I was watching the local news a few weeks ago and they were talking about one of the light rail lines in LA, and they said beginning in a few weeks the fares would be become mandatory. After 7.5 years they decided the honor system of paying the fares wasn't working. Geniuses!

How very surprising it is that ridership is light, because, after all, wouldn't one expect jillions of people to want to travel between USC and the edge of Culver City? That route is at least as busy as the one between Pocatello, Idaho, and Waco, Texas.

The purpose of this "project," like most modern projects in California, has nothing to do with delivering anything useful. Rather, it is merely a vehicle -- get it, "vehicle?" -- for special interests to get taxpayers' money. In this case, the unions that put career politicians in office downtown gets plenty of money for year after year after year.

Whether the train lines they build actually benefit the public is a matter of indifference to them. That's why we have a subway that does not quite reach the airport, and why the planned "subway to the sea" won't go near the sea, but will instead stop at the VA hospital, miles away. "Put on your swimsuits, kids! We're going to the hospital!"

LA has a pretty high population density, so trains may work pretty well there. In places like Singapore and Malaysia, trains are the primary mode of transport and are highly profitable even though the fares are pretty cheap. Wonder if it is the overpaid union employees who make passenger trains in USA unprofitable or it is something else. The NY subway is always full just like Singapore and if LA is constructed like NY, I don't see why it can't turn a profit unless someone is really managing things badly(for their own profit?)

Actually the NY subway usually runs at a loss; it's subsidized by bridge and tunnel tolls that the MTA collects. And I've been on it plenty of times when it wasn't anywhere near full. Per this article (which admittedly is about six years old now), NY subway ridership peaked right after WWII and has been declining ever since. And the system is facing hundreds of millions of dollars in future expenses due to deferred maintenance.

You have an excellent point about how the cost of constructing and operating rail systems is artificially padded by unions and corrupt government. However, the same can be said of highway construction.

The problem with LA's Metro is that there's been no attempt to lure middle-class riders. Unlike DC, where the business hub was the first location to be served. And you still can't go to LAX via the Metro.

Sigh.

The authors' citation is given current ridership. Gee, we buy a certificate of deposit, we know verbatim about the "past perfomance..." caveat, but it's fun to discard it here.

I believe, but haven't researched, that most MTA's are a break even proposition at best. Doing rail is even more questionable. You hare locked into the rail and can't change when conditions change.

Reading the actual article it appears that it would still be a minimum of 34.7 years to pay for the debacle as it currently stands. Let alone the cost of running a spur to the "high speed rail" system if it ever becomes a reality.

This sounds like a total debacle created by someone's fever dreams.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott is in the past. What needs to happen is get the government out transportation business and let the free market handle it. You don't need elaborate regulations for buses, taxis, limos, or van pooler services. What you need is a business license and a basic safety inspection on a regular basis. Even stated fares are questionable. The free market can handle it after that.

Jim, the free market has no access to eminent domain.

Jim, the free market has no access to eminent domain. -- Radwaste at May 6, 2012 6:21 PM

So very true. So the free market capitalist then either has to bargain with the private land owner or find a different solution.

We see the demand for light rail was apparently overestimated by the government.

From the Reason Article:

The total projected cost of both phases of the construction of the line is $2.43 billion. At that rate, it will take 34.7 years for the train to collect enough revenue to pay for the cost of construction. And that math only works if the train carries 64,000 full-fare passengers beginning right now rather than in 2030. The Expo Line has been under development since 1990, but the MTA now hopes that it can be paid for with a half-cent sales tax [pdf] approved by voters (for all traffic-relief purposes, not just the Expo Line) in 2008. This tax is expected to raise $30 billion over its 30-year life.

If this was a free market enterprise, they would go out of business. They wouldn't be able to suck the money out of every private person's pocket that buys a bottle of soda, let alone a some expensive, durable item. If a free market businessman came up to you and said "invest in my product or service for 15+ years until I start actually providing the service or product. Oh, and you won't see a positive ROI for 35 years," what would your response be?

Another thing to note is the Expo Line has been under development since 1990. Was it needed in 1991 or 1992? If not, then why was it started?

Did the voters in 2008 know the MTA was going to try and suck the tax money to fund the failed venture?

And if you say this is only something the government can do, explain why the multi-billion dollar airlines can make a profit without direct funding from the government. Why could Pan Am be allowed to fail. (There is the whole subsidized airports, fuel, FAA stuff -- but untwisting that is another ball of worms.)

The point is that the private sector can find solutions on their own as desired by the consuming public. Once the government dictates the solution, it has a built in failure factor.

And as far as eminent domain -- it has been so abused by local authorities in taking/forcing sales of private property to commercial interests. "A home could be considered blighted, says Jim Saleet, if it doesn't have the following: three bedrooms, two baths, an attached two-car garage and central air."*

If rail, in any form, was still successful why do we have to continue to subsidize Amtrak? Why haven't private, commercial ventures try to build high speed rail?

* www.cbsnews.com/2100-18560_162-575343.html

Slight Devil's Advocacy here, Jim P.

If rail, in any form, was still successful why do we have to continue to subsidize Amtrak? Why haven't private, commercial ventures try to build high speed rail?

Because of what Radwaste said above.

the free market has no access to eminent domain

It would be nice to postulate a world where there was a free market solution.

http://xkcd.com/669/

But like that comic, we don't live in such a world.

Since we don't, there's just no real way to get that much done to cut a straight shot across many multiples of land, negotiate, and even assuming everything goes well, if things look good, have the government smash the idea/plan/attempt flat.

Since we don't, there's just no real way to get that much done to cut a straight shot across many multiples of land, negotiate, and even assuming everything goes well, if things look good, have the government smash the idea/plan/attempt flat. -- Unix-Jedi at May 7, 2012 7:55 AM

if things look good, have the government smash the idea/plan/attempt flat

Why does the government have any say in the creation of a railway from L.A. to S.F.? If you cite Wickard v. Filburn then you don't have a clue.

there's just no real way to get that much done to cut a straight shot across many multiples of land, negotiate, and even assuming everything goes well

So the next resort is to have government, at any level, come in and tell John Smith "You have no rights to your property?"

It would be nice to postulate a world where there was a free market solution.

There is -- air transport, buses, Amtrak. As it stands now you have a trade-off, speed or cost. If a commercial venture thought it could have made money with high speed, point-to-point rail from L.A. to S.F., with or without government coercion, why haven't they done it?

Hell, for Bill Gates, Ellison, Buffet, etc, this would be a "drop in the bucket." Why haven't they done it?

There is a standard most of us in the business world have to operate in:

• Good
• Fast
• Cheap

Pick any two.

About the only government project that I consider quick and fast is the SR-71. Cheap was not in it. The usual standard for government is pick any one.