Houston-Dallas high speed rail: eminent domain approved (Paris, West: sales, insurance)

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

But how are you a railroad without railcars and rail lines? You're just a paper company that dreams of being a railroad some day. Hey did I ever tell you about my Oceangaia Space Agency? I don't actually have any spacecraft or any aerospace engineers but, you know, the name says... Or maybe you would like to direct deposit your paycheck to Oceangaia National Bank. Again, I don't have any reserves or accounts or ATMs or anything but, you know, the name says...


Most likely? If it collapses and the money is gone then it's investors lost their investment but there will still big costs to clean up and restore the land. The government is always the responsible party of last resort.

So eminent domain law for common carriers (including pipelines, electrical transmission, etc.) only applies to companies that are operating as those businesses today? If I start a railroad, pipeline company, etc., I don't get to benefit from the law?

[LocalPlanner]

The proponents make a big deal out of every piece of positive news. And I guess this was a relatively big deal.

But you know what we haven't heard? That they have sufficient capital to begin construction and operation. After this many years. And that is BY FAR the most important announcement they could make, which tells me, they still haven't convinced enough capital providers that this service will generate a satisfactory return on capital. I wonder why investors would be skeptical, hmm? It wouldn't be the untold billions in development costs that are almost certainly far more than originally quoted, would it?

[jeffdoorgunner]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

The proponents make a big deal out of every piece of positive news. And I guess this was a relatively big deal.

But you know what we haven't heard? That they have sufficient capital to begin construction and operation. After this many years. And that is BY FAR the most important announcement they could make, which tells me, they still haven't convinced enough capital providers that this service will generate a satisfactory return on capital. I wonder why investors would be skeptical, hmm? It wouldn't be the untold billions in development costs that are almost certainly far more than originally quoted, would it?

with the price of lumber........what do you think a railroad tie costs now???

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

It's fine as long as their financial plan includes full non-public coverage for whatever cleanup is required if the venture fails. This venture is intended as a fully private and it should stay that way. It is not public transit.

Maybe the phrase I should have used is "public utility" because even if the line was to fail and the government operated it, it still serves the same purpose. It's just like airlines - around half of airlines worldwide are government owned on some level (with the US being a notable exception). Regardless of whether an airline is state-owned or privately-owned, it still serves the same purpose - to get people quickly from point A to point B.

I would love for the bullet train to succeed and somehow turn a profit for the owners but there's no way it can be guaranteed. I would rather see it run by the state than rust away unused, personally.

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

So eminent domain law for common carriers (including pipelines, electrical transmission, etc.) only applies to companies that are operating as those businesses today? If I start a railroad, pipeline company, etc., I don't get to benefit from the law?

Not as long as you're just one of those "companies" in name only. Acquire the physical assets to actually be one of those companies first. Or put up a sufficient bond to acquire them.

A mission statement that you will become a railroad doesn't make you currently a railroad any more than me sending in an application and declaring that I intend to study law at Harvard makes me a current Harvard law student. This ruling is all based on one obscure phrase in Texas code that says present tense shall include future tense. I don't think this is what legislators intended and I hope it gets changed.

As you mention in another post, they haven't shown they can even secure the construction capital. That's what sunk TGV 30 years ago and will likely sink this project. They shouldn't be allowed to play in the big leagues (i.e. eminent domain powers) until they prove they have the big league skills (i.e. capital).

[oceangaia]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Maybe the phrase I should have used is "public utility" because even if the line was to fail and the government operated it, it still serves the same purpose. It's just like airlines - around half of airlines worldwide are government owned on some level (with the US being a notable exception). Regardless of whether an airline is state-owned or privately-owned, it still serves the same purpose - to get people quickly from point A to point B.

I would love for the bullet train to succeed and somehow turn a profit for the owners but there's no way it can be guaranteed. I would rather see it run by the state than rust away unused, personally.

Oh we know that mass transit advocates like you are thinking this which is exactly why some of us are trying to make sure this project doesn't get too far without proof the company can see it through and stand on it's own. You know you can't sell the public on the idea of a state rail project from scratch but if you can get a private company to get the project started and contracts letted and land seized and construction begun then when the private company files BK or walks away you can make the case for the bailout, for the state to step in and finish it up.

[resonator]

These rail things, like Houston's light rail, have high costs PER INCH.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

Not as long as you're just one of those "companies" in name only. Acquire the physical assets to actually be one of those companies first. Or put up a sufficient bond to acquire them.

A mission statement that you will become a railroad doesn't make you currently a railroad any more than me sending in an application and declaring that I intend to study law at Harvard makes me a current Harvard law student. This ruling is all based on one obscure phrase in Texas code that says present tense shall include future tense. I don't think this is what legislators intended and I hope it gets changed.

As you mention in another post, they haven't shown they can even secure the construction capital. That's what sunk TGV 30 years ago and will likely sink this project. They shouldn't be allowed to play in the big leagues (i.e. eminent domain powers) until they prove they have the big league skills (i.e. capital).

A capital requirement would make sense.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by resonator

These rail things, like Houston's light rail, have high costs PER INCH.

Essentially all passenger rail projects in the U.S. have inordinately high development costs, especially as compared to other countries. Not sure why, but it makes the various rail modes difficult to justify.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by oceangaia

Oh we know that mass transit advocates like you are thinking this which is exactly why some of us are trying to make sure this project doesn't get too far without proof the company can see it through and stand on it's own. You know you can't sell the public on the idea of a state rail project from scratch but if you can get a private company to get the project started and contracts letted and land seized and construction begun then when the private company files BK or walks away you can make the case for the bailout, for the state to step in and finish it up.

You can't guarantee any private enterprise will succeed. Period.

Were you complaining last year when the airlines got billions in bailouts, which prevented them from (once again) losing large amounts of money and laying off hundreds of thousands of people? If you were not, I don't understand why you would complain about this. The aviation industry throughout its entire existence has never made money. US airlines lost money pretty much continuously from the end of deregulation in 1978 until around 2012 or so. Only recently have U.S. airlines been printing money from 2012-2019 due to monetizing literally every aspect of the travel experience. I'm sure a lot of high-speed rail systems worldwide could do the same if they crammed seats in at 30 inch pitch and charged for bags, Wifi, advance seating, the ability to cancel your ticket, etc. Most airlines worldwide do not make money and are subsidized. The industry is so capital-intensive and low-margin that privately owned airlines can only work in certain market conditions that don't exist most places on Earth.

In the U.S., our subsidies to that industry come in the form of publicly owned airports - almost all of them are other than Dulles (Federally owned) and a few privately owned fields. In other words, communities paid for their own airports originally. Airlines didn't have to build their own infrastructure. That is a subsidy. And any other form of non-cargo transportation has some public component. Roads, bus/light rail systems, etc. are paid for by tax dollars (and lots of them).

There's nothing wrong with the idea of transportation services operating at a loss and it is very common both here and around the world. No transit system that I know of makes an operating profit. Not sure why this particular project should be expected to be profitable other than a desire to set parameters that are unattainable. I get that you don't like it. I do, and I have no problem with my tax money going towards its operation one day should the company go belly-up. In my opinion, this rail line would have greater overall economic and quality of life benefits (regardless of who operates it) for Texans than a lot of the stupid stuff this state spends money on year after year.