Comments on: Legislative Analyst’s First Look At 2009 Business Plan

By: spokker

spokker — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:38:23 +0000

As it stands, four or five buses meet each San Joaquin train in Bakersfield.

By: Joey

Joey — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:16:29 +0000

If they could route some of the San Joaquín trains down to LA, then they would, and people would ride them.

By: jimsf

jimsf — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 05:13:57 +0000

And there is passenger service up to the tehachpis and from the high desert, and heres the missing link prettymuch makes sense to fill in the gap

By: spokker

spokker — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 04:21:26 +0000

“There’s not even one lousy passenger train over the Tehachapis. ”

There’s not even one lousy train over the Grapevine.

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 03:43:49 +0000

He makes it up as he goes. Like Sarah Palin.

By: AndyDuncan

AndyDuncan — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:35:00 +0000

“You state the THSR has covered both its operating expenses and debt service (presumeably for the construction).”

Not sure where you got that, I read and re-read my comment and I’m confident that it clearly states the system is only covering it’s operating expenses. I even make a point of trying to clarify it there with that last line: “But let’s be clear: the system is covering it’s operating expenses.”.

I’ll try to make it even more clear:

- The line is covering it’s operating expenses
- The line was privately funded with high interest rate loans (80% of total costs)
- The ridership on the line is lower than projected
- The lower ridership provides enough revenue to cover operating expenses
- The lower ridership does not provide enough revenue to also cover the debt service
- The resulting losses have eaten up 2/3rds of their cash
- New loans have been secured at very low interest rates (1.83 percent according to the yahoo article)
- The resulting decrease in debt payments should allow the line to break even
- If that happens, then the line will be only the 3rd line to pay for it’s full cost (the other two being Tokaido and Paris-Lyon)
- If that doesn’t happen, the line will need a government investment to cover the capitol costs
- The CAHSR system has never been expected to pay off the original debt and has never been marketed as such
- The Taiwan HSR system, by breaking even on operating expenses even with ridership 1/3rd that of projections, is yet another reason to believe that the CAHSR system will also be able to cover it’s operating expenses, even with reduced ridership

That said, I think California’s method of paying for everything with bonds and fees is idiotic, but that’s what happens when it takes a simple majority to pass a bond measure and a supermajority to pass a tax hike. If our bond rates go up significantly, we’ve got more to worry about than whether HSR will get built. But those rates are irrelevant to the CAHSR system because the system is not required to pay off the state and federal funds that will be used to pay for it.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:58:00 +0000

He is making the point that your links are not what you claim them to be.

YOUR point is in attacking a straw-man. Look it up.

By: Arthur Dent

Arthur Dent — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 18:50:19 +0000

What’s your point, Mike? That 117 million – or even 86 million, the lowest of the lower bound – is a reasonable ridership number?

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:29:32 +0000

First, infrastructure takes many years to pay off. I think the Tokaido Shinkansen paid its construction debt in 11 years, but the Tokaido Shinkansen is an outlier in many ways.

Second, infrastructure has significant positive externalities, such as economic development and environmental benefits, which give it a better ROI for governments than for the private sector.

And third, Bill Gates is an expert on software, not trains.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:24:22 +0000

Okay, can we pretend that I didn’t say “ne peut pas” but “ne peuvent pas”?