Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hey cisco, this another corporate media's campaign of misinformation too?
Dateline: Jan 6, 2012
High Speed Rail in California
The California High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group issued a report on Tuesday that recommended that the state legislature should not issue any bond money for the project. The $98.5 billion project would seem to have to go back to the drawing board. The Peer Review Group was specifically empowered to make a recommendation before any money could be spent.
The Peer Review report specifically said: ”Moving ahead on the HSR project without credible sources of adequate funding, without a definitive business model, without a strategy to maximize the independent utility and value to the state, and without the appropriate management resources, represents an immense financial risk to the part of the state of California,” wrote Will Kempton, peer review group chairman, in the report. “The Peer Review Group cannot at this time recommend that the Legislature approve the appropriation of bond proceeds for the project.”
I'm not taking sides at this point because I haven't looked into it yet,
but here's the response to this report (or part it):
The response from the California High-Speed Rail Authority:
While some of the recommendations in the Peer Review Group report merit consideration, by and large this report is deeply flawed, in some areas misleading and its conclusions are unfounded.
Unfortunately, many of the most egregious errors and unsupported assertions would have been avoided with even minimal consultation with the CHSRA. Although some high-speed rail experience exists among Peer Review Panel members this report suffers from a lack of appreciation of how high speed rail systems have been constructed throughout the world, makes unrealistic and unsubstantiated assumptions about private sector involvement in such systems and ignores or misconstrues the legal requirements that govern the construction of the high speed rail program in California.
Most private business ventures that don't involve public funding of any kind usually end up failing or losing money.
Reference for this statement?
The only way you argument would apply is if you were to include companies that have a lot of contracts with the government but there is distinct difference between Joes Window Washing Service and Solyndra.
If all government funding of contracts were dropped Joes may go out business if they were heavily dependent on government contracts but there is still going to be a need for window washing services in the private sector. On the other hand if the government were to drop all subsidies Solyndra never exists to begin with.
I'm not taking sides at this point because I haven't looked into it yet,
but here's the response to this report (or part it):
The response from the California High-Speed Rail Authority:
While some of the recommendations in the Peer Review Group report merit consideration, by and large this report is deeply flawed, in some areas misleading and its conclusions are unfounded.
Unfortunately, many of the most egregious errors and unsupported assertions would have been avoided with even minimal consultation with the CHSRA. Although some high-speed rail experience exists among Peer Review Panel members this report suffers from a lack of appreciation of how high speed rail systems have been constructed throughout the world, makes unrealistic and unsubstantiated assumptions about private sector involvement in such systems and ignores or misconstrues the legal requirements that govern the construction of the high speed rail program in California.
Of course they would say something like that, without the peer review approval they get no money, no money they will be out of a job.
Sowell Crashes CA Bullet Train (AKA Jerry's Choo Choo)
In this article besides the CA HSR boondoggle he talks about the OP's other "profitable" HSR countries.
Quote:
“Spain’s high-speed rail system is not even covering its operating costs, never mind the enormous costs of setting up the system in the first place. One reason is that half the seats are empty in the high-speed trains in Spain.
Quote:
Sowell points out that Japan’s bullet train between Tokyo and Osaka carries 130 million passengers a year. “But Tokyo alone has more than three times the population of San Francisco and Los Angeles put together.”
I would add that Japan’s population density is 873 people (http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/02/01/sowell-on-cas-bankruptcy-high-speed-boondoggle/Tokyo%20alone%20has%20more%20than%20three%20times% 20the%20population%20of%20San%20Francisco%20and%20 Los%20Angeles%20put%20together. - broken link) per square mile. But California’s is just 242 per square mile. That’s less than a third as much. So the ridership, and the productive population to support the infrastructure, is much smaller
"With all of the evidence indicating that HSR is an exceptionally costly and inefficient means of travel that only a few passengers choose to use, it is difficult to explain the obsession of some, including the President and members of his Cabinet, with this mode of travel."
"If we lose the railways we shall not just have lost a valuable practical asset whose replacement or recovery would be intolerably expensive. We shall have acknowledged that we have forgotten how to live collectively." Time to End the Costly High Speed Rail Program
Americans are individuals that prefer to drive their own car and go where ever they want, not just where Obama's HSR will take them.
Most of the work will be done by foreign companies anyway.
THE final CA HSR lie is exposed for what it is — fraud
Quote:
The CEO and board chair of the California High Speed Rail Authority have resigned in disgrace (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0113-bullet-resign-20120113,0,7586034.story - broken link) over erroneous cost projections. A peer-review commission created by the California legislature says the authority’s high-speed rail plan is “not financially feasible.” Surveys show a majority of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans in the state all oppose construction.
What raises doubts now is the way the cost of the alternative has crept up. When the authority was insisting that the rail line could be built for $43 billion, its highway-airport alternative was estimated to cost $100 billion. When the rail cost jumped to nearly $100 billion, the highway-airport cost mysteriously increased to $171 billion. “There is some dishonesty in the methodology,” says a University of California, Berkeley transportation engineer. “I don’t trust an estimate like this.”
The only way you argument would apply is if you were to include companies that have a lot of contracts with the government but there is distinct difference between Joes Window Washing Service and Solyndra.
If all government funding of contracts were dropped Joes may go out business if they were heavily dependent on government contracts but there is still going to be a need for window washing services in the private sector. On the other hand if the government were to drop all subsidies Solyndra never exists to begin with.
Bureau of Labor Statistics: Over half of private start-ups fail within four years.
“The data show that, across sectors, 66 percent of new establishments were still in existence 2 years after their birth, and 44 percent were still in existence 4 years after. (See chart 1.) It is not surprising that most of the new establishments disappeared within the first 2 years after their birth, and then only a smaller percentage disappeared in the subsequent 2 years. These survival rates do not vary much by industry.”
The following chart shows business survival rates by industry sector. Interestingly, the sector with the highest survival rates is education and health services. The sector with the lowest survival rates is the information industry. Of course, this study tracked new business startups from between March of 1998 and March of 2002 — the height of the dot com boom.
“The data show that, across sectors, 66 percent of new establishments were still in existence 2 years after their birth, and 44 percent were still in existence 4 years after. (See chart 1.) It is not surprising that most of the new establishments disappeared within the first 2 years after their birth, and then only a smaller percentage disappeared in the subsequent 2 years. These survival rates do not vary much by industry.”
The following chart shows business survival rates by industry sector. Interestingly, the sector with the highest survival rates is education and health services. The sector with the lowest survival rates is the information industry. Of course, this study tracked new business startups from between March of 1998 and March of 2002 — the height of the dot com boom.
Gave up on high speed rail huh?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
