I'm not sure if Chuck's going to address my question about California (not)High Speed Rail paying off their government loan in 30 years.
So I'll give it a shot:
The article says estimated cost is 77 billion dollars.
There are (about) 10,958 days in 30 years. For ease of calculation, let's round to 11,000 days.
Dividing that, we get about 2.5 million dollars a day.
Air fare today between LA and SFO is about $100. I'm gonna have to guess at the fare in 15 years, so as to get a fair average price. So I'm gonna go with $300 average fare for that 30 years.
We divide 2.5 million by 300 to get the necessary ridership.
Drumroll, please!
I get 8,333 fares per day.
Now, lest Chuck say "Easy peasy" on that number, one should remember there will be operating costs. Labor comes to mind. How many employees will the system have?
And maintenance costs. Because that infrastructure will commence "crumbling" shortly after completion.
Might have to kick that ridership up to maybe 12,000 per day. Every day.
Easy Peasy!
(Oops! Chuck is gonna KILL me on this. The Transcon guys only had to pay back their capital loans. So, quick like a bunny, I'm gonna back down to my 8,333 fares per day to pay off the 77 billion capital cost. Gotta keep it honest, folks!)
(Which is why I didn't just erase the 12,000)
Ed
samfp1943 They are also touting that the finished portion of the line from Bakersfield to Merced is just 'Phase One'. My guess is that ridership on Phase One will be a hard sell.
Ah but don't you see? Riders from endpoint to endpoint are not expected to be the bulk of the business. It's the coveted "intermediate stops" customers that this project is reaching for. Tiny burghs such as Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook depend upon projects such as this to find their place on the map.
NKP guyQuestion: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
First, we need an agreed upon definition of socialism.
Then we can ask if the building of the Transcons was simply a matter of crony capitalism. Or corruption: After all, I think many of us here are familiar with the Credit Mobilier scandal. Would the Transcons have been built without massive bribes?
The Transcons couldn't have been built and operated until the Indian tribes were defeated and dispossed of their "worthless" land, and doing that required large numbers of troops and the construction of many army forts. How much did that cost and who paid for that? Not the railroads, I warrant. So the true costs of the Transcons were, in part, socialized and the profits were privatized, a frequent occurence in a country that exalts risk-taking and free enterprise.
Seems as if the 'Cal Dream' of HSR between SFO, and LA is now embroiled in another of those whip-lash head turners. See linked @
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/13/trump-demands-gavin-newsom-return-3-5-billion-for-canceled-bullet-train-newsom-its-californias-money/
"Trump Demands Gavin Newsom Return $3.5 Billion for Canceled Bullet Train;Newsom: It’s ‘California’s Money’ Now"
According to a comment elsewhere, in this Thread, so far California has alledged to have spent some $50 Billion on the current construction(?) The $3.5 Billion was allocated during the Obama Admin see at FTL:"...
Newsom added that the state had to continue the project if it wanted to keep the federal funds it had taken: “I [Ca, Gov. Gavin Newsome] am not interested in sending $3.5 billion in federal funding that was allocated to this project back to Donald Trump.” "...The money was granted to California as part of President Barack Obama’s stimulus, which set aside “$8 billion in federal stimulus money to create 13 high-speed rail corridors,” the New York Times reported at the time..."
Will this be another Federal Gov. 'Claw Back' or will it devolve into a protracted court case? I would guess that the Federal Funds have disappeared into the maw of the California Government; whom, If we are to believe some of the reports, is in a cash-strapped position?
They are also touting that the finished portion of the line from Bakersfield to Merced is just 'Phase One'. My guess is that ridership on Phase One will be a hard sell.
NKP guy Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
While I have stated that the Transcontinental railroad was not socialism, it has occurred to me that there IS an example of same: The Panama Canal.
And then we have Hoover Dam. And the TVA. And......
We're awash with socialist projects. But it doesn't look like the Transcon was one of them.
Gee whiz, Chuck.
You certainly are in a tizzy.
You might want to stop sputtering long enough to consider that, if the government loans were paid back, then the net input of money from the government was zero.
And yet. That 50 million dollars was paid out to build the railroad. And all those folks got to KEEP that money. Which would be tough, if it had all been "clawed back" to pay the government.
Now think on that, Chuck.
And you probably should stay in academia, as it doesn't look like business is your forte.
But let's get back to the topic: California High Speed Rail.
Chuck. Tell us about the process for paying back the billions to build this venture in, say, 30 years. And thank you for suggesting that as a loan term--kind of appropriate, with the California connection.
7j43k charlie hebdo 7j43k A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars. Ed Citation? Or was that extracted from thin air or some other internal region? Wow, so snippy! And insecure! You, sir, must be an academic. I shall have to consider using such slights when I address your assertions. I found the information here: https://westernexpansion.mrdonn.org/railroads.html It is presented at a basic level, so I trust you can handle it. Ed
charlie hebdo 7j43k A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars. Ed Citation? Or was that extracted from thin air or some other internal region?
7j43k A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars. Ed
Citation? Or was that extracted from thin air or some other internal region?
Wow, so snippy! And insecure! You, sir, must be an academic.
I shall have to consider using such slights when I address your assertions.
I found the information here:
https://westernexpansion.mrdonn.org/railroads.html
It is presented at a basic level, so I trust you can handle it.
You get an F for failure to read correctly even a simple source. It says:
" How long did it take to build the transcontinental railroad, how much money did it cost, and where did the two tracks meet? It took six years for all the track to be laid. It cost $50 million dollars, which amazingly was right on budget. "
In no way does that quote say that the private contribution was $50 million, which was my point. In research, you have to have evidence for what you assert. You are simply inadequate to the task at hand. You'd better stick to whatever someone pays you to do rather than engage in silly ad hominem attacks when you are way in over your head.
NKP guy I've always had a problem with the idea that land has to be developed (by a developer who gets enriched by the process) or it's worthless.
I suppose there is a vicious cycle there too.
Land that is undeveloped customarily can't be taxed to the extent that land having improvements is taxed.
The authority having jurisdiction collects the tax.
Therefore the authority is going to be the one making the call on the "value" of said dirt.
The boss isn't always right, but he's always the boss.
7j43kMy point, exactly.
**High Five!!**
Convicted One NKP guy I've always had a problem with the idea that land has to be developed (by a developer who gets enriched by the process) or it's worthless. I'm right there with you. "Manifest Destiny" had/has severe ethical flaws. Not that big of a sacrifice for Uncle Sam to give away all that valuable land considering how he "paid" for it.
I'm right there with you. "Manifest Destiny" had/has severe ethical flaws.
Not that big of a sacrifice for Uncle Sam to give away all that valuable land considering how he "paid" for it.
My point, exactly.
charlie hebdo 7j43k 7j43k wrote the following post 18 hours ago: At the completion of the task, or shortly thereafter, the feds were out no money. And there was also a good bit of non-government money invested in the project. 1. The bonds were 30 years to maturity, not on completion of task.
7j43k 7j43k wrote the following post 18 hours ago: At the completion of the task, or shortly thereafter, the feds were out no money. And there was also a good bit of non-government money invested in the project.
1. The bonds were 30 years to maturity, not on completion of task.
The loan was paid back, I believe. It was not a gift. How will California High Speed Rail pay back THEIR "loans"?
2. How much non-governmental money?
A quick on-line search comes up with 50 million dollars.
NKP guy 7j43k The government had a choice: no railroad and no development and a lotta land with nobody on it. Or a railroad. This implies that tens of thousands of Native Americans were nobodies, that they and their rights don't count; that to paraphrase Chief Justice Taney, no rights which whites had to respect.
7j43k The government had a choice: no railroad and no development and a lotta land with nobody on it. Or a railroad.
This implies that tens of thousands of Native Americans were nobodies, that they and their rights don't count; that to paraphrase Chief Justice Taney, no rights which whites had to respect.
I thought that was the common view at the time the transcon was built. If I was in error, I expect they would have been consulted more extensively.
I've always had a problem with the idea that land has to be developed (by a developer who gets enriched by the process) or it's worthless.
But you are here. Now. I doubt your view would be all that common in 1865.
Don't get me wrong: the Transcons were inevitable and have been a great benefit to our country.
Funny how things are inevitable after they've happened.
But they were built at a staggering cost, not just in dollars but to the people who were the first Americans. They, and we to some extent, are still paying the price for our ancestors thinking Indians were nobodies. Remember what Gen. Sherman said about them?
Yes. Quite true. And also reaping the benefits.
I agree with Dr. Hebdo: Without lavish public investment and support, free enterprise would have been unable to build the Transcons. Question: to what extent was the building of the Transcons socialism?
I agree with Dr. Hebdo: Without lavish public investment and support, free enterprise would have been unable to build the Transcons.
charlie hebdo 175 million acres is still a lot of land. But you feel the need to minimize that gift for some reason.
175 million acres is still a lot of land. But you feel the need to minimize that gift for some reason.
You know what I feel. You know of my needs. But you can't divine the reason. Two out of three is still very impressive.
And given the UP's bankruptcy less than 30 years before the due date on those bonds, it is not entirely clear that all was repaid. The point is, our federal government saw the wisdom of infrastructure assistance long ago. Lincoln learned about the value of land grants for the Illinois Central. It is unfortunate that we let politics/ideology get in the way of progress as a nation.
My feeling (but you already know that) is that the land grants were made based on the belief that those railroads would not be built, at least in the somewhat near future, otherwise.
Our infrastructure (transportation, power grid, etc.) is lagely old, often antiquated and even crumbling, while elsewhere in the world you will find modern infrastructures essential for future economic growth.
7j43k7j43k wrote the following post 18 hours ago: At the completion of the task, or shortly thereafter, the feds were out no money. And there was also a good bit of non-government money invested in the project.
Don't get me wrong: the Transcons were inevitable and have been a great benefit to our country. But they were built at a staggering cost, not just in dollars but to the people who were the first Americans. They, and we to some extent, are still paying the price for our ancestors thinking Indians were nobodies. Remember what Gen. Sherman said about them?
175 million acres is still a lot of land. But you feel the need to minimize that gift for some reason. And given the UP's bankruptcy less than 30 years before the due date on those bonds, it is not entirely clear that all was repaid. The point is, our federal government saw the wisdom of infrastructure assistance long ago. Lincoln learned about the value of land grants for the Illinois Central. It is unfortunate that we let politics/ideology get in the way of progress as a nation. Our infrastructure (transportation, power grid, etc.) is lagely old, often antiquated and even crumbling, while elsewhere in the world you will find modern infrastructures essential for future economic growth.
"Since it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars..."
Then my statement is "sorta" true. The money was a loan, not a gift. A secured loan, as it mentions above. At the completion of the task, or shortly thereafter, the feds were out no money. And there was also a good bit of non-government money invested in the project.
Now. Turning to California High Speed Rail. Does that organization have a plan to pay back all the money that IT has spent and will spend before completion? I assume that money will come from fares, deducting operating expenses and maintenance costs.
How will that work?
And why are there no private investors, as with the transcon? Isn't it a great business opportunity? Ya build a railroad that people need and want. When done, they pay fares to ride it. After paying expenses, you have a tidy profit from your investment. What's not to like?
The huge quantities of land were going to be worthless for a goodly long time. The government had a choice: no railroad and no development and a lotta land with nobody on it. Or a railroad. And development. And a lot less land. Of course, the feds STILL own vast quantities of land in the West. Much more than they gave away, I believe.
[from Wiki article] The 1862 Pacific Railroad Act authorized extensive land grants in the Western United States and the issuance of 30-year government bonds (at 6 percent) to the Union Pacific Railroad and Central Pacific Railroad (later the Southern Pacific Railroad) companies in order to construct a continuous transcontinental railroad. Section 2 of the Act granted each Company contiguous rights of way for their rail lines as well as all public lands within 500 feet on either side of the track.
Section 3 granted an additional 10 square miles of public land for every mile of grade except where railroads ran through cities or crossed rivers. The method of apportioning these additional land grants was specified in the Act as being in the form of "five alternate sections per mile on each side of said railroad, on the line thereof, and within the limits of ten miles on each side" which thus provided the companies with a total of 6,400 acres for each mile of their railroad. The U.S. Government Pacific Railroad Bonds were authorized by Section 5 to be issued to the companies at the rate of $16,000 per mile of tracked grade completed west of the designated base of the Sierras and east of the designated base of the Rockies (UPRR). Section 11 of the Act provided that the issuance of bonds "shall be treble the number per mile" (to $48,000) for tracked grade completed over and within the two mountain ranges (but limited to a total of 300 miles (480 km) at this rate), and doubled (to $32,000) per mile of completed grade laid between the two mountain ranges.
The 30-year U.S. government bonds authorized by the act would be issued and backed by the U.S. government, which would then provide the capital raised to the railroad companies upon completion of sections of the railroads in exchange for a lien on that section. The liens covered the railroads and all their fixtures, and all the loans were repaid in full and with interest by the companies as and when they became due. Section 10 of the 1864 amending Act (13 Statutes at Large, 356) additionally authorized the two companies to issue their own "First Mortgage Bonds" in total amounts up to (but not exceeding) that of the bonds issued by the United States, and that such company issued securities would have priority over the original Government Bonds.
From 1850 to 1871, the railroads received more than 175 million acres of public land – an area more than one tenth of the whole United States and larger in area than Texas,
Another article. So, in short, without governbment assistance (bonds) the UP/CP could not have been built but but was repaid for the bonds.
charlie hebdo 7j43k Since it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars... Another myth. Without government grants and financing, most of the TCs could not have been built except for the GN and late-comers.
7j43k Since it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars...
Another myth. Without government grants and financing, most of the TCs could not have been built except for the GN and late-comers.
How much money did the Feds give UP and/or CP?
7j43kSince it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars...
BaltACD If it were 150 years ago - who would have voted to build the trans-con? At what price?
If it were 150 years ago - who would have voted to build the trans-con? At what price?
Since it was done with little, if any, tax/bond dollars...
...and it went across land that was mostly empty and only sort of slightly owned by Indians, who likely had little input into the decisions...
...and since the recent war to break up the Union was decided in a negative way:
I expect LOTS of people would have voted for a free trans-con. Well, "free" to those who didn't need/want to travel on it.
And I expect the same concept would hold today for California High Speed Rail, if you replaced the word "Indian" with "Republican Farmer".
Now, what the fares would be, THAT is the question.
Mr McFarlane and others: obviously there is a need for persons with expertise in finance and construction planning so please offer your services. MC and his associates have expertise in construction planning and they apparantly want nothing to do with this one.
I agree with Mr. McFarlane, that they should have taken the direct route, and tunneled under Tejon Pass and thru Grapevine. The state folded when a real estate developement objected to the route, but the alternative over Tehachapi and Saugus canyon put the price tag thru the roof.
I read the article. He's hardly "pulling the plug" at this point, just slowing down building pending some revisions and funding.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Gee - our AREMA tribe goes to tour the thing under construction and 8 days later it gets put on the shelf.
(and boy did we ever have que$tion$ ... and then there were the "floating goals", yet to be determined's and the locals siphoning off $$$ for projects they couldn't otherwise afford.)
(the failed 1928 Cincinnati Subway system now has company. This one will be a little harder to hide. )
Kinda feel like the second coming of the plague. Oh boy
CMStPnP Ahhh, so there is a limit to what even California will pay for high speed rail. I am not surprised at this and you could see it comming.... https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article226151030.html
Ahhh, so there is a limit to what even California will pay for high speed rail. I am not surprised at this and you could see it comming....
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article226151030.html
Actually there's only a limit to what one Governor is willing to spend...no let me correct that, one one-term Governor is willing to spend. Perhaps we should start a recall notice, he wouldn't be the first Governor recalled in this state. Also, it's not like we didn't have financing available, the states very successful Carbon Cap and Trade program would have convered construction costs for the next 7 years, then the Republicans in the state government could have tried to have the provision removed, but since Democrats have a super majority in both houses that would never have happened, so forget that idea.
The solution to getting into the LA basin would have been to tunnel under the Grapevine, heck, I'd have just hired the Swiss to do it, since they seem to know how to tunnel under mountains at relatively low cost and not take 50 years to do it(see Gotthard Base Tunnel for reference).
Furthermore, we could have had the system built and paid for without using taxpayers money...only some people complained about the Chinese building, operating and keeping the money from the system so that idea was tossed out the window.
Unless he completes the full system it isn't going to help the state any at all. Yes, the Central Valley has the world air pollution in the state, that's what happens with all that farming there. They have long commutes, because everyone that lives out there has to drive into either the Los Angeles basin or S.F. Bay Area for work...hence the reason for HSR in the first place(those intermediate travel points people talk about).
Air traffice between Nor-Cal and So-Cal is at saturation point...you can't add more flights to increase capacity and the 100 or so flights a day currently are almost always full. So there's a built in market for the end points already and you'd only need to capture 10 - 20% of that market as it is.
Highways and air travel are unsustainable in this state, we will need HSR to move the growing population between the major urban centers, and we will need sooner rather than later. Remember, the more time that goes by the more it will cost when you do get around to building it...unless we go into another recession/depression, then the cost will drop like a rock in water.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.