Estimated cost of riding the California Bullet Train

Trains Magazine General Discussion
1

From the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-adv-bullet-fares-20150510-story.html#page=1

Quite a variation of estimates.

2

Math is dependent upon one’s position - pro or con.

3

Also quite an interesting tale of revenue projections. Based on the comment about assumptions going into forecasting local traffic, I have serious reservations about the overall revenue projections. GIGO lives.

4

Two issues that I think deserve consideration here:

  1. From the story: “[I]n 2028 … ticket pricing will be set in consultation with a private company hired by the California High-Speed Rail Authority to operate the system … Fares will be … central to revenue calculations for a system that by state law must operate without a taxpayer subsidy.”

Read between the lines: Any ‘promise’ as to what the fare will be will be broken if it fails to provide enough revenue to cover all costs going forward. Who has read the provisions of state law to know if this covers any part of financing the construction of the system itself?

  1. I notice no one has drawn the logical association between the ‘maximum’ competitive rate set for the new HSR system (based on 83% of an average cost for competing airfare) and the indicated rate given for Acela. That average airfare cost is under 27 cents a mile, compared to 50 cents for Acela (Sam1, do you have good numbers on what % of that revenue could be comparably taken as ‘above subsidy’ in the terms California is using?)

I can only imagine what the cost per mile would be in, say, 2028, when the cost of Gateway, Portal Bridge, perhaps the Baltimore tunnel project, and with the second-spine project perhaps in the design stage if not underway, would be included for consideration.

What I have been wondering is whether California should consider some sort of subsidy from the time the service is meaningfully inaugurated to the time ridership (and the various benefits to travelers from the HSR service) have become well enough established to provide high traffic. I do not know how long that would take, but I’d be reasonably certain that a fare high enough to cover all costs from ‘day one’ is likely to be SIGNIFICANTLY higher than 83% of present-day airfare… and that the ‘unpleasant surprise’ when this hits the press will not help the HSR gain the ne

5

Is the cap and trade money (last estimate I saw was in excess of one billion dollars per year) considered to be a “state subsidy” or part of HSR’s own revenue?

6

If state law as it now stands requires the farebox to cover all costs, the law will simply have to be changed. Fares would have to be so high that nobody would ride.

7

The same probably holds true for Amtrak, too. Without a federal subsidy of millions of dollars per year, fares would have to be so high that few people would use it.

8

This is old news. The NEW news is that somebody, California, is foolish enough to think that ANY kind of public transport can cover its true costs. This doesn’t mean public transport, including Amtrak and California HSR, isn’t worthwhile.

9

I find it interesting that the article quotes “Joseph Vranich, former president of the national High-Speed Rail Assn.”… and general critic of everything that pertains to passenger trains in America. [:-^]

10

And the airlines. If each had to build its own airport (or at least pay a share of the cost of construction) and provide for air traffic control by direct payment, most of us couldn’t afford to fly, either…

Heck, if every road was a toll road, that “quick trip to the store” wouldn’t happen anywhere near as often, either.

11

110% true.