Fox News today was salaviating over "Jerry Browns Boondogle"
A boondogle is the CATO and Heritage foundation defination for any liberal project and idea that they dont like expacilay if it does not feed the big oil companys that fund them
And it shows, I think, how much was fudged with working hours.Regards, Volker
This was an interesting news bit I picked up yesterday. General Mills one of the largest ceral makers missed their earnings for the 1st quarter of this year. Why higher shipping costs resulting from the ELD mandate. Why an unexpected 200 million in detention time payments from their factories and DC's not getting trucks loaded fast enough.
If General Mills had 200 million in Detention time for 1 quarter just how bad is it going to be for some of the Meat companies this year.
Murphy Siding JPS1 Irrespective of whether they are common carriers or private carriers, truckers pass all of their costs through to the shipper. If a commercial carrier is unable to recover the costs from its customers, it ultimately goes out of business. If a private carrier does not recover all of its shipping costs, it either has to raise the shelf price of its goods or take a hit to the bottom line. A successful commercial carrier like Hunt, Schneider, etc. price the cost of the service to cover all of their costs, including taxes, plus a profit. A private carrier like Walmart, Frito-Lay, etc. pass all of the shipping costs through to the buyer of their goods. They usually don't price the cost of transport to have it show a profit, but they could in some instances. Corporations don't pay taxes of any sort. They pass them through to their customers unless they lack the pricing power to do so, in which case the shareholders and perhaps the workers have to eat them. Taxes are a cost of doing business; a successful business recaptures them from its customers. I disagree a little bit on some of your wording. It’s not as simple as passing on the freight cost to the buyer. That's like saying corporations don't pay payroll of any sort, they just pass them on to the customers. It’s probably more accurate to say the freight cost adds to the overall cost and that the selling price is not so much based on cost as it is on supply and demand in the market. Let’s say I’m selling widgets for $1.00 and competitor is at $1.00 as well. If my transportation cost per widgets goes up 5 cents, I can’t automatically just pass on the freight cost to the buyer. My widgets would be $1.05. My competitor’s would be $1.00
JPS1 Irrespective of whether they are common carriers or private carriers, truckers pass all of their costs through to the shipper. If a commercial carrier is unable to recover the costs from its customers, it ultimately goes out of business. If a private carrier does not recover all of its shipping costs, it either has to raise the shelf price of its goods or take a hit to the bottom line. A successful commercial carrier like Hunt, Schneider, etc. price the cost of the service to cover all of their costs, including taxes, plus a profit. A private carrier like Walmart, Frito-Lay, etc. pass all of the shipping costs through to the buyer of their goods. They usually don't price the cost of transport to have it show a profit, but they could in some instances. Corporations don't pay taxes of any sort. They pass them through to their customers unless they lack the pricing power to do so, in which case the shareholders and perhaps the workers have to eat them. Taxes are a cost of doing business; a successful business recaptures them from its customers.
Irrespective of whether they are common carriers or private carriers, truckers pass all of their costs through to the shipper. If a commercial carrier is unable to recover the costs from its customers, it ultimately goes out of business. If a private carrier does not recover all of its shipping costs, it either has to raise the shelf price of its goods or take a hit to the bottom line.
A successful commercial carrier like Hunt, Schneider, etc. price the cost of the service to cover all of their costs, including taxes, plus a profit. A private carrier like Walmart, Frito-Lay, etc. pass all of the shipping costs through to the buyer of their goods. They usually don't price the cost of transport to have it show a profit, but they could in some instances.
Corporations don't pay taxes of any sort. They pass them through to their customers unless they lack the pricing power to do so, in which case the shareholders and perhaps the workers have to eat them. Taxes are a cost of doing business; a successful business recaptures them from its customers.
I disagree a little bit on some of your wording. It’s not as simple as passing on the freight cost to the buyer. That's like saying corporations don't pay payroll of any sort, they just pass them on to the customers. It’s probably more accurate to say the freight cost adds to the overall cost and that the selling price is not so much based on cost as it is on supply and demand in the market. Let’s say I’m selling widgets for $1.00 and competitor is at $1.00 as well. If my transportation cost per widgets goes up 5 cents, I can’t automatically just pass on the freight cost to the buyer. My widgets would be $1.05. My competitor’s would be $1.00
It is true that taxes are just one of many costs that get passed onto the customer. But what sets taxes apart from all other costs is that taxes tend to fall uniformly on all businesses as a fixed mandate. Whereas the other business costs all vary according to their suppliers’ right to set their prices wherever they wish, depending on their advantages and efficiencies and willingness of their market to pay the price.
Therefore businesses do not have to compete with each other when their prices are raised by a tax increase. Businesses are able to pass the universal government mandated tax onto their customers as if it were the businesses universal mandate on their customers.
If a tax increase on a your business is passed through to the consumer; and it raises your product price from $1.00 to $1.05; it raises your competitor's products to $1.05 at the same time. So you don't have to compete with your competitor on that added cost.
The Eurotunnel needed bankruptcy protection in the early 2000s. The debt was restructured in 2007 and cut to $5.6 billion. Since 2009 Eurotunnel pays dividends.
They had a net consolidated profit of $240 million in 2016.Regards, Volker
A thought. The Chunnel was a very dysfunctional project as I recall. Considered a boondoggle. Massively expensive. Today, it seems to serve a useful function, integral to transportation between the UK and the Continent. How does it pay its way?
"Let’s say I’m selling widgets for $1.00 and competitor is at $1.00 as well. If my transportation cost per widgets goes up 5 cents, I can’t automatically just pass on the freight cost to the buyer. My widgets would be $1.05. My competitor’s would be $1.00"
You are correct. If your raise your price and the competition does not, you would be price disadvantaged. You might be able to offset it with better performance, customer attention, etc. The customer is still providing the revenue to cover the costs, but the amount that flows through to the owner is reduced by the increase in shipping costs.
Businesses are pass throughs. Over the long run the customers pay for everything, including payroll, taxes, advertising, debt service, shipping, etc. A business owner has to get enough revenue from her customers over time to cover all of her costs and have something left over for her efforts.
This is an over simplification. One could argue that the owner pays the increase in shipping costs over the short run by taking a hit to his bottom line. But the revenue stream still comes from the customer.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Johnny
JPS1 csxns rrnut282 if the airlines built their own airport and runways, And if the truckers built their own Interstates and highways. Commercial air carriers,// trucks, barge lines, [ my argument is that lumping these modes together is the "Apples and Oranges" Argument!] etc. have the advantage of using shared right-of-ways. The key question is whether they pay their share of the cost of construction and maintenance. The answers are debatable. Ultimately the cost of building and maintaining any infrastructure is borne by the people. "Truckers as an example don't pay for anything." [ A false narrative! The tax structure for theTrucking Industry, is highly taxed at the Sate and Federal Levels, both recriprically and via liscensing ] The bake the cost of their service into the goods that they deliver, and the end users or buyers pay the cost of transporting them. [Absolutely, almost all Corporations , do not pay many taxes, but do pass many of them through to their Consumers.] At the end of 2014 there were 19,299 airports in the United States as per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Of this number 5,145 were public use airports, and approximately 525 of them had commercial air service. Which means that most of the airports in the United States were built for and maintained for general aviation. [ Federal Govt. agencies, pay for, and maintain 'enhancements' to services needed, and ustilized by Commercial and private aviation entities.] [Likewise, the Navigatable waterways, and their Flood Control aspects,are maintanied by the Corps of Engineers, for Commercial and private uses.] If we were building railroads from scratch today, given the public ownership of most of the infrastructure for competing modes, a case could be made to have the rail infrastructure owned by the people through their government, and open the rails to competitive operators. We are where we are with respect to transport infrastructure. It is not going to change materially in the foreseeble future. So the railroads are going to have to figure out where and how they can be a serious player, which some of them at least appear to be doing. [ The American Railroads, Are Private entities, operated for profit of those entities. They are not adverse to taking Public Monies when they are able to show benefits for themselves, and the General Population.{ Note: Both CSX and NSRR , and their 'Corridor' Projects have benefitted from financal help from State Government's in the areas of their 'enhancement projects'. } Commuter Rail Projects, and Urban Rail and Bus Transportation are both beneficiaries in these areas.]
csxns rrnut282 if the airlines built their own airport and runways, And if the truckers built their own Interstates and highways.
And if the truckers built their own Interstates and highways.
Commercial air carriers,// trucks, barge lines, [ my argument is that lumping these modes together is the "Apples and Oranges" Argument!] etc. have the advantage of using shared right-of-ways. The key question is whether they pay their share of the cost of construction and maintenance. The answers are debatable.
Ultimately the cost of building and maintaining any infrastructure is borne by the people. "Truckers as an example don't pay for anything." [ A false narrative! The tax structure for theTrucking Industry, is highly taxed at the Sate and Federal Levels, both recriprically and via liscensing ]
The bake the cost of their service into the goods that they deliver, and the end users or buyers pay the cost of transporting them. [Absolutely, almost all Corporations , do not pay many taxes, but do pass many of them through to their Consumers.]
At the end of 2014 there were 19,299 airports in the United States as per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Of this number 5,145 were public use airports, and approximately 525 of them had commercial air service. Which means that most of the airports in the United States were built for and maintained for general aviation. [ Federal Govt. agencies, pay for, and maintain 'enhancements' to services needed, and ustilized by Commercial and private aviation entities.] [Likewise, the Navigatable waterways, and their Flood Control aspects,are maintanied by the Corps of Engineers, for Commercial and private uses.]
If we were building railroads from scratch today, given the public ownership of most of the infrastructure for competing modes, a case could be made to have the rail infrastructure owned by the people through their government, and open the rails to competitive operators.
We are where we are with respect to transport infrastructure. It is not going to change materially in the foreseeble future. So the railroads are going to have to figure out where and how they can be a serious player, which some of them at least appear to be doing. [ The American Railroads, Are Private entities, operated for profit of those entities. They are not adverse to taking Public Monies when they are able to show benefits for themselves, and the General Population.{ Note: Both CSX and NSRR , and their 'Corridor' Projects have benefitted from financal help from State Government's in the areas of their 'enhancement projects'. } Commuter Rail Projects, and Urban Rail and Bus Transportation are both beneficiaries in these areas.]
Commercial air carriers, trucks, barge lines, etc. have the advantage of using shared right-of-ways. The key question is whether they pay their share of the cost of construction and maintenance. The answers are debatable.
Ultimately the cost of building and maintaining any infrastructure is borne by the people. Truckers as an example don't pay for anything. The bake the cost of their service into the goods that they deliver, and the end users or buyers pay the cost of transporting them.
At the end of 2014 there were 19,299 airports in the United States as per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Of this number 5,145 were public use airports, and approximately 525 of them had commercial air service. Which means that most of the airports in the United States were built for and maintained for general aviation.
We are where we are with respect to transport infrastructure. It is not going to change materially in the foreseeble future. So the railroads are going to have to figure out where and how they can be a serious player, which some of them at least appear to be doing.
Shadow the Cats owner You need to remember this is CA the same state that spent 3 billion at last count in taxpayer dollars to try and save a 2 inch fish. The same state that had 150 million budgeted to fix a dam spillway but thaat wasn't even enough to cover the EIS for the project. The same state that an apartment with less than 800 sq feet in it goes for 4 grand a month in the Bay Area and they wonder why people are living in tents.
You need to remember this is CA the same state that spent 3 billion at last count in taxpayer dollars to try and save a 2 inch fish. The same state that had 150 million budgeted to fix a dam spillway but thaat wasn't even enough to cover the EIS for the project. The same state that an apartment with less than 800 sq feet in it goes for 4 grand a month in the Bay Area and they wonder why people are living in tents.
Documentation? Given you and your mate posted nonsense about nukes and earthquakes, etc. in the past, I think these claims need proof.
rrnut282if the airlines built their own airport and runways,
Russell
It still amazes me that people come to trains web-site and bash trains as a transportation solution. I don't see this behaviour on other transportation oriented web-sites.
I wonder how cheap that god-awful cramped airline seat would be if the airlines built their own airport and runways, and ran air traffic control facilities, and weather bureaus, and didn't get baled out, etc. There is a lot of government subsidy baked into the cost of that ticket.
We had a public discussion that we are loading the government debt onto the shoulders of unborn generations. As a result new indebtedness got limited to 0.35% of GDP with exeption for catastrophes in our constitution. We had a balanced budget in the last few years and to keep this is the long term goal.
On the other hand public transportation is a service for the public defined in our contitution too.
When Deutsche Bahn started HSR they were able to update trackage already certified for 100 mph. A lot of our HSR trackage is still track updated to 125 and 155 mph. Were necessary special real HSR lines were built.
The relation Hamburg to Stuttgart is about the same length as SF to LA but takes about 5.5 hours for the above reasons. It is still competetive with highway and air travel.Regards, Volker
Here is a significant difference between Germany and the U.S.
According to the New York Times, government debt in Germany has shrunk from 79.9 percent of GDP in 2012 to 68.3 percent in 2016. U.S. government debt, which stood at slightly more than $21 trillion today, is approximately 109 percent of GDP. If intragovernmental debt is backed out, the U.S. public debt is approximately 80 percent of GDP. This is the highest public debt to GDP ratio since WW II.
It appears that Germany has a better handle on its government debt than the U.S. If this is true it has more government direct or backed resources to promote passenger rail. On the other hand, the U.S. is running out of resources to fund passenger rail or general infrastructure improvements.
runnerdude48Well, I was going to comment but, except for Volker, you have all said it better than I could. Let the people vote again.
It happens that people have differing opinions. ;-)
Perhaps we are not so far apart as you think. I argued that HSR can compete with air travel on the SF to LA relation.
And there can be benefits for the state beyond the pure train revenue a investor wouldn't benefit from. If that is good enough to proceed with the project at the risk that the trains run at a deficit is a polital question.
Being a German and living there I try to keep out of American politics. But being socialized with functioning rail passenger system, long distance as well as commuter and regional I am biased. From Hamburg to Stuttgart, the same distance as SF to LA, I would never fly though the train takes two more hours.
American railroads don't lend themselfes to updates to 125 mph. With the American way of running freight trains, long and slow, this would just enlarge the problems Amtrak has with its long distance trains.
So if there is a political or public will (and there was during the Obama administration) separate tracks are the best solution.Regards, Volker
Yes air travel is faster LAX <> SFO but what about all the intermediate stations and between them and end points. Certainly not cheaper either.
our posters here resent the the constant posting of only end point destinations for passenger trains be it HSR or Amtrak or commuter.
Well, I was going to comment but, except for Volker, you have all said it better than I could. Let the people vote again. If they approve this boondoggle again then they deserve what they get. But maybe this time saner heads will prevail and they will see that this whole thing is a scam that will only enrich the lawyers and the construction contractors.
Reading the 'NEWS' this morning; found the following article and comments.
"Jerry Brown’s half-fast ‘bullet train’ front man admits Californians deserve another vote on the project" By Thomas Lifson
linked@https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/03/jerry_browns_halffast_bullet_train_front_man_admits_californians_deserve_another_vote_on_the_project.html
Seems to be pretty much in line with the preceeding Thread comments. At the risk of getting a 'talking to' by the moderators: California, and its politics, certainly provide some interesting information, and a decidedly, different slant on how things seem to get done out there in 'The Golden State'
VOLKER LANDWEHR Air travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles is about 1:30 hours. Add to this check in including safety plus baggage claim. I read somewhere that the ticket price was planned to be about 50% of the average air fare.
Air travel from San Francisco to Los Angeles is about 1:30 hours. Add to this check in including safety plus baggage claim.
I read somewhere that the ticket price was planned to be about 50% of the average air fare.
Given the escalating estimates of the final cost of the project, which doesn't include debt service, it is unlikely that the initial estimates of the average ticket price will not also escalate.
If the primary objective of this project is to provide commercial carrier service from LAX to SFO, the airlines probably could meet the foreseable demand by using larger airplanes. There are lots of wide body airplanes on the used airplane market that can be bought cheap. They could be configured for the short haul market.
Moreover, the cost to inhance the gate areas in LAX and SFO would be much less, I suspect, than the cost of the California High Speed Rail Project. And as is the case in short haul markets, many if not most people carry their luggage onto the airplane. With TSA pre-check the amount of time required to clear security has been reduced significantly.
If the objective is better rail service up the central valley, upgrading the existing rail lines to 125 mph might have been a better option. For example, Fresno to San Francisco is 188 miles. Merced to San Francisco is 131 miles. A train that averages 95 to 100 mph would be an attractive option to driving and/or flying between these points.
JoeBlowThis project wouldn't succeed if it was completed tomorrow. Air travel is faster and cheaper.
The train is designed to do this in 2.40 hours. Sounds quite competetive. And if not for the final destination at least from the intermediate stops like Merced, Fresno etc.
I read somewhere that the ticket price was planned to be about 50% of the average air fare. That would be more than the lowest fare but you get much more comfort and a more comfortable travel.
Private equities want invest in such projects. The are too long term for their liking with too many imponderables over the run. One of the economical success of the train. There are other economical benefits like economical growth that equities won't participate in.regards, Volker
This project wouldn't succeed if it was completed tomorrow. Air travel is faster and cheaper.
If this was such good idea then private equity folks would be lining up to invest or even fund the entire venture themselves.
Total failure on the part of the Arnold S. and Jerry B. admins.
Convicted One Paul of Covington Sometimes I think it's deliberate. Along with the idealized artist renderings depicting a finished product so grandiose that no one could afford them. Then, once completed to a lesser spec, blame reality on the unwillingness of the public to support the founder's vision. Every good scam artist needs a talented artist to produce renderings. Paper being so much cheaper than brick.
Paul of Covington Sometimes I think it's deliberate.
Along with the idealized artist renderings depicting a finished product so grandiose that no one could afford them. Then, once completed to a lesser spec, blame reality on the unwillingness of the public to support the founder's vision.
Every good scam artist needs a talented artist to produce renderings. Paper being so much cheaper than brick.
Don't forget that the artist's rendering also shows hundreds of people using the facility. Oddly, the humans are usually drawn as hybrid, human caricatures.
Anyone surprised by this cost increase please raise their hand.
Paul of CovingtonSometimes I think it's deliberate.
blue streak 1 Every rail new build or revision seems to always underestimate the problems getting new ROW and various permits. That streaches out all timelines greatly.
Every rail new build or revision seems to always underestimate the problems getting new ROW and various permits. That streaches out all timelines greatly.
Sometimes I think it's deliberate. They get the lowball estimate approved, then, "Oops, we underestimated, but since we already got this far, we need just a little bit more so that what we did so far won't be a waste."
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.