[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

A basic problem with this high speed rail is paradoxical.

This is, that about the only place you can put such rail is over the same right of way already used by low speed rail.

And almost all the low speed rail right of ways West of the Mississippi are owned by Union Pacific. Creating new right of way would be insanely expensive.

But this also means that the California high speed rail is intended to take the place of low speed rail lines. And in this case, if low speed rail already existed, it is a great indicator of how profitable high speed rail lines would be.

In a nutshell, it isn’t. The low speed rail lines on this route have long been money losers. There just isn’t the demand they need even for low speed rail.

But, they insist, high speed rail will be profitable. Because it is high! and speed! and rail!

And that is no way to run a railroad.

[Mr. Lucky]

The low speed rail lines on this route have long been money losers.

Isn't Union Pacific pretty much the most profitable railroad on the planet?

[socialism_stinX]

You're right on target. High-speed rail will lose money in California for a long, long time, simply because in the foreseeable future people will still need cars to get around in California's major cities. By the time train passengers wait for the shuttle bus to the rental car company, stand in line to rent their cars, return their cars and take the shuttle back to the train station, and pay for their rental cars, they will have used up most of the time and all the money they saved by taking high-speed rail instead of driving. So the only people who will want to take the high-speed train are people who are on business and are staying reasonably close to the train station, or people who have family & friends who can pick them up at the train station. This eliminates a big group of potential riders and will cause high-speed rail to lose money at least until 2050. Quite possibly, high speed rail will never be able to break even on cash flow in CA.

For the foreseeable future, high-speed rail is really only going to work well in the Northeast in the Boston to Washington corridor where cities are more compact and it's easier to get around by walking and using cabs, and public transportation takes you to many more places than it cam take you to in CA. In the very long run, maybe in the second half of this century, when public transportation improves greatly in CA, then high-speed rail could make sense and at least break even. We shouldn't be spending tax money and borrowed money on this project until then.