The Truth!!!!
SF Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) has 193 miles of rail, 43 stations and carries 33 million patrons annually: Almost equal to the Cal State population of 35 million. Very Rational.

This guy went to Harvard???!!

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/01/09/opinion/rider/20_46_081_8_08.txt.

I was reading the comments. Here was one of Richard Rider’s comments:

“‘Likes to argue’ … I’ve already made clear the alternative — roads. More of ‘em, and more lanes. To say they don’t work is to deny the fact that we haven’t been building ‘em for decades. See post above.”

OK, I am a 15 year old who does not live in California, so someone please correct me if I am wrong. In 2002, Amtrak had to beg for 200 million dollars in government subsidy just to keep itself running. The same year, the government gave that same amount of money to add four lanes to I-95, in addition to one highway interchange that costed 600 million. That is just two little projects that got gov ‘t subsidy of four times the amount that Amtrak needed just to stay in service.

Expanding all the freeways in California will need a lot more than just 600 million dollars in gov’t subsidy. We cannot continue to expand them. You have to expand I-5 and Rt. 99, which cannot be expanded without having to go through eminent domain. You have to expand all the freeways inside the cities, and all interchanges. Besides the costs, it is going to be pretty hard putting more freeways in Los Angeles. There’s no room left. So please tell me where all your freeways would be, and how you would fund them.

You are also forgetting the fact that the Transcontinental Railroad had “heart-stopping costs”. Congress did not like the fact that it costs so much, plus the Civil War was going on. Guess what? We did it anyway. Is it just me or are you making the same argument against HSR? Remember, we are in the middle of the war in Iraq and HSR will help reduce our dependance on foreign oil. You mention that Acela has less than 3 million passengers a year. This is not true. In 2007, about 3,100,000 people were riding Acela. This was an increase from 2006 because of high gas prices. With gas at $4 a gallon, there’s just gonna be more and more folks riding it. When I’m 30 years old, I guess it would be over capacity if this continues.
Even if we had energy efficient cars, it will be expensive to build more freeways. Remember, putting down asphalt uses oil, which is very at record high prices. This does not reduce our dependance on foreign oil.

Although air travel has its own inconveniences, it is meeting the current demand for the route. I suspect that most people don’t intent on traveling too far with a train/public transport system. I’m all for public transportation but I think the money would be better spend on localized light rail systems that alleviate street congestion in communities, rather than try to compete with the I-5 highway. LA has a huge demand for this and that would bring more traffic off those freeways than this proposed system.

Once many substantial localized transportation systems are established and greater community density takes place, then I could see the place for high speed rail. Remember, these systems work well in Europe and Japan partially because of the density of their communities and the extensive network of local transportation systems which integrate nicely together. We don’t have those characteristics in California, yet.

High Speed Rail is the way to go.

These HSR trains are essentially planes flying on rails. A tiny amount of explosives set off on the rails in front of a rushing 200 MPH train would have catastrophic consequences for the passengers. And the terrorists would not even have to blow themselves up to accomplish their purpose.

One such terrorist attack, and HSR will be no more. It will be 80 MPH rail at astonishing cost to the taxpayer.

And illegal immigrants won’t be shuffling back and forth between SF, Sacramento and LA. They would not be train customers.

We are 47th in state business climate. Billions more of taxes are being proposed on both the state and local level. For the last several years, about a quarter million more California residents (legal residents) have left California annually than moved into the state.

These are the folks who theoretically would have been train customers. Theoretically.

Furthermore, travel in all forms will be more expensive, so travel in general will not be expanding. There will be more “staycations,” teleconferencing, etc. The demand is simply not going to grow as in the past.

In addition, HSR does nothing for urban congestion. It will carry (far to few) INTERcity passengers. When they get where they are going (and assuming they stay for any time), they’ll likely rent cars and use the local roads anyway.

Finally, HSR will NOT be available in Southern California. For political reasons, the trains will have to make too many stops in the region, so while they make look pretty, they won’t average the vaunted 200+MPH proponents tout. Not even close.

California High-Speed Rail Project Dead?
Not Dead Enough

by Richard Rider

Every cloud has a silver lining. It was never truer than when viewing our monstrous $16 billion California budget deficit, and its oddly beneficial effect on our Frankenstein statewide high-speed rail project —- the beast that refuses to die.

The high-speed rail creature was hatched in the 1990s by the Pete Wilson administration. Wilson put together two commissions to decide first on the desirability of high-speed rail, and then on the financing. Both commissions were packed exclusively with train lovers —- no dissent tolerated. After several starts and fits, a multi-billion dollar “down payment” bond to finance a bullet train system is scheduled to be on the ballot this November.
When it comes to grandiose government building plans for nonessential services, over the years I have developed what I immodestly call “Rider’s Two Iron Laws of Public Works Projects”:

1. Government will always overestimate the benefit.
2. Government will always underestimate the cost.

Nowhere do my laws apply more dramatically and consistently than to government public rail projects. Take our San Diego (North County) Sprinter. Please.

When first proposed in 1987 as a major reason for voters to adopt a new countywide half percent sales tax for transportation (we did), an east-west North County light rail train line was to cost $60 million, and be completed in 1995.

Now, 20 years later, it’s coming in at about a half-billion dollars —- over eight times more than we were told. Not to mention a few years late.

Given government’s history of over-projecting light-rail usage, what will become apparent this year is that the Sprinter will deliver significantly fewer riders than projected.

Even more important, what is seldom mentioned about the projected ridership is that about 75 percent of the Sprinter passengers will come from buses, not from cars as most people envision.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/04/10/news/coastal/20_45_404_9_07.txt 

Similarly the California high-speed rail project surely is founded on bogus projections. The cost is pegged at $42 billion, an unfathomable figure. But based on consistent past experience, the real cost will easily exceed $80 billion, not counting the interest on the bonds.

Even more absurd is the ridership projection. To quote REASON Foundation policy analyst Adam Summers, “Amtrak’s high-speed Acela Express, which serves the popular Northeast Corridor from Washington, D.C., to New York to Boston, enjoys ridership of less than 3 million passengers per year. It serves a larger market than the planned California system, yet proponents ask us to believe that California’s high-speed trains will carry over 100 million passengers a year by 2030.”

http://reason.org/commentaries/summers_20071030.shtml

The strategy by rail proponents is what I call the “hole in the ground” ploy. First get the taxpayers to approve a paltry $10 billion bond, leaving open the ultimate cost and the remaining financing. Then, with the project started, proponents figure that the voters will reluctantly approve massive additional expenditures, on the shaky premise that “we can’t stop now.”

Which brings us back to our wonderfully awful California financial condition. Twice, this deceptive $10 billion down-payment bond has been delayed by economic reality. But it’s tentatively on the ballot again for November 2008. If it is not again postponed, it’s a measure that should be roundly defeated at the polls.

To slightly misquote political satirist P.J. O’Rourke speaking about a different matter, “we need to take this Frankenstein train behind the barn and kill it with an ax.” Die, monster, die!

***

Richard Rider, chairman of San Diego Tax Fighters, is a freelance columnist

You explain that we cannot predict the future, and then you proceed to.

Although it is entirely plausible and probable that inflation would increase the building costs and the fares, it would not affect the passengers. Most likely, although not entirely known, the salaries of America would increase along the same percentage.