4 ms·

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 qui

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.

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.