things it controls is takeoff and landing slots at a handful of the most over-subscribed airports (e.g., LaGuardia). There is a sort-of analog to the bullet train in the form of the Essential Air Service, where the government subsidizes airlines to operate routes to small-town destinations that would otherwise be unprofitable. Part of your ticket fees and taxes goes to pay for that.
(This looks like a good place to point out that, with the exception of Alaska, airlines operating in the United States have not had a crash with a fatality since the Coglan Air crash in Buffalo in January 2009. U.S. railroads, carrying far fewer passenger-miles, can't say the same.)
Cousin Dave at February 3, 2012 4:03 PM
Guys, you're missing something here.
Both trains and planes are going to be obsolete for other than vacation travel once intelligent systems are extended into existing communication networks. There is no need to travel to do office work. In fact, my own job could be done from my house for all but one day a week except I'm an emergency responder.
But we have management who get paid according to the number of people they can make show up. They're not the only ones.
Can trains move things more efficiently than anything else? YES. Has the window for installing track in areas to be served passed? YES. Only the powerful condemnation of land by eminent domain can put track where it needs to be, and lots of people have to be paid for this, greedy hands extended. Can a train both be "high-speed" and serve neighborhoods? NO.
This last point is the one you should push when somebody is trying to sell you this thing.
Radwaste at February 3, 2012 4:10 PM
Well about 18 months ago all the companies that provide medical billing software for California Medi-Cal (Medicaid) had to add in programming for weekly claims instead of monthly. Apparently, if you miss a bill break and don't make the claim within two weeks -- you don't get paid for it.
I'm not sure of the details.
It is a pain in the butt to do deal with the CA customers.
Jim P. at February 3, 2012 7:59 PM
People who are saying train lines are two expensive to build are forgetting one thing,we already have or had the train lines. Many are sitting there unused or converted to biking trails, because after the railroads vanished what do you do with land 8 ft wide and 100 miles long. So in many cases eminent domain is not an issue. Fighting the teamsers union is.
Trains in modern time are cost effective for cargo, but not for people. Teamsters hate this. People demand on time travel with many stops, and fast moving. Trains cant do all those tings well, and be efficient. People also demand often running start times and creature comforts. Both greatly lessen trains ability to turn a profit. What trains ARE great at is cargo. Especially long distance.
Joe J at February 3, 2012 8:39 PM
...Can a train both be "high-speed" and serve neighborhoods? NO.
This whole comment by Radwaste was solid. We don't have likes here, but I'd offer it a +1 were they available.
I take the train to work most of the week; the other days, I work remotely. Unless I'm out of the area, which isn't often. One of the beautiful things about the the web-enabled economy is that you don't need to be on the same continent to work closely with people.
But when I am here, my commute on the train is awesome compared to driving. San Francisco to Palo Alto takes a bit over a half hour (it's about an hour in the car during rush hour); I can work or read while I travel. I walk 5 minutes at either end. On Fridays, I can have a beer on the way home, and nobody sweats that.
That preface is to make it clear that I think trains can serve passengers very well – typically when they connect people in one walkable area to another. In that situation they are massively superior to cars unless your work demands that you go to job sites or squire clients around or else just really love stop-and-go traffic.
The high speed rail mess in our state does not have a plan to succeed; nor do I think it can in the long term. The first (critical) leg is inconvenient to the state's major cities. I'd rather take Southwest or drive the 5 (if I need to get there fast) or 101 (if I'd like a more relaxed trip). Moreover, if the rail even got you to LA, you'd still need a car when you there. While parts of LA can be walked (Amy's Venice community, for example), there's no way to get from there to Hollywood, downtown, or pretty much anywhere else without a car.
There are places in the U.S. where high speed rail might make sense: DC-NYC-Philly-Boston, for example. Or places where good local commuter rail makes sense (most big metro areas with good local transit). The California plan does not meet any need effectively; unfortunately, its failure will serve to discredit a useful means of moving people around.
@Steamer, re: It's too bad that there isn't a requirement that any propositions that involve spending don't have to include specifics on where that money is coming from, including how cost overruns are to be paid.
These things usually just specify "out of the general fund" or authorize bond sales; they never mention balancing priorities, the overall revenue picture, or the costs of other programs that affect that picture. Even if they were mentioned, I'm not sure how much they'd affect voters' decisions. One benefit to making legislators do funding bills is that they have to tangle with opposing viewpoints in the process. Voters just think "sounds good!" and pull the lever. Propositions are destroying California. Direct democracy is a terrible idea.
Christopher at February 3, 2012 9:59 PM
"The FAA does not control routes. The only things it controls is takeoff and landing slots at a handful of the most over-subscribed airports (e.g., LaGuardia)."
Cousin, that's a bit at odds with the assertions of Patrick Smith; in his column, "Ask The Pilot", he makes the point repeatedly that he cannot take off until he has a landing slot open at his destination. This would completely control his rising into the air. I'm quite sure that the lcoal radio station doesn't qualify and license ATC operators, too. Other FAA requirements include fuel for an alternative runway just in case. That's not getting into the other regs, by the thousand. It's a Federal agency, paid to regulate.
And a combination of Fedral agencies appear to control what an airline may do with a passenger.
If you have other experience, I'd love to hear more!
Radwaste at February 4, 2012 9:58 AM
Raddy, what I meant is that the airlines don't have to go to the government to get permission to start a new route, which is what I thought you meant. Back in the days of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the government controlled all airline routes and fares. Each airline had an area of the country where it was allowed to concentrate (e.g., Delta in the Southeast, Eastern along the East Coast, TWA in the Midwest, etc.), and was partially protected from competition along routes in its territory. Fares were regulated too.
I'll have to go look at Patrick Smith's column to see what routes he's talking about. Airline flights are scheduled by the airline's own dispatch. At congested airports like JFK or LAX or Atlanta, during peak hours, the FAA sets a maximum number of airplanes that can take off and land per hour, depending on the airport's capabilities. They then divide the time up into slots, and allocate the slots to airlines. Airlines are allowed to trade slots, but they have to coordinate all that with the FAA.
Of course, it often happens that weather or other factors disrupt airport operations and completely screw up the slot system. Here in our little burg of HSV, we are only about 25 minutes' flight time from ATL. On days when things are hosed at ATL (which seems to happen more often than not), Delta uses the HSV-ATL flight as one that it can move around from slot to slot prior to takeoff. Their dispatch in ATL tells the FAA which arriving flights they want to slot in when, and the FAA instructs the flights accordingly. Because it's a lot easier and less expensive to hold the HSV-ATL flight (which hasn't taken off yet) than the LAX-ATL flight (which has already been in the air for two hours), we in HSV frequently get out on the taxiway and then the FAA gives our flight a "ground stop", wherein we are made to wait 10-20 minutes while Delta tries to find another slot for our arrival. They know they can squeeze us in somewhere; once HSV-ATL takes off, the flight time is so short that it's unlikely to not arrive on its slot time.
However, that's all because the flight is going to an airport where slotting is necessary. For a while back in the '90s we had an airline here that was flying a Brazilia between HSV and Melbourne International (MLB) in Florida. MLB is a low-traffic airport and is not slotted, so the HSV-MLB flight could depart whenever it was ready.
Of course, the FAA regulates a whole bunch of aspects of airline operations, airplane construction, etc. But the FAA has no say-so in what routes airlines fly, and with the exception of flights to/from slotted airports, no control over schedule.
Cousin Dave at February 4, 2012 5:05 PM
Gotcha. Thank you!
Radwaste at February 4, 2012 9:40 PM
Leave a comment