CA train project needs another $100B to complete route from San Fran to LA
kcra.com
kcra.com
Looking at how much high speed rail China has built, and operates, then you look at the USA who cannot event get a train built between to major cities it's quite crazy that this is such a struggle.
I know that it's not a priority because Americans are "rich" and like cars, but something about this failure seems deeply problematic to me.
I would caution against lumping everyone else in with California. There are definitely functional states in the US that can finish projects. California, however, is not one of them.
And it made Boston a habitable city.
https://www.boston.com/cars/untagged/2015/01/05/can-we-talk-...
You can see this at play with the support of the Ukraine. Billions are being tossed around but how much 'punch' does that dollar have when it reaches the frontline? Does it even get there at all? Is 10B in American aid even close to 10B in Estonian aid?
You and I don't have access to it, it's just expected since it's sensitive information during wartime.
Companies doing space travel don’t care about exploration. They care about being the ones to capitalize on space first.
that's fine - because exploration is a useful side-effect of "capitalizing" space.
The problem with gov't funded public works projects is that everyone involved knows it's gov't funded, and adds their own margin on top. Not to mention the land acquisition gets more expensive over time - both purely due to inflation, as well as the idea that the land owner could squeeze more juice out the later the project is in (after all, if you're the sole "hold-up", you could squeeze the gov't for your land at above market rates and they'd have to pay or lose the entire project!).
It is really a result of freedom of the individuals in america (vs their gov't) compared to places like china.
You don't get to overcharge for your work as a "contractor" in china - you work for the state-owned company that employs you at a fixed wage.
The land is always something the gov't can just take as imminent domain, and pays you what the gov't thinks is fair compensation (which, of course, is going to be lower than market cost, as you are forced to accept it).
Lastly, those "pesky" environmental reviews in the US doesn't really exist in china. At best they get rubber stamped.
While the result of china's infrastructure development is definitely impressive, those who had to eat the hidden cost exist, but is powerless to stop it. Hopefully they also get to enjoy the fruits of the infrastructure, and that it outweighs the cost paid by them.
America won the world wars by being an industrial powerhouse who could get things built in large quantity. I think that is no longer the case. To go further, it indicates a strategic weakness in national defense. Japan's warships were technologically superior to the American's. The German tank' specs were better than the Allies. But they lost on the number games. I feel like if a fight broke out between the US and China right now, we may see the same thing happen again, except this time, the US is the one playing the "few elite" card while China has the industrial and manufacturing power to swarm us with "good enough" war engines. And history has shown twice which strategy would win a war.
luckily, nukes exist today, and this is no longer a volume problem. The all-out war scenario is one where humanity dies out, revert back to the stone age.
In a regional conflict, such as a taiwan invasion, this might play out as you described. But then in such a regional conflict, the "elite" forces of the US is more useful imho.
> But when used as resistance against the public good and overall progress
There's shades of grey there, because what constitutes public good and overall progress? But you may be right that there's more middlemen these days that are just not pulling their weight for what they output. Like ticket-clipping, where they just add a margin and pass on the work down the chain, and yet contribute nothing.
Pictures: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%E9%92%89%E5%AD%90%E6%88%B7&iax=im...
Adv China has some videos on and in those.
Great, lots of environmental laws that ... prevent a train line that is objectivly great for the envoirnment.
The simple fact is, China transportation system is better for the actual environment.
Worker protection, ok, US worker protection globally known for being great? If im China a train-line is built 10x as fast, then even assuming higher insure rate, the overall project might be safer.
Lets talk salary. Are US workers that work on CHSR better paid relative to other jobs in the economy compared to China? Did China use ultra cheap slave labor? Can you actually show that its the actual workers who benefit from this 10x cost upgrade?
Private property isnt absolute. The US can take property if required. And happly did so and still does so for highway expantion. Japan on the other hand has less ability to do it and still manage to build trains. Im not sure how exactly this works in China. But just saying 'private property' isnt actually great analysis. Can you objectivly show that people on the path of CHSR were objectivly better of then those that had property along a line in China. And even if so, how much of the cost does that actually explain.
You can look at any number of statistics in regards to infrastructure spending efficency. The US does then to be very high.
I like this one:
Worker protection, ok, US worker protection globally known for being great? If im China a train-line is built 10x as fast, then even assuming higher insure rate, the overall project might be safer.
I'd say absolutely no, it's not great, only when you want it to be for making an argument to support a narrative I guess :)
One such rail line just opened up going to my friends hometown [1]. Now instead of a 3 hour car ride from the major airport it's 45 minutes by train. The route is roughly half the distance of SF<>LA and wasn't even fully approved till 2019 [2].
[1] https://english.news.cn/20231226/ee2fd2183517440eb11427d25ae...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu%E2%80%93Zigong_high-sp...
I agree the pendulum is too far in the wrong direction here. But if my city told me I had to move because they were destroying my whole neighborhood to put in a new train, I would be livid - "I thought this was America!" It would take an enormous sum of money - many times over what my property is worth on paper - to make me feel properly compensated for all of the memories, sentimental value, and how much I like my neighborhood.
125MPH is the max speed of the train. It runs the route at an average of 67mph, end to end.
Adult tickets start at $79 for a 235 mile ride.
That’s about $0.33/mile, which is cheaper than driving with only two people in the car. With three, it’s cheaper to drive.
Ridership is over 2 million per year, which seems good. (Ten years at that ridership means the track construction cost $300 per passenger trip though. No idea how much maintenance has cost.)
However, overseas, the older trains are averaging well over 100mph, and the new workhorse trains routinely run faster than 200 mph.
For a train and tracks completed in 2013, I’d expect the 235 mile trip (6 stops; say, 4 minutes per stop: 235 mph top speed) to take about 90 minutes; 100 minutes figuring in time to accelerate and decelerate 6 times.
It takes 3.5 hours. That’s probably slower than a car.
Also, according to wikipedia, the system is incredibly unsafe (by train standards).
It is a line not well integrated in the larger transportation system and has a limited scope. Getting to as many riders as they have is impressive.
Its unsafe because of Florida insane traffic engineering, not because of any issue with the trains or the company.
In the context of the US Brightline is clearly a success by a large margin.
I agree they're doing well by US standards.
This is very similar to the Mission Valley leg of the San Diego trolly. This was the first trolly project developed in modern San Diego, and connected hotels to the "charger statium". Supposedly to allow tourist to go to football games from their hotel. Then, the chargers ditched San Diego and moved to LA 8-/
Meanwhile, El Cajon Blvd, which mostly parallels the route of that Mission Valley trolly route, but goes through residential and business areas and connects the city core to SDSU continues to have no trolly. In spite of the fact that this was a major trolley route back in the day when US cities originally had trolleys.
Ironically, that original Mission Valley trolley route now connects to SDSU, but doesn't travel through the most densly packed part of the city.
There are countries you can go where it feels like the government actually cares about trying to help people have a better life. There are countries where infrastructure projects get completed. There are countries where infrastructure isn't just completed, it's good. There are countries where the administrative overhead of health care is 2% instead of (a likely underestimated) 25%.
You can't fix infrastructure policy, or any other policy, in America without first fixing campaign finance reform.
As long as senators and justices can be openly bought and sold there is no hope of getting responsible leadership that acts in the interests of citizens.
Very good video explaining the core issue of American politics by Harvard Law professor and founder of creative commons Lawrence Lessig-- Our democracy no longer represents the people: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
California will spend tens of billions and multiple decades connecting two cities in the middle of nowhere. And in the most conservative part of the state, where people didn’t want high speed rail to begin with. And then the project will get cancelled because no way this thing is ever getting built. Truly excellent trolling.
Although the project needs to connect to the coastal cities to really make sense, it is certain that the initial operating segment from Bakersfield to Merced will prove popular as soon as it starts running.
[1] https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/3477/39.pdf
You literally have two metro areas with 10+ million people and multible towns with millions or multibe 100k people in the middle.
Maybe just improving the projects organisation instead of cancling it makes sense.
Oh wait, we had exactly that, and then ripped it out / prioritized freight on it.
I don’t see why they don’t just imminent-domain the tracks, and straighten them so the existing amtrak trains could run at their top speed on them (125mph vs today’s 60mph if I remember right).
They could even run frequent commuter trains within cities at rush hour.
Later, they could upgrade the trains and tracks, until it’s ratcheted up to modern speeds (> 200 mph) in remote areas.
They're so in bed with the real estate mafia that it's almost impossible to get anything involving land accomplished.
With the number of people flying daily between southern California and the bay area, a high speed rail would be boon for the region. It's ironic that after the whole idea of California high speed rail was first introduced by a San Diego legislator in the '80s, after a trip to Japan, San Diego is no longer even on the initial planned route.
There's a simple solution to the funding problem: a $5-$10 dollar tax on each flight between SoCal and the bay area. These short hop flights are exactly what the high speed rail is supposed to eliminate, and the number of people taking them everyday is huge. Make the problem pay for the solution.
The same approach could fund the transition away from petroleum. The problem, of course, is that both major US political parties primarily represent the entrenched equity stake holders, not the population at large.
It went to space today, and these jokers can’t lay railroad track like we did in the 1800s.
The $1.7M toilet feels like a steal in comparison to this.
With this in mind, the way the current project is being funded and run is actually the most practical way (regardless of the horrible optics): Doing chunks at a time, rather than trying to plan and fund the entire time and cost up front. The fact is that estimations are inherently political and always, always, always incorrect.
Though it seems a ludicrous way to work, the project would never had started had the actual time and cost had been known at the outset. Though some parts of the project cost more because of the lack of complete funding and slower pace (things cost more now), the overall efficiency is actually improved by making sure that the money is spent as needed.
So, if they're saying it'll cost another $100B to complete, the real cost is probably $250B. If they say it'll be done by 2030, it'll probably be 2035 at the earliest. And that's fine. As a country we need to stop thinking in the short term. Unless we want to start acting like China and just bulldoze our way across the country regardless of property owners, residents and the environment, this is how it has to be.
Anyone who's been on this earth for more than a few decades should know this by now.
That additional $100B could have been used to drastically enhance the existing public transit systems within California. Projects like the ACE expansion, the LA Metro expansion, the Caltrain electrification, etc have all had tangible positive effects, and a bit more money could have been poured into multiple local projects instead.
At this price point, what would the ticket be for a SF to LA train?!? If it reaches the $100-200 range you can't beat flying.
A flight takes ~1hr, plus another hour for TSA and whatnot. Rail will take several hours at best. Unless rail significantly undercuts the cost of a flight (which can be had for extremely cheap these days) people just aren't going to use it.
Assuming the train runs frequently enough for spur-of-the-moment trips (why wouldn’t it?!?) I’d definitely prefer that to screwing around with booking a flight, getting to the airport, and dealing with the TSA, even if the flight was only an hour.
I'ce never faced a 1 hour TSA line for domestic flights at SFO, SJC, SMF, SAN, or SNA, and I travel a lot for work.
Most of my security lines have been around 20 tops.
And I'm a brown guy so I'm the demographic that should be hassled the most.
At this dismal level of spending efficiency, the US would go bankrupt long before it matches China's scale of public works construction. So if the choice is between falling behind China as an industrial power, or exercising eminent domain, and sidelining environmental regulations and labor unions, to get infrastructure built like China, the choice is easy. Build the way China does.
Every major US city being connected by high speed rail lines would have innumerable benefits far exceeding the costs associated with rapid construction.
What's worse, is if you even begin to question this stuff, people are like "stop being anti-<insert buzzword> blah blah"
One day, a hundred trillion dollars in debt and 1000's of million dollar restrooms later, the bill will be due and we won't be able to pay.
There is no bureaucracy tasked with building.
Instead there is an executive committee tasked with supervising consultants who are supervising construction firms who are contracted to do the work.
There is no professional project management class in the actual government because "we don't need them when we can save money hiring consultants."
https://www.google.com/search?q=consultants+to+run+infrastru...
Private corporations often gets good value from outsourcing, why can't the government? Corruption, plain and simple.
It's why upstarts (like America was in the 20th and 19th centuries) are so competitive. They have the frontier, emptiness, a blank slate.
"It's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything.”
Where's the rest going?
That includes DMV and CHP as well as the city/county road funds, state highways, transit programs, bridge retrofitting, general maintenance, and existing rail programs.
This $100B is a marginal cost on top of what has already been spent, and does not include the cost to operate the system. It seems unreasonable to imply that the cost of the highways which actually connect the entire state, somehow dwarfs the cost of this project -- that's just not true. It's even more unreasonable to to imply that the journalism is flawed because it does not make that argument.
Part of the issue is that the transit lobby seems allergic to private sector investment. The golden gate was funded privately via bond sales to bank or America.
There’s not a whole lot between LA and the Bay Area, and people didn’t need the train when flights work. It’s the same kind of feasibility study that put a multi billion dollar transit terminal in the middle of San Francisco, that is not connected to all major transit operations that exist in the city
Are you talking about Caltrain? Caltrain is highly used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center
It's a somewhat shiny bus terminal near downtown San Francisco which is now actually used a lot (though it would have been used a lot more if not for COVID and work-from-home). It has a basement level prepared for the California High-Speed Rail (the original subject of the article we're discussing) but it doesn't connect to Caltrain, BART, or Muni Metro, although the latter two are a relatively short walk away.
so exactly SF Bay Area (7.5 MM people) to LA Area (13.5 MM people). Distance 350 miles or 560km.
1 hr flight is inefficient with starts/landing/checkin/checkout/TSA/infrastructure costs/getting in and out of airports etc
Proper high speed rail like Shinkansen could do it in 2-2.5 hours easily. (same distance as Tokyo to Osaka, which is the OLDEST Shinkansen line)