Tea Party governors unwittingly help California, hurt themselves

[WildCat]

I love the absolute confidence born of absolute ignorance that characterizes the conservative position.

You have no idea what the operating costs of the rail will be. You have no idea what the fuel costs for the airplanes will be. You have no idea how many passengers the rail will draw. Basically, you know nothing whatsoever,....

... except that you know that airplanes will always be cheaper than railroads.

How much profit did Amtrak make last year?

And I know exactly how much California's HSR is supposed to cost. And I will bet you they exceed those projected costs by at least 30%.

 

[WildCat]

If California is a donor state it is actually subsidizing other states instead of the other way around.

That's not how it works. California isn't owed anything even if it is a donor state.

Come to Portland, OR and be amazed at the impossible! You can buy monthly passes as well. Buying what I can easily carry covers me for three to four days. Especially if you have a reusable bag and backpack grocery shopping by way of mass transit is very viable. I moved out when I was 18, did not own a car until I was 24, and for six years did the brunt of my grocery shopping by walking or mass transit. As is I grocery shop on average twice a week once at the beginning and once at the end of my work week. I stop by the store on my way home from work. Mass transit would be cheaper than car for my daily commute, the only problem is it takes 3 hours most days and requires a 45 minute walk on Sundays when I already work a 12.x hour shift. If mass transit were viable for my work commute my grocery shopping habits would not need to really change. I see people with groceries on our light rail all the time. It is done in Japan. It is done in Europe. It is done in the US.

How did the train morph into mass transit in general? At any rate, mass transit is also a big money loser, though one I think makes some sense. Here in Chicago a ride costs $2.25 or so (depends on how you pay), but there is also a government subsidy of about $7.50 per ride.

 

[eeyore1954]

I love the absolute confidence born of absolute ignorance that characterizes the conservative position.

You have no idea what the operating costs of the rail will be. You have no idea what the fuel costs for the airplanes will be. You have no idea how many passengers the rail will draw. Basically, you know nothing whatsoever,....

... except that you know that airplanes will always be cheaper than railroads.

How do you know Wildcat has no idea of these items. From my experience usually Wildcat is knowledgeable about the facts.
Or are you referring to the fact that no one knows for sure what those costs will be in the future. you still have to go by educated estimates

 

[WildCat]

The ticket prices have already been set too. They will not exceed 75% of a comparable airline ticket and may be as low as 35% of same.....and that's compared to existing Southwest fares which will be a thing of the past in 2012 when Southwest will have to jack up their prices by almost 200%.

The cost for a business traveller isn't just the ticket price. There is also the cost of sitting in a train rather than of being at work. If it takes 4 extra hours to take the train for the business traveler you must add the costs of paying that employee 4 extra hours. And that doesn't even take into account opportunity costs.

 

[WildCat]

TSA standards can be increased until it is.

What on earth makes you think the TSA doesn't have similar plans for trains as they do for airplanes? In fact, such plans are already in the works.

 

[WildCat]

No. There's a miniscule chance he might have guessed right. If you ask me the population of a town in China that I've never heard of,... well, there's approximately one chance in several million I might be able to correctly name the number.

But I'm fairly confident that he's not right, simply because there's so many more ways of being wrong by chance than being right by chance.

Except I'm not basing anything on chance.

The fact is, government owned passenger railroads in the US are all heavily subsidized, and the fares charged pay only a fraction of the costs.

But your innocent, childlike belief that this time the government railroad will pay for itself is so refereshing! Takes me back to being 8 years old or so, when I believed everything politicians claimed.

 

[WildCat]

SF to LA probably is more of relief for short-hop flights than auto transit, though a 3 hour train ride sounds a lot more attractive than an 8+ hour drive especially if the cost can be had for the same price as a short-hop special on the airlines (~$60+ one way, ~$100 RT).

What makes you think it will be 3 hours?

800 miles of track… up to 24 stations…

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/project_vision.aspx

If each stop takes 5 minutes, that's 2 hours from start to finish just sitting at the 24 stations. And with so many stops, the train may never even be able to reach its maximum speed, at least not for any extended length of time.

 

[Random]

How much profit did Amtrak make last year?

And I know exactly how much California's HSR is supposed to cost. And I will bet you they exceed those projected costs by at least 30%.

How much profit did the US Interstate system make last year?

We provide heavy subsidies to airlines and automobiles without blinking, but for some reason, subsidies to rail transit are considered a waste. Why is that?

 

[Trakar]

What makes you think it will be 3 hours?

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/project_vision.aspx

If each stop takes 5 minutes, that's 2 hours from start to finish just sitting at the 24 stations. And with so many stops, the train may never even be able to reach its maximum speed, at least not for any extended length of time.

I was just going by the distance divided by ~110mph. It wouldn't make much sense to have a high speed rail that never realized the advantages of high speed. while there may be some runs that stop at most or all stops, there are certain to be "express" type runs that run LA to SF with no (or few) intervening stops.

Additionally, If I understand the trains being proposed, they shouldn't have a hard time hitting top speed between many of their stops. A problem however is that there is no Sac to SF run, as I had initially thought, in which case this will not at all address or ease the huge daily back and forth migration of people between Sac and SF.

 

[eeyore1954]

Yes it seems that new governors of Wisconsin and Ohio have turned down money from the Feds for high speed rail and so Nope. Instead their $620 million will go to California where we are committed to building a functioning high speed rail system that will be whisking people from San Diego to San Francisco and Sacramento by 2025. Along with it will be 160,000 jobs plus cleaner air!

I would love to see the breakdown of the 160,000 jobs that will be created. It sounds like to much to me. I would think of the high speed rail as more capital intensive and less labor intensive but I know little about it.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I would love to see the breakdown of the 160,000 jobs that will be created. It sounds like to much to me. I would think of the high speed rail as more capital intensive and less labor intensive but I know little about it.

The job creation comes in because the rail will be in the form of 80,000 sedan chairs.

 

[elbe]

What makes you think it will be 3 hours?

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/project_vision.aspx

If each stop takes 5 minutes, that's 2 hours from start to finish just sitting at the 24 stations. And with so many stops, the train may never even be able to reach its maximum speed, at least not for any extended length of time.

You brought up that silly argument in another thread and I demonstrated how it's bull by pointing out that japan had a similar distance of track for its HSR with more stops.

And as all sensible rail plans it should have express routes with fewer stops and "local" routes with more stops. You adapt the system to offer more of what the community requires.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I'm holding out for the quantum teleportation system.

 

[Tony]

The best the Ohio lane could do would be 110MPH by 2022, and it would start at peak speeds of 79. It would share rails with freight (which would limit the speeds). Making things even get to 110 would require more modifications. Anything higher would require completely new lines, which we weren't planning on and would have cost a lot more. Note that 110MPH doesn't meet anyone's definition for HSR that I am aware of.

Overall it just wasn't a very good plan.

I agree, that isn't a good plan. But the solution is to change the plan, not ditch the idea all together. He threw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[drkitten]

How do you know Wildcat has no idea of these items. From my experience usually Wildcat is knowledgeable about the facts.

Our experiences obviously differ. In my experience, the only "facts" Wildcat knows about are the ones he makes up out of whole cloth, such as when he disregards the cost estimates for the proposed railroad and simply pulls a 30% cost overrun out of his ass (post #41), ignores the planned pricing structure entirely (#26, see also here) ignores the proven existence of express trains (#47), or the fact that both Japan and Europe have demonstrated that high speed trains are usually faster than regional planes because trains can and will take you to the center of town (#26 again).

So, no, he isn't even knowledgeable about the existing plans; in the areas where he claims knowledge, he then immediately disregards the knowledge and prefers to make up his own numbers.

Or are you referring to the fact that no one knows for sure what those costs will be in the future.

That's certainly a big factor; costs of plane travel are dominated by oil costs, which are well understood to be extremely volatile and hard to predict.

you still have to go by educated estimates

... unless you're a hardcore conservative, in which case you make numbers up and declare surety in them, no matter how much they vary from the actual educated estimates.

 

[elbe]

I concur with drkitten. From what I've seen Wildcat seems to just not like the idea, assumes no one else does either, and then tries to rationalize it as bad with examples that run counter than existing evidence.

We've got the benefit that there are a dozen countries HSR already, or in development, and we can use them as examples. Learn from what others have done, it makes the most sense.

And if there are obviously not enough people who'd want to travel quickly by mass transit between two major cities than I guess the entire airline industry is imaginary.

 

[Travis]

The cost for a business traveller isn't just the ticket price. There is also the cost of sitting in a train rather than of being at work. If it takes 4 extra hours to take the train for the business traveler you must add the costs of paying that employee 4 extra hours. And that doesn't even take into account opportunity costs.

Well the train will be quicker than flying with all the added time of security checks for flying. 2 hours 40 minutes for SF to LA isn't too shabby.

Plus there will be WiFi on all the trains so that 2 hour 40 minute trip can be productive.



As for jobs: There will be over 30,000 people employed at the heavy maintenance facility alone IIRC. There is debate over where it will be located and right now it appears it will be either in Merced or Fresno with both cities scrambling to be picked (Fresno has even bought a huge chunk of land at their expense to donate they are so eager for it). There will also be light maintenance facilities in South San Francisco, Sacramento, Orange County and San Diego with 3-5,000 jobs at each. Then you have to figure in administration, upkeep of tracks/centenaries, crews on the trains, security and staffing at over 24 separate stations. Add in knock on effects to contractors during construction and expansion and you get a lot of jobs rather quickly with most of them in a part of California that currently has an unemployment rate around 20%.


And that's not even considering the green dividend (which is hugely important to me) of having a more efficient and environmentally friendly way to move people.

 

[Travis]

I was just going by the distance divided by ~110mph. It wouldn't make much sense to have a high speed rail that never realized the advantages of high speed. while there may be some runs that stop at most or all stops, there are certain to be "express" type runs that run LA to SF with no (or few) intervening stops.

Roughly one out of six trains leaving San Francisco or LA would be expresses that would hit 220 mph while going through the valley. All turn radius's and right of ways are being planned with that in mind.

Additionally, If I understand the trains being proposed, they shouldn't have a hard time hitting top speed between many of their stops. A problem however is that there is no Sac to SF run, as I had initially thought, in which case this will not at all address or ease the huge daily back and forth migration of people between Sac and SF.

You can thank Union Pacific for that. They own the tracks between Sac and SF and do not want any HSR near it because they fear it will impede their freight operations in some magical way they haven't yet elaborated on.

There is a plan to create a cut off from San Jose to Stockton though called the Altamont Overlay which will cut a SF to Sac trip to just about an hour.

 

[Policenaut]

Regarding hsr not hitting top speeds Amtrak's Acela Express has a somewhat high top speed of 150 mph (actually it's more like 165 but I believe they are capped at 150 for various reasons) but the average speed is about half that. This is mainly due to poorly laid out rail lines/infrastructure in certain states.

 

[applecorped]

HSFail