[ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]
Here is one of the rare voices in opposition to the high speed train.
Richard Rider, who writes fro the North County Times looks at this
from an economic point of view. In short, it's not cost-effective.
Editions of the North County Times Serving San Diego and Riverside Counties Thursday, January 17, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
California High-Speed Rail Project Dead? Not Dead Enough
By: RICHARD RIDER - For the North County Times
With all the recent rain, I'm reminded of the cliche that "every cloud has a silver lining." It was never truer than when viewing our monstrous $14 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
multibillion dollar bond downpayment to finance a bullet train system
will 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":
Nowhere does the law apply more dramatically and consistently than to government public rail projects. Take our 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.
What will become apparent this year is that the Sprinter will deliver fewer riders than projected. Considering government's history of over-projecting light-rail usage, it's probable that the Sprinter will carry significantly fewer riders than estimated. Even more important, what is seldom mentioned about the projected ridership is that about 75 percent of riders will come from buses, not cars as most people envision.
Similarly, the California high-speed rail project surely is founded on bogus projections. The cost is pegged at $40 billion, an unfathomable figure. But based on consistent past experience, the real cost could 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."
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 down-payment bond has been delayed by economic reality. But it's tentatively on the ballot again for November. 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!
--
[ Home ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ 05/06 Archive ]
Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council@menlopark.org email address. The posting process is automated and can cause formatting issues when viewed from the website. File attachments sent to this address can be viewed as a link from the main message body. Please note the City Council is also copied on each correspondence. This site can be viewed by the public and sorted by subject, date, author or message thread. The email address of the sender is not disclosed for security purposes. It is the City's practice to remove SPAM (Unsolicited Bulk Email) email from the Council email log. If you believe your email has been removed in error, please contact the City at ccin.log@menlopark.org.