California Bullet Train Breaks Ground

[Togo]

I've lost my copy of the revenue figures for the interstate highways. Can anyone remember how much profit they made last year?

 

[maxparrish]

If California built the rail, and charged NOTHING for its use, and funded it entirely with tax dollars, California would still get benefits from the rail. You seem to be confusing price and profit with cost and value.

And you seem to be confusing economics with magic.

See, you're doing it again, confusing profits with value. All money is spent in exchange for what I'll call 'value'. I value having food taste good. I value havin a warm house. These are highly mutable and entirely arbitrary. there is value in a HSR to the residents of California, and for that matter, there is a value in just DOING HSR somewhere. That value is not in the money gotten from tickets or shipment, it is in the mobility and decreased reliance on gasoline. It's value that originates from the learning experience of building the rail and applying technology. It is the value of having many engineers and construction workers, a good deal of physicists, and boatloads of miners, factory workers, and educators fed and clothed and sheltered, with them all getting years of practical experience in applying their trades. That's value you can't just add up on a ledger, but the benefits are tangible and many, if diffuse.

The problem with penny pinching Rayndian types is that such diffuse benefit means nothing to them, they can't see the prairie for its leaves of grass.

So you propose I (we) accept your personal and romantic vanities as the basis of squandering the public treasury? And why should those who have other values and needs, but are forced to pay for your murky adult sized choo-choo train fetish willingly accept your question begging and totally subjective screed?

The only "confusion" is your economics (quite apart from Rand). Yes, money is an exchange in value, a trade of value for value. Why human beings place value on goods and services is best left to physiologists (although it is pretty obvious we derive pleasure from eating or living in a warm domicile). And if you want to exchange your items of value for another that is your right. However, any choo-choo train system that operates at a loss is not going to find enough people willing to pay for its value SO what you propose is taking others values, stealing to satisfy your values (wants).

YOU may wish to use less gasoline or have choo-choo "mobility", but if such a system operates at a loss your going to have to steal from others (and waste value that could be spent elsewhere to satisfy other consumer wants).

 

[maxparrish]

(Psst Max. You do know that Reason.org is funded by the Koch Bros.)

I think that one ought to evaluate their claims rather than to dismiss them because of their source.

They are trying to claim that HSR systems don't usually pay back their capital costs, therefore HSR is worthless. However, by that criterion, flat roads and airports are equally worthless.

First, do you know that to be factually true? That federal and state gasoline and registration taxes on drivers/owners, and airport taxes and fees, don't pay back any capital costs for roads and airports?

Second, if not then a) the subsidies should end and the question of cost-benefit can be settled by the market. It seems counter-productive to advocate a new subsidized industry in order to compete with current subsidized industries. Doubling down on a wrong does not make a right.

PS - Further research suggests you are wrong. (see followup posts).

 

[maxparrish]

I've lost my copy of the revenue figures for the interstate highways. Can anyone remember how much profit they made last year?

Straw man. (See next post)

 

[maxparrish]

Airports are largely funded by those who use them. The vast majority of airport revenues come from fees paid by passengers using the airport, landing fees and space rental fees paid by airlines, parking charges and sales of food and goods at the airport. Though not well understood by many Americans, commercial airports receive almost no taxpayer-funded support from state or local sources. Federal grants that help pay for airport construction projects come from a portion of the travel taxes paid when you buy an airline ticket or ship a package and fuel taxes paid by general aviation. 4

http://airportsforthefuture.org/did-you-know/

The money for the Interstate Highway and Defense Highways was handled in a Highway Trust Fund that paid for 90 percent of highway construction costs with the states required to pay the remaining 10 percent. It was expected that the money would be generated through new taxes on fuel, automobiles, trucks, and tires. As a matter of practice, the Federal portion of the cost of the Interstate Highway System has been paid for by taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956

 

[Togo]

First, do you know that to be factually true? That federal and state gasoline and registration taxes on drivers/owners, and airport taxes and fees, don't pay back any capital costs for roads and airports?

Yes, in the UK, in 2012, petrol taxes and registration fees did not pay back any capital costs for roads and airports.

Second, if not then a) the subsidies should end and the question of cost-benefit can be settled by the market.

Great. How?
This isn't something the market is well placed to deal with.

 

[maxparrish]

Not in the UK? Not so fast, compare total tax collections on vehicles and fuel to actual expenditures:

http://www.roadusers.org.uk/chapters/infrastructure-investments/

 

[fromderinside]

Second, if not then a) the subsidies should end and the question of cost-benefit can be settled by the market. It seems counter-productive to advocate a new subsidized industry in order to compete with current subsidized industries. Doubling down on a wrong does not make a right.

Wow. Everybody but maxparrish is right. When was the last time that happened . Air transport competes with shipping, highway, and rail modes for transport and travel and that's been a huge ......you'd be wrong maxparrish.

Seems never seems to be what it seems does it maxparrish.

 

[arkirk]

Second, if not then a) the subsidies should end and the question of cost-benefit can be settled by the market. It seems counter-productive to advocate a new subsidized industry in order to compete with current subsidized industries. Doubling down on a wrong does not make a right.

Wow. Everybody but maxparrish is right. When was the last time that happened . Air transport competes with shipping, highway, and rail modes for transport and travel and that's been a huge ......you'd be wrong maxparrish.

Seems never seems to be what it seems does it maxparrish.

Something that seems totally overlooked in all these figures Max and his Koch Bros. foundation (Reason) is the adaptability of a rail system to alternative energy generation. It doesn't have to happen today, but HSR can be adapted to non petrochemical sources of energy. Even if it operates at a loss with one form of energy, it is more apt to survive the changes that climate change is forcing on us. Max just likes the seeming security of systems we will rely on less and less in the future. One always feels more comfortable if he understands the technolgy....

The same countries that are moving forward with HSR electric trains are also marketing in 2016 fuel cell powered cars....also perhaps unfamiliar to Max. I am sure "Reason" will have extended arguments against them as well. What I have been trying to point out is that we should not be standing in the way of changes to our technology and infrastructure that promise a better future for people on the planet. The fact that there can be false starts and errors made notwithstanding, we are obligated in increase our efforts to make a long term future for the human race and that will involve almost constant attempts at improvement of all of our systems.

I must admit there was a time when I was skeptical of High Speed Trains but a concerted effort by those who build them are and have been making breakthroughs in terms of performance and practicality. This is an upcoming technology that can and will work right in the face of the Maxes and Kochs.

 

[Jarhyn]

If California built the rail, and charged NOTHING for its use, and funded it entirely with tax dollars, California would still get benefits from the rail. You seem to be confusing price and profit with cost and value.

And you seem to be confusing economics with magic.

See, you're doing it again, confusing profits with value. All money is spent in exchange for what I'll call 'value'. I value having food taste good. I value havin a warm house. These are highly mutable and entirely arbitrary. there is value in a HSR to the residents of California, and for that matter, there is a value in just DOING HSR somewhere. That value is not in the money gotten from tickets or shipment, it is in the mobility and decreased reliance on gasoline. It's value that originates from the learning experience of building the rail and applying technology. It is the value of having many engineers and construction workers, a good deal of physicists, and boatloads of miners, factory workers, and educators fed and clothed and sheltered, with them all getting years of practical experience in applying their trades. That's value you can't just add up on a ledger, but the benefits are tangible and many, if diffuse.

The problem with penny pinching Rayndian types is that such diffuse benefit means nothing to them, they can't see the prairie for its leaves of grass.

So you propose I (we) accept your personal and romantic vanities as the basis of squandering the public treasury? And why should those who have other values and needs, but are forced to pay for your murky adult sized choo-choo train fetish willingly accept your question begging and totally subjective screed?

The only "confusion" is your economics (quite apart from Rand). Yes, money is an exchange in value, a trade of value for value. Why human beings place value on goods and services is best left to physiologists (although it is pretty obvious we derive pleasure from eating or living in a warm domicile). And if you want to exchange your items of value for another that is your right. However, any choo-choo train system that operates at a loss is not going to find enough people willing to pay for its value SO what you propose is taking others values, stealing to satisfy your values (wants).

YOU may wish to use less gasoline or have choo-choo "mobility", but if such a system operates at a loss your going to have to steal from others (and waste value that could be spent elsewhere to satisfy other consumer wants).

How quick you are to ignore the vast sea of evidence and say no such 'consumer wants' are likely to be satisfied by the resource reallocation for the train. We already have plenty of houses and food and clothing to exchange for the time necessary to build the track. It's a matter of public record that we have agricultural surplus and a surplus of homes in the country. The only thing that gets redistributed here is the power of engineers to access those things. Money doesn't strictly represent value, money represents power, namely power to allocate or provision work. Most of that power is currently in the hands of people interested only in concentrating more power, like dollars were 'points' and they were going for a high score.

Money spent on building nice things, like trains, roads, airports, super colliders, and ignition facilities is a tide that raises all ships. It puts power into the hands of people who build them.

The evidence I see indicates that the people who have power are loath to let it go even when they have no use for it. We have food that goes uneaten by the hungry, and houses that go unlived in. We have clothes that go unworn. We have teachers not teaching, and professors not researching. We have lots of unused people and resources not because they have no use but because the people with the legal power to use them are busy speculating. In the mean time lets put those resources to work on something. I don't see you suggesting any infrastructure, so let's do HSR and see if it sticks.

People want food, houses, and something to do with their time. They also want 'romantic' things like trains. Let's let them have food and clothes and houses in exchange for trains. And instead of stealing 500 billion dollars for shinier tanks, we can spend it on shinier trains.

 

[maxparrish]

If California built the rail, and charged NOTHING for its use, and funded it entirely with tax dollars, California would still get benefits from the rail. You seem to be confusing price and profit with cost and value.

And you seem to be confusing economics with magic.

See, you're doing it again, confusing profits with value. All money is spent in exchange for what I'll call 'value'. I value having food taste good. I value havin a warm house. These are highly mutable and entirely arbitrary. there is value in a HSR to the residents of California, and for that matter, there is a value in just DOING HSR somewhere. That value is not in the money gotten from tickets or shipment, it is in the mobility and decreased reliance on gasoline. It's value that originates from the learning experience of building the rail and applying technology. It is the value of having many engineers and construction workers, a good deal of physicists, and boatloads of miners, factory workers, and educators fed and clothed and sheltered, with them all getting years of practical experience in applying their trades. That's value you can't just add up on a ledger, but the benefits are tangible and many, if diffuse.

The problem with penny pinching Rayndian types is that such diffuse benefit means nothing to them, they can't see the prairie for its leaves of grass.

So you propose I (we) accept your personal and romantic vanities as the basis of squandering the public treasury? And why should those who have other values and needs, but are forced to pay for your murky adult sized choo-choo train fetish willingly accept your question begging and totally subjective screed?

The only "confusion" is your economics (quite apart from Rand). Yes, money is an exchange in value, a trade of value for value. Why human beings place value on goods and services is best left to physiologists (although it is pretty obvious we derive pleasure from eating or living in a warm domicile). And if you want to exchange your items of value for another that is your right. However, any choo-choo train system that operates at a loss is not going to find enough people willing to pay for its value SO what you propose is taking others values, stealing to satisfy your values (wants).

YOU may wish to use less gasoline or have choo-choo "mobility", but if such a system operates at a loss your going to have to steal from others (and waste value that could be spent elsewhere to satisfy other consumer wants).

How quick you are to ignore the vast sea of evidence and say no such 'consumer wants' are likely to be satisfied by the resource reallocation for the train.

Except I didn't. I said "any choo-choo train system that operates at a loss is not going to find enough people willing to pay for its value SO what you propose is taking others values, stealing to satisfy your values (wants)."

We already have plenty of houses and food and clothing to exchange for the time necessary to build the track. It's a matter of public record that we have agricultural surplus and a surplus of homes in the country. The only thing that gets redistributed here is the power of engineers to access those things.

You mean their are plenty of other's fruit of their labor that can be sacrificed for you choo-choo without it bothering your conscious? How reassuring.

People want food, houses, and something to do with their time. They also want 'romantic' things like trains. Let's let them have food and clothes and houses in exchange for trains. And instead of stealing 500 billion dollars for shinier tanks, we can spend it on shinier trains.

As you wish your majesty.

 

[dystopian]

I'd congratulate the US on making it to the party. A few decades late and you guys only brought a bag of peanuts while the French got us a super expensive rare wine, the Chinese brought a literal tonne of cheap beer, the Germans got us magical floating coasters, and the Japanese splurged on the decorations, but hey better late than never. Those ARE salted peanuts, at least, right?.

But then I see people like Max throw a fit whenever you guys try to do something that makes sense and I can do naught but shake my head and wonder if maybe we should just cross your names off the invite list next time.

 

[Togo]

Not in the UK? Not so fast, compare total tax collections on vehicles and fuel to actual expenditures:

Why?

For roads you're comparing money spent on fuel, cars, an estimated economic contribution by car users, and all vehicle related costs, to money raised by train fares alone.

You need to compare like for like. So either you need to estimate the economic benefits of the train line as well as fares, or you need to compare income from rail fares to income from road fares (zero).

 

[Medicine Man]

Given that the financials are dependent upon ridership for just O&M the fact that ridership will likely be 1/3 (or less) than that projected then those without train infatuation should face up to the reality: it's a boondoggle.

An epic boondoggle that will last for decades. It will do nothing to alleviate the chronic traffic congestion in Los Angeles/SFV. A Jerry Brown vanity project.​

Gee....whatta convincing argument.​

 

[Medicine Man]

Glad to hear. I just wanted to let you and others that big energy concerns are behind this report.

Max just doesn't think we are smart enough to have this thing, like the Chinese and Japanese are. Where does he look...reason.org...aka Koch. This type of infrastructure is the future. Max wants us to continue living in the past.

Ah, yes....that grand "conservative"-nirvana....where there's No Risks...No Challenges...No Change...No Thinking...and, a lifetime-supply of mold & mildew!!!

 

[Medicine Man]

​

The people of California have been sold a bill of goods. It will all end in tears, if it ever ends that is.​

 

[Medicine Man]

The people of California have been sold a bill of goods. It will all end in tears, if it ever ends that is.

You forget that after work is done to make a thing, you have the thing. That's why we build infrastructure in the first place. a bill of goods and a train. If people don't use the track, that's on them. They have also purchased food and jobs for a lot of engineers and construction workers. It's a lot better than a lot of ways that money could be being spent. I'll admit I'd rather see it spent to upgrade all the telecommunications infrastructure nationwide to fiber, but one thing at a time.

Not to worry.

Old Europe will....​

...SHOW US THE WAY!!!!
October 27, 2013

*

​

 

[Medicine Man]

Here is a tiny bit of bullet-train video.

From outside:
▶ Eurostar Run By's in Kent - YouTube
▶ Primeras circulaciones directas de alta velocidad entre España y Francia - YouTube -- First direct high-speed traffic between Spain and France (Google Translate)
From inside:
▶ TGV running parallel with highway - YouTube
Kaelyn Whaley on ICE High Speed Bullet Train Passing Cars at 180 mph, 300 km/h, 8/2012 Germany - YouTube

Don't forget about China!!!

​

 

[arkirk]

Thanks for the trainride, Medicine Man. We ought to understand by now the earlier you get started on new technologies, the sooner you have a chance of perfecting it. It is rather fantastic the train moving at over 400kph. I believe that long distance travel by means of these things could seriously reduce pollution in time. A billion and a half people seem to have a greater diversity pool from which to draw about everything they might need to eventually be the top world power. Their trains sure are awesome.

 

[TSwizzle]

Thanks for the trainride, Medicine Man. We ought to understand by now the earlier you get started on new technologies, the sooner you have a chance of perfecting it. It is rather fantastic the train moving at over 400kph. I believe that long distance travel by means of these things could seriously reduce pollution in time. A billion and a half people seem to have a greater diversity pool from which to draw about everything they might need to eventually be the top world power. Their trains sure are awesome.

Mostly empty too.