10 ms·

Nothing quite embodies the utter failure of the US and CA in particular as this embarrassing high-speed rail project. This is something that has been pioneered,

Nothing quite embodies the utter failure of the US and CA in particular as this embarrassing high-speed rail project. This is something that has been pioneered, developed, and commoditized in other countries, both in Europe and Asia. The CA project had incredibly modest ambitions: a single line, over a relatively short distance, through terrain that isn't too challenging, going at moderate speeds, using completely standard technology. This isn't a hyperloop, a maglev, a hyperfast train, a dense network, or anything else that can fail because of technology risk. It's purely a failure at execution, pretty much entirely because of politics and corruption. In the US, the process for infrastructure construction is entirely broken, and the never-ending political battles that pop up with every project completely incapacitate development.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>and the never-ending political battles that pop up with every project completely incapacitate development. This is distinctly a CA problem.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- debacle 7y ago
  And New York, and Massachusetts, and Illinois, and probably most other states.
- dmix 7y ago
  The Boston tunnel was a pretty great example of the massive weight politics and hiring/mismanaging bad gov contractors puts on every infrastructure project (it "started" in 1982, broke ground in 1991, and finished 2007 at 200% over budget): > The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the US, and was plagued by cost overruns, delays, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests, and one death. The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006). However, the project was completed in December 2007 at a cost of over $8.08 billion (in 1982 dollars, $14.6 billion adjusted for inflation, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%) as of 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
  - ghaff 7y ago
    OTOH, it was eventually completed and it is a big improvement for a variety of reasons (including the elimination of an ugly deteriorating elevated highway) even though Boston traffic is mostly as bad as it's ever been.
    - karmelapple 7y ago
      Traffic may be as bad as it’s ever been, but the areas that formerly were elevated roads are now wonderful green spaces. So thankful they did it, and wish it could be done more both in Boston and elsewhere, but the gigantic cost must make it overwhelming for anywhere to consider doing that again. At least Boston is finally digging that green line extension!
      - ghaff 7y ago
        Absolutely. I'm sure that traffic would be even worse without it having been done. Certainly getting to the airport is more straightforward than it used to be. But the green spaces are such a huge improvement over traversing the dirty underbelly of the elevated road to get between parts of the city. (Now if they could only tear down City Hall and do something useful with the space.)
        dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        >(Now if they could only tear down City Hall and do something useful with the space.) Going full killdozer on beacon hill with 0 advance notice given would probably be more beneficial to the state and society in general.
    - Anechoic 7y ago
      even though Boston traffic is mostly as bad as it's ever been Boston traffic is not even close to being as bad as it was during the mid-to-late '90s. Back in those days, Medford to Dorchester would a 60-to-90 minute odyssey between 6am to 10am and 3pm too 7pm. Yeah, there is stop-and-go traffic at peak hours, but back in the day, it was often faster to take 128 to travel between the northern and southern burbs, right now it's just normal rush hour traffic.
- mmanfrin 7y ago
  No it isn't. It's a US thing.
  - DannyBee 7y ago
    In California it is caused by enabling local municipalities to have a say and pretending you will ever get a consensus, instead of just saying "hey, we are the state, we're doin it, tough crap". (the NIMBY lawsuits part is separate from this) That failure mode definitely exists in other states.
    - jonathankoren 7y ago
      This. Looking at the route through the SF peninsula, it seemed like every other city wanted a completely different system. Palo Alto wants a trench! Menlo Park wants it elevated! Burlingame wants it at grade! Hell, the damn thing would have had more hills than a rollercoaster.
      - asdff 7y ago
        Exactly what LA dealt with regarding the expo line. Parts are elevated through LA past USC and you zip through with a beautiful view of the hills, then back at grade in santa monica and the train has to sit in traffic because it doesn't have priority. The purple line extension almost didn't happen because the brilliant citizen-scientists of beverly hills were convinced there would be too much underground vibration or the city would explode or something, hard to say what particular grievance they are on these days.
- vonmoltke 7y ago
  Two words: Gateway Project
- rayiner 7y ago
  And New York, where the Second Avenue subway cost 5-7x as much per mile as systems in London or Paris. And DC, where a well funded Metro system had to be taken into federal oversight because deferred maintenance caused it to kill people.
Circuits 7y ago
Yeah... this is a CA problem not a US problem. Had a similar amount of money been given to say... ND or MT to build some other structure it would have been done before the money was ever divided out.
- geogra4 7y ago
  Not just CA, TX has similar issues with a PRIVATE HSR that the land owners simply won't let be built. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/04/texas-central-railway-high-speed-bullet-train-cost-route/587743/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/04/texas-central...
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Circuits 7y ago
    But the CA project wasn't canceled due to land owners protesting its development... so no the issues aren't similar.
    - jonahhorowitz 7y ago
      Au contraire, the biggest issue that HSR faced was landowners fighting it every step of the way. Between fighting eminent domain and fighting with CEQA (California environmental quality act) it's surprising anything got done.
      - Circuits 7y ago
        That was definitely NOT the biggest issue that faced the HSR.
  - tomatotomato37 7y ago
    To be honest I would be surprised if any land-intensive project gets completed in the Texas/NMexico/Arizona area; those ranchers are really territoral I mean given all the adversity and polarization in current US culture we still haven't escalated to the armed siege of government buildings, yet those guys have already done that twice this decade over fucking cows
i_am_nomad 7y ago
And this in a single-party rule state, even. You'd think this could work in California if it could work anywhere in the US.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  It's now a single-party rule state. For most of the history of the HSR, it was a dual-party state where the minority Republicans exercised veto power over various attempts to speed up the HSR, make fundamental changes, etc. It's crazy, but the HSR is actually in better shape now than when the Republicans were vetoing everything just to make sure it failed. Also, the HSR as planned goes through 90% Republican territory, and it has been the local Republicans and their former counterparts in the CA legislature that fucked things up.
  - briandear 7y ago
    We (Republicans) are often opposed to this stuff not because we are against infrastructure, but $200 billion being spent on a 500 mile train. If it were cost efficient and managed correctly, more of us would be on board. We watch as massive infrastructure projects such as the Second Avenue subway and other similar projects turn into boondoggles. If a private company can build rockets and go to space, why can’t a private company build trains? XpressWest and Virgin have been interested in an LA-Vegas line. We in California were told that this train would be profitable: if that’s the case, then why the need for hundreds of billions in taxpayer money? My California taxes are high enough and they can’t even fix potholes in the freeways, and they expect us to trust them with an ultra-expensive train? My dad just visited and was amazed at how bad the freeways were compared to Texas. What does California spend all those tax dollars on? California had total Democrat control of the government from 1999-2003 and from 2011 until now. So in the last 8 years of Democrat control, the train problems are somehow Republican? That’s nonsense. The rail project wasn’t even approved by voters until 2008 and construction didn’t begin until 2015 — years after Republicans had any say in state government. The project has been in an almost continual “environmental review” — certainly not at the behest of the Republicans. The rail debacle isn’t Republican: they haven’t had any power since 2011. And Gavin Newsome was the one that postponed everything except the Merced-Bakersfield line. If Republicans ran the state, taxpayers would be billions richer and we have exactly the same amount of train we have now.
HillaryBriss 7y ago
I basically agree, but one thing I've begun to wonder about is the "through terrain that isn't too challenging" part, given that the Central Valley has been sinking in parts because of aquifer depletion.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Most of the system follows 150 year old rail right of ways. Places where it doesn't is through Pacheco Pass and the San Gabriels. Pacheco Pass already has a aqueduct tunnel. Boring a tunnel through that just costs money. San Gabriels are trickier, really depends engineering vs money vs how fast do you want to go vs surface disruption.
Shivetya 7y ago
Oh please, just stop with the romanticism of high speed rail. It has little viability outside of very select areas and even the EU isn't exactly being well served by it. This loss of funds is probably the best result for California because now they can blame Trump for its collapse. The sheer audacity of continuing the project with a limited route between two small cities shows just how much political weight is invested in this. [1] The ECA's new report [2] shows that it suffers from cost over runs, little inter connectivity, and has issues achieving the speeds promised. Can it be fixed, not without a lot of time, money, and cooperation between competing groups. That last is probably impossible. Yet we must understand that is the smaller areas needed to travel it is far more suited to Europe than America except in very narrow corridors and even that is stretching the truth. Where it works is where the population numbers are large enough to support and other travel options are highly limited. However in the US and EU it servers mostly well to do people. higher middle income and up and rarely if ever the lower ends of society who don't have the means for travel. It is a political toy that results in lots of press opportunities and largess spread among supporters, both in the US and EU [1] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-high-speed-rail-consultants-20190426-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-hi... [2] https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_19/SR_HIGH_SPEED_RAIL_EN.pdf https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_19/SR_HIGH...
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago
  China has HSR in its hinterlands. SF to LA is nothing when compared to Lanzhou to Urumqi at 200-250kph.
  - LanceH 7y ago
    The problem with SF to LA is the hundred other required stops you'll have to make to get approval. And detours, and spurs, etc...
  - ummonk 7y ago
    Sf to la was pitched at peak speeds of 220 mph though.
trimbo 7y ago
If you like this story about California, we also have a bridge to sell you! https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/10/from-250-million-to-65-billion-the-bay-bridge-cost-overrun/410254/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/10/from-250-million-to-6...
alexhutcheson 7y ago
> through terrain that isn't too challenging Crossing the California Coast Ranges is very challenging! They have huge elevation changes, minimal usable electrical infrastructure, sensitive environments to protect, and seismic fault lines right where you would want to tunnel. The insane cost and complexity of the Pacheco and Tehachapi passes is the main thing that stopped the project in its tracks. Granted, the Swiss and the Japanese have pulled off significant projects in similarly challenging terrain, but that's a testament to their competence, rather than evidence that the terrain isn't challenging.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > Crossing the California Coast Ranges is very challenging! You realize that there is already an aqueduct under Pacheco Pass that was built in the 1950's right? Oh right you don't.
  - komali2 7y ago
    What made you decide to include the final sentence in your post?
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      Because it's factual.
      - komali2 7y ago
        You can prove that your OP was not aware of the existence of the aquaduct? And what is the purpose of pointing this out? "I was stating facts" seems a flimsy defense. Do you thus claim that the statement of facts is morally acceptable, in all circumstances, at all times? I hope you'd find this suggestion as absurd as I do - imagine walking up to someone at a funeral and saying, "in two months your mother will be wormfood." Facts? Yes. Necessary? I wonder.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
droithomme 7y ago
> This is something that has been pioneered, developed, and commoditized in other countries, both in Europe and Asia. Not this length directly along a highly active earthquake fault line and including a massive tunnel underneath an entire mountain range that is exceptionally tectonically active. > incredibly modest ambitions I would describe it as hopelessly arrogant ambitions, bordering on technically impossible, and definitely technically impossible within two orders of magnitude of the originally proposed funding.
- ng12 7y ago
  This is true of Japan as well and they have no trouble with significantly more ambitious projects. Don't buy into California's snowflake syndrome.
  - magduf 7y ago
    Exactly. I just rode the Shinkansen in Japan from Tokyo to Kyoto. The train peaks at 185mph, and a significant portion of the route is straight through mountains, in tunnels. And don't forget just how prone to earthquakes Japan is. Finally, this line was first built in the 1960s! California is just pathetic if they can't build something that's much less ambitious than that in the 2010s/20s through terrain that's much easier. Oh, and that's just one Shinkansen line (and the most heavily-used one). They have them all across the country. I rode another one to the west coast, and saw yet another line under construction; that one was elevated. Finally, about Japan in general from what I saw there: there was lots of construction of all kinds going on. New buildings, renovated buildings, new train lines, construction on subway stations, etc. When they need something, they just seem to build it. Over here, we just argue about stuff and then never get any kind of public-works projects done.
    - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
      While I'm not going to dispute Japanese engineering prowess, I do have to note that a lot of the construction going on in Japan is pure pork-barrel politics. The Chuo Maglev under construction from Tokyo to Nagoya is never expected to recoup its exorbitant construction costs, and all new Shinkansen lines & expressways under construction or opened in the last 20 years are bleeding red ink.
JCStr 7y ago
I recall reading a report that somewhere on the order of $200-$250 MILLION had been paid to "consultants" alone so far with not a single foot of track laid. And that's without all the other massive issues related to security, ACTUAL cost of construction and TRUE cost of operation, and bifurcation of the landscape, etc. If it's such a wonderful and amazing project, why aren't people just falling all over themselves to invest in making it happen? Why do these glorious, wonderful projects always seem to take authoritarian government squandering other people's money to bring about?
AdamJacobMuller 7y ago
> incredibly modest ambitions Perhaps that's the problem.
jlmorton 7y ago
> a single line, over a relatively short distance, through terrain that isn't too challenging, going at moderate speeds, None of this is true, or remarkable. Almost all high-speed rail lines are a single line. This line would have been 520 miles, or about 800km. That's longer than almost every high speed rail line in the world. For point of reference, all high speed rail in the UK put together is 1,377km. All high speed rail in Japan is 2,760km. While this single line would not be close to the world's longest (China has a single high speed rail line of nearly 2300km), it's about 30% of the total length of all Japanese high-speed lines put together. This line was planned to have a max speed of 220mph, which is faster than all but one system in the world.
- jostmey 7y ago
  Cough, cough. And what makes you think the speed wasn't inflated.
- melling 7y ago
  China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail. Shanghai to Beijing is 800 miles (1200km). Beijing to Hong Kong is 1500 miles. 10 billion people have used it and it’s now at 2 billion passengers a year. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1149608.shtml http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1149608.shtml
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    I imagine that in China it's orders of magnitude easier to force people to leave their homes if the government wants to build over them
    - grayed-down 7y ago
      I vote yours "best comment"!
    - melling 7y ago
      It’s also easier to get people to agree. In the US, people have been fighting the building of high-speed rail in California since the 1970’s, when Jerry Brown tried to build it the first time. 50 years later there are millions more people in California and infrastructure costs are astronomical. China will have 30,000 miles of high-speed rail before we have any. It’ll be interesting to see the benefits in China. Something to think about as your self-driving car navigates the congestion on US highways.
dev_dull 7y ago
Digging holes through mountains etc is easy. Getting bureaucrats to approve wildlife impact surveys? Now there’s a challenge.
chungleong 7y ago
Normally transportation projects seek to complement existing mode of transport. CA HSR was doomed to fail it was envision as an alternative to driving and flying. The lack of synergy means benefits would come at too high a cost and to too few people. If the money had been spent on a mag-lev line connecting SF and SJ instead, I imagine it'd be close to completion already.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>and the never-ending political battles that pop up with every project completely incapacitate development. This is distinctly a CA problem.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
debacle 7y ago
And New York, and Massachusetts, and Illinois, and probably most other states.
dmix 7y ago
The Boston tunnel was a pretty great example of the massive weight politics and hiring/mismanaging bad gov contractors puts on every infrastructure project (it "started" in 1982, broke ground in 1991, and finished 2007 at 200% over budget): > The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the US, and was plagued by cost overruns, delays, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests, and one death. The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation as of 2006). However, the project was completed in December 2007 at a cost of over $8.08 billion (in 1982 dollars, $14.6 billion adjusted for inflation, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%) as of 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig
- ghaff 7y ago
  OTOH, it was eventually completed and it is a big improvement for a variety of reasons (including the elimination of an ugly deteriorating elevated highway) even though Boston traffic is mostly as bad as it's ever been.
  - karmelapple 7y ago
    Traffic may be as bad as it’s ever been, but the areas that formerly were elevated roads are now wonderful green spaces. So thankful they did it, and wish it could be done more both in Boston and elsewhere, but the gigantic cost must make it overwhelming for anywhere to consider doing that again. At least Boston is finally digging that green line extension!
    - ghaff 7y ago
      Absolutely. I'm sure that traffic would be even worse without it having been done. Certainly getting to the airport is more straightforward than it used to be. But the green spaces are such a huge improvement over traversing the dirty underbelly of the elevated road to get between parts of the city. (Now if they could only tear down City Hall and do something useful with the space.)
      - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
        >(Now if they could only tear down City Hall and do something useful with the space.) Going full killdozer on beacon hill with 0 advance notice given would probably be more beneficial to the state and society in general.
  - Anechoic 7y ago
    even though Boston traffic is mostly as bad as it's ever been Boston traffic is not even close to being as bad as it was during the mid-to-late '90s. Back in those days, Medford to Dorchester would a 60-to-90 minute odyssey between 6am to 10am and 3pm too 7pm. Yeah, there is stop-and-go traffic at peak hours, but back in the day, it was often faster to take 128 to travel between the northern and southern burbs, right now it's just normal rush hour traffic.
mmanfrin 7y ago
No it isn't. It's a US thing.
- DannyBee 7y ago
  In California it is caused by enabling local municipalities to have a say and pretending you will ever get a consensus, instead of just saying "hey, we are the state, we're doin it, tough crap". (the NIMBY lawsuits part is separate from this) That failure mode definitely exists in other states.
  - jonathankoren 7y ago
    This. Looking at the route through the SF peninsula, it seemed like every other city wanted a completely different system. Palo Alto wants a trench! Menlo Park wants it elevated! Burlingame wants it at grade! Hell, the damn thing would have had more hills than a rollercoaster.
    - asdff 7y ago
      Exactly what LA dealt with regarding the expo line. Parts are elevated through LA past USC and you zip through with a beautiful view of the hills, then back at grade in santa monica and the train has to sit in traffic because it doesn't have priority. The purple line extension almost didn't happen because the brilliant citizen-scientists of beverly hills were convinced there would be too much underground vibration or the city would explode or something, hard to say what particular grievance they are on these days.
vonmoltke 7y ago
Two words: Gateway Project
rayiner 7y ago
And New York, where the Second Avenue subway cost 5-7x as much per mile as systems in London or Paris. And DC, where a well funded Metro system had to be taken into federal oversight because deferred maintenance caused it to kill people.

Circuits 7y ago

Yeah... this is a CA problem not a US problem. Had a similar amount of money been given to say... ND or MT to build some other structure it would have been done before the money was ever divided out.

geogra4 7y ago
Not just CA, TX has similar issues with a PRIVATE HSR that the land owners simply won't let be built. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/04/texas-central-railway-high-speed-bullet-train-cost-route/587743/ https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/04/texas-central...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Circuits 7y ago
  But the CA project wasn't canceled due to land owners protesting its development... so no the issues aren't similar.
  - jonahhorowitz 7y ago
    Au contraire, the biggest issue that HSR faced was landowners fighting it every step of the way. Between fighting eminent domain and fighting with CEQA (California environmental quality act) it's surprising anything got done.
    - Circuits 7y ago
      That was definitely NOT the biggest issue that faced the HSR.
- tomatotomato37 7y ago
  To be honest I would be surprised if any land-intensive project gets completed in the Texas/NMexico/Arizona area; those ranchers are really territoral I mean given all the adversity and polarization in current US culture we still haven't escalated to the armed siege of government buildings, yet those guys have already done that twice this decade over fucking cows

i_am_nomad 7y ago

And this in a single-party rule state, even. You'd think this could work in California if it could work anywhere in the US.

gamblor956 7y ago
It's now a single-party rule state. For most of the history of the HSR, it was a dual-party state where the minority Republicans exercised veto power over various attempts to speed up the HSR, make fundamental changes, etc. It's crazy, but the HSR is actually in better shape now than when the Republicans were vetoing everything just to make sure it failed. Also, the HSR as planned goes through 90% Republican territory, and it has been the local Republicans and their former counterparts in the CA legislature that fucked things up.
- briandear 7y ago
  We (Republicans) are often opposed to this stuff not because we are against infrastructure, but $200 billion being spent on a 500 mile train. If it were cost efficient and managed correctly, more of us would be on board. We watch as massive infrastructure projects such as the Second Avenue subway and other similar projects turn into boondoggles. If a private company can build rockets and go to space, why can’t a private company build trains? XpressWest and Virgin have been interested in an LA-Vegas line. We in California were told that this train would be profitable: if that’s the case, then why the need for hundreds of billions in taxpayer money? My California taxes are high enough and they can’t even fix potholes in the freeways, and they expect us to trust them with an ultra-expensive train? My dad just visited and was amazed at how bad the freeways were compared to Texas. What does California spend all those tax dollars on? California had total Democrat control of the government from 1999-2003 and from 2011 until now. So in the last 8 years of Democrat control, the train problems are somehow Republican? That’s nonsense. The rail project wasn’t even approved by voters until 2008 and construction didn’t begin until 2015 — years after Republicans had any say in state government. The project has been in an almost continual “environmental review” — certainly not at the behest of the Republicans. The rail debacle isn’t Republican: they haven’t had any power since 2011. And Gavin Newsome was the one that postponed everything except the Merced-Bakersfield line. If Republicans ran the state, taxpayers would be billions richer and we have exactly the same amount of train we have now.

HillaryBriss 7y ago

I basically agree, but one thing I've begun to wonder about is the "through terrain that isn't too challenging" part, given that the Central Valley has been sinking in parts because of aquifer depletion.

Gibbon1 7y ago
Most of the system follows 150 year old rail right of ways. Places where it doesn't is through Pacheco Pass and the San Gabriels. Pacheco Pass already has a aqueduct tunnel. Boring a tunnel through that just costs money. San Gabriels are trickier, really depends engineering vs money vs how fast do you want to go vs surface disruption.

Shivetya 7y ago

Oh please, just stop with the romanticism of high speed rail. It has little viability outside of very select areas and even the EU isn't exactly being well served by it. This loss of funds is probably the best result for California because now they can blame Trump for its collapse. The sheer audacity of continuing the project with a limited route between two small cities shows just how much political weight is invested in this. [1] The ECA's new report [2] shows that it suffers from cost over runs, little inter connectivity, and has issues achieving the speeds promised. Can it be fixed, not without a lot of time, money, and cooperation between competing groups. That last is probably impossible. Yet we must understand that is the smaller areas needed to travel it is far more suited to Europe than America except in very narrow corridors and even that is stretching the truth. Where it works is where the population numbers are large enough to support and other travel options are highly limited. However in the US and EU it servers mostly well to do people. higher middle income and up and rarely if ever the lower ends of society who don't have the means for travel. It is a political toy that results in lots of press opportunities and largess spread among supporters, both in the US and EU [1] https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-high-speed-rail-consultants-20190426-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-hi... [2] https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_19/SR_HIGH_SPEED_RAIL_EN.pdf https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR18_19/SR_HIGH...

seanmcdirmid 7y ago
China has HSR in its hinterlands. SF to LA is nothing when compared to Lanzhou to Urumqi at 200-250kph.
- LanceH 7y ago
  The problem with SF to LA is the hundred other required stops you'll have to make to get approval. And detours, and spurs, etc...
- ummonk 7y ago
  Sf to la was pitched at peak speeds of 220 mph though.

trimbo 7y ago

If you like this story about California, we also have a bridge to sell you! https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/10/from-250-million-to-65-billion-the-bay-bridge-cost-overrun/410254/ https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/10/from-250-million-to-6...

alexhutcheson 7y ago

> through terrain that isn't too challenging Crossing the California Coast Ranges is very challenging! They have huge elevation changes, minimal usable electrical infrastructure, sensitive environments to protect, and seismic fault lines right where you would want to tunnel. The insane cost and complexity of the Pacheco and Tehachapi passes is the main thing that stopped the project in its tracks. Granted, the Swiss and the Japanese have pulled off significant projects in similarly challenging terrain, but that's a testament to their competence, rather than evidence that the terrain isn't challenging.

Gibbon1 7y ago
> Crossing the California Coast Ranges is very challenging! You realize that there is already an aqueduct under Pacheco Pass that was built in the 1950's right? Oh right you don't.
- komali2 7y ago
  What made you decide to include the final sentence in your post?
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Because it's factual.
    - komali2 7y ago
      You can prove that your OP was not aware of the existence of the aquaduct? And what is the purpose of pointing this out? "I was stating facts" seems a flimsy defense. Do you thus claim that the statement of facts is morally acceptable, in all circumstances, at all times? I hope you'd find this suggestion as absurd as I do - imagine walking up to someone at a funeral and saying, "in two months your mother will be wormfood." Facts? Yes. Necessary? I wonder.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

droithomme 7y ago

> This is something that has been pioneered, developed, and commoditized in other countries, both in Europe and Asia. Not this length directly along a highly active earthquake fault line and including a massive tunnel underneath an entire mountain range that is exceptionally tectonically active. > incredibly modest ambitions I would describe it as hopelessly arrogant ambitions, bordering on technically impossible, and definitely technically impossible within two orders of magnitude of the originally proposed funding.

ng12 7y ago
This is true of Japan as well and they have no trouble with significantly more ambitious projects. Don't buy into California's snowflake syndrome.
- magduf 7y ago
  Exactly. I just rode the Shinkansen in Japan from Tokyo to Kyoto. The train peaks at 185mph, and a significant portion of the route is straight through mountains, in tunnels. And don't forget just how prone to earthquakes Japan is. Finally, this line was first built in the 1960s! California is just pathetic if they can't build something that's much less ambitious than that in the 2010s/20s through terrain that's much easier. Oh, and that's just one Shinkansen line (and the most heavily-used one). They have them all across the country. I rode another one to the west coast, and saw yet another line under construction; that one was elevated. Finally, about Japan in general from what I saw there: there was lots of construction of all kinds going on. New buildings, renovated buildings, new train lines, construction on subway stations, etc. When they need something, they just seem to build it. Over here, we just argue about stuff and then never get any kind of public-works projects done.
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
    While I'm not going to dispute Japanese engineering prowess, I do have to note that a lot of the construction going on in Japan is pure pork-barrel politics. The Chuo Maglev under construction from Tokyo to Nagoya is never expected to recoup its exorbitant construction costs, and all new Shinkansen lines & expressways under construction or opened in the last 20 years are bleeding red ink.

JCStr 7y ago

I recall reading a report that somewhere on the order of $200-$250 MILLION had been paid to "consultants" alone so far with not a single foot of track laid. And that's without all the other massive issues related to security, ACTUAL cost of construction and TRUE cost of operation, and bifurcation of the landscape, etc. If it's such a wonderful and amazing project, why aren't people just falling all over themselves to invest in making it happen? Why do these glorious, wonderful projects always seem to take authoritarian government squandering other people's money to bring about?

AdamJacobMuller 7y ago

> incredibly modest ambitions Perhaps that's the problem.

jlmorton 7y ago

> a single line, over a relatively short distance, through terrain that isn't too challenging, going at moderate speeds, None of this is true, or remarkable. Almost all high-speed rail lines are a single line. This line would have been 520 miles, or about 800km. That's longer than almost every high speed rail line in the world. For point of reference, all high speed rail in the UK put together is 1,377km. All high speed rail in Japan is 2,760km. While this single line would not be close to the world's longest (China has a single high speed rail line of nearly 2300km), it's about 30% of the total length of all Japanese high-speed lines put together. This line was planned to have a max speed of 220mph, which is faster than all but one system in the world.

jostmey 7y ago
Cough, cough. And what makes you think the speed wasn't inflated.
melling 7y ago
China has 19,000 miles of high speed rail. Shanghai to Beijing is 800 miles (1200km). Beijing to Hong Kong is 1500 miles. 10 billion people have used it and it’s now at 2 billion passengers a year. http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1149608.shtml http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1149608.shtml
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  I imagine that in China it's orders of magnitude easier to force people to leave their homes if the government wants to build over them
  - grayed-down 7y ago
    I vote yours "best comment"!
  - melling 7y ago
    It’s also easier to get people to agree. In the US, people have been fighting the building of high-speed rail in California since the 1970’s, when Jerry Brown tried to build it the first time. 50 years later there are millions more people in California and infrastructure costs are astronomical. China will have 30,000 miles of high-speed rail before we have any. It’ll be interesting to see the benefits in China. Something to think about as your self-driving car navigates the congestion on US highways.

dev_dull 7y ago

Digging holes through mountains etc is easy. Getting bureaucrats to approve wildlife impact surveys? Now there’s a challenge.

chungleong 7y ago

Normally transportation projects seek to complement existing mode of transport. CA HSR was doomed to fail it was envision as an alternative to driving and flying. The lack of synergy means benefits would come at too high a cost and to too few people. If the money had been spent on a mag-lev line connecting SF and SJ instead, I imagine it'd be close to completion already.