Skip to comments.Study: CA High-Speed Rail Will Lose $124-$373 Million A Year
Posted on 04/13/2013 11:59:34 AM PDT by george76
the California High-Speed Rail System will saddle taxpayers with losses between $124 million to $373 million a year.
Exaggerated ridership estimates and slower-than-promised trip speeds make the California bullet train project a big financial loser for taxpayers...
The [California High-Speed Rail Authoritys] financing assertions are virtual fantasy
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Prime example would be the Rail Runner between Albuquerque and Santa Fe New Mexico. Loser!
C’mon. This is Kalifornia we are talking about here. Since when do they worry about money problem?
“At least we have a super cool High Speed Rail system, none of you mid-west redneckers have one. Na na na na na na”
I would double those estimates to err on the safe side.
“A big financial loser for taxpayers”..... But not for California Democrats!
Get all on board the love train, love train, love train!
The next stop that we’ll make will be the bank.
Tell all the folks we’re buying yachts, too!
If 1 cent was spent on this study it was a waste of money.
Here’s all that ever needs to be known about constructing a rail line; If it’s worth it, private enterprise will build it and run it at a profit. If government builds it, it will never make a profit and therefore is not worth the effort!
Jerry Brown Math: We’re losing $500 per passenger mile traveled, but we’ll make up for it in volume!
Frankly, I would double your double to be doubly safe. No kidding.
Print more money...we have plenty of paper and ink left. Happy days are here again! What does it matter?
It will be twice that estimate, AT LEAST
This was spelled out very plainly in Burton Folsom’s excellent book “The Myth of the Robber Barons.” Every government subsidized rail line and steamship line in the 1800s was a huge money loser. Those built with private capital made tons of money.
An “All Saints” line would make more sense.
San Diego to San Fransisco with stops in San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Santa Ana, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, San Luis Obispo, San Ardo, San Miguel, Santa Cruz, and San Jose, with the possibility of extending it to San Rafael and Santa Rosa...
Paid parking at light rail stations was tried, they lost $100,000 during the trial period. So they will probably expand it. Even though it loses money, its more about control.
This number can’t include capital cost amortization. At $100 billion (likely way more) and bonds have to pay 4%.
$4 billion per year for these costs alone. That’s a big nut.
And the product is inferior to a Southwest Airline flight that does the same thing.
I am “shocked” that you would post this photo.;)
Good union jobs at good union wages. That’s all that matters.
Since freight traffic is going to pay for rail upkeep and force scheduling, passenger rail systems can never share the same right of way as freight! And, without rails, passenger rail systems will need ENORMOUS SUBSIDIES forever ~ plus, competing forms of transportation (personal automobiles, and airplanes) are more comfortable than the best rail passenger system under any conditions.
I'm betting on AUTOMATED AUTOMOBILES and an entirely new concept of transportation. These devices will turn into a utility.
How do you explain the current passenger routes sharing rights of way with freight now?
i just did. Passenger service sharing tracks with freight service is stupid!
“Boxcar” Willie Green is that you?
So when you wrote “can never” you meant “should never.”
Given the technical understanding of the politicians who scarf up the subsidies, those systems ‘can never’ ~ outside of isolated ‘subway’ systems, rail is dead when it comes to passenger traffic. It’s a waste of money to try to bring it back. Freight, on the other hand, IS rail these days in this country.
Collectivists don’t measure success by a cost/benefit formula. Success is simply doing the project, never mind the cost or the wisdom of it.
” It will be twice that estimate, AT LEAST”
My guess? 4 times.
But the well connected will make multi-millions and politicians will get huge campaign contributions.
That’s what really counts - isn’t it?
...the right track.
Yet the Reason Foundation says even those lowered estimates are unrealistic; 2035 ridership is likely to be 65% to 77% lower.
Not This (Stuff) Again. Ok Jerry, let's go over this just one more time, then you really have to go to bed.
The latest estimates are for $100B in capital costs to build the thing. That's the stations and rails and trains. $100B at let's say 5% interest (because CA is broke and their bonds should pay what these days is considered "top dollar") is $5B per year. Divide that by the very most optimistic estimate of 30M passengers per year to get $166 per passenger.
The state would do better to pay for a no-advance-purchase Southwest ticket and a SuperShuttle for door-to-door service at each end.
Oh and of course that doesn't count operating expenses of salaries, fuel to run the thing (the most-expensive "green" energy they can find of course), advertising, etc. Add that in and now your Southwest passenger gets a day at Disneyland or a night at a hotel courtesy of the state as well.
Do these loses include amortizing the (enormous) capital cost; or are they just losses on annual operating costs?
It costs a lot of money to save the planet...
My rule of thumb was that freight made the expenses, mail made the profit, and passengers made the cake.
Of course, government cannot understand any of that.
“Even though it loses money, its more about control.”
And as P.J. O’Rourke often says, “Government programs are not failures, they’re underfunded”
Now there is daylight on the reasons why the water was taken from the richest part of the Central Valley of Calif,.
The high speed rail will go rith thru there. Cost of land acquisition went down drastically.
Today’s CA public works = Democrat money-laundering operations through unions.