Comments on: Banks, firms not sold on bullet train

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:11:35 +0000

This would work incredibly well.

Hydro-electric reservoirs (not fed by wildlife streams would retain water in “dead” valleys and be used during peak hours only to ensure a high return on investment and that is the cleanest energy you’ll ever see. Cost per MW for a power plant can range from 2M – 5M per MW depending on the type and size. This is a no brainer. =)

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:09:10 +0000

In reply to Ronald. This is exactly why privately funded roads or rails is the only true way to know if it is a viable project. No one in their right mind would build something that was destined to fail financially. Except the state of California of course (see light rail in san jose that has never broken even).

By: Spurwing Plover

Spurwing Plover — Fri, 23 Oct 2015 00:28:47 +0000

A few years ago there was this TV series SUPER TRAIN did’nt last long and just imagine if the thing ever derailed

By: Dork

Dork — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 23:17:26 +0000

“State officials have consistently projected the train will turn a profit as soon as it begins carrying riders.”

GOOD, Then the State and the Public Employees should fund it with their RETIREMENT FUNDS

By: readysetgo

readysetgo — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 20:11:20 +0000

It still baffles me that the project was ever approved! It saddens me to realize that so many CA voters had no basic concept of economics when they approved the bond measure to fund this project in 2008. These bond measures are always presented like it’s “Free money” and the clueless voter thinks they’re being so forward thinking when they approve them, then they whine about “The Man” taxing and burdening them later. Keep smokin’ your 420 pot idiots! Wonder what 68 billion could do for our “Crumbling Infrastructure”?

By: Queeg

Queeg — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:59:09 +0000

In reply to El Jimador. Comrade El Assured lots of water on the train for all to enjoy!

By: El Jimador

El Jimador — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 19:37:26 +0000

why not replace this train project with projects to fix our drought problem which affects us all??? $68 Billion could greatly improve water distribution and retention systems and even fund creation of potable water.

By: Ronald

Ronald — Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:24:59 +0000

Since state law says that the system MUST OPERATE WITHOUT A TAXPAYER SUBSIDY, the end results may necessitate higher fares per mile, compared with other similar rail systems worldwide, this will adversely affect ridership projections. Thus, it’s understandable that an investment in the bullet train provides significant ROI risks to that invested capital.

Driving or flying from a multitude of airports can be done at virtually any time of day, but the inflexibility of how many train departure times would be available from a limited number of trains would impact the convenience factor offered by cars and planes and thus also adversely affect train ridership. The snowballing effect of lower ridership would be higher fares for those that do use the train as there would be no state subsidies available. Lower ridership would further impact the ROI risks for invested capital.