California approves $68B high speed rail from LA to SF - Thoughts?

California approved a '$68 billion' dollar high speed rail from LA to SF.

Do any of you California monkeys plan to use this high speed train rather then fly?

I can take a flight from LA to SF in 1 hour for $100 bucks. I don't see this rail coming close to beating flying. With a $20BN deficit and $500BN in unfunded liabilities, this seems to be just another brilliant fiscal move by California.

California High Speed Rail

 

lol So I take it they haven't secured all the funding yet without even accounting for future maintenance costs? Just an FYI, CalPERS has something like $500BN in unfunded pensions and the teachers retirement fund alone is going to need an annualized return >10% for the next 30 years to meet their liabilities.

I'm actually for HSR long term provided that there is adequate demand and funds. Unfortunately, I don't think California has either at the moment. I've seen jet blue specials for $69 LAX-SFO before. I suppose I might take it if only to avoid the TSA gropers.

Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art - Andy Warhol
 
West Coast rainmaker:
WTF is wrong with CA? I don't even think they are trying to be financially responsible at this point.

I don't think they've been financially responsible for decades.

Did you fly over my helmet?
 
Best Response
blastoise:
if you gunna go bankrupt might as well charge the max

Wow, a valid point was actually made in jest! I guess a broken clock is right twice a day!

Honestly, if you're California, your unfunded liabilities and deficits are so onerous that you might as well spend as much now as possible before the capital markets shut you down. I mean, there isn't a "a little bit pregnant" so I suppose there isn't a "a little bit insolvent". This vote is as irresponsible as a government can possibly be, but the people of California get the government they deserve. My only issue with California going under is that it will probably result in a mass exodus of liberal Democrats from California to Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, etc. once the state finally collapses, thus causing those red states to turn blue the same way the Northeastern United States rats have bailed off their sinking ships and are starting to turn Virginia, New Hampshire and North Carolina blue.

Array
 
Virginia Tech 4ever:
blastoise:
if you gunna go bankrupt might as well charge the max

Wow, a valid point was actually made in jest! I guess a broken clock is right twice a day!

Honestly, if you're California, your unfunded liabilities and deficits are so onerous that you might as well spend as much now as possible before the capital markets shut you down. I mean, there isn't a "a little bit pregnant" so I suppose there isn't a "a little bit insolvent". This vote is as irresponsible as a government can possibly be, but the people of California get the government they deserve. My only issue with California going under is that it will probably result in a mass exodus of liberal Democrats from California to Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, etc. once the state finally collapses, thus causing those red states to turn blue the same way the Northeastern United States rats have bailed off their sinking ships and are starting to turn Virginia, New Hampshire and North Carolina blue.

+1 SB for you on this one....

Having lived in LA and Fresno and with relatives in both the LA basin and SF bay area, I have to ask: Where the f@&k are you going to build this thing?

Where in LA is it going to start and how are you going to get it from there through all the urban sprawl?

After that, how are you going to get it into the SJ valley? For those of us who have driven up I-5 from LA to some destination there (like Bakersfield or Fresno) we know that the drive involves a huge elevation change from sea level in LA all the way up to several thousand feet and then come back down into the SJ valley.

Once you get to the Valley, why does it stop in Bakersfield or Fresno? Those two towns are absolute s$&t holes. If anyone thinks that people will live in Fresno and commute to the city: Hahahahahaha!!!!

What route is it going to take? As it meanders through the valley up to the Bay Area it is sure to either pass through land sensitive to environmentals or f&$k up farmland and its associated irrigation systems.

And finally, where is it going to go into the Bay Area? How will it get there?

This whole plan is total nonsense....

 

Dunno why you're talking about riding this - you'll be long dead before they even lay a piece of the track. What, you think they're going to stop working on the Bay Bridge in SF? That shit's been going for close to 10 years.

 

If they can make it so that taking the train is cheaper and/or faster than flying or driving, people will ride it. However I think its pretty telling, based on playing with the interactive map on their website and seeing that the first figure shown is "CO2 saved/trip", I don't think that will be the case.

It's really unfortunate too because if done properly HSR could actually work for a SF-LA route. It starts by eliminating all these stupid in-between stops (Bakersfield, Fresno). Make it go from LA to SF straight shot, as fast as you can go. The point of HSR is to move people from population center to population center. That's not to say that Bakersfield shouldn't necessarily have rail service; it could have a slower speed, less frequent rail service that moves people to the hub.

Next, use a really fucking fast train. Like the Bombardier Zefiro, which can cruise at 236 mi/h. The distance between LA and SF is about 400 miles, so this trip would take somewhere in the neighborhood of an hour and 40 minutes. Almost twice as long as OP's flight. But, if the price of this ride were $50 and then you factor in not having to deal with airport security, flight delays, etc.; and put WiFi and electrical plugs throughout; offer free connections on local public transport, or free airport connections (you get support and cash from the city governments to fund this), and the train starts to look more attractive.

Heck you could even try to get the airlines to invest in your project- they usually lose money on the short hop flights anyway, so they might seriously consider it if you give them a cut of the ticket revenues or let them have free advertising onboard the train or something like that. Maybe not even a direct investment, but a strategic partnership of sorts like what Deutsche Bahn has in Germany.

The point I'm trying to make is that HSR can work if done correctly. But if the highlight of the program is how much CO2 the train saves, rather than the stuff that actually matters to people (time and money), the project is doomed from the start. The government needs to work with the existing transportation providers, and not just dash off into the countryside by themselves with some half-baked plan. Why not have the HSR provider be a private company that raises its own funds, like the MTR Corporation in Hong Kong?

There are a thousand ways to get it right. Why are we so hell bent on doing it wrong?

 
Nobama88][quote=olafenizer:
It's really unfortunate too because if done properly HSR could actually work for a SF-LA route. It starts by eliminating all these stupid in-between stops (Bakersfield, Fresno). Make it go from LA to SF straight shot, as fast as you can go. The point of HSR is to move people from population center to population center. That's not to say that Bakersfield shouldn't necessarily have rail service; it could have a slower speed, less frequent rail service that moves people to the hub.

Next, use a really fucking fast train. Like the Bombardier Zefiro, which can cruise at 236 mi/h. The distance between LA and SF is about 400 miles, so this trip would take somewhere in the neighborhood of an hour and 40 minutes. Almost twice as long as OP's flight. But, if the price of this ride were $50 and then you factor in not having to deal with airport security, flight delays, etc.; and put WiFi and electrical plugs throughout; offer free connections on local public transport, or free airport connections (you get support and cash from the city governments to fund this), and the train starts to look more attractive.

First, I agree that they shouldn't be stopping anywhere but SF and LA. But they are stopping at a planned TWENTY TWO different stations in some form. Between the 22 stops and the urban areas, the train wont be able to get anywhere close to top speed. Also, in your calculation of 1.40mins, you are assuming no stops, max speed for the entirety of the ride through to each stop, and this wont happen even in a perfect world. Realistically, with the planned stops and the laws on how fast the train can go in certain areas, you are probably looking at a 4+ hour ride. It takes 8.55 hours right now with Amtrak.

We are also assuming that the high speed rail wont eventually get a TSA type program going on its trains. A high speed rail from SF and LA would be one hell of an easy target for someone. I can see California implementing some kind of TSA in the future.

Finally, right now the estimated cost is $68B to create, but the state is going to be going through years and years of litigation from farmers, environmental activists, etc. Add in the likelihood the train will cost more then $68B, the litigation, the maintenance and upkeep, the future appreciation of property that they will have to buy, etc... all points to a complete nightmare to me.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/02/5-reasons-the-california-high-spe…]

Wow, after reading this article it's stunning that anyone would vote to support this project on its merits. A "bullet train" that costs the same as flying, takes 3 times as long to get to its location, and is an entirely unfunded project in a state that is nearly bankrupt. And the main thing that's being sold to the public is how "environmentally friendly" the train is, but the reality is that it would take 70 years to recoup the environmental "damage" done by the CO2 created during construction. And in 70 years, we'll probably have hydrogen fuel and fussion power, thus largely eliminating large scale CO2 emmissions.

Array
 
Nobama88][quote=olafenizer:
It's really unfortunate too because if done properly HSR could actually work for a SF-LA route. It starts by eliminating all these stupid in-between stops (Bakersfield, Fresno). Make it go from LA to SF straight shot, as fast as you can go. The point of HSR is to move people from population center to population center. That's not to say that Bakersfield shouldn't necessarily have rail service; it could have a slower speed, less frequent rail service that moves people to the hub.

Next, use a really fucking fast train. Like the Bombardier Zefiro, which can cruise at 236 mi/h. The distance between LA and SF is about 400 miles, so this trip would take somewhere in the neighborhood of an hour and 40 minutes. Almost twice as long as OP's flight. But, if the price of this ride were $50 and then you factor in not having to deal with airport security, flight delays, etc.; and put WiFi and electrical plugs throughout; offer free connections on local public transport, or free airport connections (you get support and cash from the city governments to fund this), and the train starts to look more attractive.

First, I agree that they shouldn't be stopping anywhere but SF and LA. But they are stopping at a planned TWENTY TWO different stations in some form. Between the 22 stops and the urban areas, the train wont be able to get anywhere close to top speed. Also, in your calculation of 1.40mins, you are assuming no stops, max speed for the entirety of the ride through to each stop, and this wont happen even in a perfect world. Realistically, with the planned stops and the laws on how fast the train can go in certain areas, you are probably looking at a 4+ hour ride. It takes 8.55 hours right now with Amtrak.

We are also assuming that the high speed rail wont eventually get a TSA type program going on its trains. A high speed rail from SF and LA would be one hell of an easy target for someone. I can see California implementing some kind of TSA in the future.

Finally, right now the estimated cost is $68B to create, but the state is going to be going through years and years of litigation from farmers, environmental activists, etc. Add in the likelihood the train will cost more then $68B, the litigation, the maintenance and upkeep, the future appreciation of property that they will have to buy, etc... all points to a complete nightmare to me.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/02/5-reasons-the-california-high-spe…]

In my example I did make the crucial assumption that the trains would be running on completely dedicated tracks point-to-point (as they ought to be) at max spped. Shared track is stupid for HSR, period. I lived in Wisconsin in spring 2011 when there was ruckus over a possible line going between Madison and Milwaukee. It would have taken just as long to drive and cost twice as much as driving because of all the stupid stops in the middle and the (if I remember correctly) 30+ at-grade crossings. Thankfully the state canceled the project.

With the train traveling at grade on shared track, I don't see how the government could realistically secure the track to the point that it could stop some crazy fuck from planting a bomb along the tracks. My solution to that would be, again, putting the train on its own dedicated (ideally elevated) track. Obviously this doesn't eliminate the threat along the route, it makes the environment more controllable. I agree though that a TSA type program of some form would inevitably come into existence for screening passengers.

If there's one good thing that I see from living amongst the communists in China, its that the government has the unique ability to say to farmers, environmental activists, etc. that "this land is going to be used for HSR, now go away.", case closed. Yeah good luck with that California..

 
olafenizer:
Heck you could even try to get the airlines to invest in your project- they usually lose money on the short hop flights anyway,

funny you mention this, i met with a guy friday that is trying to start an airline to profit off this. anyone know any potential investors? guy was a pilot for some high up government projects, has a few dr.'s and other great human capital as well as some seed funding.

If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!
 
WalMartShopper:
olafenizer:
Heck you could even try to get the airlines to invest in your project- they usually lose money on the short hop flights anyway,

funny you mention this, i met with a guy friday that is trying to start an airline to profit off this. anyone know any potential investors? guy was a pilot for some high up government projects, has a few dr.'s and other great human capital as well as some seed funding.

"I've never invested in any airline. I'm an airline manager. I don't invest in airlines. And I always said to the employees of American, 'This is not an appropriate investment. It's a great place to work and it's a great company that does important work. But airlines are not an investment.'" -Bob Crandall, Former CEO of American Airlines

I'm curious to know the details of his plan. The costs and regulatory requirements for starting (and maintaining) scheduled airline service are enormous. I'd particularly like to know which airport pairs he wants to start with, what equipment he plans to use, and whether he plans to operate as a Part 121 scheduled carrier or as a Part 135 'air taxi' service.

 

Why do you insist on hurting me, CA? I had hoped to move back eventually...but now I think I would be returning to a land of Greek-like governance.

I am sure some people will ride this. But how many people really go from SF to LA on a regular basis? I am guessing not enough to recoup the costs.

And all this is done a week after Stockton goes bankrupt. It is entirely inappropriate for a state to announce this sort of project when it is constantly running an unsustainable deficit. I am interested to see what CA bond yields do now.

 
Nobama88:
I can take a flight from LA to SF in 1 hour for $100 bucks.

1) You have to take into account "door to door" travel time; not only the flight time. 2) The train ticket itself might cost a bit more, but are you taking into account the cab on the way in and out of the airport on your 100 dollar flight ? I dont think so. If you drive to the airport, the parking is horrendously expensive too. 3) The airport strip-search paranoia. Fuck that.

I dont know it 68bn is a lot for a high speed train line; but your plane vs train argument is not so strong on a cost per ticket perspective. Now, can california afford a 68bn brand-new train system ? I dont think so ;)

 
16rl:
Nobama88:
I can take a flight from LA to SF in 1 hour for $100 bucks.

1) You have to take into account "door to door" travel time; not only the flight time. 2) The train ticket itself might cost a bit more, but are you taking into account the cab on the way in and out of the airport on your 100 dollar flight ? I dont think so. If you drive to the airport, the parking is horrendously expensive too. 3) The airport strip-search paranoia. Fuck that.

I dont know it 68bn is a lot for a high speed train line; but your plane vs train argument is not so strong on a cost per ticket perspective. Now, can california afford a 68bn brand-new train system ? I dont think so ;)

And what are you going to do once your train arrives in Union Station, LA? Subway service is extremely limited and LA is so spread out that you will need to immediately rent a car to go places anyway. So why bother spending all that money on a train ticket. Instead of cabbing to train station in SF, take the train to LA, arrive in 4 hours, then rent a car/cab, You may well drive all the way from SF to LA in 5 hours. This is exact same problem facing the now defunct Madison-Chicago HSR proposal and the Florida HSR proposal.

The fact of matter is, unlike China or Europe, most of U.S is just way too spread out for mass transit of this scale to make any sense. The only part of the country where this makes economic sense is in the Northeast Boston-NYC-Philly-DC corridor. Hence Acela.

Too late for second-guessing Too late to go back to sleep.
 
brandon st randy:
16rl:
Nobama88:
I can take a flight from LA to SF in 1 hour for $100 bucks.

1) You have to take into account "door to door" travel time; not only the flight time. 2) The train ticket itself might cost a bit more, but are you taking into account the cab on the way in and out of the airport on your 100 dollar flight ? I dont think so. If you drive to the airport, the parking is horrendously expensive too. 3) The airport strip-search paranoia. Fuck that.

I dont know it 68bn is a lot for a high speed train line; but your plane vs train argument is not so strong on a cost per ticket perspective. Now, can california afford a 68bn brand-new train system ? I dont think so ;)

And what are you going to do once your train arrives in Union Station, LA? Subway service is extremely limited and LA is so spread out that you will need to immediately rent a car to go places anyway. So why bother spending all that money on a train ticket. Instead of cabbing to train station in SF, take the train to LA, arrive in 4 hours, then rent a car/cab, You may well drive all the way from SF to LA in 5 hours. This is exact same problem facing the now defunct Madison-Chicago HSR proposal and the Florida HSR proposal.

The fact of matter is, unlike China or Europe, most of U.S is just way too spread out for mass transit of this scale to make any sense. The only part of the country where this makes economic sense is in the Northeast Boston-NYC-Philly-DC corridor. Hence Acela.

I am not familiar with the public transport system in CA. Im from europe so I expect to have a somehow decent public service system of trains, buses and trams... I heard that in the states its quite horrible, but I couldn't really notice the lack of public transport when i was studying in Boston.Guessing by your comments, its probably crap in cali.

I think the train makes sense for business people that need to hop-in and out of LA to SF for a business meeting. Think of the high speed train that connects London-Paris or London-Brussels-Frankfurt. People using the train would be the kind of business guys that cannot afford jets to skip the airport security crap, but still are on a tight schedule. In addition, you can easily work in teams on trains as they have a nice table for 4 people to work on.

 
16rl:
Nobama88:
I can take a flight from LA to SF in 1 hour for $100 bucks.

1) You have to take into account "door to door" travel time; not only the flight time. 2) The train ticket itself might cost a bit more, but are you taking into account the cab on the way in and out of the airport on your 100 dollar flight ? I dont think so. If you drive to the airport, the parking is horrendously expensive too. 3) The airport strip-search paranoia. Fuck that.

I dont know it 68bn is a lot for a high speed train line; but your plane vs train argument is not so strong on a cost per ticket perspective. Now, can california afford a 68bn brand-new train system ? I dont think so ;)

1- There is also door to door time on a train, no? Yes a flight might have a bit more time for security but such a high profile train is likely to have some level of security which will close that time gap a bit.
2- Is your vision of the train including free transportation to and from the train station? I'd assume transportation to and from the train station would also be involved with a train.
3- Agreed on the strip search bit, although I wouldn't give the train long before it has that too.

 

^^^

Exactly. Eminent domain will happen for the majority of the trains path. This is farm land, sensitive environments, homes, expensive commercial real estate. Most of these people aren't looking to sell their property or farmland. There will be litigation. Years and years and years of expensive fucking litigation from both property owners and activists.

 

California/Los Angeles could have gone CRAZY and spent $100 million on setting up the world's best public buildings for free or cheap online teleconferencing that the public could consume, and/or it could have given obscene tax breaks to businesses with x number of employees telecommuting and other variations. If California really cared about carbon emissions there are all kinds of much more affordable things it could have done. But a $68 billion capital project that will probably run in the red every year for a payback period for CO2 emissions approaching a century? My God...

Array
 

CA can't even get the rail from Santa Monica -> Century City -> DTLA approved! No way in hell they'll get the done from LA to SF. Even if it were rubber stamped, construction would take decades.

 

Reprehenderit deleniti temporibus tempora voluptatem. Labore ut molestiae aut quis blanditiis voluptates. Error ex quaerat eligendi dolorem veniam voluptas nam. Error voluptates sint id eum recusandae.

Porro optio temporibus qui aliquid eos nihil. Suscipit asperiores iure officia autem asperiores similique non.

Quant (ˈkwänt) n: An expert, someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”