John Maynard Keynes is supposed to have said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” For many politicians including President Obama, the answer is, “I ignore the facts and stick to my preconceived notions.”
Back in 2008, California voters approved high-speed rail based on the promises that, at a cost of $43 billion, California would have trains by 2020 that would go from San Francisco to Los Angeles in two hours and forty minutes. Attracting 60 million riders a year, the trains would earn such great operational profits that private investors would provide $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion worth of capital funds.
Now the California High-Speed Rail Authority admits that cost will be more than double that amount, it will carry fewer passengers than expected, it won’t be done until 2030 at the earliest, and no private investors are interested in supporting a project based on phony premises. Moreover, the latest word is that the trains will take longer than two hours and forty minutes, which means they will be far less competitive with air travel than promised. So it is not surprising that most California voters want to reconsider the project.
But not the Obama administration. Even though Congress has not authorized or appropriated more than a tiny fraction of the funds needed to complete the California boondoggle, the Obama administration says it “is not going to flinch” on its support for the project. “The worst thing we could do is make obligations to folks and start to renege on our word.”
Medication ensures proper blood flow to the male reproductive organ.DOSE :The commander viagra prescribed dosage of Zenegra is 100mg. Dosage-availability: The condition, ED is categorized in three different types- mild, moderate cialis for cheap price and severe. Andreas Munzer was one of http://pdxcommercial.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/1405-NE-Broadway-St.-Brochure.pdf levitra without prescription the most famous bodybuilders of the 1980s. I have to stop here and say that it is rare in this industry to supply different hookah items within your budget to satisfy all cialis on sale your needs.
No, in fact, the worst thing you could do is agree to support a project that is highly questionable at the original price tag and continue to support that project when the price tag more than doubles. Why should taxpayers be obligated to support the California High-Speed Rail Authority when the Authority isn’t obligated to tell the truth about its project?
The administration made its statement at a hearing held by the House Transportation Committee, whose chair, Florida Representative John Mica, originally supported high-speed rail. But now, he says, the California project “is turning out to be a disaster.”
California Republican representatives in Congress also question the project. “The California high-speed rail project of today is vastly different from the one California voters narrowly approved in 2008,” says Representative Kevin McCarthy. “The California High-Speed Rail project has spun so drastically out of control even California voters are questioning its viability,” added Representative Jeff Denham.
High-speed rail, says Representative Devin Nunes, “is about corruption, public deception and bureaucratic experimentation.” He points out that the CEO of the state’s High-Speed Rail Authority gets paid more than Amtrak’s CEO and that the “authority has bankrolled a vast array of political consultants to curry favor with elected officials.” At least some people are willing to change their minds.
The Antiplanner wrote:
No, in fact, the worst thing you could do is agree to support a project that is highly questionable at the original price tag and continue to support that project when the price tag more than doubles. Why should taxpayers be obligated to support the California High-Speed Rail Authority when the Authority isn’t obligated to tell the truth about its project?
I don’t think the increase in construction costs to build this thing (if it ever gets built) is close to what the “delivered” price will be.
I assert that the final (“as-built”) cost will be at least double the (current, as of 2011) advertised cost of about $98 billion.
The Antiplanner also wrote:
Now the California High-Speed Rail Authority admits that cost will be more than double that amount, it will carry fewer passengers than expected, it won’t be done until 2030 at the earliest, and no private investors are interested in supporting a project based on phony premises.
Or deeply-flawed forecasts of train system patronage, done by consultants working for the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA).
If nothing else, the state of California, perhaps working through Caltrans or some other entity entirely independent of the CHSRA, should re-do the patronage forecasts for the high-speed rail system, taking into account the reduced speeds of the trains, and a realistic assumption of what the fares will be in order to not need operating subsidies from state taxpayers. This type of work is a lot cheaper than building a multi-billion-dollar toy train network.
Moreover, the latest word is that the trains will take longer than two hours and forty minutes, which means they will be far less competitive with air travel than promised. So it is not surprising that most California voters want to reconsider the project.
Slower trains means fewer train patrons.
One day, the folks who visit The Antiplanner’s blog will wake up to the realization that for the political classes, the costs of rail are the benefits. That holds true for any government project or program.
Any private investor would be crazy to risk a dollar on it and as it shows….few have. Who knows how high the cost would run? 50,60, 100 billion + dollars. All on a project whose sole goal is mainly to transport business travelers from metro Los Angeles to metro San Francisco. Any of which can easily be done via air. Californians already conveniently get from one to the other via one of metro LA’s five major airports and one of metro San Francisco’s three major airports; even if it costs over a billion dollars to add an additional runway at either of the two, that’s still one percent of CHSR. Amtrak already has rail going between the two cities, if ridership projections are any indicator they could get a more accurate estimate . Amtrak’s Coast Starlight is 1,377 miles long and takes nearly 35 hours from Seattle to L.A. so average speed is less than 40 mph. At 200 mph the time needed to reach the said speeds, the distances between stops, and the fact that for part of the route the high speed trains will travel on regular freight train tracks rather than upgraded high speed rail tracks indicates that attaining the proposed speeds would be difficult between the majority of stops so it’s gonna go slow. That 2.5 hour time may be 3-5 hours.
“…for the political classes, the costs of rail are the benefits. That holds true for any government project or program.”
While the Wizard and I may not see eye to eye on the ideological front, I love this take(though I would replace “any” with the word “most,” but let’s not split hairs).
That holds true for any government project or program.
Including our multifold imperial adventures, oil and corn subsidies, etc.
DS
Amtrak officials released a concept report for a proposed next-generation high-speed rail within the Northeast corridor October of last year. The concept report envisions 220 mph trains running on dedicated tracks between Washington DC and Boston running nearly parallel to the existing Northeast Corridor. Projections regarding planning and construction for the line will cost approximately 117 billion dollars (If your smart the best thing to do is take any cost projection that they give you than double it). Claims it will reduce the travel time from New York to Washington, including a stop in Philadelphia, to 96 minutes, and the travel time from Boston to New York to 84 minutes. While I remain skeptical of the plan, it’s often said the Northeast is the only real place where rail overall makes some sense.
LazyReader wrote:
Amtrak officials released a concept report for a proposed next-generation high-speed rail within the Northeast corridor October of last year. The concept report envisions 220 mph trains running on dedicated tracks between Washington DC and Boston running nearly parallel to the existing Northeast Corridor.
Not sure where there is room for this. Yes, some sections of the NEC do run through rural areas, but much of it does not.
Projections regarding planning and construction for the line will cost approximately 117 billion dollars (If your smart the best thing to do is take any cost projection that they give you than double it).
Just replacing the ancient and decrepit Baltimore and Potomac Tunnels under Baltimore City (part of the NEC) will cost several billion dollars. And that’s a relatively short section of the route.
Claims it will reduce the travel time from New York to Washington, including a stop in Philadelphia, to 96 minutes, and the travel time from Boston to New York to 84 minutes. While I remain skeptical of the plan, it’s often said the Northeast is the only real place where rail overall makes some sense.
There may be a few short travel markets where it makes sense, but the NEC is the only reasonably long corridor that makes any kind of sense.
Much of the funds will be laundered back into Obama’s campaign chest. It’s just another method to raise cash and get re-elected.