Inasmuch as we live in a state of democratic socialism where we get to vote about our common economic endeavors, we will have the chance this fall in Proposition 1 to collectively borrow $10 billion to make a down payment on an 800-mile high speed rail system.
Man, I want to be in favor of this, but I’m not. I rode high speed rail recently in Germany. We strolled over to the train station and got a ticket out of a machine. The price was only a little less than a short flight, and the ride takes only a little longer than flying. But you go into a train station with no lines, we got the best-ever sausage at a good price, and not needing to go through security is a real blessing. I watch a lot of old movies, so if a guy speaking German wearing a uniform starts asking me questions I remember that I’m part Jewish and start to get real nervous.
But riding the HSR is a delight. Its roomier than a plane and you don’t have your ears popping.
Problem with Prop 1 is I’m having trouble believing the numbers. The proponents estimate the cost of the system at $42 billion, meaning our $10 billion is just a downpayment and the rest is supposed to come from Uncle Sam and various public/private moneylenders. The proponents see 100 million passengers as an optimistic projection, with fares ranging from $10 to $60, give or take. Skeptics point to every other public project overrun and estimate $75 – $100 billion as an actual cost. If you compromise and estimate $60 billion, and figure it has to be amortized at 5%, then each of the 100 million riders has to kick in $36 per ride to pay back the capital invested.
Since the projected fares don’t realistically support such a payback, one can only assume that the ‘once its built we will not need a subsidy’ really means that the cost of building is the subsidy and all the fare pays for is the energy and labor and maintence costs. If the project really penciled out, then it would be privately financed and voters would not be needed to pledge the downpayment.
Prove me wrong if you can, but for now I’m trusting my instinct and suppressing my happy German memories and voting no.
Ron.
Thank you for revisiting this topic.
I issued a Juice blog post on this very topic on March 22nd of this year that can be found in our archives. The title reads: “Governor Schwarzenegger’s high speed rail proposal raises questions.”
Depending on which CA high speed train you catch the time to get from Sacramento or SF to San Diego, making upwards of 10 stops, will take how long?
We rode the bullet “Chunnel” train from London’s Waterloo Station to Gar du Nord in Paris. That 307 mile ride, making one stop in Dover, takes three hours. And we are to believe that the CA bullet train from SF or SAC, with stops at the SF airport, Redwood City/Palo Alto, San Jose, Gilroy, Fresno, Bakersfield, Palmdale, Sylmar, Burbank and LA Union Station, will make the 350 trip in less time?
And this is not counting the other stops heading east toward Riverside or south to San Diego.
This reminds me of the Centerline which we derailed. As taxpayers became more vocal about the cost, OCTA kept reducing the scope of the project in an attempt to make it more palatable.
Don’t give them an inch or they will take your right arm. Like a tax, once you approve the first leg of this system they will justify expanding it at any price. And the big question. How many of the lower income and middle class taxpayers will utilize this costly system?
Ok, then give me some alternatives. How are we going to create an acceptable public transit system. Our dependence on oil and our clogged roads and freeways aren’t improving. What would you guys suggest?
100 million passengers – what – per year?
$36 to get to LA would be pretty steep, but $36 to get to SF or Sacramento – count me in! What are we talking about there?
Wish we could make this happen somehow, there’s got to be a way. I think the borrow-and-spend model we’ve been following under Schwarzenegger and Bush is less responsible than the old-fashioned tax-and-spend. (Always in moderation though!)
We tried! In 1975! No body wanted to pay the “taxes” never mind they ended up paying for bloody freeways! Try to convince them again. I can hear the squawking mantra now! “No more taxes!” Yep! So we will continue paving paradise.
I had the pleasure of living in DC and using the metro, and have used public rail transportation in SF, New York, Boston, and London, as well as all through France, Italy, and Spain. It will be a giant investment that may hurt when we look at the numbers now, but it will pay off. I for one would definitely use public transportation if it were more timely and reliable; think how much the average person pays now per month with car payments, gas, insurance, and upkeep? I agree that we shouldn’t use deficit spending to fund this… but can think of very few alternatives in a society that doesn’t seem to want to pay more in taxes for any reason. We need to find some way to convince the people of LA and OC that this is a viable and needed option that is worth investing in.
Folks. Rather than compete with SAUSD teacher but we too have been on more trains and subway systems in more cities and countries than I care to list. While they each were justified, I caution us from simply jumping on the bandwagon as some did with Ethanol. You need to start off with a short and long term “cost and benefits” analysis of any transportation system.
At one time in my life I lived in NJ and took a subway to Manhattan. That’s a no brainer. Do you have any idea of how many people work in the “big apple?”
Better yet here are some “subway” ridership numbers.
Moscow 3.2 billion per year,
Tokyo 2.8 billion/yr,
Paris 1.365 billion/yr,
London 976 million/yr
And good old NYC at 4.9 million /day or 1.8 billion per year. How many people commute into Orange or LA County every year?
The man behind a proposed bullet train from Victorville to Vegas and I discussed public transit in Orange county over 10 years ago. In that discussion we agreed that Orange County lacks the density to justify a light rail system.
Let’s not co-mingle local daily transportation alternatives with long distance train ridership.
With high speed service from SF or SAC to southern CA how many annual riders are they projecting for the CA bullet train?
And what will the fare be 10 to 20 years from now IF such a system is installed?
How much are we prepared to subsidize that system?
You need ridership to cover SOME of the operating costs. Don’t confuse subway, light rail and elevated “L” trains, such as ones that existed in NYC and Chicago with long distance train travel.
You don’t commute from San Diego or Santa Ana to San Francisco DAILY as you might by subway from Fullerton to Costa Mesa or Jersey City NJ to Manhattan (NYC) as I did many many, years ago.
#2, Marselle, and #5, I could not agree with you more!
This is an investment that HAS to be made. To me, it’s like the *gulp* you take when buying property, or a new car, or taking on any new expense or investment. It rarely feels comfortable or prudent. Only we forget one profound reality: we almost universally accommodate. We bite the bullet for a little while, but in 5 years, when gas costs $10 per gallon, we won’t look back regretfully wishing we had finally undertaken what other forward-thinking countries have already accomplished. I dare anyone to go to France, Switzerland, Italy, or even New York or Boston and not fall in love with their efficient systems of transit.
Larry, I understand what you’re saying about ridership, but imagine if we had a transportation system that took people to destinations of common import. The numbers you cited for Paris illustrate my point. The Metro is convenient and goes everywhere in Paris, thus cars are not a necessity (or, in many cases, desired). The same can be said about San Francisco. The cost of realizing a viable transportation system will only increase with time, but so will our regret if we don’t do something soon!
SAUSD Teacher.
For all readers let me add your opening comments:
“I had the pleasure of living in DC and using the metro, and have used public rail transportation in SF, New York, Boston, and London,…”
The KEY words being your use of public transit “IN” major cities. We are NOT being asked to vote on a “commuter service” that the masses use DAILY.
Not counting tourism, CA has what, 37 million people. Of that number how many will use this $45 billion?? high speed train to travel from SF to LA?
So once again SAC wants EVERY CA taxpayer to fund the bullet train that perhaps 90 percent will rarely, if ever, utilize?
And this solves our local gridlock problem how?
Swetelle
Thanks for making me look for the following video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axwMxUBL_ws
In Japan they actually have “people pushers” that shove you into their subways. Now that’s the kind of ridership that justifies having mass transit.
If you can’t open the link simply go to Google and search for U-tube video of “people pushers” in Japan.
Larry: How the hell do they get out??? That was funny! Kind of reminded me of the T in Boston; if you don’t pay attention, you can’t get out of the train. However, this only suggests to me that when available, people do use this transportation, which negates your concern that all tax payers would be funding something 90% of people rarely utilize.
Longboobs –
The ‘T’ has been awarded for being the best public transportation system in the country many times. What a lot of people don’t realize is that it was also the first (as was Boston’s PD).
Last I remembered though, all stops are announced, even if the trains are really crowded (and they are quite frequently), and there’s usually (admittedly not always) time to dig your way out by the time the train reaches the station.
SMS
Ladies.
Glad you enjoyed the video of subway riders in Japan.
We have travelled on several subway systems where we had to make sure our deodorant was still working. Or perhaps it was the aroma coming from other strap hangers?
Sorry but I am not buying into your argument.
We already have federallty subsidized Amtrak train service in this country.
For those not familiar with this National Railroad Passenger Corp., aka “Amtrak,” here are some boring facts and figures:
For the 12 months ending Sept 30,2006 and Sept 30, 2007, the cash flow for both years, from the audited Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows reports a net loss in excess of ($one billion dollars). That’s the number one with nine zero’s.
Page 7 of the audit report states in part that “the company may not have sufficient funds to operate through the end of fiscal year 2008.”
If this is the panacea for our transportation needs than perhaps the private sector is willing to fund the entire SF to LA high speed system.
Some more numbers to numb our brain. Tokyo has 31 million people living in 240 square miles. In fact Japan has 10 times the number of people per square mile than does the US. This goes back to our point about DENSITY to justify rail service.
LA County, which does have light rail service, has 10 million people living in 467 square miles. As such that’s one third the population living in twice the area of Tokyo.
One last set of numbers.
Orange County has what 3 million people living in 948 square miles.
I rest my case.
What is the cost of owning and operating a freeway? (The roads)
How much does the auto driver pay to cover that cost?
OCTA says it cost 31 cents per auto mile to own and operate the 91 toll road.
An SUV getting 20 mpg and paying 18 cent fed tax 18 cents state tax and 36 cents sales tax, 72 cents divided by 20 mpg is equal to paying almost 4 cents per auto mile.
Cost 31 cents, pay 4 cents, the subsidize, about 87 percent.
Just think what could be built if the auto owner paid the full cost of the Road Infrastructure that is taken for granted.
Larry,
The Centerline project corridor has a population density of 12,500 and growing. A perfect place for mass transit rail, and even the estimated subside for that rail service was not near the 80 percent car drivers enjoy.
I look at the freeways as I ride my bicycle over the bridges and can’t believe the slow moving mass of commuters tying up the roads.
Cook. I am not sure if we should, or could, use the 91 Express Lanes to benchmark traditional freeway cost-benefit analysis. While this began as a 10 mile “private sector” project in 1995, at a cost of $135 million, the County eventually purchased it for $207.5 million using taxpayer money.
I provide that data as the roads didn’t just appear overnight and at no cost to us, whether or not we even use that roadway.
We have already approved Bond Measures for roadway infrastructure that our grandkids will be paying for years into the future.
While I did have data from my SAC meeting with a Caltrans Div Chief during the Measure M debate, I have since moved that huge box of doc’s into my archives.
As to cost-per-mile maintenance one must factor in neglect, volumn of traffic, frequency of repairs, etc.
Think about the “pot holes” in Santa Ana that will cost a lot more than if the city kept up with periodic slurry sealing that would have cost considerably less.
Well there are pros and there are cons. I had an unfortunate experience on the “Orange Line” in Boston. Some guy next to me was picking his nose! I asked him to please refrain to which he replied: “F*** you! Go sit somewhere else. To which I replied “We’re packed like sardines! There is no “other place.” When we disembarked at South Station this chick and I were ROTF! Best way to travel ever! I take my life in my hands here “behind the orange curtain” scuz motorist are meaner than junkyard dogs. Yiksa! ~M