5 ms·

Hard to see this as anything other than big-time grift. This is estimated to be a $12B project. $6.5B raised so far: $3B grant and $3.5B in tax-exempt, "privat

Hard to see this as anything other than big-time grift. This is estimated to be a $12B project. $6.5B raised so far: $3B grant and $3.5B in tax-exempt, "private activity" bonds. Does anyone actually think the rest will come from investors? Of course not, the government will see a half-finished project that it supported and provide the funding to finish the job, including the inevitable overruns. A private company receiving 6.5B (and likely, eventually $12+) of government money... no pressure or expectations to make any profit. Great deal if you can get it!

danielhep 2y ago
Why not invest? Brightline has done well in Florida.
- andy800 2y ago
  It lost $192 million in the first 9 months of 2023. $201 million same period of 2022. It also lowered its passenger forecast to Orlando from 7 to 5.5 million. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/03/08/brightline-is-losing-money-but-orlando-leg-is-providing-a-big-boost/72813243007/ https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/03/08/brightli...
  - blackhawkC17 2y ago
    That's why I believe public infrastructure should be publicly-owned. It's rare to find a profitable metro system...it should be run by the government as a benefit for citizens, not as a business like Brightline.
    - missedthecue 2y ago
      If infrastructure isn't sustainable you're destroying value and making your citizens poorer.
      - blackhawkC17 2y ago
        "Not profitable" doesn't mean "unsustainable". To rephrase, some things are not directly profitable but tend to have outsized profitable effects. E.g., the education budget doesn't directly generate profits, but educated people go on to get good jobs and pay a lot of taxes, refunding the cost of their education by many multiples. The same goes for roads, highways, and rail. Not directly profitable, but they enable a lot of free movement that boosts the economy and, in turn, taxes.
    - addicted 2y ago
      The EU is doing this right. The rail infrastructure is publicly owned. But the rail infrastructure is open access that private companies can pay for. As far as I understand you can even have a public carrier but it must bid for access like its private counterparts do. This has already led to an explosion of high quality high speed rail service in countries like Italy and Spain.
staplers 2y ago
Notorious car-and-luxury-centric city expects citizens to take icky public transit.
- mulmen 2y ago
  Just make one of the cars a party bus.
andbberger 2y ago
$6.5B to demonstrate it is in fact possible to build HSR on budget and on time in the states and that CAHSR is just run by a consultant mafioso in a trenchcoat sounds like a great deal!
- andy800 2y ago
  Florida already exists as a "demonstration" project. Regardless, spending $12B just to prove a point is not a wise use of those funds.
  - andbberger 2y ago
    florida brightline is just a normal, mostly already existing, railroad
blackhawkC17 2y ago
Brightline already spent $6 billion in private funds building functional passenger rail from Miami to Orlando [1]. I’m not in support of private companies receiving subsidies, but at least do some research before reacting.. 1- https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/04/how-brightline-is-changing-passenger-rail-in-the-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/04/how-brightline-is-changi...
- andy800 2y ago
  I've done plenty of research. The Florida operation is backed by Fortress Investment Group. It is not involved in funding the California-Nevada project. As I've already pointed out, all the money raised so far comes from government sources.
schainks 2y ago
This video goes into that a bit by studying Florida: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmpyV4Yf8b0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmpyV4Yf8b0 The regulations of rail in the US are slightly perverted (freight rail interests dominate the discussion, usually). The economics of passenger rail in the western US are also difficult when large densities of people are so spread out and the only "primary" reasons for going from A to B are for recreation, not work/industry.
altacc 2y ago
Having experienced the post-privatization decline of public services a few times I'm of the opinion that public transport, being a societal good, should be publicly funded, publicly owned and funded well. Rail is especially expensive to maintain and profit from. Private companies tend to reduce maintenance to a bare minimum or less in the name of efficiency, resulting in the infrastructure declining whilst profits rise. Then the government steps back in to fund repairs to a critical service, indirectly funding the profits. That's definitely a typical capitalist grift for "too big to fail" companies. For those that don't like public money spent on infrastructure its a not a binary choice of to spend the money or not, it's inevitably when to spend it and how.
- cnity 2y ago
  This. The $12B represents about 0.2% of the total US outlays for FY 2023. People tend to see the big number without considering the rest of public spending. You have to crack an egg to make an omelette. As a result the general population will tend to vote against these kinds of investments and then look back in 50-100 years and wonder why other countries seem to have all of the nice public infrastructure.
- andy800 2y ago
  This project represents the worst combination: publicly funded but privately owned.
  - altacc 2y ago
    In the UK there was for a while the private finance initiative, where the government contracted private companies to provide services or development. The result, as concluded by the very private business friendly right wing government, was that is was a total waste of money, with no measurable benefit but costing billions extra than if the government had provided services directly.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
$3.5B in tax-exempt bonds is not $3.5B of government money.

danielhep 2y ago

Why not invest? Brightline has done well in Florida.

andy800 2y ago
It lost $192 million in the first 9 months of 2023. $201 million same period of 2022. It also lowered its passenger forecast to Orlando from 7 to 5.5 million. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/03/08/brightline-is-losing-money-but-orlando-leg-is-providing-a-big-boost/72813243007/ https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/03/08/brightli...
- blackhawkC17 2y ago
  That's why I believe public infrastructure should be publicly-owned. It's rare to find a profitable metro system...it should be run by the government as a benefit for citizens, not as a business like Brightline.
  - missedthecue 2y ago
    If infrastructure isn't sustainable you're destroying value and making your citizens poorer.
    - blackhawkC17 2y ago
      "Not profitable" doesn't mean "unsustainable". To rephrase, some things are not directly profitable but tend to have outsized profitable effects. E.g., the education budget doesn't directly generate profits, but educated people go on to get good jobs and pay a lot of taxes, refunding the cost of their education by many multiples. The same goes for roads, highways, and rail. Not directly profitable, but they enable a lot of free movement that boosts the economy and, in turn, taxes.
  - addicted 2y ago
    The EU is doing this right. The rail infrastructure is publicly owned. But the rail infrastructure is open access that private companies can pay for. As far as I understand you can even have a public carrier but it must bid for access like its private counterparts do. This has already led to an explosion of high quality high speed rail service in countries like Italy and Spain.

staplers 2y ago

Notorious car-and-luxury-centric city expects citizens to take icky public transit.

mulmen 2y ago
Just make one of the cars a party bus.

andbberger 2y ago

$6.5B to demonstrate it is in fact possible to build HSR on budget and on time in the states and that CAHSR is just run by a consultant mafioso in a trenchcoat sounds like a great deal!

andy800 2y ago
Florida already exists as a "demonstration" project. Regardless, spending $12B just to prove a point is not a wise use of those funds.
- andbberger 2y ago
  florida brightline is just a normal, mostly already existing, railroad

blackhawkC17 2y ago

Brightline already spent $6 billion in private funds building functional passenger rail from Miami to Orlando [1]. I’m not in support of private companies receiving subsidies, but at least do some research before reacting.. 1- https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/04/how-brightline-is-changing-passenger-rail-in-the-us.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/08/04/how-brightline-is-changi...

andy800 2y ago
I've done plenty of research. The Florida operation is backed by Fortress Investment Group. It is not involved in funding the California-Nevada project. As I've already pointed out, all the money raised so far comes from government sources.

schainks 2y ago

This video goes into that a bit by studying Florida: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmpyV4Yf8b0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmpyV4Yf8b0 The regulations of rail in the US are slightly perverted (freight rail interests dominate the discussion, usually). The economics of passenger rail in the western US are also difficult when large densities of people are so spread out and the only "primary" reasons for going from A to B are for recreation, not work/industry.

altacc 2y ago

Having experienced the post-privatization decline of public services a few times I'm of the opinion that public transport, being a societal good, should be publicly funded, publicly owned and funded well. Rail is especially expensive to maintain and profit from. Private companies tend to reduce maintenance to a bare minimum or less in the name of efficiency, resulting in the infrastructure declining whilst profits rise. Then the government steps back in to fund repairs to a critical service, indirectly funding the profits. That's definitely a typical capitalist grift for "too big to fail" companies. For those that don't like public money spent on infrastructure its a not a binary choice of to spend the money or not, it's inevitably when to spend it and how.

cnity 2y ago
This. The $12B represents about 0.2% of the total US outlays for FY 2023. People tend to see the big number without considering the rest of public spending. You have to crack an egg to make an omelette. As a result the general population will tend to vote against these kinds of investments and then look back in 50-100 years and wonder why other countries seem to have all of the nice public infrastructure.
andy800 2y ago
This project represents the worst combination: publicly funded but privately owned.
- altacc 2y ago
  In the UK there was for a while the private finance initiative, where the government contracted private companies to provide services or development. The result, as concluded by the very private business friendly right wing government, was that is was a total waste of money, with no measurable benefit but costing billions extra than if the government had provided services directly.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

$3.5B in tax-exempt bonds is not $3.5B of government money.