California’s high speed rail is such a misbegotten mess that it’s the height of delusion to think Musk influences its fate.
1. Easy transportation around the state is a good idea
2. If the original plan was to build 500 miles of high speed rail from SF to LA for $33b by 2029, but what we actually get in the year 2030 is 120 miles of HSR from Merced to Bakersfield for $120b, maybe the project is a mismanaged mess
They've spent about 10.3 billion so far not all of which has been spent on the central valley section. And this spring they approved 4.2 billion to finish the initial section. So we're talking 13 billion for 100 miles. One tenth your claim.
Worse for the Nimby's and industry funded AstroTurf groups is the last court challenges have failed. And so the courts can no longer be used to slow things down either. All they can do is continue to pay for doom and gloom articles to be published.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail#:....
Let me describe a project I know: This thing was approved and is now well over budget. This happened because they decided to increase capacity by about 50% after getting approval, because of additional noise insulation required, and because construction prices have increased by perhaps 20% in the last couple of years. These added up to a doubling or a little more.
Could you describe the components of that HSR 4× overrun in a similar level of detail?
California's High Speed Rail became one of those politically divisive things, and Elon's political tribe would be on the opposite side of it. So he'd hear a lot about how terrible and slow it was.
Did he intentionally announce a stupid idea that could be used to undermine it? I don't know, that seems a bit Moriarity like. Maybe he just proposed a stupid solution to a 'problem' that didn't really exist because he gets a lot of misinformation in his news sources.
Like this argument:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/high-speed-money-sink-w...
They go into real depth about how building sprawl is better for the planet:
> One argument against allowing more travel is that it uses energy and produces greenhouse gas emissions. But compact cities tend to be more congested cities, and that congestion wastes more fuel. According to the Department of Energy, people who live in densities of 10,000 to 25,000 people per square mile (densities found in such places as Chicago and San Francisco) drive about 16 percent fewer miles than people who live in densities of 1,000 to 2,000 people (typical of low‐ density suburbs). But the vehicles in the denser areas average about 17 mph while lower‐ density vehicles move about 26 mph. The department also says that vehicles moving at 25 mph use 25 percent less fuel per mile as vehicles moving at 15 mph.138 Thus, people living in denser areas may actually use more fuel than people in low‐ density areas. Since greenhouse gas emissions are proportional to petroleum fuel consumption, people in the denser areas also emit more greenhouse gases.
That's a lot of words for a very stupid premise. Are they pro-fossil fuels, anti-government, just trolling? Yes to all three I think.