5 ms·

Yeah, the cognitive dissonance is only among the leadership of the project here. Big projects like this are chronically underbudgeted (or "optimistically budget

Yeah, the cognitive dissonance is only among the leadership of the project here. Big projects like this are chronically underbudgeted (or "optimistically budgeted"), and leadership always jumps through various mental hoops to attribute cost overruns to unforeseen factors, where more than half of the factors were easily foreseen by commentators. That being said, I sympathize with the nigh-impossible pressures here: it's difficult to convince an entire, diverse state to contribute funds to a project that will take a long time to come to fruition, and whose benefits will be broad, but marginal, across a variety of metrics. So there's a pressure to deliver an ambitious project at prices that are scarcely realistic. Being able to lead this does invite a certain amount of cognitive dissonance; in the famous words of Upton Sinclair, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it".

dmitrygr 9y ago
So far no evidence has been shown for these "broad" benefits.
- bobbygoodlatte 9y ago
  Yeah exactly. Considering in many cases a plane ticket from SF to LA will cost less and get you there faster, the high speed rail project makes little sense
  - dionidium 9y ago
    Trains are better than planes along several dimensions, if done right. "Why would I take the train when I could fly for the same price?" isn't a very good question. The answer is that (again, when done correctly): - Trains are generally more comfortable - Trains allow you to use your cell phone - Trains can take you from city center to city center - Trains don't have the same security requirements - Trains are safer - Trains are cheaper to operate (and so should actually be cheaper in the long run) Planes are better over very long distances. But trains are better for regional travel.
    - niftich 9y ago
      I will defend the OP here, and say that LA-SF trains indeed make little sense, when perfectly good sunk-cost airports already exist that allow various airlines to compete over that route on price and features. Trains are more susceptible to disruptions along the route, because the route itself is more anchored to a particular geography, not to mention they cost a lot to build out to the satisfaction of being truly competitive with airlines if the infrastructure and level-of-service is lacking at this time (which it is). However, where a train does make sense, is connecting other points along the route. Air travel tends to be either hub-and-spoke between busy hubs and tiny spokes, or point-to-point between two busy points; rail travel, however, is always along a route that allows intermediate points to be served at similar levels-of-service as major destinations. Whereas a Sacramento-Bakersfield journey would typically require at least one hop to SF or LA by air, train (and roads, for that matter) allow that journey to be taken without intervening hops, and serviced at a marginal cost, because the two lie along a route that a train would travel anyway. That ability to connect ancillary cities is where rail travel really shines, in ways that air travel can't currently mimic.
      - dionidium 9y ago
        I can't argue with sunk costs and future constructions costs. You're right about those. I'm just relaying my experiences using Amtrak along the Northeast Corridor, which I find to be far superior to the equivalent air travel.
    - carlivar 9y ago
      Are trains safer? I am not sure the statistics support that.
      - dionidium 9y ago
        You are right. Sorry about that one.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    There's little evidence to the final pricing yet, other than some speculation it will be between $85-$115, which are approximately what flights are.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  BART faced all of these objections as well. It was also over budget. Are you against infrastructure projects in general? Do you think the bay area would be better off without BART, even with the cost overruns?
  - jblow 9y ago
    BART is one of the worst public transit projects in the western world... if you ask "would we have been better off with BART or something else?" the answer is probably something else.
    - jlmorton 9y ago
      BART has the highest farebox recovery ratio of any public transit system in the United States (excepting the very small, tourist-oriented Vegas monorail). It has among the best farebox recovery of any system in the world, with only a handful of systems (Tokyo, London, Osaka, Singapore, Taipei) higher. It has seen massive ridership growth over the past decade. What metrics are you using to claim it is one of the worst transit projects in the world?
      - jcranmer 9y ago
        Farebox recovery ratio is a shitty way of measuring public transit. Consider: do you rank highway projects by how much revenue they bring in (via tolls, if they exist, or gas taxes to pay for them)? Of course not--hell, most highway projects have negative recovery ratio. Ridership per mile or transit modeshare is often a better way to rank transit systems. In terms of ridership per mile, BART is the worst of the major systems in the US and Canada. Admittedly, it's somewhat misleading since BART is kind of a mixed commuter rail/inner city subway system, but it is still far less than the other major mixed system (Washington Metro).
        ebikelaw 9y ago
        Ridership “per mile” is also a dumb way to measure transit systems. BART has a general geographically-mandatory ten track-miles of tube right in the middle of the system that bloats up the denominator.
- taurath 9y ago
  For most people the benefit of a train system is self evident.
- buxtehude 9y ago
  I wish these funds were being spent on improving the speed and quality of travel within the largest urban areas in California: SF Bay Area and Los Angeles. Broader reach and faster travel times within those urban areas would go much farther to improve the quality of life of Californians than this high speed train project in the middle of nowhere. I would really like California to have a high speed travel network from north to south at some point in the future - but I just don't think it's the right priority at this time - as air travel is good enough for now - and most people have to commute within their urban area every day. How often do you need to commute between SF and Los Angeles?
  - s0rce 9y ago
    Air travel serves SF and LA well but the central valley is underserved. They could be better served by the hsr. Not sure if that warrants the cost or not.
    - dmitrygr 9y ago
      Yup, those airports in Stockton, Modesto, Scaramento, Fresno, and Bakersfield are just for show.
      - s0rce 9y ago
        I'm assuming you are being sarcastic but the comments above were mostly about low cost southwest flights that are likely cheaper than the HSR tickets will be. Other than the subsidized flights to Merced from OAK the central valley airports are very expensive to fly in and out of.
empath75 9y ago
Do you think the people running it really didn’t know how much it would cost? Everyone involved lied about the cost because they knew it would never have been funded if they had been honest about it. Pretty much everyone involved from the voters to the contractors to the lawmakers that passed the budget knew that the numbers were a fantasy.

dmitrygr 9y ago

So far no evidence has been shown for these "broad" benefits.

bobbygoodlatte 9y ago
Yeah exactly. Considering in many cases a plane ticket from SF to LA will cost less and get you there faster, the high speed rail project makes little sense
- dionidium 9y ago
  Trains are better than planes along several dimensions, if done right. "Why would I take the train when I could fly for the same price?" isn't a very good question. The answer is that (again, when done correctly): - Trains are generally more comfortable - Trains allow you to use your cell phone - Trains can take you from city center to city center - Trains don't have the same security requirements - Trains are safer - Trains are cheaper to operate (and so should actually be cheaper in the long run) Planes are better over very long distances. But trains are better for regional travel.
  - niftich 9y ago
    I will defend the OP here, and say that LA-SF trains indeed make little sense, when perfectly good sunk-cost airports already exist that allow various airlines to compete over that route on price and features. Trains are more susceptible to disruptions along the route, because the route itself is more anchored to a particular geography, not to mention they cost a lot to build out to the satisfaction of being truly competitive with airlines if the infrastructure and level-of-service is lacking at this time (which it is). However, where a train does make sense, is connecting other points along the route. Air travel tends to be either hub-and-spoke between busy hubs and tiny spokes, or point-to-point between two busy points; rail travel, however, is always along a route that allows intermediate points to be served at similar levels-of-service as major destinations. Whereas a Sacramento-Bakersfield journey would typically require at least one hop to SF or LA by air, train (and roads, for that matter) allow that journey to be taken without intervening hops, and serviced at a marginal cost, because the two lie along a route that a train would travel anyway. That ability to connect ancillary cities is where rail travel really shines, in ways that air travel can't currently mimic.
    - dionidium 9y ago
      I can't argue with sunk costs and future constructions costs. You're right about those. I'm just relaying my experiences using Amtrak along the Northeast Corridor, which I find to be far superior to the equivalent air travel.
  - carlivar 9y ago
    Are trains safer? I am not sure the statistics support that.
    - dionidium 9y ago
      You are right. Sorry about that one.
- bduerst 9y ago
  There's little evidence to the final pricing yet, other than some speculation it will be between $85-$115, which are approximately what flights are.
landryraccoon 9y ago
BART faced all of these objections as well. It was also over budget. Are you against infrastructure projects in general? Do you think the bay area would be better off without BART, even with the cost overruns?
- jblow 9y ago
  BART is one of the worst public transit projects in the western world... if you ask "would we have been better off with BART or something else?" the answer is probably something else.
  - jlmorton 9y ago
    BART has the highest farebox recovery ratio of any public transit system in the United States (excepting the very small, tourist-oriented Vegas monorail). It has among the best farebox recovery of any system in the world, with only a handful of systems (Tokyo, London, Osaka, Singapore, Taipei) higher. It has seen massive ridership growth over the past decade. What metrics are you using to claim it is one of the worst transit projects in the world?
    - jcranmer 9y ago
      Farebox recovery ratio is a shitty way of measuring public transit. Consider: do you rank highway projects by how much revenue they bring in (via tolls, if they exist, or gas taxes to pay for them)? Of course not--hell, most highway projects have negative recovery ratio. Ridership per mile or transit modeshare is often a better way to rank transit systems. In terms of ridership per mile, BART is the worst of the major systems in the US and Canada. Admittedly, it's somewhat misleading since BART is kind of a mixed commuter rail/inner city subway system, but it is still far less than the other major mixed system (Washington Metro).
      - ebikelaw 9y ago
        Ridership “per mile” is also a dumb way to measure transit systems. BART has a general geographically-mandatory ten track-miles of tube right in the middle of the system that bloats up the denominator.
taurath 9y ago
For most people the benefit of a train system is self evident.
buxtehude 9y ago
I wish these funds were being spent on improving the speed and quality of travel within the largest urban areas in California: SF Bay Area and Los Angeles. Broader reach and faster travel times within those urban areas would go much farther to improve the quality of life of Californians than this high speed train project in the middle of nowhere. I would really like California to have a high speed travel network from north to south at some point in the future - but I just don't think it's the right priority at this time - as air travel is good enough for now - and most people have to commute within their urban area every day. How often do you need to commute between SF and Los Angeles?
- s0rce 9y ago
  Air travel serves SF and LA well but the central valley is underserved. They could be better served by the hsr. Not sure if that warrants the cost or not.
  - dmitrygr 9y ago
    Yup, those airports in Stockton, Modesto, Scaramento, Fresno, and Bakersfield are just for show.
    - s0rce 9y ago
      I'm assuming you are being sarcastic but the comments above were mostly about low cost southwest flights that are likely cheaper than the HSR tickets will be. Other than the subsidized flights to Merced from OAK the central valley airports are very expensive to fly in and out of.

empath75 9y ago

Do you think the people running it really didn’t know how much it would cost? Everyone involved lied about the cost because they knew it would never have been funded if they had been honest about it. Pretty much everyone involved from the voters to the contractors to the lawmakers that passed the budget knew that the numbers were a fantasy.