4 ms·

I'll grant you Musk being terrible, no argument there, but that's not tech companies as a whole. And California hardly needed any help to sabotage its HSR, the

I'll grant you Musk being terrible, no argument there, but that's not tech companies as a whole. And California hardly needed any help to sabotage its HSR, the state's whole process for that kind of development is incredibly backwards and broken, sadly.

nemomarx 2mo ago
it's not really tech companies fault on this either but it sucks to see large amounts of investor money going to them when it could go to solving the issue more efficiently. (although obviously it would be less profitable for the investors so it won't happen) I think thats the core frustration
- s1artibartfast 2mo ago
  It all depends on the counterfactual. Could the money solve the problem, if the issues with transportation arent funding? It seems like an institutionally made black hole that will simply consume anything put into it. I dont think flooding it with more money will fix that problem. Investors have poured about 10 billion into waymo prior to 2026. That could only have paid for about 5 to 7 miles of urban light rail given recent project costs in Seattle, San Francisco, or New York. And that's if you completely ignore the challenge around who has the money and assume the state can just collect extra taxes without discontent or impacts
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    What if investors poured 9 billion into making light rail cheaper, and then 1 billion into light rail? Where would we be then? Other countries don't spend 2 billion dollars a mile. Hire the best engineers from Europe and Asia.
    - my123 2mo ago
      A big chunk of the problem is planning/political: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland) > A March 2025 report by the Maryland comptroller's office found that permitting and legal fees for the project, originally budgeted at $6 million, had actually consumed roughly $800 million, thanks to two lawsuits and the contract renegotiations Better tech cannot solve that on its own, the problem is not even there.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        That's still only 3% of the money per track length that we're talking about here.
        tetromino_ 2mo ago
        My guess is that the indirect impact might have been in the tens of %. One of the biggest (if not the biggest) reasons for enormous construction costs is delays which make an efficient construction timetable impossible, and two lawsuits of course result in a long and enormously unpredictable delay.
    - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
      Like the sibling said, It is mostly legal and political gridlock, not engineering. They would have to put that 9 billion into a political takeover of the US government, a major rewriting of environmental and property laws, and silencing/steamrolling opposing interest groups. This is a pretty tall order.
      - inigyou 2mo ago
        They managed it for AI. How much did it cost for AI?
        s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        Humm, interesting idea to compare and contrast the two changes? I dont think AI cost much at all because politicians were largely supportive to begin with, and the legal changes were small if any. It would be different if you had to replace them all or change their mind on a deeply held issue.

nemomarx 2mo ago

it's not really tech companies fault on this either but it sucks to see large amounts of investor money going to them when it could go to solving the issue more efficiently. (although obviously it would be less profitable for the investors so it won't happen) I think thats the core frustration

s1artibartfast 2mo ago
It all depends on the counterfactual. Could the money solve the problem, if the issues with transportation arent funding? It seems like an institutionally made black hole that will simply consume anything put into it. I dont think flooding it with more money will fix that problem. Investors have poured about 10 billion into waymo prior to 2026. That could only have paid for about 5 to 7 miles of urban light rail given recent project costs in Seattle, San Francisco, or New York. And that's if you completely ignore the challenge around who has the money and assume the state can just collect extra taxes without discontent or impacts
- inigyou 2mo ago
  What if investors poured 9 billion into making light rail cheaper, and then 1 billion into light rail? Where would we be then? Other countries don't spend 2 billion dollars a mile. Hire the best engineers from Europe and Asia.
  - my123 2mo ago
    A big chunk of the problem is planning/political: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Line_(Maryland) > A March 2025 report by the Maryland comptroller's office found that permitting and legal fees for the project, originally budgeted at $6 million, had actually consumed roughly $800 million, thanks to two lawsuits and the contract renegotiations Better tech cannot solve that on its own, the problem is not even there.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      That's still only 3% of the money per track length that we're talking about here.
      - tetromino_ 2mo ago
        My guess is that the indirect impact might have been in the tens of %. One of the biggest (if not the biggest) reasons for enormous construction costs is delays which make an efficient construction timetable impossible, and two lawsuits of course result in a long and enormously unpredictable delay.
  - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
    Like the sibling said, It is mostly legal and political gridlock, not engineering. They would have to put that 9 billion into a political takeover of the US government, a major rewriting of environmental and property laws, and silencing/steamrolling opposing interest groups. This is a pretty tall order.
    - inigyou 2mo ago
      They managed it for AI. How much did it cost for AI?
      - s1artibartfast 2mo ago
        Humm, interesting idea to compare and contrast the two changes? I dont think AI cost much at all because politicians were largely supportive to begin with, and the legal changes were small if any. It would be different if you had to replace them all or change their mind on a deeply held issue.