tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post5379865020814424780..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: USA Today's Strong Case for HSRRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31686293290565813902008-08-26T14:37:00.000-07:002008-08-26T14:37:00.000-07:00Robert,Grossman makes reasonable arguments, but he...Robert,<BR/><BR/>Grossman makes reasonable arguments, but he should not be allowed anywhere near statistics. It's not just his $10 billion remark that's off (though I think you're overstating how far off it is...he's referring to just the LA-SF segment, so it should be something like ~$33 billion, not ~$42 billion). His 12% to 50% Acela comment is arguably more egregious. That one is like a Derail-group claim - it doesn't even pass the laugh test. There is no way that Amtrak's NEC ridership has quadrupled in the last few years. In fact, Amtrak had close to 50% market share in the air-rail market back when they were running Metroliners. The fact of the matter is that Acela, while comfortable, is not a huge improvement over Metroliners with conventional Amfleet equipment. The magic (or lack thereof, in many parts of the NEC) is in the tracks.<BR/><BR/>Morris,<BR/><BR/>I am glad to see that you are taking a stand against false statistics. When will the Derail site be updated to note that your HSR cost claims are based on Caltrain numbers that you erroneously inflated by approximately 400%?<BR/><BR/>Earl,<BR/><BR/>Caltrain electrification is projected at $602-866 million, depending on the rolling stock option. But Caltrain's existing stock (minus the Baby Bullets) is getting old and will have to be replaced anyway. Infrastructure cost is only $457 million. So you want a $23 million/year return.<BR/><BR/>According to Caltrain's own projections, electrification is <B>not</B> expected to reduce operating costs (so much for the conspiracy theory) - increased maintenance of way costs will more than offset decreased propulsion cost. The operational benefit is that you can run trains faster (particularly not-bullets, which depend on acceleration) and more frequently. The social benefit is that each driver removed from US-101 during morning or late afternoon/evening saves commuters an average of $10-20 in congestion costs. So for electrification to be worthwhile, it would have to increase Caltrain ridership during busy periods by at least 1.5 million year or around 6,000 per weekday. Could it? Maybe...peak hour ridership is currently at 30,000/day and rising, so it would need to boost ridership by about 17% of the current base (vis a vis a no electrification scenario). Of course, this ignores the environmental and noise reduction benefits of electric traction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-45727853313335659922008-08-26T11:38:00.000-07:002008-08-26T11:38:00.000-07:0060 billion is a more serious error, Morris. Glass...60 billion is a more serious error, Morris. Glass houses and stones? (or million dollar houses in your case)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-75900595122608551492008-08-26T10:33:00.000-07:002008-08-26T10:33:00.000-07:00Governor to sign AB3034 today:http://www.fresnobee...Governor to sign AB3034 today:<BR/><BR/>http://www.fresnobee.com/updates/story/823306.htmlRubber Toehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723504969375352982noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-8028771107523159182008-08-26T10:02:00.000-07:002008-08-26T10:02:00.000-07:00@MorrisI told you, you got nothing!@Morris<BR/><BR/>I told you, you got nothing!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434798037034661505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-8870180546928897182008-08-26T08:01:00.000-07:002008-08-26T08:01:00.000-07:00@RobertYour qoute:"Obviously the columnist made a ...@Robert<BR/>Your qoute:<BR/><BR/><I>"Obviously the columnist made a <B>slight</B> error in confusing the $10 billion bond with the total cost of the project, but I don't see how anything else he wrote would be different if you replaced the 1 with a 4.</I><BR/><BR/>A slight error -- $30 billion is a slight error?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51853211801446495292008-08-26T07:10:00.000-07:002008-08-26T07:10:00.000-07:00earl g., that's true of EVERY form of transportati...earl g., that's true of EVERY form of transportation in this state. They're all subsidized. Not a single one is provided free of taxpayer subsidies. Roads and freeways in particular.<BR/><BR/>As to morris' attempts to undermine what was a successful and strong pro-HSR column, I might take him more seriously on numbers if he didn't routinely throw around figures like $100 billion - which he has often claimed will be the true cost of HSR, without any shred of evidence to back it up.<BR/><BR/>Obviously the columnist made a slight error in confusing the $10 billion bond with the total cost of the project, but I don't see how anything else he wrote would be different if you replaced the 1 with a 4.<BR/><BR/>But that's the point, isn't it? Use the construction cost of HSR to try and scare people away from voting for it, even though HSR saves Californians money even with that cost figured into the equation.<BR/><BR/>Because HSR deniers never, ever provide a full equation - which would include the cost of NOT building HSR alongside the cost of building it.Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51610441093177930282008-08-26T05:43:00.000-07:002008-08-26T05:43:00.000-07:00Transit system don't make money, they aren't expec...Transit system don't make money, they aren't expected to make money. Kopp was bragging on a radio show, that Bart, by far and away the largest carrier in the state, was getting something like 60% of costs back from fare box revenues.<BR/><BR/>On full cost accounting, which would include paying back costs of construction (all capital costs) the bottom line is much worse.<BR/><BR/>You get these funny economic schemes. In the Bay area, CalTrain dearly wants to electrify its system. They won't admit it, but a major reason is their bottom line will look much better if they can ever succeed in converting from diesel to electric. <BR/><BR/>CalTrain constantly runs at big deficits, and all their projected operations into the future are all at deficit levels. They could save many millions per year in the costs for energy to drive the trains (electricity vs. diesel fuel), by converting.<BR/><BR/>The only problem is that conversion to electricity is going to cost around $1 billion. Now at 5% interest rate, this capital improvement would cost $50 million per year in interest costs. Any private company would charge that interest cost against earnings. <BR/><BR/>Well in the case of CalTrain (or BART or other transit groups), capital costs are not charged against bottom line. So the net result for CalTrain by converting to electricity will be a much better bottom line (less deficit).<BR/><BR/>No one is expecting HSR to ever pay for the interest costs or the cost of repaying the principal on the bonds needed to construct this line. That is the kind of accounting that is used.<BR/><BR/>I'm not saying that is really wrong, but for sure, transit systems don't pay for themselves. Every time somebody rides a bus, or rides a train, they are being subsidized by the taxpayers. That's the facts of life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-20870414410394742482008-08-26T05:24:00.000-07:002008-08-26T05:24:00.000-07:00Morris...You mean I did not read it and come to yo...Morris...You mean I did not read it and come to your conclusion!!YES I READ IT...and yes 10billion is what Cailfornia is putting up.FOR the first leg..anyway goodmorning!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-58617759657699264792008-08-26T01:00:00.000-07:002008-08-26T01:00:00.000-07:00The Capitol Corridor is the only one where I know ...The Capitol Corridor is the only one where I know the cost recovery figures, and it's reached 64% now. There was a time when under the old Amtrak accounting rules, the Serfliners (then the San Diegans) were "profitable", but those rules basically didn't count the costs of shared facilities, like the maintenance facilities in LA and Oakland, which these days serve many more corridor trains than intercity ones.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-51398067698685861542008-08-26T00:21:00.000-07:002008-08-26T00:21:00.000-07:00correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't the capitol co...correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't the capitol corridors and surfliners also making a profit of late?無名 - wu minghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01078479850722724885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-58652297683632572152008-08-25T23:42:00.000-07:002008-08-25T23:42:00.000-07:00@MorrisDude! Sure he got the price wrong (which is...@Morris<BR/><BR/>Dude! Sure he got the price wrong (which is your only legitimate argument against this project) but the rest of the article is dead on. This project is for the benefit of all Californians, and the price tag reflects the benefit to the economy and to quality of life in this state. <BR/><BR/>Ever heard of "There is no thing as a free lunch"? Well there is no thing as a "free, fast, clean, reliable alternative to traveling around the state". <BR/><BR/>Besides the cost: What other opposition do you have? Could it be that the train will destroy your community? No. Because guess what, it wont, it will make it better. <BR/><BR/>Yes its expensive, any other reason to object Morris?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434798037034661505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-89211395848424396932008-08-25T22:01:00.000-07:002008-08-25T22:01:00.000-07:00@calYou write:"I have read the article 2..what in ...@cal<BR/><BR/>You write:<BR/><BR/><B>"I have read the article 2..what in the world has he said that is not all true? "</B><BR/><BR/>I don't think you have read the article, nor have you read Robert's commentary.<BR/><BR/>Written in the article:<BR/><BR/><B>"The price tag for this new rail line: $10 billion, and there's the rub. To further compound the issue, that $10 billion would likely only cover the construction of one line from the San Francisco Bay area to Los Angeles. Add in California's other population centers like San Diego, Sacramento and other cities and the final price tag will be considerably higher.</B><BR/><BR/>Robert's comment:<BR/><BR/><B>"As we know, $10 billion won't be enough to cover the cost of the SF-LA line. That's more like $42 billion, and California is going to need federal assistance to make it happen. Still, columns like Grossman's in a major national newspaper certainly help that cause."</B><BR/><BR/>And you say, what has he said that is not all true???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-53541193669258537602008-08-25T21:34:00.000-07:002008-08-25T21:34:00.000-07:00I have read the article 2..what in the world has h...I have read the article 2..what in the world has he said that is not all true? He points out the cost,that there is disagrement and also great promise..and hope that other systems may also come from our project.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-49045184766323692008-08-25T20:15:00.000-07:002008-08-25T20:15:00.000-07:00Anybody who spills out the illogical absurdities t...Anybody who spills out the illogical absurdities that you have presented and completely misses the necessity of high-speed rail as you have are the true beings in this debate that deserve no credibility. If anything should be retracted, it would be those ignorant lies and, notably, that lawsuit of selfish intention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-48023089222531634002008-08-25T19:21:00.000-07:002008-08-25T19:21:00.000-07:00@cal, RobertAny author who posts an article like t...@cal, Robert<BR/><BR/>Any author who posts an article like that and miss states the economics as badly as this guy did, deserves no credibility. He really should retract the article and post the correct numbers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-6766673202881394602008-08-25T18:42:00.000-07:002008-08-25T18:42:00.000-07:00That have not decided. In fact, I suspect that th...That have not decided. <BR/><BR/>In fact, I suspect that they cannot without first issuing a Request For Proposals (RFP) for the delivery... meeting certain specifications.Brandon in Californiahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14796810137823230737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-56066381198849690362008-08-25T18:27:00.000-07:002008-08-25T18:27:00.000-07:00Does anybody know what train stock CAHSR will use?...Does anybody know what train stock CAHSR will use? TGV, ICE, or Japanese Bullet?? ...just curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-82640762406721352462008-08-25T16:53:00.000-07:002008-08-25T16:53:00.000-07:00By the way, the Coast Starlight is much easier to ...By the way, the Coast Starlight is much easier to fix than most people think. Right now, the running time is 11 hours, it takes all day, and it goes to Oakland. But imagine if the running time were slightly shorter, maybe 10 hours or even 9.5, and the train was an overnight train, then it would be perfect for business travellers. You could get to your destination by 9 am without having to wake up at 3 in the morning, and day trips between LA and SF by train suddenly become possible. Get on the train at 10 pm in LA, go to sleep, and by 8 am the next morning you're in San Francisco, having gotten a good night's sleep on the train.crzwdjkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394805356595604336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-58176646449041149932008-08-25T16:19:00.000-07:002008-08-25T16:19:00.000-07:00Nimbys with million dollar homes who will press la...Nimbys with million dollar homes who will press lawsuits just for their luxury. I do not have much sympathy since they already have tax breaks as is from Bush and do not seem willing to contribute much (a good chunk not saying all) for the greater good. If they cared a bit more and perhaps donated to this proposal, I'd give some care, for those who are NIMBYS, as much as I hate airplanes flying over my house, get used to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-68778453616401117382008-08-25T16:05:00.000-07:002008-08-25T16:05:00.000-07:00I did notice. They usually hit the comments sectio...I did notice. They usually hit the comments section of any HSR article. Must be nice to own a million-dollar home and not have to worry about rising fuel prices!Robert Cruickshankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-63814558786943131212008-08-25T16:00:00.000-07:002008-08-25T16:00:00.000-07:00And in the comment part did you not notice the Men...And in the comment part did you not notice the Menlo Park nimbys<BR/>aready have already posted...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com