JPS1Many of the high speed rails system, based on my read of their financial reports, were built with taxpayer monies. Unlike funding for U.S. airports, the taxpayers probably did not recover the initial monies that they had sunk into high speed rail infrastructure.
You are right, the building of the rail infrastructure is tax financed as is building of airports and building and maintenance of our (German) road system. There is no payback.
I find it fair that rail infrastructure is build using taxes as all are handled almost equal. That was what I meant above.
As the rail infrastructure is government owned it can be used by about 150 railroad companies competing with DB. They all pay for the track use by ton-miles. This money is used for maintenance.
It is very different here. Our constitution defines Germany as a social state. Therefore public transportation is deemed as general interest.
The fares have to be considered in a way that even poor people can fully participate in daily life. These fare limits often make subsidizing with taxes necessary.Regards, Volker
BaltACD VOLKER LANDWEHR JPS1 The Japanese and French claim that one or more of their high speed rail lines are profitable. True! What they don't say, however, is the taxpayers ate a substantial portion of the capital expenditures for the infrastructure before turning the depreciated assets over to the operating companies. That is true but road system, airports are tax financed too. So it is just fair.Regards, Volker But that is not the American way. Americans view that passenger trains - HSR and regular - have to be profitable in total. Capital expenditure for equipment and facilities as well as right of way maintenance - EVERYTHING!
VOLKER LANDWEHR JPS1 The Japanese and French claim that one or more of their high speed rail lines are profitable. True! What they don't say, however, is the taxpayers ate a substantial portion of the capital expenditures for the infrastructure before turning the depreciated assets over to the operating companies. That is true but road system, airports are tax financed too. So it is just fair.Regards, Volker
JPS1 The Japanese and French claim that one or more of their high speed rail lines are profitable. True! What they don't say, however, is the taxpayers ate a substantial portion of the capital expenditures for the infrastructure before turning the depreciated assets over to the operating companies.
That is true but road system, airports are tax financed too. So it is just fair.Regards, Volker
But that is not the American way. Americans view that passenger trains - HSR and regular - have to be profitable in total. Capital expenditure for equipment and facilities as well as right of way maintenance - EVERYTHING!
Although, they don't care that highways tend to operate at a loss.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
JPS1The Japanese and French claim that one or more of their high speed rail lines are profitable. True! What they don't say, however, is the taxpayers ate a substantial portion of the capital expenditures for the infrastructure before turning the depreciated assets over to the operating companies.
YoHo1975UH, if you read the report, a large part of the cost increases has been land acquisition costs. Basically, Eminent domain costs were higher than anticipated. It's just silly to suggest LA to SD would be simpler. It would literally be harder in every conceivable way. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it cost around $67Billion on it's own. Look at how hard it's been to get the bay area portions of the proposal managed.
A couple of items strike me with the California project and now that you mention it the emminent domain costs are excessive as well. Why didn't they use power line easements for the majority of the route as does the proposed Dallas to Houston project. Why not share road or highway easements? Still unsure why they need to tunnel under mountains when you have the rapid acceleration and horsepower to weight ratio a HSR trainset has. These are not the Swiss Alps, they are a series of minor mountain ranges in California in which most of the Class I railroads have successfully crossed with relatively minor grades.
YoHo1975Again, the costs of some of those segments are impossibly huge. The portion from San Jose to SF (They aren't going to Oakland) is stalled and will likely never be true high speed.
Yup, guess why? They are tunneling under three seperate mountain segments according to the news reports I have read. I wish I could find out the distance and locations of those tunnels because that will spike the cost of a project faster than anything else. Going up the pinnesula to SFO saves having to bridge the Earthquake prone bay or tunnel under it.....which could be costly. If they elevate the track most of that route they can still go fast.....it's only if they share track at grade that they become speed restricted. So that might be a get it done segment, set aside for improvement later.
But, if they had started with the shorter routes they could've built them reallly quickly possibly even by now and they would start to open up, and make a profit if not at least revenue to help aide the building of the longer routes.
benIf they had made segments and then connected them in phases, for example, starting with SD to LA and then doing LA to Bakersfield, and Bakersfield to Fresno, Fresno to Sacramento, Sacramento to Oakland, Oakland to SF. That would've been good because they would start to service HSR in different areas so that people started to like it and revenue would start to flow in to balance out the large costs of creating it.
Again, the costs of some of those segments are impossibly huge. The portion from San Jose to SF (They aren't going to Oakland) is stalled and will likely never be true high speed.
They went with a portion of the line that they felt
1: Offered the least challenges all around to getting built and
2: could be connected into the existing infrastructure to facilitate faster service and get use out of the asset.
If they could have gotten the other segments built, they would have.
Victrola1 SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – Officials increased the cost estimate for the first phase of California’s high speed rail project by 35 percent on Tuesday, to $10.6 billion. That would put the entire cost of the train from San Francisco to Los Angeles at roughly $67 billion, although officials said they hope to recover the newly announced costs later.......
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) – Officials increased the cost estimate for the first phase of California’s high speed rail project by 35 percent on Tuesday, to $10.6 billion.
That would put the entire cost of the train from San Francisco to Los Angeles at roughly $67 billion, although officials said they hope to recover the newly announced costs later.......
Most cost projections for large projects don't include the cost of financing. But servicing the debt issued to finance the project is part of the long term cost.
If the $67 billion were financed for 30 years at the current 10 year U.S. Treasury Bond rate, the ultimate cost of the project would be $96.4 billion. The project probably will be funded from a variety of sources, so this number is a rough estimate, but it illustrates that when the cost of financing a project is included, the numbers jump dramatically.
The Japanese and French claim that one or more of their high speed rail lines are profitable. True! What they don't say, however, is the taxpayers ate a substantial portion of the capital expenditures for the infrastructure before turning the depreciated assets over to the operating companies.
Johnny
UH, if you read the report, a large part of the cost increases has been land acquisition costs. Basically, Eminent domain costs were higher than anticipated.
It's just silly to suggest LA to SD would be simpler. It would literally be harder in every conceivable way. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it cost around $67Billion on it's own.
Look at how hard it's been to get the bay area portions of the proposal managed.
If you want to look at a project that potentially could have been easier and cheaper, I think Sacramento to Oakland would have been better. The biggest question would be which right of way to use. The former SP CalP? Almost have to to hit Davis. Or CalP to Davis, then cut down to the former Sac Northern To Pittburg? But you probably couldn't even really do that. Would probably have to be CalP all the way in. Either running next to the UP or just upgrading the UP trackage and not being true HSR.
Victrola1If say Union Pacific, or BNSF were doing a massive line project in California and costs came in this far above projections somebody would be out of a job.
When large projects are proposed, the cost estimates that are presented to the public during the approval process are at best 'ballpark estimates' and at worst 'wild ass guesses'. Especially when dealing with civil engineering project - the ground itself hide many surprises as the project moves forward in the world of reality. Additionall on the financial side, the value of money does not stand still - a dollar in 2008 doesn't buy the same value of goods as a dollar in 2018 will.
BNSF & UP run into the same kinds cost overruns as governmental projects, likely with less political graft being involved. Project Engineers of private companies have a lot of explaining to do about overrun, however, there are generally good reasons and they will not be out of a job.
If say Union Pacific, or BNSF were doing a massive line project in California and costs came in this far above projections somebody would be out of a job.
A smaller cheaper project say like LA to San Diego would have been a better idea as a demonstration first. Instead Big Government had to go for the gargantuan project first and hire a Cecil B Demille cast of employees to boot. I think the end cost of the project will be far more than $67 Billion.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/01/16/california-high-speed-rail-cost/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.