schlimm A bit farther south on the Tri-state (I 294) it bisects the huge quarry at Thornton. There are rail lines (not sure who owns them, the east one is a N-S mainline, I believe) on the east and west boundaries, as well.
A bit farther south on the Tri-state (I 294) it bisects the huge quarry at Thornton. There are rail lines (not sure who owns them, the east one is a N-S mainline, I believe) on the east and west boundaries, as well.
Do any of these run a passenger service through?
The VIA from Windsor/Sarnia and from TO go through this quarry---I tried to get to get some pix when I went through on it but my timing is just plain bad---
I keep wondering about how that is arranged in the first place---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
schlimm CMStPnPI lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares. Interesting. I've ridden on DB a lot for 40+ years and seen many changes, mostly for the good. Not as many small towns are served now as even 15 years ago, particularly on the lines in the former DDR (E. Germany). There are very few Kurswagens (passenger cars shunted from one train to another, often in less than 10 minutes) now. But the tremendous increase in really fast, frequent service (not just ICE, but also IC and RE trains) is really something. Getting around is so easy, even with train changes. The waiting time for your connection is short, sometimes a few minutes. The cars are very comfortable. Most stations are places people like to go to. If you've never ridden there or other European countries, you have no idea what a first class rail system can be.
CMStPnPI lived in Germany for 18 months and I was amazed I could reach just about any part of the country without a car and without shelling out a small fortune in fares.
Interesting. I've ridden on DB a lot for 40+ years and seen many changes, mostly for the good. Not as many small towns are served now as even 15 years ago, particularly on the lines in the former DDR (E. Germany). There are very few Kurswagens (passenger cars shunted from one train to another, often in less than 10 minutes) now. But the tremendous increase in really fast, frequent service (not just ICE, but also IC and RE trains) is really something. Getting around is so easy, even with train changes. The waiting time for your connection is short, sometimes a few minutes. The cars are very comfortable. Most stations are places people like to go to. If you've never ridden there or other European countries, you have no idea what a first class rail system can be.
What were the fares like when you took DB?
That would be in Thornton, IL. While the Tri-State bisects that quarry, the CN (GTW) and UP (CEI) are safely away and not constrained for adding additional tracks. These lines are farther than the UP (CNW) to the quarry in Elmhurst, IL.
This is getting off the subject since I doubt the IHB would be used in the French HS proposal for the Chicago hub; but we may get more details at tomorrow's Midwest HSR Annual Meeting.
blownout cylinderWhat were the fares like when you took DB?
I last rode DB in 2009. Check this English version of the DB website and check a current fare from Frankfurt to Munich (or whatever cities you choose):
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Last time I rode was 10 years ago. Seems to me the Sleeping Car service was cheaper then Amtrak but the 1st class Coach was more expensive. When you use the Sleeping Car Service in Germany you have to specify you want the compartment to yourself and you pay a suppliment. Otherwise in some cases you will be sharing a compartment with a stranger.
I had a German see that once and go off on the conductor right outside my compartment. He was saying there were two more beds and there is no reason I should have the compartment to myself. The Conductor straightened him out on the extra fare I paid. So some Germans get a little miffed sometimes but they can pay the extra fare and make reservations just like I did.
Another republican at it again. Perhaps if we tell the republicans it is to start an unneeded war they will support HSR.
wairoaAnother republican at it again. Perhaps if we tell the republicans it is to start an unneeded war they will support HSR.
Huh? What's this about?
He must be just now responding to the initial post of some weeks ago.
I'm a little late to this thread, but let me state a couple of opinions on HSR for what (if anything) they may be worth.
First of all, does anyone seriously believe that any of the HSR "new starts" being proposed will pay their way? It would be one thing if government fronted the capital costs of construction, and then the service, once it was up and running, repaid them. But how realistic is that? I stand to be corrected by those who know more about foreign HSR systems than I do, but I don't believe that any foreign HSR system covers its capital costs. At most, some of them may cover their operatingl costs. Given differences in population density in this country vs foreign countries with HSR, I seriously doubt whether any of the HSR "new starts" being proposed in this country would even be able to cover their operating costs, let alone their capital costs. If this proves to be the case, any new HSR built will represent a continued cash drain for the govenrnmental unit responsible for the system.
The argument that taxpayers should, nevertheless, support new HSR systems, even if they operate at a deficit, because they already pay great gobs of money to support other govenment programs (both in transport and in other areas) that don't pay their way doesn't cut a whole lot of weight with me. It's like saying that, because you use your credit card to buy more stuff than you can afford at Walmart, you have an obligation to spend even more to buy stuff you can't afford to buy stuff at Target.
Finally, have any of those advocating taxpayer support of new HSR systems considered what this might mean to less flashy, but more vital, urban mass transit systems and Amtrak regional services? If HSR proves to be a cash drain (as is likely), a very realistic scenario is that the funding for these other vital, but more mundane, transport services will be cut in order to support the new showcase HSR services. Just look what's happening in Illinois. The state is talking about spending billions on a new Chicago- St.. Louis HSR which, even under its most optimistic projects, will handle only a small number of the passengers hauled by the Chicago mass transit system. Yet, the Chicago transit system is starving, cutting back services and wondering where it is going to get the money to rebuild its ancient infrastructure. And look at California. The state is planning to spend billions for a Los Angeles-San Franciso HSR while the important Caltrains San Jose - San Franciso commuter train service is being cut back due to lack of funds. The HSR service may be more glitzy, but which service is really more important? And what's going to happen to the funding for other California supported transit and regional rail services if the HSR service is ever actually built? This same scenario is likely to play out all over the country. Any HSR lines actually built will drain money away from existing transit and regional rail services.
Don't get me wrong. From a hobby standpoint, I like HSR. If an HSR line is built from Chicago, I would certainly ride it once in awhile, if only for the experience. But I don't expect the taxpayers to support my hobby.
Can we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? We could build a tremendous passenger rail network with the money we spend on the largest military in the world, or just the money we spend supporting military bases all over the world. I didn't even include the hundreds of billions spent beating up and occupying small countries.
The government supports things that benefit our society, whether or not they make money. Police, Fire, water systems, sewer systems, road construction and maintenance, public parks, an inexpensive postal system, environmental conservation, NASA, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc. The ability of our people to move around the country easily, comfortably, and quickly is one of those things.
If you are looking for government waste to wave your tea bags at, I can find you a lot of things that are a lot more outrageous than constructing a modern passenger rail network.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet Can we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? We could build a tremendous passenger rail network with the money we spend on the largest military in the world, or just the money we spend supporting military bases all over the world. I didn't even include the hundreds of billions spent beating up and occupying small countries. The government supports things that benefit our society, whether or not they make money. Police, Fire, water systems, sewer systems, road construction and maintenance, public parks, an inexpensive postal system, environmental conservation, NASA, the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc. The ability of our people to move around the country easily, comfortably, and quickly is one of those things. If you are looking for government waste to wave your tea bags at, I can find you a lot of things that are a lot more outrageous than constructing a modern passenger rail network.
The most complete, concise, and accurate statement ever posted on any Forum page or topic!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
Falcon48First of all, does anyone seriously believe that any of the HSR "new starts" being proposed will pay their way?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Falcon48 Given differences in population density in this country vs foreign countries with HSR,
Falcon48Any HSR lines actually built will drain money away from existing transit and regional rail services.
I wouldn't expect taxpayers to support my hobby, my travel or my commute unless doing so was in the overall interest of the country.
oltmannd Is being delayed 5 minutes, 5 days a week worth the same to you as being delayed once for 25 minutes? And, maybe, it's not even the actual delay that's important, it's the reliability of the trip. If you always have to allow an extra 25 minutes to be sure you get somewhere on time even though 4 out of 5 times you will arrive 25 minutes early, is that not worse than alway having to leave 5 minutes early?
Don: You have squarely hit the nail on the head. I have a doctor that I vist once every 3 months north of Peachtree station. I have to leave 1 hr earlier than needed because once every 3 - 4 times I just make it on schedule. You have spoken of this for Amtrak on time performance and it appears that getting close to the 80% on time for them really attracks many more passengers?
We probably know know persons who leave every day 1/2 - 1 hr earlier to work but cannot start until regular starting time but be one minute late -----------?
The primary place where Amtrak's abysmal on time performance is important is when making connections. It is very unlikely that they will hold a train or an airplane because the incoming train is late.
The amount society decides to spend in the public vs. private sectors is a value judgment, and whether the activity should be in the public sector or private sector is also a value judgment. Hopefully, the efficiency and effectiveness of each option is weighed carefully, although in many if not most instances a heavy dose of emotionalism usually creeps into the equation.
What the U.S. spends on its military establishment is subject to extensive debate. Amazingly, some people even have a few intelligent things to say about it, but my experience tells me that most people outside of the military establishment or the highest reaches of the federal government are not knowledgeable regarding the appropriateness of the military spend, which by the way is roughly 4.5 per cent of GDP.
What the U.S. spends on its military establishment or postal service or national parks, etc. has nothing to do with what it should spend on passenger rail. The key question is what problem is passenger rail designed to fix? And where would it be an optimum solution? How rich should the solution be? The answers to these questions should drive the decisions regarding the appropriateness of any potential spend on passenger rail.
If a robust cost model is used to determine where passenger rail is a good fit, the only places that would come up positive are in those relatively few areas of the country where the cost of expanding the highway and airways systems is prohibitive.
Oh, the "inexpensive postal system" has one of the highest overhead burdens of any organization (government or otherwise) in the United States. It has been losing money by the buckets for a long time, although it is supposed to cover its costs. This year it will require a federal subsidy of $3.8 billion. And this is on top of $3.4 billion that it gets each year from the federal government for services supposedly provided for it. How these services are priced is problematic, but some analysts believe that the government payment greatly exceeds the cost of the services received and in fact is a subsidy.
The postal service has one retiree for every 1.47 active employees. These retirees have generous retirement benefits. It is one of the factors that are contribution to the financial problems besetting the postal service. No business organization could sustain this ratio. Oh, did I say it? The post office is all too typical of many government organizations. And it is why I don't want the government at any level to run anything that can be run by a competitive business, even it the only thing that would fit is a sole source contract.
oltmanndFalcon48 Given differences in population density in this country vs foreign countries with HSR, The eastern half of the US and California are not dissimilar to Europe.Falcon48Any HSR lines actually built will drain money away from existing transit and regional rail services.Not really. It's the non-discretionary portions of the budge that will sink all discretionary spending. Non-discretionary spending is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (this is the 900# gorilla) and debt interest. Federal spending has typically been about 20% of GNP for the past 40 years. Non-discretionary spending is currently about 60% of the Federal budget and will exceed 20% of GNP in the next 40 years, leaving nothing for defense, education, transit, highways or anything else. I wouldn't expect taxpayers to support my hobby, my travel or my commute unless doing so was in the overall interest of the country.
Your assessment of non-discretionary vs. discretionary federal spending is spot on. However, you left out two items of the non-discretionary spend that are worth mentioning. They are the unfunded military and federal retirement promises.
Unlike firms offering a qualified pension plan, the government does not have to determine the actuarial value of the retirement benefits for its employees (military and civilian) and fund them on an on-going basis. It just takes the money from the yearly operating budget, which is course is paid for by the taxpayers. The amount of unfunded military and federal employee retirement benefits is nearly as great as the amount of unfunded Social Security obligations.
What do you think would happen to a candidate for Congress if he or she promised to modernize the military retirement plan, which was put together in 1866, when male life expectancywas approximately 45 years? Or touch the civilian retirement plan?
Phoebe VetCan we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even?
Like henry6, this was one of the most succinct expressions of the inconsistencies and clearly political bias of our resident accountant. I can only remark that perhaps she would prefer to "privatize" the remainder of our military not already out-sourced. For that matter, why not privatize the whole government?
schlimm Phoebe VetCan we presume that you are equally offended by everything else the government does that doesn't make a profit or at least break even? Like henry6, this was one of the most succinct expressions of the inconsistencies and clearly political bias of our resident accountant. I can only remark that perhaps she would prefer to "privatize" the remainder of our military not already out-sourced. For that matter, why not privatize the whole government?
A careful read of my post reveals two key points;
I have maintained consistently these views since I began posting to these forums more than three years ago.
No suggestion that the military should be outsourced was made or implied. Since the beginning of the Republic the U.S. military has relied on contractors for equipment and supplies, as well as critical support services best performed by civilians.
There are numerous activites performed by governments at all levels that could be outsourced. In fact, there are many examples of where they have been with good results.
The military is already being privatized, what else explains Blackwater and other similar private security (mercenaries) contractors.
This thread if not the entire advocacy community has "run off the rails" and "put 'er on the ground" as it were.
A person cannot express skepticism whether the time is ripe for HSR without the conversation devolving into partisan politics.
Look people, if HSR is going to be tied to the "Red State-Blue State" divide, HSR or anything else rail is going to be a big loser. Why? Because the partisan divide is pretty much right down the middle of the electorate, pretty much a 50-50 or maybe as much as a 52-48 split.
So, you take your 52 percent on your side of the partisan divide, and maybe, just maybe, if you are persuasive, you get 90 percent of that, and what do you have 47 percent, at best. You lose. No growth of Amtrak. No HSR. You are certainly not getting any votes from the other side of the partisan divide because you have made train advocacy a "hot button issue."
A person on this forum tries to express some modest skepticism regarding HSR, concerns readily addressed, but no, this person gets branded a right-wing zealot and a bunch of other people "pile on" saying how much they are in agreement. I see the same thing in the bricks-and-morter advocacy world, and our in-your-face local advocacy group will yet find some way to torpedo the Madison-Milwaukee train by offending people.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic This thread if not the entire advocacy community has "run off the rails" and "put 'er on the ground" as it were. A person cannot express skepticism whether the time is ripe for HSR without the conversation devolving into partisan politics. Look people, if HSR is going to be tied to the "Red State-Blue State" divide, HSR or anything else rail is going to be a big loser. Why? Because the partisan divide is pretty much right down the middle of the electorate, pretty much a 50-50 or maybe as much as a 52-48 split. So, you take your 52 percent on your side of the partisan divide, and maybe, just maybe, if you are persuasive, you get 90 percent of that, and what do you have 47 percent, at best. You lose. No growth of Amtrak. No HSR. You are certainly not getting any votes from the other side of the partisan divide because you have made train advocacy a "hot button issue." A person on this forum tries to express some modest skepticism regarding HSR, concerns readily addressed, but no, this person gets branded a right-wing zealot and a bunch of other people "pile on" saying how much they are in agreement. I see the same thing in the bricks-and-morter advocacy world, and our in-your-face local advocacy group will yet find some way to torpedo the Madison-Milwaukee train by offending people.
But Paul, isn't the reverse also true? If you support government involvement you are labled an Unamerican Socialist and thus also bring the discussion to a halt? What Phoebe Vet stated clearely was the state of the situation: no matter what form of transportation or other public utility, the government plays a big role. Period. Whether or not to change railroads, i.e. HSR, Amtrak, freight, etc., to either all private or all public ownership is the question posed again and agian with no resolve except to name calling. Historically, progress-- industrial, business, transportation, services and utilities--has been a constortium, a cooperation, and joint venture, a give and take and take and give, of both the private and public sectors. In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
henry6 In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
In effect, we, the US, has run down the middle of the road, picking the best of each side and using it to progress with no one side really getting ahead of the other. Is the question, therefore. that we must choose between an all private sector control of business and commmerce including infrastructure or an all socialistic governement control of business and commerce including the infrastructure? I really don't think that is the question because there is no 100% answer for either side.
Well put. A good example would be the tremendous amount of government funded research that NASA has done to benefit civil aviation. NASA has researched and developed engine technology, airfoil designs, and composite construction materials now used extensively in civil aircraft, etc.
No, no, and no. The reverse is not also true.
I have seen the posts about "Unamerican Socialist", and it is simply untrue that the discussion comes to a halt -- that person gets a swift and rapid response in these parts.
We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too. The question was not raised on whether government money should go to trains but whether it should go to HSR at the expense of other types of trains.
We have a published railroad author come to our local advocacy group to talk about the historical Hiawatha train and get blacklisted by our group for a return engagement for expressing the view that the "future of trains is in corridors and not in long-distance." The same attitudes occur in both the on-line and local advocacy communities, and the net effect is to set the cause back.
We can talk forever and ever about how "those other guys get all of that subsidy, direct and hidden", but until we address the question whether rail is addressing particular transportation problems in a more cost-effective manner than the competition, we will be spinning our wheels. Rail could address certain transportation problems more cost effectively than alternatives than new road or airport construction, but few in the advocacy community want to do the leg work to make these cases (and accept the outcome if the case is negative for rail) -- we simply fall back on the old shibboleths that airlines are getting subsidy and trains need to get the same thing. It's lazy advocacy, and it has kept us 40 years in the transportation wilderness.
Paul Milenkovic We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too.
We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too.
Paul:
You keep using the term meekly asks if it's a first priority. Followed by an accusation of an unprovoked attack by me.
These quotes are from the post to which I was responding:
That is accusatory. He stated that the "glitzy" HSR is a hobby that is being built solely out of ego and that if the government chooses to fund it it is an inappropriate use of his tax dollars.
I merely stated why I disagree with that assessment. That is IS a proper use of tax dollars. The Tea bag reference was probably over the top, but for the last several months we have been blasted almost daily in the media with coverage of ignorant people waving often misspelled signs with derogatory pictures and phrases screaming that anything that does not directly benefit them individually is government waste. It's wearing thin, and I am not the only person who is getting fed up with them. So every time I hear someone say the government shouldn't fund (your pet project here) I tend to react reflexively.
Sam1Unlike firms offering a qualified pension plan, the government does not have to determine the actuarial value of the retirement benefits for its employees (military and civilian) and fund them on an on-going basis. It just takes the money from the yearly operating budget, which is course is paid for by the taxpayers. The amount of unfunded military and federal employee retirement benefits is nearly as great as the amount of unfunded Social Security obligations. What do you think would happen to a candidate for Congress if he or she promised to modernize the military retirement plan, which was put together in 1866, when male life expectancywas approximately 45 years? Or touch the civilian retirement plan?
Phoebe Vet Paul Milenkovic We have a guy come on here and meekly ask whether HSR is first priority of the passenger rail dollar and get the same swift rapid-response treatment and entirely unprovoked too. Paul: You keep using the term meekly asks if it's a first priority. Followed by an accusation of an unprovoked attack by me. These quotes are from the post to which I was responding: The argument that taxpayers should, nevertheless, support new HSR systems, even if they operate at a deficit, because they already pay great gobs of money to support other govenment programs (both in transport and in other areas) that don't pay their way doesn't cut a whole lot of weight with me. It's like saying that, because you use your credit card to buy more stuff than you can afford at Walmart, you have an obligation to spend even more to buy stuff you can't afford to buy stuff at Target. Don't get me wrong. From a hobby standpoint, I like HSR. If an HSR line is built from Chicago, I would certainly ride it once in awhile, if only for the experience. But I don't expect the taxpayers to support my hobby. That is accusatory. He stated that the "glitzy" HSR is a hobby that is being built solely out of ego and that if the government chooses to fund it it is an inappropriate use of his tax dollars. I merely stated why I disagree with that assessment. That is IS a proper use of tax dollars. The Tea bag reference was probably over the top, but for the last several months we have been blasted almost daily in the media with coverage of ignorant people waving often misspelled signs with derogatory pictures and phrases screaming that anything that does not directly benefit them individually is government waste. It's wearing thin, and I am not the only person who is getting fed up with them. So every time I hear someone say the government shouldn't fund (your pet project here) I tend to react reflexively.
This is a true story, by the way, and it is illustrative of the problem with getting people served by rail transportation in a highway-oriented society. A man is all tired and worn out and crabby from driving and fighting traffic, the worst part of it is he got stuck behind one of those "Tea Party" demonstrations on State Street when trying to get through Chicago, and by now all he wants to do is park his car and complete the remainder of his journey in a nice, comfortable, air-conditioned train.
He comes up upon a "minimart", and asks the man behind the counter for help finding a train station, buying a ticket, and getting on a train. It turns out that his other man is, um, an ethnic Near Eastern person from Chicago (OK, he is a Serb who is Catholic because the priest made him change religions to marry an ethnic Yugoslav-German woman, if you have to ask) who has a license to sell the I-Pass for the Illinois Tollroad Authority. The shop owner says that he can't help with the train, he only sells the I-Pass to go on the Tollroad.
The tired and crabby driver curses the shop owner out, pointing out that Illinois DOT now supports trains as well as highways, and that the shop owner is a disgrace to to the State of Illinois for not helping him out, and that he is just as bad as that disgraced former Governer of Illinois, and all of you ethnic Serbs are all alike. So the shop owner says, "OK, so you don't want to buy an I-Pass from me, but I tell you what, if you just drive another mile or two on this country road, you will find someone who can help you find the train station."
So the angry and cursing motorist comes back 20 minutes later and says (somewhat apologetically this time), "Your friend over there at the toll station who calls himself Blagojevich tells me I need an I-Pass to get to the next exit where the train station is located."
.
Falcon:
I don't think we are on the same page.
No one in the federal government is proposing true high speed rail in this country. The only true high speed projects under consideration are being proposed by state governments, and in those cases the local voters have been approving the funds so far.
Amtrak's definition of high speed rail is anything over 79 MPH. Amtrak is proposing "high speed corridors", but they mean 90 to 110 MPH and the elimination of slow speed segments and grade level crossings. It's a small step, but I support it.
It has been pointed out to me that I tend to over react when people start complaining about the cost of supporting our infrastructure, so I will try to reduce my "tea" references. I do, however believe that we have our spending priorities wrong.
I would love to see a true high speed rail network, supported by regional rail feeders and local transit in the communities served, but I have no delusions that that will happen in my lifetime.
"The largest share of the $8 billion in grants awarded in January went to California, which got $2.3 billion for a 220-mph route between Los Angeles and San Francisco."
Whether the government is putting its eggs in the best high speed rail basket, however it is defined, is debatable, as shown in an article that appeared recently in the LA Times.
"LOS ANGELES - an academic study has found that ridership forecasts for the California high-speed rail project is flawed and needs further work.The analysis released Thursday by the University of California; Berkeley challenges the optimistic projections that by 2035, 41 million passengers could ride the trains every year.UC Berkley transportation experts said certain methodology used in the forecasts are unreliable, making it impossible to predict whether the 800-mile system would be profitable.Ridership predictions are critical to the $42-billion project because they form the basis for route selection, private investment and public funding decisions.The CEO of the California High-Speed Rail Authority is standing by the forecasts, calling them a "sound tool" for planning the system."
Unfortunately, as pointed out by the Government Accountability Office in its report on high speed rail projects, the proponents tend to overstate the number of riders and revenues that will be generated by their project whilst understating the costs. Moreover, the estimates tend to be moving targets. For example, proponents of the California high speed rail project claimed that a passenger would be able to travel from LA to San Francisco for $55. This estimate was subsequently raised to $115. In any case, these projects will never pay for their capital costs and, in most instances it is unlikely that they will be able to covering their operating costs without some fancy accounting. Thus, the taxpayers will be on the hook for the deficits generated by the projects.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.