tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post7339487833109605848..comments2023-10-30T09:03:07.163-07:00Comments on California High Speed Rail Blog: Andrew Bogan on Palo Alto City Council and HSRRobert Cruickshankhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06906581839066570472noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-32479087671856844372009-04-30T13:18:00.000-07:002009-04-30T13:18:00.000-07:00In addition a closed session was held at the end o...<I>In addition a closed session was held at the end of the meeting and the council voted on a 5-3 basis to file an Amicus brief in support of the Menlo Park / Atherton et. al lawsuit against the presently certified EIR.</I>Who voted for and who against?Jim Ausmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12293926257741923075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-25540762368936853182009-04-04T10:43:00.000-07:002009-04-04T10:43:00.000-07:002 Anonymous 12:06Sorry old boy. Read the track ri...2 Anonymous 12:06<BR/><BR/>Sorry old boy. Read the track rights agreement. <BR/><BR/>They are there forever. The PCJPB knows that as so do a whole lot of other people now, that some legal investigation has been done.Morris Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4728676698495568062009-04-02T12:06:00.000-07:002009-04-02T12:06:00.000-07:00"UPRR still owns inter city passenger rights"If Un..."UPRR still owns inter city passenger rights"<BR/><BR/>If Union Pacific is claiming this, they are wrong. First, the rights to run intercity passenger trains, historically, expire if not used -- unlike many sorts of rights -- and Union Pacific isn't using them and hasn't for many many years. Second, the obligation to run said trains was transferred to Amtrak by Union Pacific (and all of its predecessors) back when Amtrak was formed. The rights probably followed the obligations. In addition, San Jose to San Francisco is an intercity route, so in fact Caltrain excercises intercity passenger running rights.<BR/><BR/>The chances that Union Pacific has any sort of legally enforceable exclusive right to run intercity passenger trains? Zero percent. At the most they might have a "preemptive" right to run them, but if they decline to run them, they're *OUT*. If they're angling to run the CAHSR operation, I wish them the best of luck. If they're angling for a small payout, they'll probably get it. If they're angling for anything more, they will be swatted down hard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-42922787688001088632009-04-02T11:58:00.000-07:002009-04-02T11:58:00.000-07:00Yeech.To throw out a wild idea, anyone considered ...Yeech.<BR/><BR/>To throw out a wild idea, anyone considered condeming the inner four lanes of 101 -- which may be the entire highway in many places -- and just replacing it with a train line? ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-33162230243924903062009-04-01T15:46:00.000-07:002009-04-01T15:46:00.000-07:00Devil's Advocate is correct that short haul commut...Devil's Advocate is correct that short haul commute traffic is not likely to move onto HSR, especially since a grade-separated and electrified Caltrain will be faster than it is now. Although, I do think at least some commuting on HSR will occur between SF and San Jose, because there is a large wealth base in the Bay Area that could afford the high fares and for whom time is very valuable. It would probably be people taking a HSR train to a meeting in SJ from SF a couple times a week rather than a daily commute, though. <BR/><BR/>HSR is much less likely to see much daily commuting from the Central Valley, but in terms of occasional inter-city trips, I think Jim is right that a lot of intermediate stations, like Fresno will see considerable use. <BR/><BR/>Airports are busy every day. Very few people fly every day. It only matters that somebody flies every day.Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-16391027947537922282009-04-01T15:00:00.000-07:002009-04-01T15:00:00.000-07:00Wow. I thought I was going to play the devil's adv...Wow. I thought I was going to play the devil's advocate, but there is an Anonymous guy who's doing a better job than me. Well I shared in other posts concerns about the profitability of the train, especially for shorter trips (like Fresno to LA or SF). Primarily because gasoline is very cheap in US, as opposed to EU or JPN. And also because in US once you reach your destination (except for maybe SF), you still need to rent a car to get around, due to poor urban transit, and therefore some people might decide to simply drive from Fresno to LA or SF (and viceversa). However I don't share with Anonymous the notion that these trains will be used by commuters. The experience in other countries shows that the fare for the HST is simply too high to be a viable commuter option. Rather, the most frequent users of HST, at least in EU, have turned out to be business travellers who tend to prefer this mode of travel to auto or air travel, because of time savings and their ability to work very productively while onboard. I believe that the same will happen in California. But commuters?? No way! If you have enough money to travel on those trains every day, you'll probably have enough money to buy a house close to work in LA or SF, and won't bother to live in hellish Fresno.Devil's Advocatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-10039570794704981222009-04-01T12:42:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:42:00.000-07:00People actually do ant to get to places other than...People actually do ant to get to places other than san deigo LA and SF. There's too much poo poo ing of the other stops. I want the hsr to go as far east into the inland empire (i-215) riverside as it gives more access to that part of the state especially the desert. I'd much rather go to PSP than SAN. Places such as FNO and all the other in betwen stations are very important. Most of the ridership WIL NOT be from SF to LA most of the ridership will be a combination of smaller city pairs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-9837237689997749792009-04-01T12:30:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:30:00.000-07:00The newest blog post has a great line that's sort ...The newest blog post has a great line that's sort of in the spirit of what's being discussed here.<BR/><BR/>Rafael said: "I think it's time to let the vocal minority in that town know that the state isn't going to play along with its famously drawn-out "process", in which everything gets studied until all the planners die of old age."<BR/><BR/>Funny, with the rumors about Kopp. <BR/><BR/>At one point you just have to move forward. Compromise is the key, even among HSR supporters. Clem and Rafael are both unhappy Altamont wasn't picked. My personal HSR dreams involved 220 MPH between San Diego and LA in the most direct route possible. I'd say that should be phase 1. Maybe Brandon in San Diego agrees. But I also understand that project would never get off the ground.<BR/><BR/>Studying a project, quite literally, to death, reminds me of people who always wait to buy a computer because it's going to be obsolete in a month. Of course it will be, but if you keep waiting you'll never have a computer.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-28771454059071088422009-04-01T12:19:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:19:00.000-07:00Kopp is on my dead pool list for crying out loud, ...Kopp is on my dead pool list for crying out loud, which is why I can't understand why anyone thinks he's in it for the money. The guy will never be able to spend the alleged fortunes he'll make on his corrupt HSR deals.<BR/><BR/>"But how can anyone ignore their blunders on the design side."<BR/><BR/>Who is? Clem certainly hasn't. Rafael certainly hasn't. They both distrust them and wish they could design the damn thing themselves. <BR/><BR/>"How could this organization plan the project around the SJ to Gilroy corridor, knowing UPRR owned the only really feasible ROW, and they do not have an agreement with the UPRR to use that ROW."<BR/><BR/>What came first, the chicken or the egg? Do we study this alignment first or do we negotiate with UP first? It makes sense to find out if the alignment is even feasible before spending any effort negotiating for it. <BR/><BR/>Hell, do both at the same time. But this isn't exactly an agency that has been endowed with a lot of resources by the state. They can only do so much while being starved by the state budget. <BR/><BR/>But as Andrew Bogan says, it's not that goddamn important. If high speed rail is America's number one transportation priority, according to our new glorious socialist regime, then I think freight companies will be treated fairly but sternly when it comes to running HSR on their right of way. <BR/><BR/>Of course, if endangered owls could get the project killed, you'd suddenly care about owls.<BR/><BR/>"They are going to approve a agreement with the Authority involving rigths they don't own and the UPRR in its Feb 23 letter to the Authority has made that clear, they the UPRR own those rights."<BR/><BR/>I take the MOU to mean the two agencies are entering into an agreement to cooperate on a project. This way, they can both go to UP and negotiate together.<BR/><BR/>"By the way, the piece right next to this article is also quite informative about how much CHSRA lied about measure 1A; "Not Competitive with Air Travel, Less than Half the Ridership, Kopps Transbay Tantrum", etc. Love the stuff about Kopps Transbay bait and switch."<BR/><BR/>I have that issue and it's sitting right on my desk.<BR/><BR/>I agree with the Transbay bait and switch. Voters passed a measure that was sold on the train terminating at Transbay, and I think it should. I chalk it up to Kopp playing hardball and/or having one foot in the grave. If anything he should resign based on age.<BR/><BR/>However, in talking to people who support HSR but don't necessarily follow it with the kind of obsession the OCD-afflicted among us, some don't think it's cost effective to spend so much money extending a route a couple of miles. I don't agree with it, but not terminating in Transbay would make some people happy.<BR/><BR/>The other elements are the result of a business plan that was late in being released because the authority was impacted by the state budget crisis. I forgot who said it, but when someone accused the CHSRA of failing to adhere to the law concerning the business plan, he laid the smackdown on Sacramento for failing to decide on a budget before the deadline.<BR/><BR/>As far as Prop 1A being misleading, listen, is McDonald's going to announce that their food is going to make you fat? Would the Prop 1A opposition have done anything less than announcing that the ballot measure would kill every child that looks at it? No, everybody puts their best foot forward, their most insane arguments on the forefront, supporters and opponents alike.<BR/><BR/>Prop 10, for example, didn't exactly advertise itself as T. Boone Picken's payday. It looked like a very attractive proposition. But voters managed to see through that and vote it down.<BR/><BR/>Apparently the details about high speed rail didn't matter to the majority of California voters. Perhaps if there were more details it would have passed with a wider margin. If it made all of your non-sexual dreams come true, maybe it would have passed with a wider margin.<BR/><BR/>In rail projects both sides crow until a result happens, maybe not the best result, but a result nonetheless. You can't make everyone happy.<BR/><BR/>Considering how horribly passenger rail has been treated in this country in recent decades, I'm surprised the California High Speed Rail project is anywhere near the point it is now. The cynic in me really expected it to not pass.<BR/><BR/>The cynic in me also expects 1A to be repealed, the project never built or at best terminate in Fresno, never mind San Jose.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-50539838314106452172009-04-01T12:14:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:14:00.000-07:00@ residentThank you for sharing the link to the Ca...@ resident<BR/><BR/>Thank you for sharing the link to the Cal Rail News articles. Both were worth reading. <BR/><BR/>I'm not sure the source of electricity is as critical as others imply. Renewable would be ideal, nuclear is a valid option, so is conventional (ideally natural gas turbine generated or hydro). Does anyone argue that you cannot add a lane to a freeway unless it is exclusively for cars powered by bio-fuels?Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-33096227141773531752009-04-01T12:11:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:11:00.000-07:00While I hope Kopp's current medical hospitalizatio...While I hope Kopp's current medical hospitalization is minor and precautionary, there's no getting around the fact the guy is well into his 80s. His complete mishandling of the BART-SFO-Millbrae extension should have prevented him from ever being involved in a major infrastructure project again. Even if he considers this his last harrah or perhaps a shot at redemption, how many more years of public service does he have? CHSRA has an enormous task ahead of it that will take decades to complete, and to be blunt, Kopp simply can't be the visionary leader to see the project through to its completion.Fred Martinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-40577657647716763222009-04-01T12:01:00.000-07:002009-04-01T12:01:00.000-07:00Anon-"st. WIth the arrogance of people like jim in...Anon-"st. WIth the arrogance of people like jim in San Francisco, it's clear that this thing is just a boondoogle for a few who want to ride a shiny train to visit friends in LA -- on California taxpayer's dime" --Oh really? It so happens that californians are and always have been highly mobile. The majority of us, including myself have friends and family in the valley and do go to the valley on both business and for pleasure. I most certainly would go to fresno - a lot - as I have good friends who live there. As for tourism to fresno - its is only the southern gateway to one of the most popular national parks in the county. Merced is the toher gateway to that park. and as someone who sells train tickets to both fresno and merced I have to tell you that there is a large and daily and year round demand for those tickets. I hope you can hear the tone in my voice. asswipe what do YOU know???Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-30494644712499043102009-04-01T11:42:00.000-07:002009-04-01T11:42:00.000-07:00@Morris BrownCan we all safely assume that you wou...@Morris Brown<BR/><BR/>Can we all safely assume that you would support HSR on the Peninsula Corridor if Union Pacific eventually comes to an agreement with CHSRA on using their routes?<BR/><BR/>UPRR wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>The construction and operation of HSR in the San Francisco to San Jose right of way<BR/>must not cause increased operating costs or operating inefficiencies for Union Pacific. The Authority must assume Union Pacific's liability exposure and risk arising from current and future freight operations in the same corridor as the HSR. The Authority should fully study means to indemnify and insure Union Pacific against all such liability or risk, including liability to HSR patrons.</I><BR/><BR/>That sure sounds like Union Pacific does, in fact, anticipate HSR to operate alongside their existing right of ways and areas of trackage rights in the future. Why else would they need to be indemnified? <BR/><BR/>Your insistence on UPRR being so important to HSR's design is a red herring.Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-4289805848660342382009-04-01T11:40:00.000-07:002009-04-01T11:40:00.000-07:00"So what's the mystery hospitalization of Kopp all..."So what's the mystery hospitalization of Kopp all about?"<BR/><BR/>What do you mean? He's ancient. He will probably die before the thing gets built.Spokkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03244298044953214810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-87464163523607790122009-04-01T11:33:00.000-07:002009-04-01T11:33:00.000-07:00Ridership projections have consistently been quest...Ridership projections have consistently been questioned for HSR. If a slightly faster Caltrain has generated ridership "beyond anyone's imagination" why is the assumption that ridership projections are always too high? Sometimes they are too low:<BR/><BR/>"While the success of the Baby Bullet has “been beyond anyone’s imagination,” Caltrain board member and county Supervisor Jerry Hill said it was just the beginning." (<A HREF="http://www.examiner.com/a-515130~Caltrain_ridership_booms_to_record_high.html" REL="nofollow">Examiner</A>)Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-75131855140277377362009-04-01T11:27:00.000-07:002009-04-01T11:27:00.000-07:00Remember, anonymous, despite your views on Fresno,...Remember, anonymous, despite your views on Fresno, we've already spent billions building a highway to it. We can either spend more billions adding a lane or we can build rail.<BR/><BR/>And, with something like 6 universities on HSR route, there's a bit more to those cities than you give them credit for.<BR/><BR/>elflingAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-82142919380587543102009-04-01T11:23:00.000-07:002009-04-01T11:23:00.000-07:00@BAR"SF- a place where everybody works and nobody ...@BAR<BR/><BR/>"SF- a place where everybody works and nobody lives, that is the idea."<BR/><BR/>I recall a news article from a few years back that said about as many people ride Caltrain southbound in the morning from SF as ride it northbound to SF. Are you sure nobody lives there?Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-24800617666971762742009-04-01T10:56:00.000-07:002009-04-01T10:56:00.000-07:00There should be a focus here on this project, how ...There should be a focus here on this project, how it has thus far been presented and designed. <BR/><BR/>The CHSRA as far as I am concerned has been totally incompetent in the planning and design of this project. They are certainly not incompetent in the political arena, as witnessed by the fact they were able to get a slim majority of the voters to approve Prop 1A.<BR/><BR/>But how can anyone ignore their blunders on the design side.<BR/><BR/>They propose, study and certify an EIR which is fatally flawed. How could this organization plan the project around the SJ to Gilroy corridor, knowing UPRR owned the only really feasible ROW, and they do not have an agreement with the UPRR to use that ROW. Last year the UPRR told them quite clearly you can't use this ROW. It is really un-believable. If the leaders of this organization were in private practice they would have been fired long ago. However, they are skilled politicians, they know everyone in Sacramento and on the local levels and they survive (thus far).<BR/><BR/>Now another major clunker has arisen. Although CalTrain owns the SF to SJ corridor, CalTrain does not own all the rights on that corridor. In particular freight rights belong to the UPRR.<BR/><BR/>But the really big kickerwith regards HSR is UPRR still owns inter city passenger rights, as opposed to commuter passenger rights on that corridor.<BR/><BR/>So tomorrow the CalTrain board is most likely going to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will allow the Authority to use their corridor for an inter city passenger train. They are going to approve a agreement with the Authority involving rigths they don't own and the UPRR in its Feb 23 letter to the Authority has made that clear, they the UPRR own those rights.<BR/><BR/>The whole conecpt of Prop 1A was to use the CalTrain ROW. CalTrain has never obtained an agreement with the UPRR for an inter city passenger train. It seems to me the whole project falls apart.<BR/><BR/>Incompetence at the very most top levels.<BR/><BR/>Joe Vranich last year in testimony before the State T&H committee said it clearly, "I have never seen such incompetence on a HSR project"Morris Brownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-60626780423226316942009-04-01T10:46:00.000-07:002009-04-01T10:46:00.000-07:00HSR running on renewable electricty? Here's what ...HSR running on renewable electricty? Here's what Robert Freehling had to say about that. "High Speed Rail and Renewable Energy" in California Rail News Nov2008-Jan2009.<BR/><BR/>"Navigant considered several options. Unfortunately, these options ranged from the abstract to the illegal to the unfunded."<BR/><BR/>By the way, the piece right next to this article is also quite informative about how much CHSRA lied about measure 1A; "Not Competitive with Air Travel, Less than Half the Ridership, Kopps Transbay Tantrum", etc. Love the stuff about Kopps Transbay bait and switch.<BR/><BR/>http://www.calrailnews.com/crn/0109/crn0109.pdf<BR/><BR/>I think it was Jim who suggested some renewed effort needs to happen to get real information out about what HSR REALLY IS for California. YES YES YES! I couldn't agree more. Lets start getting all the truth out about what HSR REALLY means for California right away!residentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52388149896234902512009-04-01T10:43:00.001-07:002009-04-01T10:43:00.001-07:00Rafael ... you remind me of a conversation I had w...Rafael ... you remind me of a conversation I had with a guy at Reagan National airport a few months ago. We were griping about delays ... I said that flying up and down the west coast was a real bother and I was excited about HSR. "Oh, I'm totally against that" he said. I asked him why ... "Public money shouldn't be spent on rail transportation" was his reply. I'm sure my face turned red, and I said, "Dude, public funds built this airport, as well as the highway you drove on to get here. What's the difference?" He sputtered something about limiting government interference with the market, and I thanked the stars for the coming regime change in the capital.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00787162300960892738noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-31024361116618626862009-04-01T10:43:00.000-07:002009-04-01T10:43:00.000-07:00did any of the train geeks have a response for why...did any of the train geeks have a response for why DOT is pushing for 3 tracks through San Jose? What is the win there and how would that work? Seems like an accident waiting to happen, to me.<BR/><BR/>PS- they are feeling the heat over the point to point destination speeds apparently. Diridon is being cut out of some routes to make the promised time schedules work.Bay Area Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15807091317788242756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-75587444841880858772009-04-01T10:40:00.000-07:002009-04-01T10:40:00.000-07:00It definitely will contribute to sprawl and I thin...It definitely will contribute to sprawl and I think thats the whole point. The Slicon Valley business association under that Guardino person (forgot the acronym for the agency) has lobbied for this train so that bay area companies can import people from cheaper locales like the central valley to work. The high cost of housing here is seen as a major impediment for companies to grow. And the cities, including Palo Alto, are interested in that -despite what they say publicly- because corporate HQs in your town are where the tax revenues come from, not housing. Property taxes don't pay enough to fund services. Virtually every city on the peninsula and San Jose sees this train as a way to morph themselves into SF- a place where everybody works and nobody lives, that is the idea.Bay Area Residenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15807091317788242756noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-70065823232069218522009-04-01T09:45:00.000-07:002009-04-01T09:45:00.000-07:00@JimI think Jim has a great idea to get more widel...@Jim<BR/><BR/>I think Jim has a great idea to get more widely known popular figures involved in outspokenly supporting HSR for California. Unfortunately, the Hollywood Set is not my circle, or I would be pressuring them myself. Our Governor has used his star power to promote HSR on television quite a bit lately, but hopefully that is just a start.Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-52779823793512339092009-04-01T09:39:00.000-07:002009-04-01T09:39:00.000-07:00Nobody in particular (at least, they don't seem to...Nobody in particular (at least, they don't seem to think they are anyone in particular, having decided to post without bothering to pick a pseudonym) said:"<I>In fact, it will probably contribute to sprawl -- make it easier for someone to commute from small towns to big towns with jobs.</I>"<BR/><BR/>Making it easier to commute from a central location in a small town to a central location in a big town than it is to commute from the outlying suburban sprawl of the big town is not "contributing to sprawl".<BR/><BR/>Palo Alto residents asking for the alignment to be moved away from the existing rail alignment that was the reason these small towns come into existence in the first place to some place "where nobody lives", and by implication demanding that the Peninsula station be built outside the center of any existing town ... they are supporting an increase in sprawl.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, if the Union Pacific gets stroppy about allowing the HSR to have its Fresno station in the middle of Fresno, <I>they</I> are contributing to sprawl.<BR/><BR/>The more beet field stations, the greater the weight of the "contributing to sprawl" argument ... the more the center of town stations, the greater the weight of the "fighting sprawl" argument.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, the balance should be on the side of "fighting sprawl", while those NIMBY's of Palo Alto fighting the use of the Caltrain corridor as such are on the side of supporting sprawl.BruceMcFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08502035881761277885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4263762637946594105.post-10727794969325758812009-04-01T09:37:00.000-07:002009-04-01T09:37:00.000-07:00@Anon 8:36am"Every reason? And does the "operating...@Anon 8:36am<BR/><BR/>"Every reason? And does the "operating profit" include retiring the debt incurred from building it or are you acting as a typical Californian and pretending that bonds are free money and pushing the responsibility to pay them off on future generations?"<BR/><BR/>It is not possible to build infrastructure in populated areas without governmental authority due to the required permitting at the municipal, county, regional, state, and federal levels; environmental review; and eminent domain powers. So the government must be heavily involved in the process. The benefits of improved transportation systems do accrue to the state and the country over the long term through economic growth (which is the underlying source of both California's and America's tax base). It is very sensible for government debt to be issued to pay for infrastructure (unlike many of the things governments pay for, like defined benefit pensions). <BR/><BR/>Is China building infrastructure faster than any nation in history for their own amusement, or do they recognize the massive economic and social benefits that have been achieved in the United States, Europe, Japan, and Korea through infrastructure investment over decades?<BR/><BR/>As for profit, Rafael is correct to focus on operating profits, since those are in fact the relevant ones available to a private (or public sector) operator of the infrastructure. The State owns the asset, not the concession operator. Would you pay for 100% of a house you did not own? No, you would pay rent. That does not mean the landlord loses money over the long term, though it is always a possibility. <BR/><BR/>The private partner should not be expected to fund the entire cost, since they do not receive the social or economic development benefits--the governments and the citizens do. <BR/><BR/>The current PPP hypothetical model is to fund capital costs of building HSR roughly 1/3 state bonds, 1/3 federal grants (likely backed by new Treasury issues, but could be from the existing tax revenue), and 1/3 private investor funding from the partner or partners involved in the build-operate-transfer PPP. This model has worked well in nearly every country that has used it.Andrew Boganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02476018138604522417noreply@blogger.com