Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="oltmannd"] [quote user="Sam1"]In fact, there is a scant probability that the operators will even recover their operating expenses.[/quote] No, in your opinion "there is a scant probability that the operators will even recover their operating expenses".  There is no hard evidence that this is a fact. There are, in fact, some estimates in existence that say otherwise that you chose to disagree with by labeling them "promoters".  They are based on at least a modicum of science, although, admittedly, they are an extrapolation.  So, reality is that no one knows with much certainty what the results of any HSR project might be. [/quote] The average fare on the NEC between New York and Washington is $105.80 or 46.8 cents per mile.  The average fare between Boston and Washington is $137.90 or 30 cents per mile.  The average fare between New York and Philadelphia is $84.55 or 92.5 cents per mile.  Of course, the complete fare structure for the NEC would produce different results between any two fare points, but these are reasonably representative. The average stated fare on the California High Speed Rail Line, according to the report on NPR by the Chairman of the California High Speed Rail Board, will be $55 or approximately 13.1 cents per mile.  Unless the California HSR draws an enormous crowd, how it will cover its operating costs when Amtrak barely covers its operating costs on the NEC, except for the New York to Washington segment, mystifies me.  This is why I think that high speed rail, as currently proposed, has scant chance of covering its operating cost.  And it has practically no chance of covering the capital costs. The investment in the NEC is in the neighborhood of $9.6 billion or an average of $21 million per mile.  The proposed investment in the California High Speed Rail Project (HSR), which appears to be the poster child for high speed rail in America, will be north of $40 billion, if the project comes in on time and within budget, which is problematic.  The estimated rail mileage is 420 miles.  The cost to construct the system will be approximately $95.2 million per mile. Scant means not quite coming up to a stated measure.  It does not mean that high speed rail could not cover its operating expenses; it means that the probability of doing so, given the performance of high speed rail in other environments, is unlikely.  Business people invest in projects that have a reasonable chance of success.  They don't know the future, but they have an array of tools to paint reasonable scenarios of whether the project is likely to succeed.   In my company we demanded a lot more than just a modicum of science. I am, however, open to new evidence.  Please direct me to the authoritative references you claim but have not cited for the independently audited studies showing that high speed rail, as proposed, will cover its operating costs and contribute something to the capital investment.  By independent audit I mean the numbers have been audited by a large, independent accounting firm, e.g. PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Deloitte, etc. that does not have a stake in the outcome. Most perspectives are a function of opinions.  Whether an investment in high speed rail is a good idea or a bad idea; whether it will cover its costs or won't, is an opinion. Opinions that are backed-up with verifiable, independently audit data carry more weight with me than those that lack the support.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag