10 ms·

After I wrote this yesterday (partially) about the California Bullet Train (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36843136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3

After I wrote this yesterday (partially) about the California Bullet Train (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36843136 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36843136) I got to musing about what all that money could buy. It does relate to the topic of public/private ownership. Amtrak already offers passenger rail from SF to LA. It takes 10 hours and uses tracks that are mainly used for freight, and much of the roadbed is single track, too narrow, and too low-quality to support 200 mph trains. However: we're talking $100+ billion here! With that, you could buy a controlling interest in Union Pacific ($123 billion market cap), kick the freight to the side (), and fix the roadbed. It also wouldn't have to go through the San Joaquin Valley. Freight: what to do with it? Well, with all that money, you could do something. I'm not a railroad engineer.

jcranmer 3y ago
> fix the roadbed. How much do you think that costs? Most of the costs in CAHSR are in building the 220-mph-capable track, not in acquiring new ROW for those tracks. For comparison, merely electrifying Caltrain is costing well over $2 billion. No new track, just stringing up catenary wire and installing electrical feeds. Rebuilding a single-line freight trunk into a high speed rail corridor would cost far money, and that's before considering what to do with the freight (hint: the answer is build a new line for them... and then you have to wonder why it wouldn't be simpler to build a new line for HSR and let the freight use the existing line). It shouldn't cost anywhere near that much money, but the short answer as to why it does cost so much money is that the CA governments seem to be uniquely and disastrously incompetent at project management, on top of several other systemic cost issues in the US.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  > How much do you think that costs? probably a f&cking lot. On the other hand, with the sums they're throwing away, nothing is off the table.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    My point is that the reason it's so expensive is largely because of who's doing the work--buying out an entire company isn't going to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done, nor is it likely to fix the issues making the project so ruinously expensive. It's just going to make it more expensive because you have to buy out an entire company on top of all the work you're doing at inflated costs.
    - AlbertCory 3y ago
      Two arithmetic errors there: First, it's not on top of what's planned; it's instead of. Second, the money to control UP is acquiring a profitable asset, not wasting it.
      - jcranmer 3y ago
        > First, it's not on top of what's planned; it's instead of. No, it's on top of. What you're proposing is to convert an existing freight rail line that is nowhere close to HSR standards (unelectrified, low speed, and single track) to HSR standards, and combining that with some sort of freight relief line (which is a new line that is unelectrified, low speed, and single track). There is no meaningful cost reduction in that process from retaining the existing freight rail line and adding a new line built to HSR standards. You say that you are not a railway engineer. Do you have any explanation for why you think there's a cost reduction basis to buy a company, build a line to HSR standards and build a line to freight standards over not buying a company, building a line to HSR standards, and doing nothing to the existing freight line?
        AlbertCory 3y ago
        > Do you have any explanation for why you think there's a cost reduction do you have any explanation for the fact that they're NOT "adding a new line built to HSR standards?" Possibly not even in the initial Merced-Bakersfield route, as I laid out in my article. or that there is no published plan for doing it, or a credible budget? Particularly in heavily populated areas like LA and SF. Or that going through the central Valley makes a mockery of the "two and a half hour" claim that sold the plan in the first place?
DoughnutHole 3y ago
This would more than likely turn all of California’s rail freight into road freight (or even worse, air freight). It’d probably end up being a net worsening of emissions considering how much more efficient rail freight is than trucks. And converting a 19th century rail network into something that can support high-speed rail is no small task. You’d eliminate the land acquisition costs, but that’s about it. It’s pretty defeatist to abandon new rail anywhere that land values are high. It’s expensive but at least you’d have something new and useful at the end of it, rather than sacrificing an excellent freight rail system and ending up with the bad balancing out the good.
- AlbertCory 3y ago
  All true, but I'll just keep saying: $100 billion and counting. 171 miles of track from Merced to Bakersfield in 2030, by which time it'll be $200 billion, probably. The scale changes everything. Intuitive arguments like yours melt away.

jcranmer 3y ago

> fix the roadbed. How much do you think that costs? Most of the costs in CAHSR are in building the 220-mph-capable track, not in acquiring new ROW for those tracks. For comparison, merely electrifying Caltrain is costing well over $2 billion. No new track, just stringing up catenary wire and installing electrical feeds. Rebuilding a single-line freight trunk into a high speed rail corridor would cost far money, and that's before considering what to do with the freight (hint: the answer is build a new line for them... and then you have to wonder why it wouldn't be simpler to build a new line for HSR and let the freight use the existing line). It shouldn't cost anywhere near that much money, but the short answer as to why it does cost so much money is that the CA governments seem to be uniquely and disastrously incompetent at project management, on top of several other systemic cost issues in the US.

AlbertCory 3y ago
> How much do you think that costs? probably a f&cking lot. On the other hand, with the sums they're throwing away, nothing is off the table.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  My point is that the reason it's so expensive is largely because of who's doing the work--buying out an entire company isn't going to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done, nor is it likely to fix the issues making the project so ruinously expensive. It's just going to make it more expensive because you have to buy out an entire company on top of all the work you're doing at inflated costs.
  - AlbertCory 3y ago
    Two arithmetic errors there: First, it's not on top of what's planned; it's instead of. Second, the money to control UP is acquiring a profitable asset, not wasting it.
    - jcranmer 3y ago
      > First, it's not on top of what's planned; it's instead of. No, it's on top of. What you're proposing is to convert an existing freight rail line that is nowhere close to HSR standards (unelectrified, low speed, and single track) to HSR standards, and combining that with some sort of freight relief line (which is a new line that is unelectrified, low speed, and single track). There is no meaningful cost reduction in that process from retaining the existing freight rail line and adding a new line built to HSR standards. You say that you are not a railway engineer. Do you have any explanation for why you think there's a cost reduction basis to buy a company, build a line to HSR standards and build a line to freight standards over not buying a company, building a line to HSR standards, and doing nothing to the existing freight line?
      - AlbertCory 3y ago
        > Do you have any explanation for why you think there's a cost reduction do you have any explanation for the fact that they're NOT "adding a new line built to HSR standards?" Possibly not even in the initial Merced-Bakersfield route, as I laid out in my article. or that there is no published plan for doing it, or a credible budget? Particularly in heavily populated areas like LA and SF. Or that going through the central Valley makes a mockery of the "two and a half hour" claim that sold the plan in the first place?

DoughnutHole 3y ago

This would more than likely turn all of California’s rail freight into road freight (or even worse, air freight). It’d probably end up being a net worsening of emissions considering how much more efficient rail freight is than trucks. And converting a 19th century rail network into something that can support high-speed rail is no small task. You’d eliminate the land acquisition costs, but that’s about it. It’s pretty defeatist to abandon new rail anywhere that land values are high. It’s expensive but at least you’d have something new and useful at the end of it, rather than sacrificing an excellent freight rail system and ending up with the bad balancing out the good.

AlbertCory 3y ago
All true, but I'll just keep saying: $100 billion and counting. 171 miles of track from Merced to Bakersfield in 2030, by which time it'll be $200 billion, probably. The scale changes everything. Intuitive arguments like yours melt away.