Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

APNewsBreak: Calif. rail project to cost $98B
Associated Press ^ | Oct. 31, 2011 | JULIET WILLIAMS

Posted on 10/31/2011 8:00:55 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- The new business plan for California's high-speed rail system shows the nation's most ambitious state rail project could cost nearly $100 billion in inflation-adjusted funding over a 20-year construction period but also would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies, according to a draft copy of the plan shared late Monday with The Associated Press.

The report estimates the actual cost at $98.5 billion if the route between San Francisco and Anaheim is completed in 2033.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: boondoggle; california; highspeedrail

1 posted on 10/31/2011 8:00:56 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I was only off by couple billion years ago when this albatross arose from the sea of debt looking for a new perch.

What a High-Speed Rail Job to HeLL.


2 posted on 10/31/2011 8:02:40 PM PDT by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ... Godspeed .. Monthly Donor Onboard .. Obama: Epic Fail or Bust!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

This is going to make good the losses of all the Democrat politicians who had their campaign money ripped off by that mutant Kinde Durkee. Now all they have to do is go to the nearest BofA and get a loan against the kickbacks they’ll get from the unions and suppliers for this project.

Ain’t life grand?


3 posted on 10/31/2011 8:06:36 PM PDT by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
...the nation's most ambitious state rail project could cost nearly $100 billion in inflation-adjusted funding over a 20-year construction period but also would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies...

Does anybody really believe this?

Anybody? Save Willie Green, of course...

4 posted on 10/31/2011 8:07:20 PM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

” profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies,....”

You have to read that closely. No “operating subsidies” required, (so they say). However, there’s no mention of ever actually paying off the capital grant. If you gave me a free railway, I might be able to operate it “profitably”. Just don’t expect to get your $100 billion back ... ever.


5 posted on 10/31/2011 8:07:34 PM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

I think the real question is what do they consider profitable. I would bet that they are only including the day to day operating costs and the taxpayer is expected to suck up the $100 billion expenditure. I bet the cost ends up being closer to $200 billion and once it is up and running it turns into the slowest “high speed” train in the world.


6 posted on 10/31/2011 8:08:58 PM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

at least it goes inland.

it will destroy any local it touches.


7 posted on 10/31/2011 8:09:02 PM PDT by ken21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Democrats flunk basic accounting. This project generates payola especially for the labor cartels. For the taxpayer, this project is just another nail in the budget coffin. It is only profitable if the cost to build and operate the rail lines are not included.


8 posted on 10/31/2011 8:09:39 PM PDT by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

The Federal Congress should pass a bill congratulating Kalifornia for their planning ability and guaranteeing Kali that the Fed will not take any profits from the hi speed train while also affirming that the Fed will not make any contributions to assist should the planning numbers prove to be full of Obama.


9 posted on 10/31/2011 8:10:06 PM PDT by Rembrandt (.. AND the donkey you rode in on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
...but also would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies

And there are actually people stupid enough to believe this!


10 posted on 10/31/2011 8:17:46 PM PDT by Iron Munro ('We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them.' -- Mitt Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

No, I do not believe because it is a lie.


11 posted on 10/31/2011 8:18:56 PM PDT by dominic flandry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

So, how are they going to get someone to build it for all the money they don’t have? Unlike the Federal Government, they can’t just print money. The chances of this actually happening is somewhere between zilch and a Bond measure nobody would vote for in the next election.

This is political gas passing and democrap wishthink at best.

Note for Democraps, you have raided the treasury, there are not going to be any more free gravy trains.


12 posted on 10/31/2011 8:21:18 PM PDT by American in Israel (A wise man's heart directs him to the right, but the foolish mans heart directs him toward the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Ahh, I'm so glad this project is going forward. I've been waiting eagerly for years for it to start, ever since that stupid rail bond passed. I can not wait, sitting back with my popcorn, to see the upcoming fight when the teacher's unions realize that they're about to get suckerpunched nearly to the tune of 10 billion dollars to pay for this rail system.
13 posted on 10/31/2011 8:26:38 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

20 years to build!?!?!?!? They’re taking their sweet time


14 posted on 10/31/2011 8:26:53 PM PDT by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Its not a railroad...its a perpetual union employment machine...requiring DemoCrat politicians to operate....


15 posted on 10/31/2011 8:30:19 PM PDT by mo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

.


16 posted on 10/31/2011 8:39:08 PM PDT by twistedwrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

That cost is nothing compared to what the union workers that run it will cost in legacy expenses.


17 posted on 10/31/2011 8:41:14 PM PDT by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Remember the ‘Big Dig” in Boston? cost estimate was $2B, wound up costing about $17B and started falling down as soon as it was finished. Of course, this California job may be the the start of the Intercontinental Railroad Obama has been talking about.
18 posted on 10/31/2011 8:47:42 PM PDT by Old North State (Don't blame me, I voted for Pedro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Great sarcasm!


19 posted on 10/31/2011 8:50:43 PM PDT by quantim (Victory is not relative, it is absolute.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

If they say 98, it will come in at 198


20 posted on 10/31/2011 8:50:54 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

No mention of the eminent domain abuse taking homes, farms and businesses for this totally unnecessary boondoggle.


21 posted on 10/31/2011 8:54:22 PM PDT by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Does that cost include buying all the land that Reid and Pelosi own all along the way?


22 posted on 10/31/2011 8:54:30 PM PDT by Dogbert41 (Israel is real:))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

“SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — The new business plan for California’s high-speed rail system shows the nation’s most ambitious state rail project could cost nearly $100 billion in inflation-adjusted funding over a 20-year construction period but also would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies, according to a draft copy of the plan shared late Monday with The Associated Press.”

Bulls**t, bulls**t, and bulls**t.

No matter what the estimate, tripling it is entirely safe.
In the entire world, there are perhaps 20 passenger train lines that are self-supporting revenue wise.
This has been true for 50 years.

The only way this will ever make sense is is gas goes to $50. And that may not be out or range for their plans for us.


23 posted on 10/31/2011 8:55:40 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (Madoff screwed the rich. Bernanke screwed us all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: businessprofessor

I bet they will spend 18B on this and then the entire project will be scrapped.


24 posted on 10/31/2011 8:57:37 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

Why don’t we just buy off the unions for $30 billion, cancel the project and save $70 billion?


25 posted on 10/31/2011 8:58:58 PM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies

Yeah....and includes a detour over a bridge from Brooklyn that was acquired at low cost.

26 posted on 10/31/2011 9:02:40 PM PDT by spokeshave (Cain....100% American, 100% Black and 100% for the Constitution...999 an added benefit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Yes, I guess if Boeing gave away its airplanes the airlines could be as “profitable” as this rail boondoggle.


27 posted on 10/31/2011 9:09:51 PM PDT by blue state conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

I love how the AP thinks: Profitable... counting only operating costs. The $100 billion... that doesn’t count.


28 posted on 10/31/2011 9:28:37 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

Absolutely... but they discount the cost of building it...

Aside from that $100 billion...


29 posted on 10/31/2011 9:29:55 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Old North State
Of course, this California job may be the the start of the Intercontinental Railroad Obama has been talking about.

What's that? Haven't heard about it. You mean he wants to fast-track more illegal aliens by building highspeed rail into Mexico? That, I can see.

30 posted on 10/31/2011 10:04:45 PM PDT by roadcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Now, lets put these calculations into the whizzinator.

Wizzzzzz-

$100 billion. If the ticket cost included, say, $10 dollars as amortization of the original investment, say for one hundred years, then to break even on the investment would need 275,000 tickets per day,each day, not including interest, over the one hundred years.

Now, if a train car carried 100 passengers in each car, and each train was ten cars long, you would need 275 trains per day, or from 6am to midnight 15 trains per hour; one every four minutes!

Yep, I’m sure that that this will be a real winner!


31 posted on 10/31/2011 10:28:59 PM PDT by Noob1999 (Loose Lips, Sink Ships)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: roadcat
Obama meant "TransContinental Railroad" but in several of his non-campaign campaign speeches for the "jobs" bill he said "Intercontinental Railroad".
32 posted on 10/31/2011 11:18:31 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Republicans will find a way to reelected Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
would be profitable even at the lowest ridership estimates and would not require public operating subsidies

I suppoze that might be correct...if you plowed up all roads, airports,and shopping centers and replanted them all in sustainable ethanol vines...and taxed everybody for that work...forever.
33 posted on 11/01/2011 12:09:47 AM PDT by crazyhorse691 (Obama is just the symptom of what is destroying the U.S.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

It will probably cost quadruple that after they finish writing in all the graft.


34 posted on 11/01/2011 12:25:06 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: businessprofessor
Just look at Boston's "Big Dig" for the horrors that projects like this provide.


35 posted on 11/01/2011 3:12:07 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; one box left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Its never going to get built. The private sector is not interested in California’s high speed rail turkey.


36 posted on 11/01/2011 3:36:21 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

The report as usual is a lie. Public subsidies will be needed to make it profitable.

Again, its not going to be operational anytime soon in this century.


37 posted on 11/01/2011 3:37:50 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01

No. And what is “lowest ridership” estimates? Heck, flying by plane or driving by car will still be cheaper in 2033. I don’t have to do the math to know I’m right. There’s a reason Florida pulled the plug on its Tampa to Orlando HSR. Its going to need lots of taxpayer money. If this was truly profitable and the market already existed for it, the private sector would be putting up the money to make it happen. And they’re not going to build it without a guaranteed return on their investment.


38 posted on 11/01/2011 3:42:07 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Freeways pay back for themselves almost immediately. For half that money, California can build new freeways and upgrade existing ones. The infrastructure for future expansion already exists. California used to be the road-building state of the country.

Let’s flush billions down the drain of HSR!


39 posted on 11/01/2011 3:45:28 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kingu

The rail bond passed by voters said bonds cannot be issued unless there is no loss to the taxpayers.

No one can guarantee what will happen in 20 years. And with cost-overruns, HSR to Nowhere will be even more expensive than shown by the most prudent current fiscal projections.

And they are only current projections!


40 posted on 11/01/2011 3:49:06 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: USFRIENDINVICTORIA

Completion in 2033.

Everyone will be driving to work in their airplane cars by then.


41 posted on 11/01/2011 5:55:37 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: glorgau
Yes, we'll have flying cars in 20 years. We have always been just 20 years away from a flying car. At least according to Popular Science

Archive Gallery: The History of the Flying Car

http://www.popsci.com/node/49385


42 posted on 11/01/2011 11:57:09 AM PDT by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson