3 ms·

I do not think US mineral rights are much of an issue. Australia has similar, or perhaps worse problems with high cost intercity high speed rail. Every time a S

by wycx 10y ago

I do not think US mineral rights are much of an issue. Australia has similar, or perhaps worse problems with high cost intercity high speed rail. Every time a Sydney to Melbourne fast train is investigated, cost estimates are among the highest in the world per kilometer, without the challenging geography of California. I suspect some form of rent seeking (or likely multiple layers of rent seeking) is part of the problem.

akiselev 10y ago
They're not an issue if you're not building a tunnel. My point is that in Switzerland and most European countries they're not a problem even if you are. Although all infrastructure projects in western countries are subject to rent seeking and NIMBYism that drive up their costs, the degree of rent seeking depends on the state/province/country and project complexity. Much of the relevant land in the mountainous parts of the Western US is owned by the federal government so I'm talking mostly about the actual construction costs. Unfortunately, the high speed rail is useless without tracks to and from the mountain sections so the cost of obtaining right of way still matters. From my understanding, the Swiss tunnel is an extension of an existing network, so the 36 miles of tunnel didn't depend on lots of new above ground construction and the risk that comes with it. For example, the interstate 70 expansion through the Rocky mountains that connected the western and eastern halves of Colorado cost $800 million per mile for 12 miles, even though all of the land was already owned by state and federal governments. There was little opposition, it was badly needed, and the project went very well (winning several awards) but it still cost over 40 times more than initially predicted because it turned out that building a massive highway through the Rockies was a lot harder than anyone had thought.
- trome 10y ago
  Yeah, infrastructure costs tons of money even when the land itself is free, unless you can get away with doing a substandard job.

by wycx 10y ago

akiselev 10y ago

They're not an issue if you're not building a tunnel. My point is that in Switzerland and most European countries they're not a problem even if you are. Although all infrastructure projects in western countries are subject to rent seeking and NIMBYism that drive up their costs, the degree of rent seeking depends on the state/province/country and project complexity. Much of the relevant land in the mountainous parts of the Western US is owned by the federal government so I'm talking mostly about the actual construction costs. Unfortunately, the high speed rail is useless without tracks to and from the mountain sections so the cost of obtaining right of way still matters. From my understanding, the Swiss tunnel is an extension of an existing network, so the 36 miles of tunnel didn't depend on lots of new above ground construction and the risk that comes with it. For example, the interstate 70 expansion through the Rocky mountains that connected the western and eastern halves of Colorado cost $800 million per mile for 12 miles, even though all of the land was already owned by state and federal governments. There was little opposition, it was badly needed, and the project went very well (winning several awards) but it still cost over 40 times more than initially predicted because it turned out that building a massive highway through the Rockies was a lot harder than anyone had thought.

trome 10y ago
Yeah, infrastructure costs tons of money even when the land itself is free, unless you can get away with doing a substandard job.