>I glanced at Wikipedia earlier to learn about the California project and they claim that despite costing x2 or x3 what similar European and Chinese efforts cos

>I glanced at Wikipedia earlier to learn about the California project and they claim that despite costing x2 or x3 what similar European and Chinese efforts cost This is based on an outdated cost estimate that's roughly 2x lower than the current projected cost. From Wikipedia: >In July 2014, The World Bank reported that the per kilometer cost of California's high-speed rail system was $56 million, more than double the average cost of $17–21 million per km of high speed rail in China and more than the $25–39 million per km average for similar projects in Europe at the time. That was in 2014. Costs have ballooned 2x to $125M/km; this has not happened in Europe or China. >the cost of land and 3 mountain ranges being in the way If you want to control for mountain ranges, consider the Suseo–Pyeongtaek branch of Korea's high speed rail network, opened in 2016. It's a 38 mile line, 31 of which are in a 50 meter deep tunnel. It cost ₩4.18T (approximately $3.2B), which comes out to ~$85M per mile. Again, 80% of the line is in a 50 meter deep tunnel. That's still less than half the cost per mile of California HSR, which will not be 80% underground. There is simply no excuse for the inflated costs of CHSR. >It also mentions that it's costing less per mile than HS2 in London. So if this is extravagant waste, it's not that extravagant. HS2 is notorious for being a boondoggle with massive cost overruns. Not exactly a flattering thing to compare to.