You know you are in trouble when a liberal bastion such as the Washington Post questions your big-government program. So last week’s editorial questioning the California High-Speed Rail Authority for being “bound and determined to start building the railroad before its long-term funding is clear” should be one more sign that the rail project is doomed.
The editorial cites a recent report from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office recommending that the state stop funding high-speed rail other than $7 million for “needed administrative tasks.” The report also urges the state to negotiate with the feds for more flexibility on where to spend the rail grants it has received. One of the federal grants required that funds be spent in the congressional districts of some Democrats who were fighting close re-election campaigns. As the Post says, this is likely to result in California spending “a fortune to plan and build a stretch of high-speed track that would end up as a railroad to nowhere.”
There’s a broader use and application, utilised by folks of dyslexics and by cialis generico 5mg Continue Shopping dyslexic adults. If once taken the medicine, buy cialis http://secretworldchronicle.com/category/podcast/season-nine-avalanche/ the effect of it remains quite debatable. I know buy levitra from india this is a completely sick situation but for some funny reason the whole bloody world is going towards it. It has also been seen that men are overtly a lot more active sexually as compared to go to these guys levitra price women. The analyst’s report also noted that the main question was whether the project’s benefits outweighed the risks, and concluded that “there is little reliable information available to inform this decision.” “Think about that for a minute,” says the Post. “Fifteen years have passed, and millions of dollars have been spent on studies since the state first passed a law creating a high-speed rail program. Yet after all that, no one really knows whether it’s worth doing. If no one has come up with a convincing rationale by now, maybe there isn’t one.”
While the Antiplanner cheers that thought, reality is not so simple. If we were talking about a project that could earn a profit without any significant externalities, few would question whether the benefits would exceed the costs. But most government programs, unfortunately, do not earn a profit. While the costs may be clear, benefits are often in the eye of the beholder. Those who think automobiles are evil and government should do everything it can to get people out of them are more likely to find this project beneficial than those who don’t.
It really comes down to a philosophy of government. If you believe government should provide a level playing field and otherwise let people make their own choices, then it makes more sense to simply end all transportation subsidies than to throw huge wads of money at new transportation projects. If, on the other hand, you believe government should determine what is right and encourage people in that direction even if they don’t want to go there, then you probably love high-speed rail. The fact that the Washington Post, which is so often in the latter camp, has defected to the former is good news for those of us who believe in small government.
The CA-HSR project is a real stinker. The ridership projections developed by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) have been called into question by the University of California’s Institute of Transportation Studies. In their report “Review of ‘Bay Area/California High-Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Forecasting Study’,†they write: “However, the combination of problems in the development phase and subsequent changes made to model parameters in the validation phase implies that the forecasts of high speed rail demand—and hence of the profitability of the proposed high speed rail system—have very large error bounds.”
Furthermore, the California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group’s November 2010 report raised a number of questions that collectively called into question the CHSRA’s business plan. Until the issues raised by these reports are properly addressed by the CHSRA, any ridership projections or other documents published by the Authority should be considered unreliable. Finally, until funding is secured for the entire project, no one should not assume high-speed trains will be available to reduce demand for flights between northern and southern California.
Sources:
http://www.its.berkeley.edu/publications/UCB/2010/RR/UCB-ITS-RR-2010-1.pdf
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Peer-Review-Report-November-2010.pdf
http://www.calhsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Letter-to-van-Ark.pdf
http://www.calhsr.com/uncategorized/what-will-high-speed-rail-cost/
This report from the LA Times indicates that the Feds won’t push back the deadlines:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20110526,0,2238562.story
You can expect CHSRA to use this to justify their “full speed ahead” approach, after all, you don’t want to lose that “free” federal money.
In regards to HSR criticisms, has the Antiplanner done research regarding Europes HSR ambitions? I’ve looked at blogs of high speed rail supporters who say that it’s financially successful in European countries. Others talk about their experiences with rail. They claim it’s profitable. Are there any anti-rail advocates in Europe.
In England, they are having the same debate about the proposed “High Speed 2” line:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/8147330/High-speed-rail-do-we-need-it.html
It’s about time this high speed train-wreck, if you’ll pardon the pun, is put to rest.
And at that, Mr. Barrón is referring to breaking even when not including capital costs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/30/business/energy-environment/30trains.html?em
“High-speed rail is good for society and it’s good for the environment, but it’s not a profitable business,†said Mr. Barrón of the International Union of Railways. He reckons that only two routes in the world — between Tokyo and Osaka, and between Paris and Lyon, France — have broken even.
And how is it “good for society” and “good for the environment”, I wonder? These are merely platitudes used to sell these boondoggles to a credulous public.
Though please keep in mind that roads don’t make money and are not required to make money.
So what, Highwayman? Do you think that if you keep repeating that inane one-liner, everyone will support high speed rail all of a sudden?
No, it just shows that you guys are frauds.