High speed rail in the US.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Joe Vranich's testimony (which you curiously ignored ) confirms that the ridership levels projected were twice (actually ore than that) what any other HSR project has achieved.

The Berkeley study was confirmed last year. this wasn't a study commisioned by critics, it was commissioned by the State of California. Joe Vranich likewise wasn't called to testify as a critic, he is a lifelong proponent of HSR. But he couldn't endorse this white elephant.

Well, wonderful for the Berkeley study, but where does that support the claim that "ridership levels projected were twice (actually ore than that) what any other HSR project has achieved".

Your link cites 117 million passengers per year as the projection for 2030 (out of date information BTW). One line of the Shinkansen HSR does 150 million per year right now. What definition of ridership are you using??

 

[Kestrel]

And we would need to adress the eminent domain issues. To make the HSR work we'll have to take a lot of property from people and transfer it over to a private company. While the supreme court may be cool with **** like this (see Kelo vs New London) most of the rest of the country views that as theft.

A rather odd form of theft where the victim is compensated for the value of their property.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What on earth are you blathering about? Airports turn a profit, as I've proven.

Yeah. So why can't trains be profitable using the same financing model? (you can defer on this to Beerina if you want, it was more his/her claim that the financing model was an obstacle).

Unless you really don't see the difference between government-funded projects that add to the economy as opposed to government-funded projects that suck money out of the economy?

OK, explain to me how the money will get removed from the economy.

You're now going beyond claiming that this will be merely unprofitable but will actually make money disappear??

 

[WildCat]

Even the Japanese and Euro trains require huge operational subsidies to keep running. And there is an extremely good mass trainsit system in both SF and LA - its called buses and cabs, same as in europe and Japan.

I wouldn't be against an operating subsidy if it offered some other tangible benefits. For example, it costs the passenger $2.50 to ride a CTA train here in Chicago but the actual cost is closer to $9. However, keeping those people off the roads means less congestion for those for whom the CTA is not an option and reduces smog and other air pollution. Businesses do better when people can get to them, especially in areas with very limited parking.

But I'm just not seeing the extra benefits for the California HSR project.

The section they just passed the law to build (Brown is sure to sign it), btw, is not Los Angeles to San Francisco. It's a 130 mile span from Madera to Bakersfield. A train from nowhere to nowhere.

 

[WildCat]

Well, wonderful for the Berkeley study, but where does that support the claim that "ridership levels projected were twice (actually ore than that) what any other HSR project has achieved".

For the 3rd time, watch the damned video. In it you will find Joe Vranich's testimony that the California ridership estimates are twice that of any other HSR project anywhere else on the planet, according to a formula of population near the tracks.

Will I have to point this out to you 4 times?

 

[WildCat]

Yeah. So why can't trains be profitable using the same financing model? (you can defer on this to Beerina if you want, it was more his/her claim that the financing model was an obstacle).

What on earh does the financing model have to do with whether or not something is profitable? That comes down to revenuse vs. expenses, financing models being only peripherally involved.

OK, explain to me how the money will get removed from the economy.

You're now going beyond claiming that this will be merely unprofitable but will actually make money disappear??

Because tracks have to be maintained, equipment has to be maintained, property has to be maintained, and employees have to be paid. And when the revenues don't exceed these expenses (and you have shown no credible studies showing they won't) that money will come from schools, from infrastructure, from police, from firefighters, from everything else in the state budget that isn't HSR.

Mountain Area school districts face another year of reduced state funding -- what could be slashed further mid-year if a November tax initiative to help education fails.

Yet while funding remains uncertain, school districts are still required to submit their set budgets to the state for 2012-13 before school starts.
After five years of state cuts to education, Yosemite Unified School District and Bass Lake Joint Union Elementary School District have almost depleted their reserve funds, and this is the third year that Chawanakee Unified School District has taken out short-term loans for assistance.

http://www.sierrastar.com/2012/07/05/58737/area-school-districts-brace-for.html

But billions for HSR, good job Brownie!

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

For the 3rd time, watch the damned video. In it you will find Joe Vranich's testimony that the California ridership estimates are twice that of any other HSR project anywhere else on the planet, according to a formula of population near the tracks.

Will I have to point this out to you 4 times?

You can repeat wrong as often as you like. I listened to some of his opinions. They do not support this claim:

California's official projections call for ridership more than twice that of any other HSR system on the planet.

That sentence is simply wrong. California's ridership projections are less than at least one other single line's current ridership. And less than double that of several others. And the ridership of Japan's HSR system is four times the current projected ridership for California's final HSR system as proposed now.

Your claim above is simply wrong. An accurate claim is that you've got some experts who think the projection is optimistic because it wasn't done the way they would do it.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

What on earh does the financing model have to do with whether or not something is profitable?

That's my question. Go back and read what Beerina wrote and why I questioned it.

Because tracks have to be maintained, equipment has to be maintained, property has to be maintained, and employees have to be paid. And when the revenues don't exceed these expenses (and you have shown no credible studies showing they won't) that money will come from schools, from infrastructure, from police, from firefighters, from everything else in the state budget that isn't HSR.

That's not leaving the economy, which is what you claimed.

And apparently you don't agree with them, but at least two citations have been made showing the various costs assocatied with addressing California's growing transportation needs. Those needs aren't going away. There isn't really a choice between spending this money on HSR or schools. There is a choice between spending this money on HSR or some alternative method(s) of travel.

 

[WildCat]

You can repeat wrong as often as you like. I listened to some of his opinions. They do not support this claim:


That sentence is simply wrong. California's ridership projections are less than at least one other single line's current ridership. And less than double that of several others. And the ridership of Japan's HSR system is four times the current projected ridership for California's final HSR system as proposed now.

Your claim above is simply wrong. An accurate claim is that you've got some experts who think the projection is optimistic because it wasn't done the way they would do it.

You obviously didn;t listen to Vranich's testimony at all.
The ridership stats weren't total numbers, but the percentage of the population that lives near the tracks who actually ride the trains.

Try again, and show me you actually understand what he was talking about this time.

Incidentally, he was citing facts, not opinions.

 

[dc1971]

Because it will accomplish nothing except for being a black hole into which gobs of cash will be thrown, never to be seen again.

HSR is so 1950s, the future is electric cars.

Gobs of cash will be thrown? Hmmm? I hear this same argument against the health care debate.

I think investment is a better word.

 

[WildCat]

That's my question. Go back and read what Beerina wrote and why I questioned it.

That's not leaving the economy, which is what you claimed.

I never said the money left the economy, I said it was a drag on the economy. Money spent with no tangible benefit, may as well just give it away randomly.

I never said the money left the economy, I said it was a drag on the economy. Money spent with no tangible benefit, may as well just give it away randomly. Except giving money away doesnt put you on the hook for future ccosts, which is what this project does.

I really don't see the point in discussing this with you if you are incapable of understanding what you read and hear.

And apparently you don't agree with them, but at least two citations have been made showing the various costs assocatied with addressing California's growing transportation needs. Those needs aren't going away. There isn't really a choice between spending this money on HSR or schools. There is a choice between spending this money on HSR or some alternative method(s) of travel.

I cited 2 studies commissioned by the state of California which found serious flaws in the methodology used by the company hand-picked by the rail proponents that showed California HSR was the bestest thing ever ever. I ignored your so-called study by rail buffs, perhaps you can show why I should give a damn what those partisan hacks believe?

And of course California could give the money they're spending on HSR to shore up their education system, they just choo-choose not to.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

You obviously didn;t listen to Vranich's testimony at all.

I did, but it wouldn't matter if I didn't. California's ridership projections can be looked up. The ridership statistics of other HSR projects can also be looked up. It's clear that California's projection for ridership are not twice that of what other HSR projects have achieved. They are lower than what other HSR projects achieve now.

The ridership stats weren't total numbers, but the percentage of the population that lives near the tracks who actually ride the trains.

That's not ridership. That's an indicator of ridership.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I never said the money left the economy, I said it was a drag on the economy. Money spent with no tangible benefit, may as well just give it away randomly.

I never said the money left the economy, I said it was a drag on the economy. Money spent with no tangible benefit, may as well just give it away randomly. Except giving money away doesnt put you on the hook for future ccosts, which is what this project does.

I really don't see the point in discussing this with you if you are incapable of understanding what you read and hear.

You said "sucked out of the economy" and you contrasted it to adding it to the economy.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

I ignored your so-called study by rail buffs, perhaps you can show why I should give a damn what those partisan hacks believe?

Are you referring to the summary of revenue and cost I posted? I don't care what you think of what they believe, I have no idea who they are. I spot checked their facts and used it because it was a convenient summary. If it's wrong, post something better.

 

[balrog666]

I never said the money left the economy, I said it was a drag on the economy. Money spent with no tangible benefit, may as well just give it away randomly.

I never said the money left the economy, I said it was a drag on the economy. Money spent with no tangible benefit, may as well just give it away randomly. Except giving money away doesnt put you on the hook for future ccosts, which is what this project does.

I really don't see the point in discussing this with you if you are incapable of understanding what you read and hear.


I cited 2 studies commissioned by the state of California which found serious flaws in the methodology used by the company hand-picked by the rail proponents that showed California HSR was the bestest thing ever ever. I ignored your so-called study by rail buffs, perhaps you can show why I should give a damn what those partisan hacks believe?

And of course California could give the money they're spending on HSR to shore up their education system, they just choo-choose not to.

Come on down, Cassandra, and tell us more about the great, big, wonderful promise of high-speed-rail between Podunk and Peedunk!

 

[Agammamon]

A rather odd form of theft where the victim is compensated for the value of their property.

1. Theft is theft, even when the victim is compensated. Eminent domain is for *public* works, not simply private initiatives that use public money.

2. Compensation is politically determined and is rarely at anything close to market calue.

 

[Agammamon]

I wouldn't be against an operating subsidy if it offered some other tangible benefits. For example, it costs the passenger $2.50 to ride a CTA train here in Chicago but the actual cost is closer to $9. However, keeping those people off the roads means less congestion for those for whom the CTA is not an option and reduces smog and other air pollution. Businesses do better when people can get to them, especially in areas with very limited parking.

Except that the number of people being kept off the road is a infitesimal fraction of the total number of road users - you're paying a large amount of money for a benifit that may as well not exist.

And studies of British rail show that rail actually generates somewhat more pollution per passenger mile than cars simply because most trains run pretty darn empty and the difference in fuel used to run the train at 10% capacity compared to 100% is pretty small.

 

[Agammamon]

You can repeat wrong as often as you like. I listened to some of his opinions. They do not support this claim:


That sentence is simply wrong. California's ridership projections are less than at least one other single line's current ridership. And less than double that of several others. And the ridership of Japan's HSR system is four times the current projected ridership for California's final HSR system as proposed now.

Your claim above is simply wrong. An accurate claim is that you've got some experts who think the projection is optimistic because it wasn't done the way they would do it.

Its kinda irrelevent whether the HSR's prjections are more or less than any other project - what's really important is how the numbers stack up compared to the number of people flying between those two cities.

 

[Agammamon]

That's not leaving the economy, which is what you claimed.

And apparently you don't agree with them, but at least two citations have been made showing the various costs assocatied with addressing California's growing transportation needs. Those needs aren't going away. There isn't really a choice between spending this money on HSR or schools. There is a choice between spending this money on HSR or some alternative method(s) of travel.

1. That's the broken window fallacy you're making. Yes, technically money is not leaving the economy but wealth is since that's money we'll spend on maintaining and operating a white elephant that had to come from taxpayers. Money those people could have used to buy a car, fix up a home, start a business.

2. We already have 2 great alternative transportation modes. Modes that have been proven to be flexible and profitable over a course of decades - planes and buses. Rail is sexy for pols - its a huge amount of up front money, big time contract work, and gets 'em a nice building to put their name on.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Its kinda irrelevent whether the HSR's prjections are more or less than any other project - what's really important is how the numbers stack up compared to the number of people flying between those two cities.

Well, no, I would think comparisons to lines between similar population centers would be very valuable comparisons. I would also think that it isn't just air travel you need to compare but also cars since HSR is intermediate between the two. Air travel between LA and San Francisco alone is about 2.8 million passengers per year, though. Don't know about car travel or other destinations along the way.

1. That's the broken window fallacy you're making. Yes, technically money is not leaving the economy but wealth is since that's money we'll spend on maintaining and operating a white elephant that had to come from taxpayers.

I'd only be making that fallacy if HSR turns out to be a complete boondoggle. And it sounded to me like WildCat was actually suggesting money would leave the economy.

Even if HSR turns out be the wrong choice it's not going to be a complete destruction of wealth.

Money those people could have used to buy a car, fix up a home, start a business.

I agree about the car part of this, but probably not the other two. CA has growing transportation needs that need to be addressed somehow. Possibly ignoring them is an option, but I think the morely likely options are choices of how to address these needs. And none of the options are free.