The California High-Speed Rail Authority has finally admitted that its insanely expensive rail project will be even more insanely expensive than its official projections. The most recent cost estimates for the “train to nowhere”–the first link of the project from north of Bakersfield to south of Merced–are 40 to 96 percent higher (depending on the alternative selected) than the original According to the cialis vs viagra theory of Chinese medicine, the stress can have a bad impact on the human body, hindering the circulation of blood and also a disorder across the whole body. Iatrogenic – Adverse effects of certain medications can greatly reduce your ability to viagra 100mg usa erect your penile organ. This recent spam in the form of invitation and hidden website link clearly indicates that this attack is an initiation buying levitra online and Google Plus will soon be considered as a mark of disgrace in the society and that is why it becomes mandatory to treat this problem. But did it give a better understanding about your son’s disease: About the Immune System The immune system is made up of a network of cells, tissues, and organs that work generic cialis in canada together to protect the body. projections. These aren’t even final engineering estimates; merely part of the line’s environmental impact report.
The California legislature should put this plan back on the ballot in June 2012, as proposed by Republican State Senator Doug La Malfa. If voters kill it in June, they can prevent the authority, which plans to start construction in September, 2012, from wasting any more money.
Or … maybe not.
“The higher cost estimates already have been factored into the federally funded construction, van Ark said.”
“The per-mile cost for the Central Valley segment is expected to be less than or in line with international averages for high-speed rail projects, said Roy Kienitz, undersecretary for policy with the U.S. Department of Transportation.”
BTW, a project can only be over projected cost once there is a firm definition of what the project is, and then it is put out to bid and built and the final price comes in above estimates. Changing a project estimate because you increased the scope or obtained better information on construction values does not put a project “over budget”. Instead, what is occurring is that the actual budget is being refined and set.
In any case, what is actually being discussed here are not a rise in project costs, but the cost of various alternatives to be studied. It would be pretty unlikely that the higher cost alternatives would be selected, wouldn’t it?
the “train to nowhereâ€â€“the first link of the project from north of Bakersfield to south of Merced
That would be a good description of Germany’s first Neubaustrecke from Hannover to Wurzburg too. How is the German ICE system and rail system working now in your view, 37 years on from the initiation of construction on high speed tracks? Has it been crippled by building an initial high speed rail line from nowhere to nowhere?
The Antiplanner wrote:
The most recent cost estimates for the “train to nowhereâ€â€“the first link of the project from north of Bakersfield to south of Merced–are 40 to 96 percent higher (depending on the alternative selected) than the original projections.
I am confident that the actual costs will be significantly higher than even the revised costs mentioned above.
Andrew wrote:
BTW, a project can only be over projected cost once there is a firm definition of what the project is, and then it is put out to bid and built and the final price comes in above estimates. Changing a project estimate because you increased the scope or obtained better information on construction values does not put a project “over budgetâ€. Instead, what is occurring is that the actual budget is being refined and set.
You can bob and weave all day and all night, but the question, which in my opinion California HSR backers have failed to answer, is this – is a project like this worth the untold billions of dollars that it will cost? The estimates of patronage impressed me (and others) as badly-flawed.
That would be a good description of Germany’s first Neubaustrecke from Hannover to Wurzburg too. How is the German ICE system and rail system working now in your view, 37 years on from the initiation of construction on high speed tracks? Has it been crippled by building an initial high speed rail line from nowhere to nowhere?
You miss the point entirely. Just because high-speed trains are appropriate for Germany (even since the Federal Republic of Germany took over the defunct East Germany, which significantly expanded its land area) does not mean that such trains are appropriate for the United States.
As the CIA’s World Factbook correctly puts it, the German land area is somewhat smaller than one U.S. state – Montana. Admittedly Montana is one of the larger U.S. states, but it’s a relatively small percentage of even the contiguous 48 United States.
And in spite of the large HSR network in Germany, according to Eurostat, the modal share of “inland travel” by German trains (ICE and others) was about 8.6% in 2008 (most-recent data available). You might be interested to know that passenger cars made up over 85% of all German trips in 2008.
Well like any addict the 1st step is to admit they have a problem. Why are they building the first track in the middle of 2 tiny towns. Shouldn’t they start in one of California’s Big Four. Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, or Sacramento? Of course it would still take an hour and 40 minutes to get to Merced from L.A. I’m sure their are buses that can take passengers from L.A. to Merced for less money.
I live here, and you can’t believe how nowhere to nowhere this initial line is.
Can somebody help me understand this?
Anyone can already travel between SF and LA by car, ride-share, bus, slow train, direct flights by large plane, and direct flights to smaller airports by small plane. So we are looking at creating a new mode in the middle-high price range and middle-fast time range.
So even if this is “needed,” why should the whole country heavily subsidize it?
Yes, the foo-foo European countries have fancy fast trains where the upper class can speed by the rural peasants at loud and dangerous speeds. And the peasants are heavily subsidizing it.
But tell me again why we want that? Is it really worth it so that wealthy people can travel downtown to downtown in 10 fewer minutes, or they can avoid the TSA search?
This California High Speed Train only makes sense for a very narrow niche. Is that a National Priority, over say repairing the credit rating?
Why is this the boondoggle that refuses to die? We don’t need this train. No one does. As Sandy Teal aptly said, there are many different ways of going from SF & LA. Someone is applying a lot of heat to keep this fantasy on the front burner.
Also bear in mind that it is completely, utterly impossible that this project can ever pay its way, even operating costs. I believe they were projecting the insane figure of 117 million riders a year, which is several times the entire Amtrak ridership of the whole US, not to mention the NE corridor, where Acela carries a little over 3 million passengers a year. 117 million! What are they smoking???
A couple of comments to all:
California has 37.2 million people, which is 234 per sq. mile, which is similar to Spain. It has been reliably adding 4 million people per decade for 70 years. That is called a trend. Projecting out 20-30 years, California will have 45 million people in 2030 and 49 million in 2040, at which point its population density will be over 300 per sq. mile, which is where France is today. California’s population density is also predicated on the inclusion of basically uninhabited areas like the Mojave Desert and everything north of Sacramento that will not be served by HSR. If you look at the area south of Sacramento and west of the Sierras, the population density is closer to 400 per sq. mile in an area of around 95,000 sq. miles today and will be over 500 per sq. mile in the future.
The ridership projections are predicated on a future build-out of the system and a higher statewide population a number of years from now. The French TGV system carries around 100 million passengers per year presently in a country with 65 million people and only one major connurbation – Paris. The California system is a slightly different model connecting the 20 million people in Southern California with 11 million people in Northern California (in the future with 12 million more people, those figures will probably be around 26 million and 15 million, as well as providing fast interregional travel between major business centers within regions. It might be appropriate in such a case to project slightly higher ridership than seen in France, since the system is simpler and more linear (essentially two “Y”s connected together instead of a hub and spoke on a single point of focus) – I am not a ridership expert.
Why build it? Because something needs to be done now to handle the influx of 12 million more people in the coming years given how long it takes to put major infrastructure in place. If you don’t build this you are committing yourself to lots more freeway and airport construction instead, and continuing to tie your economic and mobility future to the price of oil.
I know, all of that written above involves government planning and thinking about the future and trying to prepare for it, which this blog seems to be violently against.
And if the wealthy mostly ride it – so what? Businesses and the top 25% of income earners of the country pay the vast majority of taxes because they undertake much of the economic activity. They are merely getting a small benefit out of the vast outflows of money they send down the ladder every year via the government.
Last point, why build this instead of repairing the national credit rating? Maybe a better question is can we repair the credit rating via austerity measures that continue to take our infrastructure down the scale relative to other countries? Our infrastructure is already rated by global businesses as a negative for locating in this country. How much longer do we ignore that type of competitiveness factor that drives businesses to locate new plants across the ocean? We have people without jobs who are sucking hind teat via unemployment and food stamps and medicaid, and obviously not paying taxes or buying non-essentials that help keep others employed. And we have panicked investors fleeing to Treasuries and thus both feeding the deficit by creating a demand for debt and growing the deficit by refusing to invest in private industry and put people to work despite record low taxes and a tax code so favorable that numerous businesses and high worth individuals are paying 0-15% in taxes on income. We can’t afford it? We can borrow the cost of the project by issuing 30 year bonds tomorrow for around $1-2 billion per year for 30 years and a net value of around $15 billion to pay back the bonds 30 years from now thanks to relentless 3% annual inflation. If the project is even half of what it purports to achieve that is a no brainer financially for any government with that borrowing capacity.
What we cannot afford is continued handwringing about how to get the economy moving again – control the deficit now, redirect private investment from government debt to private enterprise, and redirect government spending into areas that promote economic growth and well-being – infrastrucuture, education, R&D.
What we cannot afford are continued giveaways to all economic levels of needed tax revenue, spending around $400 billion per year too much on national defense – an ultimately unproductive use of government income that produces no “return on investment” given our insularity provided by three oceans, and paying twice as much for health care as everywhere else in the civilized world. Add it up – $400 billion in excess defense spending, $400 billion in Bush income tax cuts, $100 billion in Obama Social Security tax cuts, $100 billion in unemployment and food stamps above normal, $200 billion in lost tax revenue from recession, $200+ billion in excessive health care spending – that is how you go from $200 billion surpluses in 2000 to $1.2 trillion deficits this year – not from spending a couple billion on high speed rail projects.
We could reverse it all in one year with only modest temporary pain as misallocated resources are redirected to better use. We did it in 1946 with the same formula – slash defense spending, redirect spending to education and infrastructure, and watch the economy take off. Once the government is no longer sucking up $1 trillion per year, that money will have to go somewhere else – namely buying things made in the US for shipment abroad in the case of foreigners trying to figure out where to park their dollars or being invested in other activities in the case of Americans.
Andrew wrote:
If you don’t build this you are committing yourself to lots more freeway and airport construction instead, and continuing to tie your economic and mobility future to the price of oil.
Please cite for me the law that mandates that vehicles driven on California’s freeways must use petroleum products for fuel.
CPZ:
What would cost more, high-speed rail or replacing the entire automobile fleet with electric vehicles and building out a brand new electric recharging station infrastructure?
CPZ:
Please cite for me the law that mandates that vehicles driven on California’s freeways must use petroleum products for fuel.
Its called the LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND and the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
Yes, I’m well aware of electric vehicles. I suppose you think 50 million of them in California will be powered by burning methane produced by unicorn farts, and that the entire population will suddenly have the cash to retrofit their garage and house electrical system for recharing multiple vehicles by plucking $20 off the money tree growing in the backyard?
Hey, I hope to be proven wrong, but I am not going to hold my breath.
Aside from that, where is the 33% increase in freeway capacity going to be built and using what money if it is going to be travelled on by electric vehicles paying no gas tax?
Andrew,
In 2010 there where only 12.7 million air passengers between all destinations in California – including coastal destinations that will not be served by high speed rail. This would project out to 17 million air passengers per year in the entire state when the population reaches 50 million. It is therefore unreasonable assume that there will be 117 million riders (nearly 7 times that of air passengers) on the system when the population reaches 50 million. Air and HSR are not a subsititue for a car, hey are a substitute for eachother because their cost to the passenger will be the same and HSR doesn’t offer you frequent flier miles that can earn you a train ride to Paris.
Danny asked:
What would cost more, high-speed rail or replacing the entire automobile fleet with electric vehicles and building out a brand new electric recharging station infrastructure?
A better question is which would cost the taxpayers more.
In that case the answer is HSR.
As for electric charging stations, it may well be that the fleet turns over to electric vehicles. Or maybe not. I don’t claim to know the answer. There are plenty of sources of energy to power motor vehicles, some that are in use now, and some not.
Andrew wrote:
Its called the LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND and the LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
That would be the same law that limits demand for passenger rail systems of all kinds, right?
Yes, I’m well aware of electric vehicles. I suppose you think 50 million of them in California will be powered by burning methane produced by unicorn farts, and that the entire population will suddenly have the cash to retrofit their garage and house electrical system for recharing multiple vehicles by plucking $20 off the money tree growing in the backyard?
As I told Danny, I have no idea what will provide power for motor vehicles in the coming years. It could be electricity, it could be fossil fuels (including natural gas and synthetic crude) or something else, like bioDiesel.
Hey, I hope to be proven wrong, but I am not going to hold my breath.
I don’t claim to know, and I have not made such claims.
Aside from that, where is the 33% increase in freeway capacity going to be built and using what money if it is going to be travelled on by electric vehicles paying no gas tax?
Increased road capacity in California and other places where there is a need for it will get used. The same cannot be said for rigidly inflexible and expensive legacy technology like passenger trains.
A fine post, CP. Bravo. Laid the dream world high speed rail arguments bare with reason and logic.
PlanesnotTrains:
In 2010 there where only 12.7 million air passengers between all destinations in California – including coastal destinations that will not be served by high speed rail.
Do you actually bother to check FAA and BTS stats before you come up with these sort of junk stats? I found the following stats just for one way boardings which total 8.2 million – thus 16.4 million round trip. (There are also another 4.1 million to Las Vegas, thus 8.2 million more round trips that open up with Desert Express.)
SF-LA 1443
SF-SD 722
SD-OAK 375
SD-SAC 368
BUR-OAK 399
BUR-SAC 237
BUR-SJ 219
OAK-ONT 257
SAC-SA 258
OAK-SA 251
SA-SJ 262
SAC-SA 235
SAC-ONT 256
SD-LA 398
OAK-LA 367
SJ-LA 413
SAC-LA 309
FRE-LA 111
SA-SF 433
BUR-SF 71
FRE-SF 45
LB-SF 129
MOD-SF 24
ONT-SJ 147
SJ-SD 316
LB-OAK 152
ST-LB 4
You are only off by at least 25%.
It is therefore unreasonable assume that there will be 117 million riders (nearly 7 times that of air passengers) on the system when the population reaches 50 million. Air and HSR are not a subsititue for a car, hey are a substitute for eachother because their cost to the passenger will be the same and HSR doesn’t offer you frequent flier miles that can earn you a train ride to Paris.
Amtrak offers frequent rider miles that can be used to ride on Amtrak for free or stay in hotels, etc. I’ve taken multiple free trips with them. I’d imagine CAHSR will do the same. Maybe they will partner with Star Alliance or Hilton too. Who knows?
As to HSR not being a substitute for car trips, I don’t think that is true. Rail in general is an alternative to the car. You know, you can walk out your door and decide – I will take the train, or I will drive my car. Its easy, just try it some time. Amtrak low speed rail already carries 5+ million people in California, and obviously its not competing with Bay Area-LA Area flights since it does not offer timely Bay Area-LA trains – these are almost entirely people who would otherwise be driving. If low speed rail in California can capture 5 million riders, surely high speed rail that actually connects all the major metropolitan areas at twice the speed of driving can carry many more. Right? Right? You do accept that logic, right?
Why don’t you forward that speculation to the Californian politicians who are shilling for this system. They just might use your words to promote this lunacy. Crazier stuff has happened.
Andrew,
You are making the classic mistake that CAHSR has made by counting “onboards” or “total passengers†on the route in the estimateld passengers availabel for capture. Onboards are not only those passengers traveling on those flights to points “within the stateâ€, but also those traveling on those flights to connecting destinations that HSR will not or cannot serve – like Hawaii or Japan.
For example, there are 304 passengers flying from Fresno to Los Angeles on an average day – this is fact form 2010 DOT data. Of those 304 only 39 are actually going from Fresno to Los Angeles. The rest are going to Hawaii and Japan or wherever else. In your argument, you are making the assumption that HSR will capture a substantial portion of all 304 passengers when in reality they will only capture a substantial portion of the 39 passengers going from Fresno to Los Angeles. In reality, they will only capture those 39 passengers because it’s always going to be easier to clear airport security at Fresno than it will be at LAX (or San Francisco for that matter) because the other 265 passengers aren’t flying to a point served by HSR. They are flying to a point that HSR cannot or will not serve.
Desert Express has it’s own ridership projections, you don’t get to count those in CA HSR to pad your numbers.
Finally, you have a total lack of understanding of airline loyalty programs, how they work and why they work. Its not about wht CAHSR can provide, its about what flying a short hop can provide to the ai rpassengers larger airline loyalty program objectives.
There is rail-air code sharing taking place in Europe, so there’s plenty of train to plane & plane to train travel going on.
There is rail-air code sharing taking place in Europe, so there’s plenty of train to plane & plane to train travel going on.
*************
European aviatino is heavily taxed and heavily regulated which incentivises it, even with it air service continues. US aviation is not. Apples to Oranges.
CPZ horseless carriages are legacy technology for that matter.
I am not a ridership expert.
********
No kidding?
Well I do route forecast modeling for an airline, and we’re pretty damn good at it. So I know BS when I see it. Its why I know that there aren’t 400 passengers a day to be had between Fresno and LA. What will shock you even more is that that demand has actually been cut in half on the route since 2000. So where did the passenger demand go? It went to Salt Lake City and Denver where there aren’t airport capacity issues.
Though there are also other points between Fresno & L.A. Planes make sense for journeys that are thousands miles apart or to remote areas like in Alaska.
Though there are also other points between Fresno & L.A. Planes make sense for journeys that are thousands miles apart or to remote areas like in Alaska.
******
HSR stops at one or two of them and the demand is very small. Not sure what the point of that is.
C.P Zilliacus wrote:
“As the CIA’s World Factbook correctly puts it, the German land area is somewhat smaller than one U.S. state – Montana. Admittedly Montana is one of the larger U.S. states, but it’s a relatively small percentage of even the contiguous 48 United States.”
The other things you say may well be true, but this is silly. Germany is one state is a union of 27 states, whereas Montana is one state in a union of 50 states.
Comparing Germany to the USA is like comparing Florida to the EU.
PlanesnotTrains:
You are making the classic mistake that CAHSR has made by counting “onboards†or “total passengers†on the route in the estimateld passengers availabel for capture.
No I’m not. I’m noting the true magnitude of air travel between points in state. You are the one making the classic mistake of assuming that only airline trips are available for capture by rail, as if no one would ever not choose to drive if a rail option were available. You are also the one claiming no one will transfer from an airplane to rail even though HSR will serve SFO and Burbank. You said:
It is therefore unreasonable assume that there will be 117 million riders (nearly 7 times that of air passengers) on the system when the population reaches 50 million. Air and HSR are not a subsititue for a car, hey are a substitute for eachother because their cost to the passenger will be the same and HSR doesn’t offer you frequent flier miles that can earn you a train ride to Paris.
Pretty much ipse dixit, don’t you think? You just say “air and HSR are not a substitute for a car” and presto, it becomes the truth! Do you have any reasons or evidence for this assertion? Because it sure as heck seems like air, rail, and car are all substitutable depending upon what the traveller is hoping to accomplish via his journey and during it. All three modes do get you from A to B, right? Isn’t that the point of travelling? To go from A to B?
As to frequent flyer programs, they don’t seem to hinder Amtrak competing in the Northeast Corridor and offering its own loyalty miles program. Do you know how I use my Amtrak miles? I take my family on free trips on Auto-Train ($500-1000 value for ~50,000 miles) to Florida, and it only takes 67% the number of miles to do so as it would to fly all of us for free on my US Air miles, AND I have my own car at the other end of the trip. I’ve also used my miles for free trips for my wife to class reunions in first class on Acela. Don’t you think CAHSR will come up with similar offers that are attractive to its customers?
HSR stops at one or two of them and the demand is very small. Not sure what the point of that is.
Amtrak, with 6 slow speed round trips per day and no direct service to LA, San Diego, San Jose, or San Francisco, gets 560,000 boards from stops between Merced and Bakersfield. That’s 1500 per day. Total population of those counties is 2.93 million. So 1 in 5 people living there boards a slower speed train not serving any of the largest cities. Now you want us to believe there will be “small demand” for direct rail service to all the major cities, at higher speeds, and at better frequencies? Why am I supposed to take this assertion seriously?
Its why I know that there aren’t 400 passengers a day to be had between Fresno and LA.
Air travel demand is a small subset of total travel demand, especially on shorter routes where driving is obviously not just cost but time competitive with the slog to, through, in, and out of two airports. Amtrak, for example manages to board 500 passengers per day at Fresno on its existing service.
Well I do route forecast modeling for an airline, and we’re pretty damn good at it.
Is that why you guys are constantly going bankrupt? What is your cuumulative profit since the founding of your company? Has it turned positive again yet?
What I meant by my comment is that I am not an expert ridership modeller. I do work with ridership numbers as part of my job, but it is not my job to do the ridership modelling.
where there aren’t airport capacity issues.
Precisely why HSR is needed. California is constrained from much growth of instate travel using the air mode. Without HSR, that means the growth will occur on the ground with cars, which means new roads.
PlanesnotTrains:
Tax payers will be on the hook for whatever it costs to build this thing.
Failing to mention that taxpayers bought the land for and built all of the airports in this country, exempted them from property taxes and took on the burden themselves by increasing the rates on remaining private property, and then turned them over to the use of the commercial aviation industry gratis and allowed them use of their facilities while also spending more money to improve them, and then funneled costly air mail contracts to them to keep the airlines afloat in their infancy, and then benefitted from the free training and free air-frame development costs of military pilots and air force/navy aviation spending, and then instituted a government run air traffic control system gratis – all of that for about 4 decades before a dime of tax was ever collected by the aviation industry to pay its own way. Oh, and exempted the airlines from the multi-billion dollar consequences of their own malfeasance on 9/11.
So after decades of sucking hind teat on the local and federal taxpayers and getting billions in freebies and costless to the industry benefits, the air industry now has the chutzpah to complain that the government – get ready for the shock – might consider funding the initial capital development of an additional mode of travel free to its riders? Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? There wouldn’t be an aviation industry without the government building airports and providing the ATC system and giving away thousands of highly trained pilots via military discharges.
The Highway Trust Fund ran a surplus until they Federal Government decided it would be okay to raid it. Good job! Wonder how much better our roads would be without it being flushed down the mass transit toilet?
They didn’t raid it. When the gas tax was raised in 1982, it was raised in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of roads at that time. Then it was raised an additional amout to pay for transit projects as a seperate matter. The gas tax that goes to transit was never raised with the thought of giving it to roads. If there was no transit mode, the additional gas tax would not have been raised at all.
Our roads would probably be better if the gas tax had been raised at some point since 1993, seeing as how prices have gone up since then. Airlines benefit from a percentage federal tax to fund them, while roads are stuck with ad valorem taxation which constricts the fund available in comparison to prices. The transit account has absolutely nothing to do with road condition though. The gas tax dedicated to transit was never raised to be spent on roads.
Failing to mention that taxpayers bought the land for and built all of the airports in this country, exempted them from property taxes and took on the burden themselves by increasing the rates on remaining private property, and then turned them over to the use of the commercial aviation industry gratis and allowed them use of their facilities while also spending more money to improve them, and then funneled costly air mail contracts to them to keep the airlines afloat in their infancy, and then benefitted from the free training and free air-frame development costs of military pilots and air force/navy aviation spending, and then instituted a government run air traffic control system gratis – all of that for about 4 decades before a dime of tax was ever collected by the aviation industry to pay its own way. Oh, and exempted the airlines from the multi-billion dollar consequences of their own malfeasance on 9/11.
*************
Airports were constructed using a user fee system, even in its infancy. It’s where the “landing fee” came from. Military airports like O’Hare were converted using a user fee system. Denver? No taxpayer dollars. Dallas/Ft. Worth, Same thing. BTW.. ATC system grants came from the trust fund and they still do today. You know where money form the trust fund comes from? Airline ticket taxes and now also fuel taxes, cargo taxes and other fees. Been that way since before deregulation. Exempt airlines for 9/11? The Federal Government established and enforced the security standards. Could you be any more ignorant of fact?
So please, enough with the cocialist drible (I mean HSR talking points). Your story is old.
PlanesnotTrains:
How is that landing fee system working out in Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and other ex-hubs?
Military airports like O’Hare were converted using a user fee system.
Exactly my point – taxpayers shouldered the upfront costs, and then once the system was built and established, a fee for use system of continuing funding was put in place. The airlines never paid for all the initial airport construction.
Denver? No taxpayer dollars.
Denver cost $5 billion from the taxpayer. If you expect that this is being paid back at 5% interest by landing fees, it would take over $300 million per year to amortize. With 600,000 flight movements, that is $5000 per flight. That doesn’t seem particularly realistic. And in fact it isn’t. The fees at Denver are just $3.532 per 100 pounds, which works out to around $600 for a 737.
http://business.flydenver.com/info/research/rules/masters/120_fees_charges.pdf
Most of Denver’s revenue comes from parking fees, rental taxes, and facility rents. And of course, what REALLY helps is not paying off the debt.
Debt in 1999 – $3.9 billion
Debt in 2009 – $3.8 billion.
Dallas/Ft. Worth, Same thing.
Which airline put up the capital to buy land and build DFW? Which one is shelling out $1.9 billion for the current ongoing work there?
Yes, it is the same thing – DFW is also in hock to the tune of $4 billion with no sign of ever paying it off.
Isn’t it amazing? Just go into debt and build new infrastructure and never pay it off. It works just as well as getting the infrastructure free from the military.
ATC system grants came from the trust fund
The ATC system was started back in the 1930’s, and expanded vastly in the 1950’s, while the trust fund started in 1971. Maybe in bizzarro world, a trust fund started in 1971 can pay for things 15-35 years prior.
Exempt airlines for 9/11? The Federal Government established and enforced the security standards. Could you be any more ignorant of fact?
Could you be any more ignorant of reality? The airlines were flying planes without secure cockpit doors. You would think that after 35 years of hijackings, secure cockpit doors might have been something desirable to ensure control of the plane remains in the hands of pilots and not hijackers. The 9/11 scenario was eminently forseeable given the FedEx hijacking incident in Memphis, and the Operation Bojinka Plot foiled in 1995.
Hiding behind the skirt of mommy government and crying that she didn’t require secure cockpit doors by regulation is no excuse.
FAA standards are safety minimums, not legal maximums, and do no excuse from obvious negligence.
You know Andrew, now you are just making things up for the sake of arguing.
Andrew – How is that landing fee system working out in Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and other ex-hubs?
****************
It’s not just landing fees as I’ve explained. They get rents from airlines and other tenants to self-fund. If you don’t use the airport, you don’t pay for it. What’s your problem with that? As for the former hubs, they aren’t raising local taxes are they? Wanna know why Andrew? Airports don’t have taxing authority. Even if owned by a City they are required by Federal Law to ensure there is no co-mingling of funds. Bet ya didn’t know that. Neither did Detroit which is why the City no longer operates the airport.
Andrew – Denver cost $5 billion from the taxpayer. If you expect that this is being paid back at 5% interest by landing fees, it would take over $300 million per year to amortize. With 600,000 flight movements, that is $5000 per flight. That doesn’t seem particularly realistic. And in fact it isn’t. The fees at Denver are just $3.532 per 100 pounds, which works out to around $600 for a 737.
************************
Denver’s debt is seperate from Denver City funds by law. The debt is paid down with landing fees, rents and other fees paid to the airport by its users. It did not cost taxpayers $5 billion. It’s not just landing fees Mr. Simpleton.
Andrew – Most of Denver’s revenue comes from parking fees, rental taxes, and facility rents. And of course, what REALLY helps is not paying off the debt.
*********************
So which part of that is taxpayer money? Thank you for explaining airport finance. Denver has paid down its debt. It’s also added two runways and termincla cpacity since it opened inuring additional debt.
Andrew – Yes, it is the same thing – DFW is also in hock to the tune of $4 billion with no sign of ever paying it off.
***************
They paid off the initial infrastructure cost years ago and have recently spent the $5 billion you mention on a new terminal and people mover system. What planet are you on to think that DFW is just holding debt. YOu knwo what, I’m just going to say it. Rhetoric is one thing, outright lies are another Andrew. You just lied.
Andrew – Could you be any more ignorant of reality? The airlines were flying planes without secure cockpit doors. You would think that after 35 years of hijackings, secure cockpit doors might have been something desirable to ensure control of the plane remains in the hands of pilots and not hijackers. The 9/11 scenario was eminently foreseeable given the FedEx hijacking incident in Memphis, and the Operation Bojinka Plot foiled in 1995.
*******************
You should talk to the FAA about that. It had to do with FAA cockpit egress design standards smart guy and nothing to do with highjacking prevention. Even after 9/11 there was siginificant debate about the doors and emergency egress safety.
Andrew – Is that why you guys are constantly going bankrupt? What is your cumulative profit since the founding of your company? Has it turned positive again yet?
***************
Constantly going bankrupt? How about you chew on this?
1. CAHSR’s primary competitor has never lost money.
2. CAHSR projects their fares to be 17% less than the average air fares in the state.
3. The primary competitor is already 13% below the industry average.
4. By 2025 that competitor will be intorducign a new aircraft to its fleet that will cost 20-25% less than its existing fleet.
You see Andrew, there’s no innovation with public sector HSR liek there is with private sector, profit driven aviation. HSR’s capabilities are known – cost however is not, nor does it seem to matter to some. With Aviation, the sky is really the limit be it the upcoming ultra-high bypass turbines and computational fluid dynamics or synthetic fuels. You should think about that reality.
Andrew – What I meant by my comment is that I am not an expert ridership modeler. I do work with ridership numbers as part of my job, but it is not my job to do the ridership modeling.
*******************
Well Andrew, maybe you should take into consideration how many of those forecasts never panned out. I’ve seen plenty of airport forecasts that never pan out, yet our forecasting is pretty dead on. Lesson to be learned maybe? Somethign along the lines of – “government doesn’t know what its doing”.
Don’t know why I waste time arguing with you. You refuse to listen to reason, trumpet false information and do nothing but antagonize. CAHSR is going to go away anyway.
By the way Andrew. No one is complaing about the $10 billion gioft from taxpayers for this that should have covered 25% of it (Man if Aviation would have had that kind of start up cash who knows where we’d be) and no one expects you to finance rail any differently than airports including land grants and bonds to finance construction.
The problem is that you don’t have a plan to pay down the rest of the bonds that will be required to build it. This condition will ultimately force taxpayers to bear the brunt of $80-100 billion in debt – which by the way is enough money for about 6 airports the size of LAX.
Exactly my point – taxpayers shouldered the upfront costs, and then once the system was built and established, a fee for use system of continuing funding was put in place. The airlines never paid for all the initial airport construction.
*************
I love this argument every time I see it.
Fact is Federal Law specifically prohibited aviation from getting any money until they received a hand full of grants during the depression. Additionaly, the vast majority of military airfields that were turned over were in no condition to support air service and as a result, were rebuilt from the ground up on a user fee based system of landing fees. Early terminals were actually built by the airlines, which is different from today (save a couple of airports) where the airport itself builds the terminals then rents them out. In a couple of markets, like New York, the airlines still build the terminals with the grace of the agency that operates the airport, but its the exception not the norm.
BTW… Existing rail was built with massive subsidies that have surpassed anything Aviation received. It had its handout already. Asking for a do-over is kind of childish don’t you think?
The USAF gets lots of money & civil aviaton benefits from it too.