6 ms·

CA high-speed rail is Exhibit A for how America can’t build big things anymore

57 points by mjirv 4y ago

bitsavers 4y ago
The twitter comments are mind boggling
chiefalchemist 4y ago
It would be interesting to make a list of politicians and decision makers along that route, and then map their "influences". For example, Politician X receives $Y from the airline industry or the auto industry. Or Consultant Z is married to VP at company that will suffer from the rail line being operational. These strings exist. Who is pulling them?
- melling 4y ago
  Politics is the problem? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-rail-politics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-... I can remember when Governor Moonbeam wanted to build HSR in California in the 1970’s. Short-sighted individuals just wanted to build wider highways.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I believe the film "The Candiate" (Robert Redford) is set in CA. You could remake that film today and mo one would know it was remake.
NDizzle 4y ago
That's entirely a California problem, not an America problem.
- Shish2k 4y ago
  Do other states have high-speed rail? (Or other large projects, but I’m personally a big fan of rail)
  - exabrial 4y ago
    The question is pointless: Do other states even _need_ high speed rail? The USA is sparse. Most of the western United States is empty.
    - albertopv 4y ago
      East coast?
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      Yes, many regions would benefit greatly from high speed rail. Texas and Florida would see massive economic gain as well as the obvious east coast corridor.
    - melling 4y ago
      Not this argument AGAIN. “Why would anyone want to build a HSR from NYC to Los Angeles”. “Don’t you know the western US is sparse?”. What about the rest of America? There’s always someone who comes and tells us America is sparse so we don’t need HSR. There are plenty of places where there’s sufficient population density and sufficiently close.
    - twobitshifter 4y ago
      https://i.redd.it/d0ioc9idrtf31.png https://i.redd.it/d0ioc9idrtf31.png Look at this map - hsr is most useful for connecting nodes of mega regions that are often sparsely populated inbetween. Distance of about 600 miles or about from Canada to the southern tip of Nebraska. I can see many places it would work.
  - svggrfgovgf 4y ago
    Does 125 mph count as high-speed rail? Brightline in Florida is scheduled to start service between Miami and Orlando in 2023. Brightline has been building a new rail line for the last couple of years (not exactly sure when they started). The rail between Cocoa and Orlando is definitely all new - I've watched that section being built from scratch over the last couple of years and it's nearly finished.
  - 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
exabrial 4y ago
California chooses who they elect for reasons other than they are effective politicians. The government’s main expertise is incinerating taxpayer money while simultaneously convincing their constituents that their enormous tax burden is a useful thing. The fact they have re-elected Pelosi multiple times while never investigating her for inside trading is a positive indication of priorities.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  Pelosi is an incredibly effective politician. Just look at the clusterfuck that is the house republican caucus to see how successful she has been with a caucus of her own that is just as divided. Sucks that everyone in congress is on the insider trading game, but that’s not a good reason to get rid of one of the most successful politicians of this century.
  - nnspired 4y ago
    [dead]
  - exabrial 4y ago
    Really? Which one is it? She’s an effective politician or California has HSR? And that’s throwing out delivered on time, on budget, and there was no conflict of interest with her husband’s business partners?
    - lern_too_spel 4y ago
      Pelosi isn't in charge of HSR. That's the California High Speed Rail Authority, created under Governor Pete Wilson in 1996. You managed to get both the level of government and the branch of government wrong in choosing whom to blame.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - moistly 4y ago
      Really dedicated to bringing that Reddit-quality argumentation to us, eh? You’ve been corrected on your misinformation, and jus double down on it. Thanks for nothing.
2devnull 4y ago
Noah Smith seems to be perpetually wrong about pretty much everything. Some ideas are bad. You have to update your priors at some point. The politicians in charge can also be bad. He isn’t wrong about that. But swapping out Newsom for some new guy isn’t going to fix hsr. The state will vote in someone who is basically the same. There’s a lot of “foolish consistency” when it comes to hsr. Update your priors, admit you were wrong and move on. There are better ways to spend those billions.
- crisdux 4y ago
  I consider Noah Smith to be an inverse indicator. He’s usually one of the last people to cling to a dying idea. His advocacy of an issue usually signals to me that the trend is reversing. There are a lot better examples of America being unable to build, California HSR is a weak example.
- orzig 4y ago
  You seem to be making a more general point about Noah Smith. I’ve never been a follower per se but generally nodded my head when coming across his takes. I’m game to update my priors on that, can you share some evidence?
- mjirv 4y ago
  What? Noah’s point about America’s inability to build things has nothing to do with swapping out Gavin Newsom.
- bedhead 4y ago
  Noah Smith and Scott Galloway are national treasures for their ability to be wrong about seemingly everything they open their mouths about...lots of value as nearly perfect contras.
- pnf 4y ago
  It doesn't help his case that Noah Smith has no original ideas, is ungenerous with people who do have them or who disagree with his strictly conventional, mainstream takes, and is smug and obnoxious in general. He's even, physically, a gross slob hiding behind a 'heroic' avatar, which makes it doubly offensive to have things 'explained' by him.
encryptluks2 4y ago
Twitter posts are so impersonal. Anyone can complain on Twitter. It is sad that people have forgotten how to write articles and do the news stories that they want to see instead of just going and posting something negative in a few words. It really has taken society down a notch in itself to try to get people all emotional with so little effort.
heliophobicdude 4y ago
In 1989 Texas created the Texas High Speed Rail Authority to connect Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Their goal was to award a semi-private high speed rail franchise from high speed rail vendors. SouthWest petitioned to be included in the authority and effectively killed it https://txarchives.org/tslac/finding_aids/20071.xml#:~:text=The%20settlement%20agreement,by%20any%20agency https://txarchives.org/tslac/finding_aids/20071.xml#:~:text=....
- rdxm 4y ago
  [dead]
- gruez 4y ago
  >SouthWest petitioned to be included in the authority and effectively killed it Is there more on this? I skimmed the link and it looks like southwest sued and was able to get some sort of injunction, but it didn't mention why they were suing. Also, I couldn't find any mentions about them "petitioned to be included in the authority".
  - melling 4y ago
    Why would an airline sue to stop a HSR project?
    - cguess 4y ago
      Because Southwest's business model, especially back then, is short haul flights between cities that are just far enough from each other to make driving inconvenient. Guess what else is a good and way more convenient transportation method for that?
    - letouj 4y ago
      Because they had a nice revenue stream running short-hop flights between those cities and didn't want high-speed rail cutting into it. Routes under 300 miles or so are the sweet spot for HSR where you can actually save time going from downtown to downtown instead of dealing with the airport rigamarole.
sghiassy 4y ago
As a public transit advocate, I have to say the sheer expansive distance between cities on the West Coast makes it ill suited for rail.
- melling 4y ago
  “Sheer expansive distance between cities…” Perhaps we should elaborate? If a train leaves city A traveling at 220 mph towards city B… How far are we talking before we are too far away to travel by HSR in say, 4 hours?
- labrador 4y ago
  Yes and that's why America flies instead of building high speed rail. Why go 220 mph when you can go 500+?
  - melling 4y ago
    This argument has been debunked repeatedly
    - labrador 4y ago
      People says it's debunked but never tell me why. People are so into their "Asia has high speed rail but America sucks because it doesn't" argument that they don't stop to think we already have a solution.
      - melling 4y ago
        I’m sure it has been answered hundreds of times but every time you simply start over. Sort of like climate deniers saying “the climate is always changing “ How about making an effort and telling us what has already been explained to you? Here are two routes: Los Angeles to San Diego and Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Explain how going to an airport is a better solution.
        labrador 4y ago
jmclnx 4y ago
In many cases is it NIMBY, but also all the regulations about labor and the fact people in the US do not want to pay any taxes. Even if the tax helps people here, the answer is always no.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  California is a very high tax, and people are very willing to approve deferred taxes (bonds). California has had a record surplus for the last few years, and even sent money back to citizens. If HSR is starved for cash, it isn't because California is frugal or doesn't have any money to spend.
  - 8ytecoder 4y ago
    California made it mandatory for the govt to hold a certain percentage of their budget in a surplus fund after the last time the state almost went bankrupt which also has a cap - hence the surplus and the refund. Otherwise, I agree. CA definitely has the money to build a HSR. Tax collection has been extraordinarily good the last few years in spite of all the challenges.
xnx 4y ago
Good? The advertised price tag (let alone whatever the actual cost would be) seems totally out of line with the value provided. If the goal of the project could be clearly stated, it would be apparent that HSR makes no sense.
- labrador 4y ago
  The cost is my objection. I don't find other transportation options in California so bad that I want to spend 100 billion dollars so some people don't have to take an Uber from the airport to downtown. I think California needs to spend that money on desalinization plants.
Merrill 4y ago
High-speed rail requires a new railway that has no grade crossings of highways, has wider-radius curves than freight lines, can have higher grades than freight lines, and has better rails and sleepers. There is no chance of getting new high-speed railways built through the outskirts of major metro areas, so there will always be long end sections operating at less than 90 mph. Smaller cities along the lines will also want service, so trains will have to decelerate, loiter, and accelerate multiple times between major metro areas. The end result is that in the US high-speed rail is impossible to build, and it would operate on average at far less than the maximum speed. Acela on the Northeast Corridor is about as fast as it will get. Even there, Boston to NY times could be improved by realigning some tracks in eastern CT and RI to remove tight curves, but even that has not been done.
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  The problem in US infrastructure is that money is spent for its show value as opposed to effectiveness. If we were spending money effectively, it would be many years before any rail infrastructure funds would go to any network outside the NorthEast corridor. Almost every project there will provide tons more value than anything in the rest of the US. And once the corridor is fully operational in an effective manner (there is no reason, for example, that flights between Boston and NYC, and DC and NYC, should even exist…Amtrak should be able to wipe them out by running 15 minute trains and eliminating some of the unnecessary slowness you’ve described), it can provide a working model to the rest of the nation, which is the point at which we can start spending rail infrastructure funds elsewhere.
- stuaxo 4y ago
  Once the line is in, later work can address the slower sections. HS1 (the section of high speed rail from London to the channel tunnel), was probably partially built as it was embarrassingoy obvious going from french HSR to the British Victorian era railways. Infill can always come later once the core is there.
- gernb 4y ago
  HSR in Japan they just have different trains on the same tracks but double the tracks at some stations so the non-stop train can pass the stop-at-every-station-trains. So you can service the smaller towns and the still have a maximum speed train
tomohawk 4y ago
It's always interesting that when Democrats fail at something, they try to broaden the blame. They're in charge, yet it is "America" that can't get it done. California has been controlled by Democrats for a very long time, with any other viewpoints shut out. And yet, they keep doubling down on what doesn't work. Isn't the first step to change admitting you screwed up?
- xbar 4y ago
  Perhaps the first step is admitting two-party systems are already too flawed.
  - WillPostForFood 4y ago
    California is effectively a one party system. It shows that there are issues with building big projects that can't be blamed on "the other side". Same for projects in one party red states.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- gamblor956 4y ago
  The CA HSR began under Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, and was planned by a Republican administration. This is why the train detours through the highly Republican Central Valley rather than directly connecting LA and SF.
  - tomohawk 4y ago
    That's some desperation there. Wilson served until 1999. What were you doing in 1999? What's been going on in CA since then?
vlovich123 4y ago
Annie Duke on EconTalk had the best analysis of why it’s failing. The project is perennially having its funds being directed to solve the easiest problems (how to build high speed rail on flat ground in Central Valley) and ignoring major structural challenges (how to cross the mountain ranges into LA). So we’re don’t actually know how much it’ll cost to complete because the hardest parts of the project haven’t even begun. Secondarily there’s all sorts of weird decisions being made that cripple HSR like limiting it to using Caltrain track in the Bay Area (limiting it to 110mph or even less in practice due to stops / contention / etc) and having HSR have a bunch of stops instead of keeping it non stop at high speed and using local light rail to connect to it. For example, as I understand it, the line in LA makes a weird circuitous out of the way bend to service a suburb of LA which adds significant transit time for very few people vs keeping a straighter route and connecting that suburb with light rail / subway / buses. Finally, the project is being built as all or nothing instead of the sane way (at least IMHO) of starting in LA and the Bay Area where it might have the possibility of generating revenue and value earlier. You’d need to actually decouple it from local rail so that you stop in San Jose and SF and use CalTrain if you need to stop elsewhere (and maybe one other stop somewhere in the middle). Going from San Jose to SF at 200 mph would be a game changer. It would also be nice if they designed the track to support 300-400 mph trains in the future without needing to rebuild the rail.
- tlogan 4y ago
  You explained it well: it is hard so we just don’t build it. Of course it is hard.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    I think my point may have been missed. We need to build the hard stuff, especially stuff we haven’t done, first. The Californian terrain is challenging but we’re building the easy parts of the terrain first. It doesn’t make sense except to do it this way except that it’s being run as a political project which causes problems because suddenly everyone wants their fingers in the pie. I’m saying we SHOULD do it, but the project is horribly mismanaged by the political powers in charge.
- 4y ago
aninteger 4y ago
Maybe it's fine? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwNthD-LRTQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwNthD-LRTQ
- gruez 4y ago
  I skimmed the transcript it seems to be a pretty poor video. The argument presented seems to be "yeah california HSR is behind schedule and over budget but that's fine because road projects are also behind schedule and over budget", followed by some pot shots at the usual enemies (ie. "americans" who hate/don't belive in transit, corporations, koch brothers, neoliberalism).
  - rhaway84773 4y ago
    The argument is that the payoff will be worth many times more than whatever they go over budget by, as proven in Japan. I don’t agree with the argument because Japan was connecting cities that already had, or built out, incredible public transport, and not a city like LA which is almost designed to make public transport as ineffective as possible. I’m not sure LA-SF will be as effective when the rider has to then rent a car on the LA side at least, which means it’s almost certainly cost and maybe even time effective to just drive. The argument that you’re pointing out is a defense against the loud criticism CA HSR is receiving, and is actually a valid argument…if we had to criticize stuff, when you consider the cost inefficiency of a lot of the money being poured into roads, CA HSR would not be on the top of the list of public infra projects to criticize.
    - Apocryphon 4y ago
      > I’m not sure LA-SF will be as effective when the rider has to then rent a car on the LA side at least, which means it’s almost certainly cost and maybe even time effective to just drive. While that’s a damned good point I hadn’t considered, SF-LA is one of the busiest air routes in the world, and the second busiest in the country. So plenty are getting to LA before renting a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_... https://twitter.com/__zena_/status/1605421214255550464 https://twitter.com/__zena_/status/1605421214255550464 Not to mention, HSR would also service LA denizens who visit more public transit-friendly SF.
bediger4000 4y ago
How should we factor in Bent Flyvbjerg's work? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235953040_Delusion_Deception_and_Corruption_in_Major_Infrastructure_Projects_Causes_Consequences_Cures https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235953040_Delusion_...
egberts1 4y ago
It is interesting that deceased Richard Blum (husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein of California) is the primary property holders of many old and shuttered post offices (with intent to build train stations). Blum Capital probably now is the largest investor of California High Speed Rail consortium.
melling 4y ago
China has passed 25,000 miles of HSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China China’s development of both low-speed and high-speed maglevs seems promising too. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-12/15/c_139591288.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-12/15/c_139591288.htm Plenty of cities could use trains that travel smoothly at 70 mph.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
nayuki 4y ago
As long as the government continues subsidizing highways and the road network, high-speed rail will always be the unattractive option.

57 points by mjirv 4y ago

The twitter comments are mind boggling

It would be interesting to make a list of politicians and decision makers along that route, and then map their "influences". For example, Politician X receives $Y from the airline industry or the auto industry. Or Consultant Z is married to VP at company that will suffer from the rail line being operational. These strings exist. Who is pulling them?

melling 4y ago
Politics is the problem? https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-rail-politics.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/09/us/california-high-speed-... I can remember when Governor Moonbeam wanted to build HSR in California in the 1970’s. Short-sighted individuals just wanted to build wider highways.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  I believe the film "The Candiate" (Robert Redford) is set in CA. You could remake that film today and mo one would know it was remake.

NDizzle 4y ago

That's entirely a California problem, not an America problem.

Shish2k 4y ago
Do other states have high-speed rail? (Or other large projects, but I’m personally a big fan of rail)
- exabrial 4y ago
  The question is pointless: Do other states even _need_ high speed rail? The USA is sparse. Most of the western United States is empty.
  - albertopv 4y ago
    East coast?
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    Yes, many regions would benefit greatly from high speed rail. Texas and Florida would see massive economic gain as well as the obvious east coast corridor.
  - melling 4y ago
    Not this argument AGAIN. “Why would anyone want to build a HSR from NYC to Los Angeles”. “Don’t you know the western US is sparse?”. What about the rest of America? There’s always someone who comes and tells us America is sparse so we don’t need HSR. There are plenty of places where there’s sufficient population density and sufficiently close.
  - twobitshifter 4y ago
    https://i.redd.it/d0ioc9idrtf31.png https://i.redd.it/d0ioc9idrtf31.png Look at this map - hsr is most useful for connecting nodes of mega regions that are often sparsely populated inbetween. Distance of about 600 miles or about from Canada to the southern tip of Nebraska. I can see many places it would work.
- svggrfgovgf 4y ago
  Does 125 mph count as high-speed rail? Brightline in Florida is scheduled to start service between Miami and Orlando in 2023. Brightline has been building a new rail line for the last couple of years (not exactly sure when they started). The rail between Cocoa and Orlando is definitely all new - I've watched that section being built from scratch over the last couple of years and it's nearly finished.
- 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

exabrial 4y ago

California chooses who they elect for reasons other than they are effective politicians. The government’s main expertise is incinerating taxpayer money while simultaneously convincing their constituents that their enormous tax burden is a useful thing. The fact they have re-elected Pelosi multiple times while never investigating her for inside trading is a positive indication of priorities.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
Pelosi is an incredibly effective politician. Just look at the clusterfuck that is the house republican caucus to see how successful she has been with a caucus of her own that is just as divided. Sucks that everyone in congress is on the insider trading game, but that’s not a good reason to get rid of one of the most successful politicians of this century.
- nnspired 4y ago
  [dead]
- exabrial 4y ago
  Really? Which one is it? She’s an effective politician or California has HSR? And that’s throwing out delivered on time, on budget, and there was no conflict of interest with her husband’s business partners?
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    Pelosi isn't in charge of HSR. That's the California High Speed Rail Authority, created under Governor Pete Wilson in 1996. You managed to get both the level of government and the branch of government wrong in choosing whom to blame.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - moistly 4y ago
    Really dedicated to bringing that Reddit-quality argumentation to us, eh? You’ve been corrected on your misinformation, and jus double down on it. Thanks for nothing.

2devnull 4y ago

Noah Smith seems to be perpetually wrong about pretty much everything. Some ideas are bad. You have to update your priors at some point. The politicians in charge can also be bad. He isn’t wrong about that. But swapping out Newsom for some new guy isn’t going to fix hsr. The state will vote in someone who is basically the same. There’s a lot of “foolish consistency” when it comes to hsr. Update your priors, admit you were wrong and move on. There are better ways to spend those billions.

crisdux 4y ago
I consider Noah Smith to be an inverse indicator. He’s usually one of the last people to cling to a dying idea. His advocacy of an issue usually signals to me that the trend is reversing. There are a lot better examples of America being unable to build, California HSR is a weak example.
orzig 4y ago
You seem to be making a more general point about Noah Smith. I’ve never been a follower per se but generally nodded my head when coming across his takes. I’m game to update my priors on that, can you share some evidence?
mjirv 4y ago
What? Noah’s point about America’s inability to build things has nothing to do with swapping out Gavin Newsom.
bedhead 4y ago
Noah Smith and Scott Galloway are national treasures for their ability to be wrong about seemingly everything they open their mouths about...lots of value as nearly perfect contras.
pnf 4y ago
It doesn't help his case that Noah Smith has no original ideas, is ungenerous with people who do have them or who disagree with his strictly conventional, mainstream takes, and is smug and obnoxious in general. He's even, physically, a gross slob hiding behind a 'heroic' avatar, which makes it doubly offensive to have things 'explained' by him.

encryptluks2 4y ago

Twitter posts are so impersonal. Anyone can complain on Twitter. It is sad that people have forgotten how to write articles and do the news stories that they want to see instead of just going and posting something negative in a few words. It really has taken society down a notch in itself to try to get people all emotional with so little effort.

heliophobicdude 4y ago

In 1989 Texas created the Texas High Speed Rail Authority to connect Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. Their goal was to award a semi-private high speed rail franchise from high speed rail vendors. SouthWest petitioned to be included in the authority and effectively killed it https://txarchives.org/tslac/finding_aids/20071.xml#:~:text=The%20settlement%20agreement,by%20any%20agency https://txarchives.org/tslac/finding_aids/20071.xml#:~:text=....

rdxm 4y ago
[dead]
gruez 4y ago
>SouthWest petitioned to be included in the authority and effectively killed it Is there more on this? I skimmed the link and it looks like southwest sued and was able to get some sort of injunction, but it didn't mention why they were suing. Also, I couldn't find any mentions about them "petitioned to be included in the authority".
- melling 4y ago
  Why would an airline sue to stop a HSR project?
  - cguess 4y ago
    Because Southwest's business model, especially back then, is short haul flights between cities that are just far enough from each other to make driving inconvenient. Guess what else is a good and way more convenient transportation method for that?
  - letouj 4y ago
    Because they had a nice revenue stream running short-hop flights between those cities and didn't want high-speed rail cutting into it. Routes under 300 miles or so are the sweet spot for HSR where you can actually save time going from downtown to downtown instead of dealing with the airport rigamarole.

sghiassy 4y ago

As a public transit advocate, I have to say the sheer expansive distance between cities on the West Coast makes it ill suited for rail.

melling 4y ago
“Sheer expansive distance between cities…” Perhaps we should elaborate? If a train leaves city A traveling at 220 mph towards city B… How far are we talking before we are too far away to travel by HSR in say, 4 hours?
labrador 4y ago
Yes and that's why America flies instead of building high speed rail. Why go 220 mph when you can go 500+?
- melling 4y ago
  This argument has been debunked repeatedly
  - labrador 4y ago
    People says it's debunked but never tell me why. People are so into their "Asia has high speed rail but America sucks because it doesn't" argument that they don't stop to think we already have a solution.
    - melling 4y ago
      I’m sure it has been answered hundreds of times but every time you simply start over. Sort of like climate deniers saying “the climate is always changing “ How about making an effort and telling us what has already been explained to you? Here are two routes: Los Angeles to San Diego and Los Angeles to Las Vegas. Explain how going to an airport is a better solution.
      - labrador 4y ago

jmclnx 4y ago

In many cases is it NIMBY, but also all the regulations about labor and the fact people in the US do not want to pay any taxes. Even if the tax helps people here, the answer is always no.

WillPostForFood 4y ago
California is a very high tax, and people are very willing to approve deferred taxes (bonds). California has had a record surplus for the last few years, and even sent money back to citizens. If HSR is starved for cash, it isn't because California is frugal or doesn't have any money to spend.
- 8ytecoder 4y ago
  California made it mandatory for the govt to hold a certain percentage of their budget in a surplus fund after the last time the state almost went bankrupt which also has a cap - hence the surplus and the refund. Otherwise, I agree. CA definitely has the money to build a HSR. Tax collection has been extraordinarily good the last few years in spite of all the challenges.

xnx 4y ago

Good? The advertised price tag (let alone whatever the actual cost would be) seems totally out of line with the value provided. If the goal of the project could be clearly stated, it would be apparent that HSR makes no sense.

labrador 4y ago
The cost is my objection. I don't find other transportation options in California so bad that I want to spend 100 billion dollars so some people don't have to take an Uber from the airport to downtown. I think California needs to spend that money on desalinization plants.

Merrill 4y ago

High-speed rail requires a new railway that has no grade crossings of highways, has wider-radius curves than freight lines, can have higher grades than freight lines, and has better rails and sleepers. There is no chance of getting new high-speed railways built through the outskirts of major metro areas, so there will always be long end sections operating at less than 90 mph. Smaller cities along the lines will also want service, so trains will have to decelerate, loiter, and accelerate multiple times between major metro areas. The end result is that in the US high-speed rail is impossible to build, and it would operate on average at far less than the maximum speed. Acela on the Northeast Corridor is about as fast as it will get. Even there, Boston to NY times could be improved by realigning some tracks in eastern CT and RI to remove tight curves, but even that has not been done.

rhaway84773 4y ago
The problem in US infrastructure is that money is spent for its show value as opposed to effectiveness. If we were spending money effectively, it would be many years before any rail infrastructure funds would go to any network outside the NorthEast corridor. Almost every project there will provide tons more value than anything in the rest of the US. And once the corridor is fully operational in an effective manner (there is no reason, for example, that flights between Boston and NYC, and DC and NYC, should even exist…Amtrak should be able to wipe them out by running 15 minute trains and eliminating some of the unnecessary slowness you’ve described), it can provide a working model to the rest of the nation, which is the point at which we can start spending rail infrastructure funds elsewhere.
stuaxo 4y ago
Once the line is in, later work can address the slower sections. HS1 (the section of high speed rail from London to the channel tunnel), was probably partially built as it was embarrassingoy obvious going from french HSR to the British Victorian era railways. Infill can always come later once the core is there.
gernb 4y ago
HSR in Japan they just have different trains on the same tracks but double the tracks at some stations so the non-stop train can pass the stop-at-every-station-trains. So you can service the smaller towns and the still have a maximum speed train

tomohawk 4y ago

It's always interesting that when Democrats fail at something, they try to broaden the blame. They're in charge, yet it is "America" that can't get it done. California has been controlled by Democrats for a very long time, with any other viewpoints shut out. And yet, they keep doubling down on what doesn't work. Isn't the first step to change admitting you screwed up?

xbar 4y ago
Perhaps the first step is admitting two-party systems are already too flawed.
- WillPostForFood 4y ago
  California is effectively a one party system. It shows that there are issues with building big projects that can't be blamed on "the other side". Same for projects in one party red states.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
gamblor956 4y ago
The CA HSR began under Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, and was planned by a Republican administration. This is why the train detours through the highly Republican Central Valley rather than directly connecting LA and SF.
- tomohawk 4y ago
  That's some desperation there. Wilson served until 1999. What were you doing in 1999? What's been going on in CA since then?

vlovich123 4y ago

Annie Duke on EconTalk had the best analysis of why it’s failing. The project is perennially having its funds being directed to solve the easiest problems (how to build high speed rail on flat ground in Central Valley) and ignoring major structural challenges (how to cross the mountain ranges into LA). So we’re don’t actually know how much it’ll cost to complete because the hardest parts of the project haven’t even begun. Secondarily there’s all sorts of weird decisions being made that cripple HSR like limiting it to using Caltrain track in the Bay Area (limiting it to 110mph or even less in practice due to stops / contention / etc) and having HSR have a bunch of stops instead of keeping it non stop at high speed and using local light rail to connect to it. For example, as I understand it, the line in LA makes a weird circuitous out of the way bend to service a suburb of LA which adds significant transit time for very few people vs keeping a straighter route and connecting that suburb with light rail / subway / buses. Finally, the project is being built as all or nothing instead of the sane way (at least IMHO) of starting in LA and the Bay Area where it might have the possibility of generating revenue and value earlier. You’d need to actually decouple it from local rail so that you stop in San Jose and SF and use CalTrain if you need to stop elsewhere (and maybe one other stop somewhere in the middle). Going from San Jose to SF at 200 mph would be a game changer. It would also be nice if they designed the track to support 300-400 mph trains in the future without needing to rebuild the rail.

tlogan 4y ago
You explained it well: it is hard so we just don’t build it. Of course it is hard.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  I think my point may have been missed. We need to build the hard stuff, especially stuff we haven’t done, first. The Californian terrain is challenging but we’re building the easy parts of the terrain first. It doesn’t make sense except to do it this way except that it’s being run as a political project which causes problems because suddenly everyone wants their fingers in the pie. I’m saying we SHOULD do it, but the project is horribly mismanaged by the political powers in charge.
4y ago

aninteger 4y ago

Maybe it's fine? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwNthD-LRTQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwNthD-LRTQ

gruez 4y ago
I skimmed the transcript it seems to be a pretty poor video. The argument presented seems to be "yeah california HSR is behind schedule and over budget but that's fine because road projects are also behind schedule and over budget", followed by some pot shots at the usual enemies (ie. "americans" who hate/don't belive in transit, corporations, koch brothers, neoliberalism).
- rhaway84773 4y ago
  The argument is that the payoff will be worth many times more than whatever they go over budget by, as proven in Japan. I don’t agree with the argument because Japan was connecting cities that already had, or built out, incredible public transport, and not a city like LA which is almost designed to make public transport as ineffective as possible. I’m not sure LA-SF will be as effective when the rider has to then rent a car on the LA side at least, which means it’s almost certainly cost and maybe even time effective to just drive. The argument that you’re pointing out is a defense against the loud criticism CA HSR is receiving, and is actually a valid argument…if we had to criticize stuff, when you consider the cost inefficiency of a lot of the money being poured into roads, CA HSR would not be on the top of the list of public infra projects to criticize.
  - Apocryphon 4y ago
    > I’m not sure LA-SF will be as effective when the rider has to then rent a car on the LA side at least, which means it’s almost certainly cost and maybe even time effective to just drive. While that’s a damned good point I hadn’t considered, SF-LA is one of the busiest air routes in the world, and the second busiest in the country. So plenty are getting to LA before renting a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_routes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_passenger_air_... https://twitter.com/__zena_/status/1605421214255550464 https://twitter.com/__zena_/status/1605421214255550464 Not to mention, HSR would also service LA denizens who visit more public transit-friendly SF.

bediger4000 4y ago

How should we factor in Bent Flyvbjerg's work? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235953040_Delusion_Deception_and_Corruption_in_Major_Infrastructure_Projects_Causes_Consequences_Cures https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235953040_Delusion_...

egberts1 4y ago

It is interesting that deceased Richard Blum (husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein of California) is the primary property holders of many old and shuttered post offices (with intent to build train stations). Blum Capital probably now is the largest investor of California High Speed Rail consortium.

melling 4y ago

China has passed 25,000 miles of HSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China China’s development of both low-speed and high-speed maglevs seems promising too. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-12/15/c_139591288.htm http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-12/15/c_139591288.htm Plenty of cities could use trains that travel smoothly at 70 mph.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

nayuki 4y ago

As long as the government continues subsidizing highways and the road network, high-speed rail will always be the unattractive option.