When You're Broke, What's Another $68 Billion Added To Your Tab?
That's the new projected cost of the "high speed" train up broke-ass California's coast. From the Wash Times:
The state's High-Speed Rail Authority on Tuesday released details of a revised business plan that claims laying down tracks from Los Angeles to San Francisco will now cost a mere $68 billion instead of $98 billion - as if that were a bargain.President Obama's infatuation with the effort to create another government-subsidized rail entitlement means the rest of the country is on the hook for at least half of this still considerable sum. Retirees in Florida and schoolteachers in Mississippi, who will never ride California's train, will be forced to pay for it anyway.
Politicians asked Golden State voters in 2008 whether they wanted this shiny new train set. Fifty-three percent said "sure," without devoting much thought to the cost of their choice. To put $68 billion in perspective, five major airlines offer flights from Los Angeles to San Francisco for $200 or less - an amount that includes $39.60 in various taxes. Volume discounts aside, for the cost of the rail infrastructure, California could purchase 340 million round-trip tickets - enough to provide nine round-trip flights for each of the state's documented residents.
Based on market capitalization, the state could even buy a few airlines - American, Delta, Jet Blue, Southwest and United - and have $40 billion left over. Taking to the skies quite simply is more efficient. It only takes an hour and 20 minutes to journey by air between Los Angeles to San Francisco. At best, a nonstop "high-speed" train would take an estimated two hours and 38 minutes, charging a pricey $326 fare. Based on the experience of Amtrak in the Northeast corridor, the trains will make so many stops that actual trip time would be closer to four hours.
via @mpetrie
Again, it's too late: too many have their hand out for State money now, and the train will be out where no one can use it.
At that, trains are hideously more energy-efficient than aircraft. Fuel prices will eventually knock this problem out.
Umm, $68 billion.
Radwaste at April 18, 2012 2:48 AM
The very funny 1968 comedy The Producers gives the scheme underlying green energy policy.
In the film, the Producer (Zero Mostel) tells his accountant that he has sold shares adding up to 400% of his projects. The accountant (Gene Wilder) says that is impossible and illegal. Still, as long as the productions lose money, no one will care about the particular portion that they own.
Green energy is supported by scientists who want grants, and by a wishful part of the public who care more about saving the world than the cost. However, this has political support because huge amounts of money can be spent by government and wasted (given to contributers), with flowback political graft, as long as no one expects those projects to pay for themselves.
It is exactly the expected failure and expense of green energy and the California transit projects which hide the graft.
The slogan is "Of course these technologies will lose money for 5-10 years. That is the expected cost of a new industry." Yes, any industry formed by government with public subsidies and mandates.
Solyndra was supported with loan guarantees. The investors would have owned a successful Solyndra. The government loses and pays back the investors in the failed Solyndra. The government (the taxpayers and public) would lose even if many of these projects succeeded, because we don't have a share of the winners, only the losers.
EasyOpinions.blogspot.com/2008/03/tpm-adaquate-compensation.html
The Political Manual: Adequate Compensation
- Search for "Create new contracts".
=== ===
To the aspiring politician:
Encourage new ideas for garbage processing, recycling, green government vehicles, resource management, environmentally sensitive school cafeterias, concrete with recycled content, or biodegradable curtains and furniture.
You and your family can form a service company FamCo which sells to a preferred company NewContractor. NewContractor can easily win the new government contracts by bidding 70% of the realistic price. It can be expected that the first application of a new technology will have cost overruns.
=== ===
Andrew_M_Garland at April 18, 2012 5:19 AM
Perhaps the 53% did consider the cost of their choice - the cost they were promised on the ballot, not the actual one that was revealed much later.
Short flights are not profitable for the airlines and take up gateways in the airport, leaving less room for the more profitable long-distance and international flights.
True high-speed rail between LA and SF is a great idea ... that will cost billions to build and operate. A 400mp mag lev train should be able to make that trip in slightly less overall door-to-door time than flying would entail.
However, California is not building a high-speed rail - no matter what the politicians say.
What California is building is a make work boondoggle for unions. With the inevitable political interference in route planning, the train will end up stopping at all the places the current San Joaquin line services and not be much faster than the existing rail/bus service between SF and LA.
Conan the Grammarian at April 18, 2012 9:33 AM
Wherever did you get that idea?
Nearly all of Southwest's flights are under two hours, many much less. Yet somehow Southwest manages to turn the occasional profit.
Just for fun, try figuring out how many passengers at what cost a HS rail line with LA and SF as the only stops would have to carry in order to both cover operating costs and amortize construction costs over, say, 25 years. (BTW, 400 mph isn't ever going to happen -- try to stay in the world of the realistic.) As for less door-door time, that is bollocks. Overhead time is the same in both cases, and an airplane gets to 550 mph a heck of a lot quicker than a train ever could.
Keep in mind that what you can charge is limited by the cost of alternatives.
Jeff Guinn at April 18, 2012 1:50 PM
I should have put it "less profitable."
Southwest's operating costs are lower than the major airlines' costs. SWA has fewer unions. It uses smaller airports with lower fees.
That's how Southwest makes money on routes the major airlines subcontract to smaller airlines ... or won't even try to fly.
However, as SWA expands into major airports (like LAX and SFO), their cost structure is changing.
In addition, recent acquisitions have diversified Southwest's fleet, driving up maintenance costs and logistics costs.
==============================
The Shanghai maglev train has a top operating speed of over 250mph. Other test maglevs have reached considerably higher speeds.
True. However, an airplane needs to taxi between the gate and the runway. Once the train clears the gate, it begins accelerating.
And San Francisco's airport is among the worst in the country for flight delays - so the door-to-door time isn't just a factor of miles between airports and speed of the plane.
And maglev trains do accelerate pretty quickly. The Shanghai maglev is capable of reaching 350kph (217mph) in about 2 minutes. While not airplane speed, it's fast enough that the train completes its 19-mile journey in 7 minutes.
I don't think there's a 600+ mile maglev route yet in existence, so there may be feasibility issues with lines that long. However, several long lines are in the planning stages in Asia and on the drawing boards in Europe.
==============================
This article looks at the current high-speed rail plans with rose-colored glasses , but it illustrates a benefit that a true high-speed rail could provide: easing airport congestion:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/transportation/2012/04/high-speed-rail-could-free-valuable-space-sfo
However, the present California "high-speed" rail boondoggle isn't the solution. It won't even be high-speed rail.
==============================
California's biggest problem is they've put this project in the hands of the government.
The current proposal calls for a wheeled train rolling over existing freight train rails. That will never be a high-speed train.
Existing rails are not capable of handling heavy trains at high speeds.
At higher speeds, the need for (and costs of) track maintenance increases exponentially.
With other trains using the tracks, the risk of an accident grows - and the opportunities to run at full speed for a significant stretch diminish.
Conan the Grammarian at April 18, 2012 4:16 PM
RE: short stage lengths.
Plenty of airlines make money on short flights, not just SWA. Unions' herd immunity to reason is an entirely different issue.
----
I have seen the Shanghai maglev in action. A couple things are noteworthy. The highest average speed is 156 mph. Now it is true that the trip length is so short -- 19 miles -- that this is hardly representative of what it can actually do. But that just leads straight to the nonsense underlying the whole enterprise.
The 19 mile track cost more than $1.3B. Now multiply that by the distance between LA and SF, and then further multiply by the difference between US union pay scale and Chinese pay rates.
Then add enough trains to move enough people to amortize the cost.
----
You make a good point that that taxi time for aircraft has to be included. However, the longer the stage length, the less important that is. Given a standard taxi time of 15 mins, an airplane gives up about 60 miles to a maglev at full trot, but it makes up that distance in a little less than fifteen minutes.
----
For the same reasons there will never be a 400 mph maglev (Why is a 400 mph maglev more desirable than a 550 mph airplane? How close do you want to live to that going by? Besides, within a couple minutes after takeoff, airplanes are effectively immune to attack. Maglevs, not so much) 600 mile stage lengths will never happen. Once airports are built, the infrastructure cost between city pairs is practically nil.
Which is really the problem. As many people as want to can already get between LA and SFO in less than three hours and a few hundred bucks round trip. How the heck can duplicating that ability for a mere $68B ever make sense?
I'll bet that if you removed public subsidy (ie theft) from existing high speed rail routes, somewhere north of 90% would go belly up within the week.
Jeff Guinn at April 18, 2012 7:01 PM
I feel as if I've been wrongly pegged as a defender of California's "high-speed" rail fiasco.
I'm not defending it in any way. I voted against it and continue to argue against it.
If true high-speed rail were feasible, a private company would be eager to construct and run it. Yet no common carrier company is eager to get involved in this fiasco.
The government's involvement in such a building high-speed rail should be minimal and should consist primarily in clearing regulatory roadblocks and in common carrier regulation.
California's project, on the other hand, is a circular firing squad (with the taxpayers in the middle).
The government is relying on romantic visions of happy citizens merrily riding the rails instead of boarding dirty jets to make the same trip in less than half the time.
No private company stays in business basing it's capital expenditure decisions on fantasy. No government should either.
No doubt.
On the flip side, I'm sure if similar government subsidies were removed from air travel, the airlines would also be in trouble.
Conan the Grammarian at April 19, 2012 10:04 AM
"If true high-speed rail were feasible, a private company would be eager to construct and run it."
You first. The very first scammer claiming personal injury will bankrupt you. That's who we are nowadays.
End of statement.
Radwaste at April 19, 2012 3:01 PM
Costs of insurance premiums are part of calculating whether something is feasible.
Airlines, taxi and limo companies, railroads, and bus lines all face similar threats of lawsuits and yet manage to stay in business.
It's true, the infrastructure costs of maintaining airspace between two cities is pretty minimal. However, there is a cost to building and maintaining the infrastructure around the airport (roadways, subway lines, etc.).
Airports are land-intensive and new ones cannot be located near city centers, necessitating a transport infrastructure between the city and the airport (roadways, subways, taxis, shuttles, etc.).
LAX is 16 miles from the city center of Los Angeles. SFO is located 13 miles south of San Francisco's downtown (in San Bruno). Both of these airports are old and reaching maximum capacity.
High-speed rail stations, potentially, can be located in or near city centers.
And maintenance costs?
Maglev structures are not subject to the same stresses and do not require the same intensity of maintenance as railroad tracks, so the cost - while not nil - should not be prohibitive to the operation of the train.
The construction cost is what would make long range maglev routes difficult to finance and justify today. As you pointed out, the SMT cost $1.3 billion for 19 miles.
I don't know how quiet they are and how much the magnetic field would interfere with nearby electronics, so I can't say.
However, you'd probably have the same NIMBY issues with laying new rails or building a new airport.
From the outside, yes. From the inside, no.
Conan the Grammarian at April 19, 2012 4:49 PM
Conan, sorry to mispeg you.
There are no subsidies. Air travel is taxed almost extortionately. Not only are tickets taxed at up to 40% (and, IIRC, airlines have been forced to include those taxes in their prices, rather than breaking them out separately), but the fuel is heavily taxed as well.
Check out the Aviation Trust Fund sometime.
Jeff Guinn at April 19, 2012 5:22 PM
Of course airlines receive subsidies. How about that post-9/11 bailout? Maybe that hasn't translated into savings for flyers, but it's still a subsidy.
CC at May 17, 2012 5:44 AM
Leave a comment