6 ms·

Wow, it's almost like there's demand for a high-speed, non-driving land route between LA and SF. If only we had a fixed route land vehicle that could provide a

• tryitnow 7y ago
  I'm all for high speed rail, but why is it so expensive and why does it take so long to build? China has been able to build out a high speed network fairly quickly. Why is it that? Is it just because they're cutting corners?
  • selectodude 7y ago
    Because China can tell you “hey you don’t live here anymore” and plow right through neighborhoods and farms. Our property rights in the US are pretty absolute.
    • TehCorwiz 7y ago
      Two words “eminent domain”. The government, both federal and state (depending on the state) can absolutely obtain your land with zero recourse. They’ll pay you for it, but you don’t get a choice.
      • ceejayoz 7y ago
        There’s plenty of political recourse, especially when you’re taking property from thousands of people in one project.
      • selectodude 7y ago
        The paying for land is a huge cost center for massive construction projects. Especially ones that require a 400 mile unbroken piece of land. Not to mention you can tie even eminent domain up in litigation for years.
        • kbenson 7y ago
          Also, we're talking about land in California, which isn't known for cheap real estate. Even if the central valley might be relatively cheap, the amount of land that needs to be acquired in the LA and SF areas, which sprawl considerably, means a good portion of the needed land is likely very expensive for infrastructure. Building something on the 300 miles of I-5 from Tracy to Santa Clarita is probably much easier and cheaper than the last 30-40 miles on either end.
      • xoa 7y ago
        >with zero recourse What? There is absolutely recourse, such as "sue them and at a minimum tie the project up in lawsuits for years". Or "be furious and rally with lots of other furious land owners/interested citizens and vote the bums out" because focused single interests, even as minorities, often can exert a great deal of political influence in a democracy. Or even illegally resisting through various means, which might not affect this area of California specifically but is a real threat in some parts of the US. Eminent domain has an important place and has be used well, as well as abused. But whether justified or not its use, particularly in modern, is frequently fraught with controversy and political/legal battles.
        • kenhwang 7y ago
          It's just political suicide to use eminent domain these days, but if the political climate changes, maybe it'll be used again. The power as written is pretty powerful and has only gotten more powerful and broad every time it's challenged in court. Since it's hard to argue that building a high speed rail isn't "public use", the only thing you'd be suing over would be the "just compensation" part. I believe in that case, the government can take and use first, and you can lawsuit afterwards over how much money you think it's worth which really doesn't stall anything. If the government can use eminent domain successfully take over land to give to private developers to build a mall, or even take it just to increase city revenues, it sure as hell can use it to build a train.
      • tastygreenapple 7y ago
        what about "environmental review"?
    • est31 7y ago
      And China has access to cheap workers, and in China's hybrid capitalist/socialist economy they are able to do unprofitable projects. Most of their high speed rail routes are unprofitable.
      • djsumdog 7y ago
        They are profitable, just not in ways you can measure with money/capital. China depends on their massive rail network for social cohesion and connecting people to the central government in Beijing. How much that has generated in industry growth is not something that can be independently measured. Likewise, in American areas with good rail transport, you see business boom around it. The net gain in commerce, sales tax revenue, etc. cannot easily be measured, but it's significant and American could benefit greatly with better rail transport. You'd see America begin to collapse in and become less spread out within less than 50 years (especially in urban spaces).
      • hollerith 7y ago
        The US is able to do large unprofitable projects. E.g., the Apollo program, the space shuttle.
        • a3n 7y ago
          Wars.
    • wahern 7y ago
      Japan has even stricter property rights and they manage to do better than us. See, e.g., https://japantoday.com/category/features/opinions/eminent-domain-laws-in-japan-notoriously-weak https://japantoday.com/category/features/opinions/eminent-do... From a legal perspective eminent powers can be exercised quite efficiently. They haven't been exercised efficiently in California because of politics. HSR officials spend far too long haggling with farmers and pay much more than a court would require in an attempt to minimize negative media attention. But it has backfired by drawing things out and ballooning costs.
      • blisterpeanuts 7y ago
        To be fair, Japan has long had extensive rail lines, so it's not like they had to raze thousands of homes to cut the Shinkansen tracks. Also, the Shinkansen was built in the early 1960s, when Japan was quite a bit smaller population-wise and less built up.
        • selectodude 7y ago
          And in Japan your property rights don’t go to the center of the earth so they can tunnel under your house with zero recourse. Not so here in the US of A.
          • markdown 7y ago
            What a ridiculous idea! How did the US come up with that?
            • wahern 7y ago
              It didn't, it inherited it. And it's not literal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usque_ad_coelum_et_ad_inferos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_est_solum,_eius_est_usqu...
        • kalleboo 7y ago
          > the Shinkansen was built in the early 1960s Only the first line was built in the 1960s. The latest lines to be built are the Hokuriku Shinkansen (completed 1997-2015), Kyushu Shinkansen (built between 1991-2011) and the Hokkaido Shinkansen (construction strted 2005, still under construction). And of course the maglev Shinkansen has now started construction.
    • Simulacra 7y ago
      Not quite absolute, the government of New London, Connecticut took a home away from Susette Kelo and gave it to Pfizer because it would produce more jobs and taxes. Our property rights are not secure, and we could lose them by simply not paying property taxes.
      • Johnny555 7y ago
        It took 3 years to make it through the courts, and the city won by only 4-3 votes. And: "As a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws. Prior to the Kelo decision, only seven states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, forty-five states have amended their eminent domain laws, although some of these changes are cosmetic" And in the end, they didn't even use her property as intended: "In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre (370,000 m2) waterfront tract of land for $1 per year)[citation needed] was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city.[2] In the aftermath of 2011's Hurricane Irene, the now-closed New London redevelopment area was turned into a dump for storm debris such as tree branches and other vegetation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
  • deelowe 7y ago
    Because in the US, rail routes are almost exclusively owned by private freight carriers who are not motivated in the least to do public works projects and building an entirely new rail line would require taking away a ton of people's property.
  • awalton 7y ago
    > I'm all for high speed rail, but why is it so expensive and why does it take so long to build? Both have the same answer: because there's a whole lot of lobbyists that don't want it built. And it's not a secret - even the first segment they're building is just a screaming indicator of how little they want this thing to come to life. Neither the airlines nor the car manufacturers nor the petrochemical companies nor billionaires like the Kochs want the thing to happen, so they're happy to shut it down at every possible turn - just look at every propaganda piece the "Reason Foundation" keeps pumping out against the project. France and Italy are covered in high speed rail projects that make this one seem almost trivial by comparison, but we can't do it because politicians are too happy to take a few campaign dollars and enjoy some free filet mignon medallions and expensive red wine than represent the people who elected them.
• hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
  > Wow, it's almost like there's demand for a high-speed, non-driving land route between LA and SF. We'll see, it's not like this service has proved viability yet. As other's have pointed out, this is about twice the price of an hour and 40 minute flight. While some commenters are arguing that there are some folks who would take it to skip the hassle of the airport, I think pretty much the only people who would take this are those with a pretty severe fear of flying.
  • lucisferre 7y ago
    Which is ironic considering the relative risks here.
  • rdiddly 7y ago
    Don't forget those with a severe hatred of flying. When things became a ridiculous hassle in 2001 I used a simple logic: I don't like this, so I'm cutting it (air travel) out of my life. I've made exceptions of course, but yeah I would pay for something like this.
• edaemon 7y ago
  It doesn't even have to be high speed if they fill it with sleeping berths.
  • diryawish 7y ago
    Check out Amtrak's Coast Starlight https://www.amtrak.com/coast-starlight-train https://www.amtrak.com/coast-starlight-train
    • edaemon 7y ago
      I'm thinking more along the lines of the berths in the Cabin bus, not Amtrak's rooms. Plus, the LA-SF routes on the Coast Starlight aren't overnight.
• adventured 7y ago
  > Wow, it's almost like there's demand Demand was never the biggest problem. No major region or state in the US can do high-speed rail as easily or cheaply as Texas and they're still struggling to push through comparably modest roadblocks there. They're looking at more than a decade on a very simple line just from Dallas to Houston. It looks increasingly like the Texas line has a good chance of being constructed. However if it was that difficult for Texas, California can forget about it (unless the Federal Government gets involved and becomes belligerent, which I would favor). https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/high-speed-rail-project-becoming-reality/287-4f27d430-d2bb-4a32-b8eb-61f1bac82030 https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/high-speed-rail-proj... If it were as straight-forward as spending a reasonable sum of money and building the rail, the US would already have numerous prominent high-speed rail routes.
• rayiner 7y ago
  The question is, is there sufficient demand? Just to break even on the massive carbon footprint of building an HSR line, you need 5-10 million riders a year. Does that demand exist?
• Johnny555 7y ago
  A few bus loads of passengers is not nearly enough demand for rail so this service doesn't really prove anything one way or the other.
• dehrmann 7y ago
  I heard a really good argument against high-speed rail in California. We only have so much money to spend on transit. Transit problems tend to be bigger within cities than between them--5 is under-utilized, 880 is over-utilized--so it makes sense to concentrate efforts where we'll get the most return. Projects like a second BART tunnel and Caltrain electrification have a bigger impact on people's lives than a train they occasionally take. Cabin is an even worse example of HSR demand because it travels when roads are underutilized.
  • nickthemagicman 7y ago
    See I kind of disagree. High speed train would let people live outside of SF which in turn would ease the pressure on the currently existing city transit.
    • ghaff 7y ago
      HSR would let people spend a number of hours a day commuting to the Bay from Fresno at the cost a few hundred dollars per day. I doubt that would be attractive to all that many people except for those who commute into the Bay area for a chunk of the week and stay in a hotel. But at that point, they could be flying from just about anywhere west of Chicago.
      • nickthemagicman 7y ago
        I think we're thinking of different definitions for a high speed train? There's already a train that connect SF and LA that fits your description.
    • throwaway1777 7y ago
      It would be too expensive to use for a commute, so I doubt it would let too many people move outside the city.
• awiesenhofer 7y ago
  No need for high speed even, just offer daily night trains on the existing route