30 ms·

Work begins on a $12B high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and Los Angeles

243 points by geox 3y ago

Larrikin 3y ago
I wish it was public instead of private. Brightline in Miami was obviously a line rich people take around the area for select events. I'm glad the Musk's line from O'Hare to the Loop failed when it was obvious that CTA just needed an express lane on the Blue line
- verandaguy 3y ago
  As an outside/non-American observer: yeah, it'd make total sense, but it seems like there's no political will in the US to build publicly-owned transport infrastructure beyond: - Maintaining what's already there - Select state-level projects, in some states - Select municipal-level projects, in some cities This means there's been a huge deficit in this kind of project at the federal level. In saying that, I don't want to give the impression that I'm on some ivory tower. Via Rail, a crown corp, is our national rail operator, and it's riddled with issues with little in the way of meaningful solutions.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    It's kinda the same problem we have in the EU though. High speed rail is mostly state level. France wants their TGV serving mostly French travellers. Same with the Spanish AVE and German ICE. It would be amazing to book a high speed train from Amsterdam to Barcelona at prices competing with Aviation. But nobody cares about this at a pan-EU level.
    - noirbot 3y ago
      Isn't some of this due to different use cases? The need for the German government to have a train from Berlin to Bremen makes sense in a way that probably doesn't matter if you're not living in Germany, but having a train that connects on the various borders in a compatible way is harder to fund and requires all the other countries to generally agree to do it at the same time. The likely outcome of a whole-EU train system is something like the US system where Amtrak generally hits the major population centers, but leaves a ton of the US behind because when you talk about Federal priorities, a train from Denver to Dallas isn't a huge priority compared to LA to SF or Boston to NYC. Obviously the EU system would fare better because it's starting from a better base, but it's emblematic of the tradeoff between bottom-up and top-down planning and investment for something like this.
      - wkat4242 3y ago
        The problem in EU is that most of the funding comes from the states so they want their own taxpayers to benefit first. So there's not really any interest in selling tickets from Country A to Country C. Because country B has to put up with the traffic which is already resource-restricted. And they prefer their internal customers to get priority. This way it will never end up as a reasonable alternative for flying. What's really missing in the EU is the ability to bypass cities. A train from Amsterdam to Barcelona has to cross right through the center of Antwerp, Brussels, Lyon (or a transfer in Paris through a horrible metro connection). It's not possible to have a direct train that bypasses all the cities straight to its destination. That would be a real alternative to flying. Considering the amount of flights between Amsterdam and Barcelona daily it's easily possible to fill a few direct trains. It's that stopping in every city center (without in-city facilities for high-speed tracks) that make it so horrible. But anyway the EU really doesn't care about this at all and considering the huge construction durations they're too late for this to make a difference in climate change anyway.
  - chmod600 3y ago
    "no political will in the US to build publicly-owned transport" There's little faith that public projects have the expertise to actually get it done and make it work. It's hard for me to imagine the federal government succeeding at that for any reasonable cost, and I suppose you could blame some of that on partisan bickering. But I also can't imagine California succeeding for any reasonable cost, and it's a one-party state, so there's no excuse. At the end of the day you need some people who actually know how to do the job rather than just argue over plans and subcontract twelve levels deep. My guess is that Birghtline found a few such people and that's their competitive advantage as a business.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > There's little faith that public projects have the expertise to actually get it done and make it work. This ends up being self-fulfilling. People don't trust the government, so they suffocate the project in fixed payscales and low-bid rules and endless reviews, and so the government can't get anything done, and so people don't trust the government... > At the end of the day you need some people who actually know how to do the job rather than just argue over plans and subcontract twelve levels deep. Right - so you need to be able to hire those people and pay them something close to what they're worth, or build up that expertise over the long term by having a steady pipeline of projects and training people as you go. But voters don't trust these governments enough to empower them to do that.
      - chmod600 3y ago
        "This ends up being self-fulfilling." Perhaps. But once the expertise is lost, you can't get it back by throwing more money at the problem. You have incompetent people hiring people who check all the right boxes but still can't do it, and then you have a huge sunk cost that you don't want to cancel so it drags on forever, eroding trust even further. Private companies have some advantages here. If they don't think the project will succeed, they will stop, because they know there's no payday. If it's due to bad laws, they will lobby (a bad word, I know) to change them. They'll fire people who don't perform. They'll look in all kinds of creative ways to find people who can get the job done. They'll stop and think about who might actually ride it, because they need the ticket revenue, so they will build the lines in the right places with the right stops. Maybe all of that could be true for some governments. But there's a long way to go before the US or the California government is able to do any of those things.
- lmm 3y ago
  > Brightline in Miami was obviously a line rich people take around the area for select events. Aeroplanes used to be something just for rich people too. Heck, go back far enough and so were cars, or even bicycles. You've gotta build a bunch before it becomes something mass-population.
  - Larrikin 3y ago
    There are train lines all over the world, including in the US that are public and not over priced.
    - lmm 3y ago
      High speed rail tickets are expensive almost everywhere, even when publicly subsidised.
conroy 3y ago
I understand that California High Speed Rail isn't a popular project on HN, but to claim that it hasn't broken ground is just wrong. There are numerous completed structures and a clear plan to get high-speed trains running from Merced to Bakersfield by 2030.
- lovecg 3y ago
  > from Merced to Bakersfield “and, by gum, it put them on the map!”
  - zoky 3y ago
    Bakersfield was already on the map. Not any sort of map you’d want to be on, but still…
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      It's ironic that Merced and Bakersfield get shit on when it's the coastal Bay Area and LA people that are the actual problems standing in the way of making the rail...
      - zoky 3y ago
        I don't know much about Merced, but the reasons that Bakersfield gets shit on have nothing to do with high speed rail and more to do with its reputation for meth, crime, and generally being a shithole to live in or even pass through. I suppose one might find this “ironic”, for very interesting definitions of “ironic”.
        PM_me_your_math 3y ago
        [dead]
        reducesuffering 3y ago
        I'm well aware of Bakersfield's problems. And yet, the area was able to handle implementing the initial steps of high speed rail, and the Bay and LA weren't (for whatever eminent domain / NIMBY reasons). So it's funny to me to see LA/Bay people give Bakersfield crap: "ugh why is the rail over there". Well, because you LA/Bay people couldn't.
lenerdenator 3y ago
It's amazing, really. You can get high speed rail built for people from SoCal to lose their asses at a backgammon table in Vegas faster but if you want to, idk, travel for non-recreational reasons within the Midwest and you don't want to sprint through O'Hare for a flight between where you're from and where you're going, you'll probably be driving despite years of asking for Amtrak to find a way to go above 79 MPH.
- 0xbadcafebee 3y ago
  I mean, first of all, doesn't it make more sense that there's more money to extract from the LA<->Vegas line? And second, Amtrak can't force CSX to upgrade its rail, and Amtrak sure as hell ain't paying. There's loads of billionaires out there now with more money than sense. Get together a PAC, lobby them to fund high-speed rail upgrades, name a rail station after them or something.
  - solarpunk 3y ago
    we can probably skip prostrating at the rich's feet and just tax them and build nice shit. if they don't want the tax they can hurry up and build the nice shit first.
- pstuart 3y ago
  We should nationalize the rail infrastructure and upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > We should nationalize the rail infrastructure and upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails Your response to the first high-speed rail line America is likely to see completed, being built by a private operator, is to propose effectively banning it?
    - lmm 3y ago
0xbadcafebee 3y ago
There is a 50 mile stretch of the Acela that reaches over 150MPH that qualifies as "high speed" rail, so technically this is the second high-speed rail in the US.
- lmm 3y ago
  Third or more, because there's a small stretch of Brightline that qualifies (just the part from Orlando to the coast). I assume that's why Buttigieg said "first operating high-speed rail line", a nuance that seems to have been lost in the headline.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    > Brightline's maximum operating speed is 125 mph (200 km/h) This is a definitional thing; for whatever reason US regulators define this as 'high-speed', but no-where which operates actually high-speed (ie pushing 300km/h) lines does. The LA-Las Vegas project, and the California high speed rail project, are high-speed by international standards, at least in parts.
    - lmm 3y ago
      > This is a definitional thing; for whatever reason US regulators define this as 'high-speed', but no-where which operates actually high-speed (ie pushing 300km/h) lines does. No, 125mph/200kph is the standard international definition of high-speed rail. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#/media/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#/med...
      - 0xbadcafebee 3y ago
        To be truly pedantic: there is no single international standard[1] of "high speed" rail, but in general, new lines up to 155mph, or upgraded lines up to 125mph, are usually considered "high speed". In the United States, "higher-speed" rail has been the term used for trains up to 125mph.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Definitions [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-speed_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-speed_rail
Simulacra 3y ago
Can't wait to ride it when its done in 20 years...
- SlightlyLeftPad 3y ago
  If I’m lucky, my kids will be around to see it.
- lmm 3y ago
  Scheduled for 2028, and they've managed to actually build and run a line in Florida.
- Rebelgecko 3y ago
  Why would you wait so long?
vondur 3y ago
I'm really excited for this. This company seems to be able to get these projects going.
walterbell 3y ago
https://laedc.org/2021/04/26/aerospace-space-force/ https://laedc.org/2021/04/26/aerospace-space-force/ > The federal government is increasingly embracing private business collaboration in its space missions, space-based projects and to power the new US Space Force as it ramps up in Los Angeles. This is creating a lot of activity and opportunity for LA-based aerospace companies. https://www.foxnews.com/tech/exclusive-inside-area-51-the-secret-birthplace-of-the-u2-spy-plane https://www.foxnews.com/tech/exclusive-inside-area-51-the-se... > Jacobsen, a contributing editor and investigative reporter at the Los Angeles Times Magazine, interviewed the former Area 51 employees in 2008 and 2009, shortly after the CIA declassified much of the work they had done.. Jacobsen reveals some of the wild research that went on in the 1970s at Area 51 -- where the military built the U-2 spy plane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51 > Area 51 is located in the southern portion of Nevada, 83 miles (134 km) north-northwest of Las Vegas.
- pkage 3y ago
  What does this have to do with high speed rail?
  - walterbell 3y ago
    High speed rail can shorten commute between Los Angeles privately-funded aerospace and Las Vegas publicly-funded aerospace ecosystems, supporting commercialization that can benefit CA, NV and USA.
jessriedel 3y ago
> could zoom travelers between Las Vegas and Los Angeles in just under two hours by the end of the decade Just to be clear, this is to the "greater Los Angeles area", ending at Rancho Cucamonga station, a 48 minute drive (1h15m by public transit) to downtown LA, and a 1h15m drive (2h30m by public transit) to LAX.
- qwerty456127 3y ago
  Nice clue. If this was being built in Europe it would probably have a number of stops within the city area including opposite outskirts, the center and the airport.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    Totally honest question - have there been recent expansions of train lines into cities in Europe? In the last 20 years? My default assumption right now is that this sort of grand construction is generally infeasible in countries outside of China where they generally don't care who they displace or the environmental damage, and often are building the cities from the ground up in the first place with the trains as a part of the urban planning. I've been peripheral to a few urban light/heavy rail expansion projects in the US and the consistent issue is that even cities with a lot of urban sprawl are still dense enough that you have to displace a lot of people/businesses to build a new line and the stations around it. It's the sort of thing that's a lot easier to do when the city is young, or the train line got built in an era where you could just force people to sell their houses and move. I'd be honestly curious if anywhere in the EU has managed to put in a totally net-new line like this outside of existing tracks that included a stop at the city center and various stops on the way into town. Almost every city-center train station I've ever been to in Europe was over 100 years old (even if the building had been upgraded) and seemingly using most of the same lines.
    - jltsiren 3y ago
      New rail lines get built all the time. The recipe is really simple: don't do megaprojects. Individual projects must be of appropriate size for the level of government that is making the decisions. When there are several projects of similar size in the pipeline all the time, the government can develop and maintain the expertise needed to build the infrastructure.
WaitWaitWha 3y ago
~~ Amtrak coast to coast starts at $4,299 per person, and takes 15 days.~~ What would be the cost of a high-speed rail version of this? EDIT: I stand corrected. I looked at the Coast to Coast "Vacation". https://www.amtrakvacations.com/trips/america-coast-to-coast https://www.amtrakvacations.com/trips/america-coast-to-coast
- schoen 3y ago
  Hmmm? I've taken Amtrak coast to coast and it took four days. Currently searching on amtrak.com (they don't seem to make PDF schedules anymore, sadly!): 449 Lake Shore Limited BOS - CHI 22 h 22 m 5 California Zephyr CHI - EMY 52 h 57 m Scheduled transfer time in Chicago Union Station is about 4 hours. So this should take a total of about 79 hours.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  Is there any country or international line on the entire planet that attempts to have a serious discussion about the merits of a 6-12 hour+ train ride versus flying? High speed trains reduce the need for any other form of transportation where someone could reasonably waste a full day in the car. Nobody is trying to justify a train trip over one of the widest countries in the world.
- cjensen 3y ago
  Your comment is entirely false. It takes just over 3 days to travel from the Bay Area to NYC. The price is $281 [1]. Now if you throw in some rooms, you are talking about first-class travel that includes all meals free. You need to consider how much money a few days of hotel and restaurants would cost, so the comparison is complex. Also the room cost is not really per-person unless you are traveling alone. [1] I looked up the price for June 11th.
  - iancmceachern 3y ago
    I've ridden this line. It's important to note that that's 3 days in a coach seat. 3 days. The food is terrible, like truly terrible. We brought a bottle of Jack and had a decent enough time. Wouldn't choose it again.
phmqk76 3y ago
Awesome! Now I can drive an hour+ to Rancho Cucamonga, park, wait for the train, pay the equivalent of four plane tickets for my family, then take a 2 hour+ train ride, instead of driving for 4 hours from my house for the cost of half a tank of gas ($35). So cool!
- mattfields 3y ago
  Price of four plane tickets for your family? I don't know how much these rail tickets will cost, but I find the math on that to be unlikely. 4x plane tickets, assuming rock bottom minimum $60 a head to basically anywhere, $180-240... Hmm
  - phmqk76 3y ago
    Amtrak from NYC to DC fluctuates in pricing but can be $35 each way, if booked booked far enough in advance. That’s about the same distance from Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas. So I think it’s a similar ballpark to a plane ticket.
    - kristopolous 3y ago
      The real way to do this should be like Japan shinkansen, no floating pricing where you have to do some speculative game. Flat pricing + make ticket good for something like 2 weeks to ride whenever. If there was such predictability and flexibility, they'd immediately significantly increase their ridership. There's a dead reply below that says "shinkansen are cheaper when bought in advance" --- I was led to believe otherwise, good to know as I ride it a few times a year.
      - throwaway984393 3y ago
        [dead]
      - t0mas88 3y ago
        Commercial rail operations will try to maximise revenue, doing airline style pricing. Very visible in the UK where last minute or peak time train tickets are crazy expensive. (All their train lines are commercial) Compared to trains being run as a semi government provided utility, like the Netherlands, where pricing is flat based only on route. Makes the train a more relevant alternative, which helps with road congestion. But tax money is used to build railways and stations, the tickets only pay for operating the train itself.
1024core 3y ago
> When it’s completed, the train will travel at 186 miles per hour If China can push 286 mph in Shanghai, which means the tech exists, then why isn't this comparable? This is not snark; I am just curious what makes the Chinese train capable of such speeds, but the US train can't.
- gs17 3y ago
  According to the Wikipedia article about the train, it's now the same speed Brightline is targetting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train >After May 2021: >Cruising speed: 300 km/h (186 mph) >Average speed: 224 km/h (139 mph) (duration: 8 minutes and 10 seconds) The bigger issue is likely: >According to Chinese media's report, however, due to the huge costs of operating and the lack of the passenger flow, Shanghai Maglev Transportation Company would lose 500 million to 700 million RMB every year
- supertrope 3y ago
  I’m not fussed with top speeds. Average travel speed that takes into account waiting for the next departure is a more practical measure. A high speed train that stops in every town has a lower effective speed than the top speed suggests. A high speed train with hourly departures instead of every 30 or 15 min means you wait more. And of course high speed means higher cost. The average person is very price sensitive on transportation costs.
- AngusH 3y ago
  Are you thinking of the Shanghai maglev? It is pretty impressive and they're looking at building an extension. however oddly its operation speed has been significantly reduced from 268mph to 186mph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train The basic problem is that Maglev is on average more expensive to build and operate and cannot (unlike ordinary high speed rail trains) ever operate on ordinary (non high speed) rail track. It's also still pretty experimental, the Shanghai one is operational and high speed, all other operational systems are either low speed or experimental test beds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev Regular high speed rail is a fairly routine thing and all the parts are well understood.
ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago
This is amazing and I'm so so happy. Finally we will be competing with the best in a crucial infrastructure project.
vzaliva 3y ago
what does it mean "new track almost all in the median of Interstate 15"? Do they plan to run a train in the middle of highway? Is there is enough width there for a train?
- bagels 3y ago
  Yes https://maps.app.goo.gl/bU7Ut84EPpipnLqA6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/bU7Ut84EPpipnLqA6
- missedthecue 3y ago
  Does a drunk driver tearing across the median mean 20 hour delays while they clear the wreckage? Or are they going to barricade both sides of the tracks the entire way?
- _xerces_ 3y ago
  See the Silver Line on the DC Metro, and several other lines that run in highway medians. It is not a new thing.
labrador 3y ago
There's literally nothing productive about getting Southern Californians to Las Vegas faster
- shiroiushi 3y ago
  I agree, but if it made HSR more popular in the US, it could lead to more rail lines being built elsewhere, which would raise productivity.
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  There is if you’re Las Vegas.
  - labrador 3y ago
    A city built on losers residents will proudly tell you
- MisterPea 3y ago
  Vegas is the best destination for business conferences, but yes I agree with your point. The line connecting NorCal to SoCal is so much more productive that any other line being prioritized is crazy to me.
brabel 3y ago
Good stuff! I hope Americans start again to invest on cutting edge projects. In the last 30 or so years, all the really big projects happened in the Middle East and East Asia. You visit China, Singapore or Dubai and if feels like you step into the future.
bradhe 3y ago
Prediction: Project will take 10 years too long and results in a normal (non-high-speed) rail system connecting the two places that is too expensive for people to reasonably use.
- pyrale 3y ago
  Prediction: Project deadlines will have been shaved by salespeople and marketed as "high speed" when none of the requirements for it have been factored in the budget.
  - theluketaylor 3y ago
    Brightline managed to deliver their Florida line pretty much on time and on budget. The only real challenging part of the route is going to be pass out of the inland empire where the I-15 grade is a really steep. The rest of the project is pretty straightforward, with rights of way already in place and very few expensive and complex grade crossings. They picked this city pair and route very carefully to have an excellent chance to succeed both on construction simplicity and ridership. I'm not sure they will actually open in time for the 2028 Olympics, but I wouldn't bet against 2029 operations. As for high speed, it won't be able to sustain true high speed rail velocity across the whole route (150mph / 250 kph), but it will be much faster than driving and there will be long stretches that are very high speed.
    - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
      Will be interesting to see how it goes as Florida makes these things pretty easy and California... doesnt
- pembrook 3y ago
  At least in this case one of the destinations could theoretically be visited without a car (assuming these are just tourists to the Vegas Strip). Whereas another certain California rail project literally transports you from [place you need car] to [place you need car]. Which I don’t think I need to explain why that is silly. The root cause of this is blue states often get Euro public transport envy — yet they don’t understand Europe has 3X the population density (and subsequent urbanization) of the US. Obviously public transport would start to make a lot more sense if you 3X’d the population in the same land area. IMO fetishizing the European way of life is a bit silly, given density comes with its own problems (ie nobody having kids). In fact, there was this German guy in the 1930s who led the killing of millions of people partly to get more “living space”, so European density does have its downsides for…shall we say…stability. In fact, Europe has roughly the same amount of people today as it had in 1939. Meanwhile the US has more than doubled.
PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[dead]
roody15 3y ago
The fact that this costs 12billion sums up a lot of what’s wrong in the US. Let’s be honest the project will take longer than expected and end up costing more than 12billion.
- tzs 3y ago
  $12 billion for 351 km is $34 million per km. France is planning a new 410 km high speed rail line between Paris and Lyon for €12 billion [1]. That's $11.2 billion at current exchange rates, giving $25 million per km. That seems to be a pretty normal price for high speed rail in Europe [2] for routes that don't need tunneling. So this US project is about 36% more expensive than a typical EU high speed rail project. Higher, but is it really enough higher to qualify for "what's wrong in the US"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_France#Under_Construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_France#Unde... [2] https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-rail-19-2018/en/ https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-r...
  - karaterobot 3y ago
    It's also, according to the article, the "first true high-speed rail" in the U.S., so presumably there are fewer existing efficiencies to make use of. And, since it's a California project rather than a Federal project, I think that whatever happens would mostly reflect on California, rather than being proof of anything about the entire country one way or the other.
  - roody15 3y ago
    Yes because you assume the final cost will be 12 billion and not 20 billion. Another real possibility is the project starts and gets engineering plans developed certified and on the shelf and 2 billion is spent getting things going… only to run into a snag and never get completed. (Google the high speed rail line from Iowa City to Chicago .. that was also fully funded .. and still 10 years later not a single mile of rail has been laid)
instagib 3y ago
2hrs 10min +50-75 minutes to east of LA is a distance but 4-5+ hours highly variable by driving is an interesting choice since you have a car at your destination. There is also going to be two intermediate stops in California at “Hesperia and one in Apple Valley.” (1) So, 3.5 hours or so for guessing $100 one way versus 4-5+ hours at $40 gas 30mpg 220miles by car vs 1hr 8 minutes gate to gate $21-$60 by air without including security for any options. They mentioned a metro link stop for LA but nothing about a plan for quite a ways off the strip in Las Vegas. Maybe a shuttle stop on the airport - car rental return loop. It’s going to be opposite the Las Vegas South Premium Outlets at Warmsprings rd and Las Vegas Blvd. I compare to Brightline’s other rail project from Miami to Orlando. Tickets $80-$300 for similar mileage. Their high speed rail ended up with 70mph to a record 130mph. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/brightline-from-miami-to-orlando-how-much-do-tickets-cost-and-other-questions-on-the-new-service/3117086/ https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/brightline-from-miami-to... (1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2024/04/20/high-speed-rail-construction-california-las-vegas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2024/04/20/high-speed-...
unstatusthequo 3y ago
Might be a better idea to address the water scarcity issue than blow $12B in cash on sending more people there from a major metro area. When Lake Mead is gone, what will Vegas do? I’m guessing it’s all about waiting until it’s critical and imminent and then a very costly, taxpayer funded solution will have to be slammed in place. Maybe it’s time to get serious about desalinization plants and get a pipeline to desert communities? They’ll sure as hell build an oil pipeline, so water should be an easy choice, right?
datavirtue 3y ago
Another bridge to nowhere. These rail projects suffer in isolation. Scaling doesn't seem palatable either.
kurthr 3y ago
Citynerd did a really good evaluation of the LA-LV Brightline total travel time with connections in the LA basin 4 months ago. His evaluation is that in some parts of LA it's roughly competitive with air travel (he actually looks at automobile/transit connections from Cheesecake factories?! to Caesar's Palace) and it beats car travel time in most parts of LA, but not by a lot. The problem is getting to the Brightline station since it's so far out from the middle of LA. https://youtu.be/11Noo855zyA https://youtu.be/11Noo855zyA
thegrim33 3y ago
It will cost more than the famously cost overrunned James Web Space Telescope, that was built over a period of 24 years, the largest and most advanced space telescope ever built, launched into the sun/earth L2 point a million miles from earth, to build a rail line between LA and Las Vegas?
- vel0city 3y ago
  There's a lot more material involved, for one. Several trains, hundreds of miles of rail, train stations, bridges, etc. Lots more environmental studies to be done. Lots more interests involved. How many private individuals had to be imminent domain'd for JWST? I imagine there will be more people employed building the rail, but overall lower average salaries.
ReptileMan 3y ago
Will be get it before nuclear fusion is the question?
lgleason 3y ago
More pork barrel spending, causing higher levels or debts and inflation.
sidcool 3y ago
If the cost high or OK? If it were executed by a highly motivated and efficient team, how long and how much would it cost?
dhosek 3y ago
It wouldn’t take that much more effort to extend the terminus a little further east down the 210 right of way to the 605 and then south into Orange County. And then, finally, we can fulfill the dream of a train to Anaheim, Azusa and CUC-amonga.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
novok 3y ago
This will be done before the SF <-> LA HSR even starts building rail lines properly.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  CA HSR plans to start laying track Q3 of this year, so that’s a pretty aggressive prediction.
- ashconnor 3y ago
  That's because they are building it to Rancho Cucamonga not downtown LA.
  - lmm 3y ago
    Which is to say they're being smart about it. LA is huge and sprawling, there's no guarantee that where you wanted to go was downtown. Build your HSR station somewhere on the metro network (and if it works out then just having the HSR station there will ultimately make it grow into a place worth going), let that take care of the rest.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > because they are building it to Rancho Cucamonga not downtown LA California's HSR is very far from last-mile connectivity being a problem, mostly due to the geometry of starting in the middle.
  - andbberger 3y ago
    CAHSR phase 1 is merced to bakersfield and the current design for SF-LA throws in the towel on the last mile. if you think what they're doing now is silly, just wait until the laypeople get their hands on the altamont/pacheco palmdale/tehachapi discourse.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > CAHSR phase 1 is merced to Bakersfield CA HSR Phase 1 is SF to LA with a spur up to Merced. CA HSR Early Operating Segment is Merced to Bakersfield.
dheera 3y ago
Rancho Cucamonga is not Los Angeles. Victorville is not Los Angeles. How the hell are you supposed to get to Rancho Cucamonga without a car? For Las Vegas people going to LA, what the hell are you supposed to do when the train dumps you in the middle of Rancho Cucamonga? If you want real ridership, public transit in both LA and LV needs to be functional. Connect it to Union Station and LAX if you want some ridership. On the Las Vegas end make it stop smack in the middle of the strip. Otherwise this thing is useless. Also 125mph is not high speed rail. LA-LV in 2 hours + time spent getting to the train station + buffer time to avoid missing the train + long slow car rental line on the other end while 15 people ahead of you each have a chit chat with the one employee dealing with the rentals would be more time than just driving end to end. These people just don't get it. Try LA-LV in 1 hour and maybe we're talking. But really, fix public transit in both cities first.
- jwkpiano1 3y ago
  Metrolink goes right from Rancho Cucamonga to Union Station in about 75 minutes. Did you bother to check that before posting?
  - lotsoweiners 3y ago
    How convenient.
- focusgroup0 3y ago
  >Connect it to Union Station and LAX if you want some ridership. FTA: >Brightline West [...] aims to lay 218 miles (351 kilometers) of new track almost all in the median of Interstate 15 between Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga, California. It would link there with a commuter rail connection to downtown Los Angeles
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    I hope they can run a more frequent service, or at least alter the times to match up with the HSR, once service begins. It's currently only hourly after the morning, and doesn't run after 7pm. https://metrolinktrains.com/schedules/?type=station&originId=121&destinationId=107&weekend=0 https://metrolinktrains.com/schedules/?type=station&originId...
Log_out_ 3y ago
Having used public transport sitting near homeless people, can we segregate them offering a "free ride wagon"?
- imjonse 3y ago
  How about offering them free public housing so they better reintegrate?
  - dudeinjapan 3y ago
    Free public transport is free public housing
- tetris11 3y ago
  having used the same for many years, the only issue is the smell (though I've smelled teens who were worse) I think if there were more free bathing facilities around, this would be a non-issue
  - dudeinjapan 3y ago
    Its not just the smell--its harassment, ranting, screaming, and even violence. Women especially don't feel safe. These are people with serious mental illness.
- bung 3y ago
  "... with fares that will be comparable to airline ticket costs" I can only guess either you know homeless people that can afford such tickets, or you simply didn't RTFA. Nice positive attitude btw.
  - Log_out_ 3y ago
    Guess it depends if you drive to work next to one or sit in a suburb suv trafficking c jam preaching
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
I can't wait for the return of private train cars. Imagine the casinos hitching up private cars to the Brightline, thereby improving their experience while subsidising everyone else.
- satiric 3y ago
  Private train cars never went away, as far as I'm aware. Amtrak has (always?) allowed folks to couple private cars to the end of their trains (for an eye-watering price, of course).
  - cge 3y ago
    My understanding is that while they generally have, and there may be some form of legal requirement that they provide service to private cars, in the last six years or so Amtrak has been increasingly restrictive, with some suggesting that they are trying to make private cars practically infeasible to use. There seems to have been a battle between Amtrak and private car owners that started in 2018 [1], and it's unclear if there has been any resolution to that. [1]: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/28-amtrak-to-stop-operating-special-trains-charter-moves/ https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/28-amtrak-...
- unstatusthequo 3y ago
  Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged.
- sofixa 3y ago
  That's highly unlikely. High speed rail doesn't work like old school rail used to - you have full electric trainsets where all the cars are tightly coupled together (often even sharing bogies) so coupling/decoupling is only possible in a maintenance yard. Also, depending on the model, often all or at least many of the cars are also powered and provide distributed traction. Having branded luxury cars would be he fairly easy and could easily be a hit; private cars are unlikely to be feasible with your regular high speed electric multiple units.
  - 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lencastre 3y ago
Lo key disappointment that it is not maglev monorail cannon
Animats 3y ago
All so that people can gamble.
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  both cities and regions have massive gambling trade already, so, no.
- mulmen 3y ago
  There’s a lot more to Vegas than gambling.
andy800 3y ago
Hard to see this as anything other than big-time grift. This is estimated to be a $12B project. $6.5B raised so far: $3B grant and $3.5B in tax-exempt, "private activity" bonds. Does anyone actually think the rest will come from investors? Of course not, the government will see a half-finished project that it supported and provide the funding to finish the job, including the inevitable overruns. A private company receiving 6.5B (and likely, eventually $12+) of government money... no pressure or expectations to make any profit. Great deal if you can get it!
- danielhep 3y ago
  Why not invest? Brightline has done well in Florida.
  - andy800 3y ago
    It lost $192 million in the first 9 months of 2023. $201 million same period of 2022. It also lowered its passenger forecast to Orlando from 7 to 5.5 million. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/03/08/brightline-is-losing-money-but-orlando-leg-is-providing-a-big-boost/72813243007/ https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/03/08/brightli...
    - blackhawkC17 3y ago
      That's why I believe public infrastructure should be publicly-owned. It's rare to find a profitable metro system...it should be run by the government as a benefit for citizens, not as a business like Brightline.
      - missedthecue 3y ago
        If infrastructure isn't sustainable you're destroying value and making your citizens poorer.
        blackhawkC17 3y ago
andbberger 3y ago
what negativity in this thread! this is the only tangible, hopeful HSR project in the country right now
- _3u10 3y ago
  Its usefulness is rivaled only by HS2. Honestly LA to LV is probably not bad it’s the right distance, it’s mostly desert so most of the HS2 issues will be avoided. If it’s actually high speed eg 200mph+ then I could see it working. Edit: oh it’s 100mph, and it stops 37 miles outside of LA. Should rename it HS3
  - andbberger 3y ago
    it is bonafide high-speed rail. average speed is obviously lower.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

243 points by geox 3y ago

I wish it was public instead of private. Brightline in Miami was obviously a line rich people take around the area for select events. I'm glad the Musk's line from O'Hare to the Loop failed when it was obvious that CTA just needed an express lane on the Blue line

verandaguy 3y ago
As an outside/non-American observer: yeah, it'd make total sense, but it seems like there's no political will in the US to build publicly-owned transport infrastructure beyond: - Maintaining what's already there - Select state-level projects, in some states - Select municipal-level projects, in some cities This means there's been a huge deficit in this kind of project at the federal level. In saying that, I don't want to give the impression that I'm on some ivory tower. Via Rail, a crown corp, is our national rail operator, and it's riddled with issues with little in the way of meaningful solutions.
- wkat4242 3y ago
  It's kinda the same problem we have in the EU though. High speed rail is mostly state level. France wants their TGV serving mostly French travellers. Same with the Spanish AVE and German ICE. It would be amazing to book a high speed train from Amsterdam to Barcelona at prices competing with Aviation. But nobody cares about this at a pan-EU level.
  - noirbot 3y ago
    Isn't some of this due to different use cases? The need for the German government to have a train from Berlin to Bremen makes sense in a way that probably doesn't matter if you're not living in Germany, but having a train that connects on the various borders in a compatible way is harder to fund and requires all the other countries to generally agree to do it at the same time. The likely outcome of a whole-EU train system is something like the US system where Amtrak generally hits the major population centers, but leaves a ton of the US behind because when you talk about Federal priorities, a train from Denver to Dallas isn't a huge priority compared to LA to SF or Boston to NYC. Obviously the EU system would fare better because it's starting from a better base, but it's emblematic of the tradeoff between bottom-up and top-down planning and investment for something like this.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      The problem in EU is that most of the funding comes from the states so they want their own taxpayers to benefit first. So there's not really any interest in selling tickets from Country A to Country C. Because country B has to put up with the traffic which is already resource-restricted. And they prefer their internal customers to get priority. This way it will never end up as a reasonable alternative for flying. What's really missing in the EU is the ability to bypass cities. A train from Amsterdam to Barcelona has to cross right through the center of Antwerp, Brussels, Lyon (or a transfer in Paris through a horrible metro connection). It's not possible to have a direct train that bypasses all the cities straight to its destination. That would be a real alternative to flying. Considering the amount of flights between Amsterdam and Barcelona daily it's easily possible to fill a few direct trains. It's that stopping in every city center (without in-city facilities for high-speed tracks) that make it so horrible. But anyway the EU really doesn't care about this at all and considering the huge construction durations they're too late for this to make a difference in climate change anyway.
- chmod600 3y ago
  "no political will in the US to build publicly-owned transport" There's little faith that public projects have the expertise to actually get it done and make it work. It's hard for me to imagine the federal government succeeding at that for any reasonable cost, and I suppose you could blame some of that on partisan bickering. But I also can't imagine California succeeding for any reasonable cost, and it's a one-party state, so there's no excuse. At the end of the day you need some people who actually know how to do the job rather than just argue over plans and subcontract twelve levels deep. My guess is that Birghtline found a few such people and that's their competitive advantage as a business.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > There's little faith that public projects have the expertise to actually get it done and make it work. This ends up being self-fulfilling. People don't trust the government, so they suffocate the project in fixed payscales and low-bid rules and endless reviews, and so the government can't get anything done, and so people don't trust the government... > At the end of the day you need some people who actually know how to do the job rather than just argue over plans and subcontract twelve levels deep. Right - so you need to be able to hire those people and pay them something close to what they're worth, or build up that expertise over the long term by having a steady pipeline of projects and training people as you go. But voters don't trust these governments enough to empower them to do that.
    - chmod600 3y ago
      "This ends up being self-fulfilling." Perhaps. But once the expertise is lost, you can't get it back by throwing more money at the problem. You have incompetent people hiring people who check all the right boxes but still can't do it, and then you have a huge sunk cost that you don't want to cancel so it drags on forever, eroding trust even further. Private companies have some advantages here. If they don't think the project will succeed, they will stop, because they know there's no payday. If it's due to bad laws, they will lobby (a bad word, I know) to change them. They'll fire people who don't perform. They'll look in all kinds of creative ways to find people who can get the job done. They'll stop and think about who might actually ride it, because they need the ticket revenue, so they will build the lines in the right places with the right stops. Maybe all of that could be true for some governments. But there's a long way to go before the US or the California government is able to do any of those things.
lmm 3y ago
> Brightline in Miami was obviously a line rich people take around the area for select events. Aeroplanes used to be something just for rich people too. Heck, go back far enough and so were cars, or even bicycles. You've gotta build a bunch before it becomes something mass-population.
- Larrikin 3y ago
  There are train lines all over the world, including in the US that are public and not over priced.
  - lmm 3y ago
    High speed rail tickets are expensive almost everywhere, even when publicly subsidised.

conroy 3y ago

I understand that California High Speed Rail isn't a popular project on HN, but to claim that it hasn't broken ground is just wrong. There are numerous completed structures and a clear plan to get high-speed trains running from Merced to Bakersfield by 2030.

lovecg 3y ago
> from Merced to Bakersfield “and, by gum, it put them on the map!”
- zoky 3y ago
  Bakersfield was already on the map. Not any sort of map you’d want to be on, but still…
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    It's ironic that Merced and Bakersfield get shit on when it's the coastal Bay Area and LA people that are the actual problems standing in the way of making the rail...
    - zoky 3y ago
      I don't know much about Merced, but the reasons that Bakersfield gets shit on have nothing to do with high speed rail and more to do with its reputation for meth, crime, and generally being a shithole to live in or even pass through. I suppose one might find this “ironic”, for very interesting definitions of “ironic”.
      - PM_me_your_math 3y ago
        [dead]
      - reducesuffering 3y ago
        I'm well aware of Bakersfield's problems. And yet, the area was able to handle implementing the initial steps of high speed rail, and the Bay and LA weren't (for whatever eminent domain / NIMBY reasons). So it's funny to me to see LA/Bay people give Bakersfield crap: "ugh why is the rail over there". Well, because you LA/Bay people couldn't.

lenerdenator 3y ago

It's amazing, really. You can get high speed rail built for people from SoCal to lose their asses at a backgammon table in Vegas faster but if you want to, idk, travel for non-recreational reasons within the Midwest and you don't want to sprint through O'Hare for a flight between where you're from and where you're going, you'll probably be driving despite years of asking for Amtrak to find a way to go above 79 MPH.

0xbadcafebee 3y ago
I mean, first of all, doesn't it make more sense that there's more money to extract from the LA<->Vegas line? And second, Amtrak can't force CSX to upgrade its rail, and Amtrak sure as hell ain't paying. There's loads of billionaires out there now with more money than sense. Get together a PAC, lobby them to fund high-speed rail upgrades, name a rail station after them or something.
- solarpunk 3y ago
  we can probably skip prostrating at the rich's feet and just tax them and build nice shit. if they don't want the tax they can hurry up and build the nice shit first.
pstuart 3y ago
We should nationalize the rail infrastructure and upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > We should nationalize the rail infrastructure and upgrade it to make passenger traffic a first-class citizen of the rails Your response to the first high-speed rail line America is likely to see completed, being built by a private operator, is to propose effectively banning it?
  - lmm 3y ago

0xbadcafebee 3y ago

There is a 50 mile stretch of the Acela that reaches over 150MPH that qualifies as "high speed" rail, so technically this is the second high-speed rail in the US.

lmm 3y ago
Third or more, because there's a small stretch of Brightline that qualifies (just the part from Orlando to the coast). I assume that's why Buttigieg said "first operating high-speed rail line", a nuance that seems to have been lost in the headline.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  > Brightline's maximum operating speed is 125 mph (200 km/h) This is a definitional thing; for whatever reason US regulators define this as 'high-speed', but no-where which operates actually high-speed (ie pushing 300km/h) lines does. The LA-Las Vegas project, and the California high speed rail project, are high-speed by international standards, at least in parts.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > This is a definitional thing; for whatever reason US regulators define this as 'high-speed', but no-where which operates actually high-speed (ie pushing 300km/h) lines does. No, 125mph/200kph is the standard international definition of high-speed rail. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#/media/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_of_Europe.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe#/med...
    - 0xbadcafebee 3y ago
      To be truly pedantic: there is no single international standard[1] of "high speed" rail, but in general, new lines up to 155mph, or upgraded lines up to 125mph, are usually considered "high speed". In the United States, "higher-speed" rail has been the term used for trains up to 125mph.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail#Definitions [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-speed_rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher-speed_rail

Simulacra 3y ago

Can't wait to ride it when its done in 20 years...

SlightlyLeftPad 3y ago
If I’m lucky, my kids will be around to see it.
lmm 3y ago
Scheduled for 2028, and they've managed to actually build and run a line in Florida.
Rebelgecko 3y ago
Why would you wait so long?

vondur 3y ago

I'm really excited for this. This company seems to be able to get these projects going.

walterbell 3y ago

https://laedc.org/2021/04/26/aerospace-space-force/ https://laedc.org/2021/04/26/aerospace-space-force/ > The federal government is increasingly embracing private business collaboration in its space missions, space-based projects and to power the new US Space Force as it ramps up in Los Angeles. This is creating a lot of activity and opportunity for LA-based aerospace companies. https://www.foxnews.com/tech/exclusive-inside-area-51-the-secret-birthplace-of-the-u2-spy-plane https://www.foxnews.com/tech/exclusive-inside-area-51-the-se... > Jacobsen, a contributing editor and investigative reporter at the Los Angeles Times Magazine, interviewed the former Area 51 employees in 2008 and 2009, shortly after the CIA declassified much of the work they had done.. Jacobsen reveals some of the wild research that went on in the 1970s at Area 51 -- where the military built the U-2 spy plane https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_51 > Area 51 is located in the southern portion of Nevada, 83 miles (134 km) north-northwest of Las Vegas.

pkage 3y ago
What does this have to do with high speed rail?
- walterbell 3y ago
  High speed rail can shorten commute between Los Angeles privately-funded aerospace and Las Vegas publicly-funded aerospace ecosystems, supporting commercialization that can benefit CA, NV and USA.

jessriedel 3y ago

> could zoom travelers between Las Vegas and Los Angeles in just under two hours by the end of the decade Just to be clear, this is to the "greater Los Angeles area", ending at Rancho Cucamonga station, a 48 minute drive (1h15m by public transit) to downtown LA, and a 1h15m drive (2h30m by public transit) to LAX.

qwerty456127 3y ago
Nice clue. If this was being built in Europe it would probably have a number of stops within the city area including opposite outskirts, the center and the airport.
- noirbot 3y ago
  Totally honest question - have there been recent expansions of train lines into cities in Europe? In the last 20 years? My default assumption right now is that this sort of grand construction is generally infeasible in countries outside of China where they generally don't care who they displace or the environmental damage, and often are building the cities from the ground up in the first place with the trains as a part of the urban planning. I've been peripheral to a few urban light/heavy rail expansion projects in the US and the consistent issue is that even cities with a lot of urban sprawl are still dense enough that you have to displace a lot of people/businesses to build a new line and the stations around it. It's the sort of thing that's a lot easier to do when the city is young, or the train line got built in an era where you could just force people to sell their houses and move. I'd be honestly curious if anywhere in the EU has managed to put in a totally net-new line like this outside of existing tracks that included a stop at the city center and various stops on the way into town. Almost every city-center train station I've ever been to in Europe was over 100 years old (even if the building had been upgraded) and seemingly using most of the same lines.
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    New rail lines get built all the time. The recipe is really simple: don't do megaprojects. Individual projects must be of appropriate size for the level of government that is making the decisions. When there are several projects of similar size in the pipeline all the time, the government can develop and maintain the expertise needed to build the infrastructure.

WaitWaitWha 3y ago

~~ Amtrak coast to coast starts at $4,299 per person, and takes 15 days.~~ What would be the cost of a high-speed rail version of this? EDIT: I stand corrected. I looked at the Coast to Coast "Vacation". https://www.amtrakvacations.com/trips/america-coast-to-coast https://www.amtrakvacations.com/trips/america-coast-to-coast

schoen 3y ago
Hmmm? I've taken Amtrak coast to coast and it took four days. Currently searching on amtrak.com (they don't seem to make PDF schedules anymore, sadly!): 449 Lake Shore Limited BOS - CHI 22 h 22 m 5 California Zephyr CHI - EMY 52 h 57 m Scheduled transfer time in Chicago Union Station is about 4 hours. So this should take a total of about 79 hours.
Larrikin 3y ago
Is there any country or international line on the entire planet that attempts to have a serious discussion about the merits of a 6-12 hour+ train ride versus flying? High speed trains reduce the need for any other form of transportation where someone could reasonably waste a full day in the car. Nobody is trying to justify a train trip over one of the widest countries in the world.
cjensen 3y ago
Your comment is entirely false. It takes just over 3 days to travel from the Bay Area to NYC. The price is $281 [1]. Now if you throw in some rooms, you are talking about first-class travel that includes all meals free. You need to consider how much money a few days of hotel and restaurants would cost, so the comparison is complex. Also the room cost is not really per-person unless you are traveling alone. [1] I looked up the price for June 11th.
- iancmceachern 3y ago
  I've ridden this line. It's important to note that that's 3 days in a coach seat. 3 days. The food is terrible, like truly terrible. We brought a bottle of Jack and had a decent enough time. Wouldn't choose it again.

phmqk76 3y ago

Awesome! Now I can drive an hour+ to Rancho Cucamonga, park, wait for the train, pay the equivalent of four plane tickets for my family, then take a 2 hour+ train ride, instead of driving for 4 hours from my house for the cost of half a tank of gas ($35). So cool!

mattfields 3y ago
Price of four plane tickets for your family? I don't know how much these rail tickets will cost, but I find the math on that to be unlikely. 4x plane tickets, assuming rock bottom minimum $60 a head to basically anywhere, $180-240... Hmm
- phmqk76 3y ago
  Amtrak from NYC to DC fluctuates in pricing but can be $35 each way, if booked booked far enough in advance. That’s about the same distance from Rancho Cucamonga to Las Vegas. So I think it’s a similar ballpark to a plane ticket.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    The real way to do this should be like Japan shinkansen, no floating pricing where you have to do some speculative game. Flat pricing + make ticket good for something like 2 weeks to ride whenever. If there was such predictability and flexibility, they'd immediately significantly increase their ridership. There's a dead reply below that says "shinkansen are cheaper when bought in advance" --- I was led to believe otherwise, good to know as I ride it a few times a year.
    - throwaway984393 3y ago
      [dead]
    - t0mas88 3y ago
      Commercial rail operations will try to maximise revenue, doing airline style pricing. Very visible in the UK where last minute or peak time train tickets are crazy expensive. (All their train lines are commercial) Compared to trains being run as a semi government provided utility, like the Netherlands, where pricing is flat based only on route. Makes the train a more relevant alternative, which helps with road congestion. But tax money is used to build railways and stations, the tickets only pay for operating the train itself.

1024core 3y ago

> When it’s completed, the train will travel at 186 miles per hour If China can push 286 mph in Shanghai, which means the tech exists, then why isn't this comparable? This is not snark; I am just curious what makes the Chinese train capable of such speeds, but the US train can't.

gs17 3y ago
According to the Wikipedia article about the train, it's now the same speed Brightline is targetting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train >After May 2021: >Cruising speed: 300 km/h (186 mph) >Average speed: 224 km/h (139 mph) (duration: 8 minutes and 10 seconds) The bigger issue is likely: >According to Chinese media's report, however, due to the huge costs of operating and the lack of the passenger flow, Shanghai Maglev Transportation Company would lose 500 million to 700 million RMB every year
supertrope 3y ago
I’m not fussed with top speeds. Average travel speed that takes into account waiting for the next departure is a more practical measure. A high speed train that stops in every town has a lower effective speed than the top speed suggests. A high speed train with hourly departures instead of every 30 or 15 min means you wait more. And of course high speed means higher cost. The average person is very price sensitive on transportation costs.
AngusH 3y ago
Are you thinking of the Shanghai maglev? It is pretty impressive and they're looking at building an extension. however oddly its operation speed has been significantly reduced from 268mph to 186mph. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_maglev_train The basic problem is that Maglev is on average more expensive to build and operate and cannot (unlike ordinary high speed rail trains) ever operate on ordinary (non high speed) rail track. It's also still pretty experimental, the Shanghai one is operational and high speed, all other operational systems are either low speed or experimental test beds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev Regular high speed rail is a fairly routine thing and all the parts are well understood.

ilrwbwrkhv 3y ago

This is amazing and I'm so so happy. Finally we will be competing with the best in a crucial infrastructure project.

vzaliva 3y ago

what does it mean "new track almost all in the median of Interstate 15"? Do they plan to run a train in the middle of highway? Is there is enough width there for a train?

bagels 3y ago
Yes https://maps.app.goo.gl/bU7Ut84EPpipnLqA6 https://maps.app.goo.gl/bU7Ut84EPpipnLqA6
missedthecue 3y ago
Does a drunk driver tearing across the median mean 20 hour delays while they clear the wreckage? Or are they going to barricade both sides of the tracks the entire way?
_xerces_ 3y ago
See the Silver Line on the DC Metro, and several other lines that run in highway medians. It is not a new thing.

labrador 3y ago

There's literally nothing productive about getting Southern Californians to Las Vegas faster

shiroiushi 3y ago
I agree, but if it made HSR more popular in the US, it could lead to more rail lines being built elsewhere, which would raise productivity.
lotsoweiners 3y ago
There is if you’re Las Vegas.
- labrador 3y ago
  A city built on losers residents will proudly tell you
MisterPea 3y ago
Vegas is the best destination for business conferences, but yes I agree with your point. The line connecting NorCal to SoCal is so much more productive that any other line being prioritized is crazy to me.

brabel 3y ago

Good stuff! I hope Americans start again to invest on cutting edge projects. In the last 30 or so years, all the really big projects happened in the Middle East and East Asia. You visit China, Singapore or Dubai and if feels like you step into the future.

bradhe 3y ago

Prediction: Project will take 10 years too long and results in a normal (non-high-speed) rail system connecting the two places that is too expensive for people to reasonably use.

pyrale 3y ago
Prediction: Project deadlines will have been shaved by salespeople and marketed as "high speed" when none of the requirements for it have been factored in the budget.
- theluketaylor 3y ago
  Brightline managed to deliver their Florida line pretty much on time and on budget. The only real challenging part of the route is going to be pass out of the inland empire where the I-15 grade is a really steep. The rest of the project is pretty straightforward, with rights of way already in place and very few expensive and complex grade crossings. They picked this city pair and route very carefully to have an excellent chance to succeed both on construction simplicity and ridership. I'm not sure they will actually open in time for the 2028 Olympics, but I wouldn't bet against 2029 operations. As for high speed, it won't be able to sustain true high speed rail velocity across the whole route (150mph / 250 kph), but it will be much faster than driving and there will be long stretches that are very high speed.
  - DoesntMatter22 3y ago
    Will be interesting to see how it goes as Florida makes these things pretty easy and California... doesnt
pembrook 3y ago
At least in this case one of the destinations could theoretically be visited without a car (assuming these are just tourists to the Vegas Strip). Whereas another certain California rail project literally transports you from [place you need car] to [place you need car]. Which I don’t think I need to explain why that is silly. The root cause of this is blue states often get Euro public transport envy — yet they don’t understand Europe has 3X the population density (and subsequent urbanization) of the US. Obviously public transport would start to make a lot more sense if you 3X’d the population in the same land area. IMO fetishizing the European way of life is a bit silly, given density comes with its own problems (ie nobody having kids). In fact, there was this German guy in the 1930s who led the killing of millions of people partly to get more “living space”, so European density does have its downsides for…shall we say…stability. In fact, Europe has roughly the same amount of people today as it had in 1939. Meanwhile the US has more than doubled.

PM_me_your_math 3y ago

[dead]

roody15 3y ago

The fact that this costs 12billion sums up a lot of what’s wrong in the US. Let’s be honest the project will take longer than expected and end up costing more than 12billion.

tzs 3y ago
$12 billion for 351 km is $34 million per km. France is planning a new 410 km high speed rail line between Paris and Lyon for €12 billion [1]. That's $11.2 billion at current exchange rates, giving $25 million per km. That seems to be a pretty normal price for high speed rail in Europe [2] for routes that don't need tunneling. So this US project is about 36% more expensive than a typical EU high speed rail project. Higher, but is it really enough higher to qualify for "what's wrong in the US"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_France#Under_Construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_France#Unde... [2] https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-rail-19-2018/en/ https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eca/special-reports/high-speed-r...
- karaterobot 3y ago
  It's also, according to the article, the "first true high-speed rail" in the U.S., so presumably there are fewer existing efficiencies to make use of. And, since it's a California project rather than a Federal project, I think that whatever happens would mostly reflect on California, rather than being proof of anything about the entire country one way or the other.
- roody15 3y ago
  Yes because you assume the final cost will be 12 billion and not 20 billion. Another real possibility is the project starts and gets engineering plans developed certified and on the shelf and 2 billion is spent getting things going… only to run into a snag and never get completed. (Google the high speed rail line from Iowa City to Chicago .. that was also fully funded .. and still 10 years later not a single mile of rail has been laid)

instagib 3y ago

2hrs 10min +50-75 minutes to east of LA is a distance but 4-5+ hours highly variable by driving is an interesting choice since you have a car at your destination. There is also going to be two intermediate stops in California at “Hesperia and one in Apple Valley.” (1) So, 3.5 hours or so for guessing $100 one way versus 4-5+ hours at $40 gas 30mpg 220miles by car vs 1hr 8 minutes gate to gate $21-$60 by air without including security for any options. They mentioned a metro link stop for LA but nothing about a plan for quite a ways off the strip in Las Vegas. Maybe a shuttle stop on the airport - car rental return loop. It’s going to be opposite the Las Vegas South Premium Outlets at Warmsprings rd and Las Vegas Blvd. I compare to Brightline’s other rail project from Miami to Orlando. Tickets $80-$300 for similar mileage. Their high speed rail ended up with 70mph to a record 130mph. https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/brightline-from-miami-to-orlando-how-much-do-tickets-cost-and-other-questions-on-the-new-service/3117086/ https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/brightline-from-miami-to... (1) https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2024/04/20/high-speed-rail-construction-california-las-vegas/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2024/04/20/high-speed-...

unstatusthequo 3y ago

Might be a better idea to address the water scarcity issue than blow $12B in cash on sending more people there from a major metro area. When Lake Mead is gone, what will Vegas do? I’m guessing it’s all about waiting until it’s critical and imminent and then a very costly, taxpayer funded solution will have to be slammed in place. Maybe it’s time to get serious about desalinization plants and get a pipeline to desert communities? They’ll sure as hell build an oil pipeline, so water should be an easy choice, right?

datavirtue 3y ago

Another bridge to nowhere. These rail projects suffer in isolation. Scaling doesn't seem palatable either.

kurthr 3y ago

Citynerd did a really good evaluation of the LA-LV Brightline total travel time with connections in the LA basin 4 months ago. His evaluation is that in some parts of LA it's roughly competitive with air travel (he actually looks at automobile/transit connections from Cheesecake factories?! to Caesar's Palace) and it beats car travel time in most parts of LA, but not by a lot. The problem is getting to the Brightline station since it's so far out from the middle of LA. https://youtu.be/11Noo855zyA https://youtu.be/11Noo855zyA

thegrim33 3y ago

It will cost more than the famously cost overrunned James Web Space Telescope, that was built over a period of 24 years, the largest and most advanced space telescope ever built, launched into the sun/earth L2 point a million miles from earth, to build a rail line between LA and Las Vegas?

vel0city 3y ago
There's a lot more material involved, for one. Several trains, hundreds of miles of rail, train stations, bridges, etc. Lots more environmental studies to be done. Lots more interests involved. How many private individuals had to be imminent domain'd for JWST? I imagine there will be more people employed building the rail, but overall lower average salaries.

ReptileMan 3y ago

Will be get it before nuclear fusion is the question?

lgleason 3y ago

More pork barrel spending, causing higher levels or debts and inflation.

sidcool 3y ago

If the cost high or OK? If it were executed by a highly motivated and efficient team, how long and how much would it cost?

dhosek 3y ago

It wouldn’t take that much more effort to extend the terminus a little further east down the 210 right of way to the 605 and then south into Orange County. And then, finally, we can fulfill the dream of a train to Anaheim, Azusa and CUC-amonga.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

novok 3y ago

This will be done before the SF <-> LA HSR even starts building rail lines properly.

dragonwriter 3y ago
CA HSR plans to start laying track Q3 of this year, so that’s a pretty aggressive prediction.
ashconnor 3y ago
That's because they are building it to Rancho Cucamonga not downtown LA.
- lmm 3y ago
  Which is to say they're being smart about it. LA is huge and sprawling, there's no guarantee that where you wanted to go was downtown. Build your HSR station somewhere on the metro network (and if it works out then just having the HSR station there will ultimately make it grow into a place worth going), let that take care of the rest.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > because they are building it to Rancho Cucamonga not downtown LA California's HSR is very far from last-mile connectivity being a problem, mostly due to the geometry of starting in the middle.
- andbberger 3y ago
  CAHSR phase 1 is merced to bakersfield and the current design for SF-LA throws in the towel on the last mile. if you think what they're doing now is silly, just wait until the laypeople get their hands on the altamont/pacheco palmdale/tehachapi discourse.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > CAHSR phase 1 is merced to Bakersfield CA HSR Phase 1 is SF to LA with a spur up to Merced. CA HSR Early Operating Segment is Merced to Bakersfield.

dheera 3y ago

Rancho Cucamonga is not Los Angeles. Victorville is not Los Angeles. How the hell are you supposed to get to Rancho Cucamonga without a car? For Las Vegas people going to LA, what the hell are you supposed to do when the train dumps you in the middle of Rancho Cucamonga? If you want real ridership, public transit in both LA and LV needs to be functional. Connect it to Union Station and LAX if you want some ridership. On the Las Vegas end make it stop smack in the middle of the strip. Otherwise this thing is useless. Also 125mph is not high speed rail. LA-LV in 2 hours + time spent getting to the train station + buffer time to avoid missing the train + long slow car rental line on the other end while 15 people ahead of you each have a chit chat with the one employee dealing with the rentals would be more time than just driving end to end. These people just don't get it. Try LA-LV in 1 hour and maybe we're talking. But really, fix public transit in both cities first.

jwkpiano1 3y ago
Metrolink goes right from Rancho Cucamonga to Union Station in about 75 minutes. Did you bother to check that before posting?
- lotsoweiners 3y ago
  How convenient.
focusgroup0 3y ago
>Connect it to Union Station and LAX if you want some ridership. FTA: >Brightline West [...] aims to lay 218 miles (351 kilometers) of new track almost all in the median of Interstate 15 between Las Vegas and Rancho Cucamonga, California. It would link there with a commuter rail connection to downtown Los Angeles
- Symbiote 3y ago
  I hope they can run a more frequent service, or at least alter the times to match up with the HSR, once service begins. It's currently only hourly after the morning, and doesn't run after 7pm. https://metrolinktrains.com/schedules/?type=station&originId=121&destinationId=107&weekend=0 https://metrolinktrains.com/schedules/?type=station&originId...

Log_out_ 3y ago

Having used public transport sitting near homeless people, can we segregate them offering a "free ride wagon"?

imjonse 3y ago
How about offering them free public housing so they better reintegrate?
- dudeinjapan 3y ago
  Free public transport is free public housing
tetris11 3y ago
having used the same for many years, the only issue is the smell (though I've smelled teens who were worse) I think if there were more free bathing facilities around, this would be a non-issue
- dudeinjapan 3y ago
  Its not just the smell--its harassment, ranting, screaming, and even violence. Women especially don't feel safe. These are people with serious mental illness.
bung 3y ago
"... with fares that will be comparable to airline ticket costs" I can only guess either you know homeless people that can afford such tickets, or you simply didn't RTFA. Nice positive attitude btw.
- Log_out_ 3y ago
  Guess it depends if you drive to work next to one or sit in a suburb suv trafficking c jam preaching

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

I can't wait for the return of private train cars. Imagine the casinos hitching up private cars to the Brightline, thereby improving their experience while subsidising everyone else.

satiric 3y ago
Private train cars never went away, as far as I'm aware. Amtrak has (always?) allowed folks to couple private cars to the end of their trains (for an eye-watering price, of course).
- cge 3y ago
  My understanding is that while they generally have, and there may be some form of legal requirement that they provide service to private cars, in the last six years or so Amtrak has been increasingly restrictive, with some suggesting that they are trying to make private cars practically infeasible to use. There seems to have been a battle between Amtrak and private car owners that started in 2018 [1], and it's unclear if there has been any resolution to that. [1]: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/28-amtrak-to-stop-operating-special-trains-charter-moves/ https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/28-amtrak-...
unstatusthequo 3y ago
Reminds me of Atlas Shrugged.
sofixa 3y ago
That's highly unlikely. High speed rail doesn't work like old school rail used to - you have full electric trainsets where all the cars are tightly coupled together (often even sharing bogies) so coupling/decoupling is only possible in a maintenance yard. Also, depending on the model, often all or at least many of the cars are also powered and provide distributed traction. Having branded luxury cars would be he fairly easy and could easily be a hit; private cars are unlikely to be feasible with your regular high speed electric multiple units.
- 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

lencastre 3y ago

Lo key disappointment that it is not maglev monorail cannon

Animats 3y ago

All so that people can gamble.

yieldcrv 3y ago
both cities and regions have massive gambling trade already, so, no.
mulmen 3y ago
There’s a lot more to Vegas than gambling.

andy800 3y ago

Hard to see this as anything other than big-time grift. This is estimated to be a $12B project. $6.5B raised so far: $3B grant and $3.5B in tax-exempt, "private activity" bonds. Does anyone actually think the rest will come from investors? Of course not, the government will see a half-finished project that it supported and provide the funding to finish the job, including the inevitable overruns. A private company receiving 6.5B (and likely, eventually $12+) of government money... no pressure or expectations to make any profit. Great deal if you can get it!

danielhep 3y ago
Why not invest? Brightline has done well in Florida.
- andy800 3y ago
  It lost $192 million in the first 9 months of 2023. $201 million same period of 2022. It also lowered its passenger forecast to Orlando from 7 to 5.5 million. https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/03/08/brightline-is-losing-money-but-orlando-leg-is-providing-a-big-boost/72813243007/ https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/03/08/brightli...
  - blackhawkC17 3y ago
    That's why I believe public infrastructure should be publicly-owned. It's rare to find a profitable metro system...it should be run by the government as a benefit for citizens, not as a business like Brightline.
    - missedthecue 3y ago
      If infrastructure isn't sustainable you're destroying value and making your citizens poorer.
      - blackhawkC17 3y ago

andbberger 3y ago

what negativity in this thread! this is the only tangible, hopeful HSR project in the country right now

_3u10 3y ago
Its usefulness is rivaled only by HS2. Honestly LA to LV is probably not bad it’s the right distance, it’s mostly desert so most of the HS2 issues will be avoided. If it’s actually high speed eg 200mph+ then I could see it working. Edit: oh it’s 100mph, and it stops 37 miles outside of LA. Should rename it HS3
- andbberger 3y ago
  it is bonafide high-speed rail. average speed is obviously lower.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]