Prop 1a - High speed rail for California. Probably no
One of the 12 propositions being brought forward to the voters of the Great State of California is Proposition 1a -- funding high speed rail.
High speed rail is a great idea for california. It would certainly be nice to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2.5 hours, which is less than it takes via the plane if you count the need to be there at least an hour in advance for security. However, California is already heavily taxed, an expensive place to live in, and it doesn't seem as if this is even revenue neutral.
The actual bill calls for ~$10 billion of bonds to be issued, repaid over 30 years, and assuming an interest rate of 5% leading to a $20 billion cost over these 30 years, plus an addition >$1 billion dollars a year in operating expenses. So $1.6 billion a year. Assuming $60 per passenger per trip (which was quoted in one of the local town news papers, that's ~27 million one way trips to break even. Which almost seems doable, except for the fact that each dollar can only be spent if a matching dollars comes from other source (e.g, federal, local, and/or private). And they'll want their money back. Maybe not the feds, but probably local, and definitely private groups will.
Even assuming 27 million one way trips/year are needed to break even, or ~75,000 one way trips a day, that's the equivalent of 375 200 seat flights a day. Granted, there are many flights between the bay area and los angeles, but I don't think there are 375 per day. And many of the people who drive between the two areas, need a car to continue their travels at which ever destination city they're in. Especially if they're going to the driving hell known as LA.
It seems to me that the money would be better spent, and end up saving more fuel if spent on improving the public transport systems of the Los Angeles and Bay Areas.
High speed rail is a great idea for california. It would certainly be nice to get from San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2.5 hours, which is less than it takes via the plane if you count the need to be there at least an hour in advance for security. However, California is already heavily taxed, an expensive place to live in, and it doesn't seem as if this is even revenue neutral.
The actual bill calls for ~$10 billion of bonds to be issued, repaid over 30 years, and assuming an interest rate of 5% leading to a $20 billion cost over these 30 years, plus an addition >$1 billion dollars a year in operating expenses. So $1.6 billion a year. Assuming $60 per passenger per trip (which was quoted in one of the local town news papers, that's ~27 million one way trips to break even. Which almost seems doable, except for the fact that each dollar can only be spent if a matching dollars comes from other source (e.g, federal, local, and/or private). And they'll want their money back. Maybe not the feds, but probably local, and definitely private groups will.
Even assuming 27 million one way trips/year are needed to break even, or ~75,000 one way trips a day, that's the equivalent of 375 200 seat flights a day. Granted, there are many flights between the bay area and los angeles, but I don't think there are 375 per day. And many of the people who drive between the two areas, need a car to continue their travels at which ever destination city they're in. Especially if they're going to the driving hell known as LA.
It seems to me that the money would be better spent, and end up saving more fuel if spent on improving the public transport systems of the Los Angeles and Bay Areas.