7 ms·

$100 billion for 463 miles of track is outrageous, and that's surely to double by the time it's completed. In 1964, Japan was able to build its 320 mile long Sh

$100 billion for 463 miles of track is outrageous, and that's surely to double by the time it's completed. In 1964, Japan was able to build its 320 mile long Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka in just 5 years for less than $12B, inflation adjusted.

bsimpson 2y ago
New York has the most famous mafia, but it does seem like Americans have just accepted that all our urban infrastructure construction is rife with corruption. See also the Central Subway in SF, the Big Dig in Boston, and the general perception that anything infrastructure related will cost infinity dollars and approximately never be completed.
- pokepim 2y ago
  American exceptionalism
- lazide 2y ago
  It’s largely a factor of all this being ‘nice to have’, no one having a reason to cut through the BS, combined with an outrage driven media/culture. Because let’s be serious - California doesn’t actually need high speed rail. No one sane wants, or needs, to rock the boat - especially since doing so just gets a giant eye of Sauron pointed at them. Extra bonus? Turning the crank endlessly on this while everyone complains gets them rich.
  - 0_____0 2y ago
    Do we really need airports? Or paved roads for that matter? Hell, Vermont gets by just fine with dirt roads, and they're better to drive on than many roads in CA. Also HSR is something that a large contingent of people in CA have been kvetching about for decades, not sure your "everyone is afraid to say anything" holds water here.
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      > have been kvetching about Yeah but they don't want this bullshit route. They want to go from LA to SF and MAYBE go through Santa Barbara, or go to Las Vegas or San Diego. Plus, Even with inflation, it's super cheap to fly from SF to LA. Who is going to pay more than airfare to go between those two cities in a longer amount of time?
      - gedy 2y ago
        SF to LA through 101 corridor would have been a smart move for commuters and new housing areas
        lazide 2y ago
        Yes, that is the case, but the extra stops also screw with the ‘longer high speed rail’ case. It’s tricky. Having one stop which transfer people to a slower parallel line might work better for that. (Also the Japanese approach) Stopping burns a lot of energy and time.
    - lazide 2y ago
      When did I say ‘everyone is afraid to say anything’? Everyone kvetches about everything in California. I said folks are afraid to cut through the BS - by telling people with less important kvetching to sit down and shut up. Because if they do, the how dare they outrage will follow them around forever and make their life hell. You know, so it can be built now, and actually solve a problem, instead of it costing 50x times more than is reasonable and be done decades from now. Because let’s get real - people have been kvetching while driving their cars on I5 and flying for decades, and even with this approval will continue to do so for at least a decade more. And will likely kvetch about how it sucks and that is why they don’t use it later.
      - Zambyte 2y ago
        > When did I say ‘everyone is afraid to say anything’? > No one sane wants, or needs, to rock the boat That's generally what this idiom means. What did you mean?
kjkjadksj 2y ago
I’m surprised that you are surprised that there is a difference in both property and labor costs between a japan 19 years post allied strategic bombing and present day california.
- kortilla 2y ago
  Im surprised you think the issue is labor and land costs.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    What would you peg it on then? Profiteering subcontractors? I’d file that under labor.
    - hooo 2y ago
      Why don't we have foreign workers temporarily come and do this cheaply then?
      - kingkawn 2y ago
        Pay what it costs for people to live good lives
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Labor for public projects is so messed up that we basically can’t build anything without paying 10-100x what China would pay to do it. Eventually we simply get economically outcompeted, or maybe we invent robots to make the projects feasible again.
        fransje26 2y ago
        > or maybe we invent robots to make the projects feasible again. In the introductory, "disruption" phase it will come in at about half the current cost. Then, once the current market and expertise has been destroyed, they can rack-in maximum profit by jacking up their prices, with added, predatory inconveniences, such as "cleaning costs".
martinald 2y ago
This line will last for 100+ years - I really don't think it's that much for a state with a GDP of $3trillion+ to connect many of the major cities. The other thing to think about is what is the alternative - road or airport construction in california is not cheap. Replacing 2 bridges on I-5 in stockton is going to cost nearly $1b alone. And I think a lot of the benefit won't just come from the main SF LA route, it'll be intermediate stations to SF or LA too. It'll only take 19 minutes to go from Palmdale to LA for example - compared with 1hr+ now. In a way it would have been better to have the IOS be one of those routes, but they are also the most difficult geography.
- throwawaymaths 2y ago
  > it'll be intermediate stations to SF or LA too. It'll only take 19 minutes to go from Palmdale to LA Is there evidence that people will want to pay the high price of such a train ticket... And then what, once you're in LA? The last mile problem in LA and San Francisco (mind you HSR is not currently planned to enter the city, and BART is insanely expensive) is real.
  - TaylorAlexander 2y ago
    BART is insanely expensive? I went from Oakland to San Francisco last night for $4.70, which is cheaper than the bridge toll. I don’t know if that’s expensive compared to other systems, but it’s totally fine by my standards. It might be a lot for a poor person though, hopefully they have some discount programs for those who need it.
    - throwawaymaths 2y ago
      The bridge toll is also one way, and if you're poor, you likely won't have such easy access to those programs (which is a lot of paperwork anyways) on the other side of rail (LA resident accessing SF e.g.). And if Amtrak is any indicator, the HSR will be more expensive than planes anyways.
  - jwagenet 2y ago
    I don’t know where the HSR is expected to stop, in or near SF (although last I heard was the Caltrain corridor to 4th and King), but Bart is neither especially expensive if only travelling on the peninsula, nor is it the primary transit for SF (Muni).
jonathankoren 2y ago
There’s no single answer to why infrastructure is ludicrously expensive in the United States. It’s too easy to delay, so the costs go up. (Especially in California with its multiple rounds of public feedback.) Laws requiring American contractors, mean no one has experience building large complex projects, so things get delayed. Add in contractors along every link in the chain charging a government job premium, and the fact that government agencies have been gutted so whose left is easily bamboozled by the private grifters, or forced to hire expensive consultants to do jobs that used be done more cheaply in house, it’s no wonder everything is expensive. It’s simultaneously too much regulation, and too little government oversight. https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs-america https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs...
shiroiushi 2y ago
>In 1964, Japan was able to build its 320 mile long Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka in just 5 years for less than $12B, inflation adjusted. Another important factor here is the cost of construction: the California project will all be above-ground, AFAIK. However, a significant portion of the Tokaido line between Tokyo and Osaka is through tunnels, so the difficulty of construction was far greater. For a more apples-to-apples comparison, Japan is currently building the [Chuo Shinkansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen) line between Tokyo and Nagoya (286km/178mi), which will be a 505km/h maglev train that's 90% underground, as they have to tunnel through various mountains. It's projected to be finished in about a decade I think. Current costs have risen from the initial projection, and are at about 7 trillion yen for the first leg (Shinagawa to Nagoya), which at the current exchange rate is about USD$44B. But remember, that's about 160 miles of tunnels through mountains, plus all the rolling stock (which doesn't actually roll LOL), including the deepest tunnel in the country, and a line which isn't even conventional rail, it's a maglev track. By comparison, California is spending all that money on an above-ground train, in a place with excellent weather, using the same rail technology Japan was using 50+ years ago.
guywithahat 2y ago
Or more recently, Brightline built a private high speed rail in Florida for $5 billion, spanning 170 miles. It’s hard to imagine a plausible reason this should cost 100 billion, especially given the fact they already have Amtrak rail running through California
- instagib 2y ago
  “High speed” ended up being about 70mph. Max of 77mph in Florida.
  - fransje26 2y ago
    > Max of 77mph in Florida. Not exactly what can be found on Wikipedia. [0] The article reads: Orlando-Cocoa: 125 mph (200 km/h) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline
    - instagib 2y ago
      They have made some changes to combat the negative press but still wrong. Orlando to Miami 236 miles. Time listed on Wikipedia 210min or 3.5hrs. 236/3.5=67mph. Many previous articles complained of slow speeds but they are listing unloaded speeds or something. Speeds to Miami: West palm beach 54-60mph Boca Raton: 60mph Fort Lauderdale: 60mph Aventura: 67mph
      - fransje26 2y ago
        > Orlando to Miami 236 miles. Time listed on Wikipedia 210min or 3.5hrs. 236/3.5=67mph. As an average speed, that is of course correct. But that includes 6 stops along the way, as well as the time needed to enter and exit the stations before being back on high-speed tracks, and the time needed to decelerate/accelerate. So that doesn't preclude a top speed of 125 mph on some portions of the track. Ideally you would want a high-speed train on dedicated track, with dedicated stations, and few stops, as done in France, for example. You can choose to have train connections from stations inside city centers, as done in Germany, but than you will loose a lot of time actually getting to these stations, and consequently have a substantial lower average traveling speed.
fransje26 2y ago
Current tracks are still being built for roughly the same cost. Your Japanese example comes in at about $23 million/km built. I was recently looking at the costs of the Paris-Strasbourg line (opened in 2016), which cost €5.15B for 406 km of track, so about €13 million/km.

bsimpson 2y ago

New York has the most famous mafia, but it does seem like Americans have just accepted that all our urban infrastructure construction is rife with corruption. See also the Central Subway in SF, the Big Dig in Boston, and the general perception that anything infrastructure related will cost infinity dollars and approximately never be completed.

pokepim 2y ago
American exceptionalism
lazide 2y ago
It’s largely a factor of all this being ‘nice to have’, no one having a reason to cut through the BS, combined with an outrage driven media/culture. Because let’s be serious - California doesn’t actually need high speed rail. No one sane wants, or needs, to rock the boat - especially since doing so just gets a giant eye of Sauron pointed at them. Extra bonus? Turning the crank endlessly on this while everyone complains gets them rich.
- 0_____0 2y ago
  Do we really need airports? Or paved roads for that matter? Hell, Vermont gets by just fine with dirt roads, and they're better to drive on than many roads in CA. Also HSR is something that a large contingent of people in CA have been kvetching about for decades, not sure your "everyone is afraid to say anything" holds water here.
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    > have been kvetching about Yeah but they don't want this bullshit route. They want to go from LA to SF and MAYBE go through Santa Barbara, or go to Las Vegas or San Diego. Plus, Even with inflation, it's super cheap to fly from SF to LA. Who is going to pay more than airfare to go between those two cities in a longer amount of time?
    - gedy 2y ago
      SF to LA through 101 corridor would have been a smart move for commuters and new housing areas
      - lazide 2y ago
        Yes, that is the case, but the extra stops also screw with the ‘longer high speed rail’ case. It’s tricky. Having one stop which transfer people to a slower parallel line might work better for that. (Also the Japanese approach) Stopping burns a lot of energy and time.
  - lazide 2y ago
    When did I say ‘everyone is afraid to say anything’? Everyone kvetches about everything in California. I said folks are afraid to cut through the BS - by telling people with less important kvetching to sit down and shut up. Because if they do, the how dare they outrage will follow them around forever and make their life hell. You know, so it can be built now, and actually solve a problem, instead of it costing 50x times more than is reasonable and be done decades from now. Because let’s get real - people have been kvetching while driving their cars on I5 and flying for decades, and even with this approval will continue to do so for at least a decade more. And will likely kvetch about how it sucks and that is why they don’t use it later.
    - Zambyte 2y ago
      > When did I say ‘everyone is afraid to say anything’? > No one sane wants, or needs, to rock the boat That's generally what this idiom means. What did you mean?

kjkjadksj 2y ago

I’m surprised that you are surprised that there is a difference in both property and labor costs between a japan 19 years post allied strategic bombing and present day california.

kortilla 2y ago
Im surprised you think the issue is labor and land costs.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  What would you peg it on then? Profiteering subcontractors? I’d file that under labor.
  - hooo 2y ago
    Why don't we have foreign workers temporarily come and do this cheaply then?
    - kingkawn 2y ago
      Pay what it costs for people to live good lives
      - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        Labor for public projects is so messed up that we basically can’t build anything without paying 10-100x what China would pay to do it. Eventually we simply get economically outcompeted, or maybe we invent robots to make the projects feasible again.
        fransje26 2y ago
        > or maybe we invent robots to make the projects feasible again. In the introductory, "disruption" phase it will come in at about half the current cost. Then, once the current market and expertise has been destroyed, they can rack-in maximum profit by jacking up their prices, with added, predatory inconveniences, such as "cleaning costs".

martinald 2y ago

This line will last for 100+ years - I really don't think it's that much for a state with a GDP of $3trillion+ to connect many of the major cities. The other thing to think about is what is the alternative - road or airport construction in california is not cheap. Replacing 2 bridges on I-5 in stockton is going to cost nearly $1b alone. And I think a lot of the benefit won't just come from the main SF LA route, it'll be intermediate stations to SF or LA too. It'll only take 19 minutes to go from Palmdale to LA for example - compared with 1hr+ now. In a way it would have been better to have the IOS be one of those routes, but they are also the most difficult geography.

throwawaymaths 2y ago
> it'll be intermediate stations to SF or LA too. It'll only take 19 minutes to go from Palmdale to LA Is there evidence that people will want to pay the high price of such a train ticket... And then what, once you're in LA? The last mile problem in LA and San Francisco (mind you HSR is not currently planned to enter the city, and BART is insanely expensive) is real.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  BART is insanely expensive? I went from Oakland to San Francisco last night for $4.70, which is cheaper than the bridge toll. I don’t know if that’s expensive compared to other systems, but it’s totally fine by my standards. It might be a lot for a poor person though, hopefully they have some discount programs for those who need it.
  - throwawaymaths 2y ago
    The bridge toll is also one way, and if you're poor, you likely won't have such easy access to those programs (which is a lot of paperwork anyways) on the other side of rail (LA resident accessing SF e.g.). And if Amtrak is any indicator, the HSR will be more expensive than planes anyways.
- jwagenet 2y ago
  I don’t know where the HSR is expected to stop, in or near SF (although last I heard was the Caltrain corridor to 4th and King), but Bart is neither especially expensive if only travelling on the peninsula, nor is it the primary transit for SF (Muni).

jonathankoren 2y ago

There’s no single answer to why infrastructure is ludicrously expensive in the United States. It’s too easy to delay, so the costs go up. (Especially in California with its multiple rounds of public feedback.) Laws requiring American contractors, mean no one has experience building large complex projects, so things get delayed. Add in contractors along every link in the chain charging a government job premium, and the fact that government agencies have been gutted so whose left is easily bamboozled by the private grifters, or forced to hire expensive consultants to do jobs that used be done more cheaply in house, it’s no wonder everything is expensive. It’s simultaneously too much regulation, and too little government oversight. https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs-america https://www.vox.com/22534714/rail-roads-infrastructure-costs...

shiroiushi 2y ago

>In 1964, Japan was able to build its 320 mile long Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka in just 5 years for less than $12B, inflation adjusted. Another important factor here is the cost of construction: the California project will all be above-ground, AFAIK. However, a significant portion of the Tokaido line between Tokyo and Osaka is through tunnels, so the difficulty of construction was far greater. For a more apples-to-apples comparison, Japan is currently building the [Chuo Shinkansen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen) line between Tokyo and Nagoya (286km/178mi), which will be a 505km/h maglev train that's 90% underground, as they have to tunnel through various mountains. It's projected to be finished in about a decade I think. Current costs have risen from the initial projection, and are at about 7 trillion yen for the first leg (Shinagawa to Nagoya), which at the current exchange rate is about USD$44B. But remember, that's about 160 miles of tunnels through mountains, plus all the rolling stock (which doesn't actually roll LOL), including the deepest tunnel in the country, and a line which isn't even conventional rail, it's a maglev track. By comparison, California is spending all that money on an above-ground train, in a place with excellent weather, using the same rail technology Japan was using 50+ years ago.

guywithahat 2y ago

Or more recently, Brightline built a private high speed rail in Florida for $5 billion, spanning 170 miles. It’s hard to imagine a plausible reason this should cost 100 billion, especially given the fact they already have Amtrak rail running through California

instagib 2y ago
“High speed” ended up being about 70mph. Max of 77mph in Florida.
- fransje26 2y ago
  > Max of 77mph in Florida. Not exactly what can be found on Wikipedia. [0] The article reads: Orlando-Cocoa: 125 mph (200 km/h) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline
  - instagib 2y ago
    They have made some changes to combat the negative press but still wrong. Orlando to Miami 236 miles. Time listed on Wikipedia 210min or 3.5hrs. 236/3.5=67mph. Many previous articles complained of slow speeds but they are listing unloaded speeds or something. Speeds to Miami: West palm beach 54-60mph Boca Raton: 60mph Fort Lauderdale: 60mph Aventura: 67mph
    - fransje26 2y ago
      > Orlando to Miami 236 miles. Time listed on Wikipedia 210min or 3.5hrs. 236/3.5=67mph. As an average speed, that is of course correct. But that includes 6 stops along the way, as well as the time needed to enter and exit the stations before being back on high-speed tracks, and the time needed to decelerate/accelerate. So that doesn't preclude a top speed of 125 mph on some portions of the track. Ideally you would want a high-speed train on dedicated track, with dedicated stations, and few stops, as done in France, for example. You can choose to have train connections from stations inside city centers, as done in Germany, but than you will loose a lot of time actually getting to these stations, and consequently have a substantial lower average traveling speed.

fransje26 2y ago

Current tracks are still being built for roughly the same cost. Your Japanese example comes in at about $23 million/km built. I was recently looking at the costs of the Paris-Strasbourg line (opened in 2016), which cost €5.15B for 406 km of track, so about €13 million/km.