Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 138 posts

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#21

Post by Sanddancer »

rtpg wrote: post #18
yummyfajitas wrote: post #5

I'm pretty sure the people calling it a boondoggle are correct. Obama included $3B in the 2009 stimulus package for it back in 2009. Not a single yard of track has been laid. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/high-speed-train-in-ca... http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/263782-obama-high-s... The project is hoped to finish in 2029, which is 12 years from now. For comparison, China build the Qinhuangdao–Sheny…

We also need to focus on the right problems. I know we all want fast trains, but if we're going through major cities we likely won't get that fast (unless we do like the Shinkansen and build the entire train on a 3-story platform). If we're willing to spend $50 billion, let's spend that on some slower trains that connect cities anyways. Maybe you don't do LA-SF, but giving higher inter-connectivity is good. What happ…

One of the problems is that the corridor in question is underserved in passenger rail right now. The only way to get between the two cities right now involves taking a train and a bus or two, because the rail company that owns the trackage between LA and Bakersfield doesn't want passenger trains running on it, and the rail company that owns the track between Ventura and San Jose would love to see passenger trains on that section of track halted as well. With such a hostile environment, it's difficult to build the interconnections that are needed for a modern rail system. Opening the Tehachapi Loop to passenger rail would be an alternative to a full passenger buildout, but you're never going to see BNSF agree to it.

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#22

Post by yummyfajitas »

Sanddancer wrote: post #19
yummyfajitas wrote: post #5

I'm pretty sure the people calling it a boondoggle are correct. Obama included $3B in the 2009 stimulus package for it back in 2009. Not a single yard of track has been laid. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/high-speed-train-in-ca... http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/263782-obama-high-s... The project is hoped to finish in 2029, which is 12 years from now. For comparison, China build the Qinhuangdao–Sheny…

There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California that the train in China didn't have to consider. For example, the high speed train in California also has to cross notoriously rugged mountain ranges. The Diablo Range has a smattering of two-lane roads winding through it because it's so difficult to build through the gnarled hills. In the south, the Sierra Pelona and…

Switzerland tunneled through the alps for $12B. The issue isn't engineering.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#23

Post by kurthr »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #13

It's a pity that the United States didn't embark on a concerted effort to build a high speed rail system back in the 1950s and 1960s, when we had more money and a smaller population. And fewer lawyers. Instead we wasted a couple trillion (adjusted for inflation) on Vietnam. Think what we could have done with that money not to mention thousands of lives saved. It seems to me that California's highway problem is one of…

Although I agree with your conclusions it's worth considering that Japan's bullet trains run 2000 passenger trains both directions every 3-5 minutes (That is very conservatively (2 passengers/car) 1000 cars every 5 miles with on 125ft spacing equivalent to a perfectly functioning 10 lane freeway.

More realistically (1 passenger/car) 2000 cars every 3 miles on 250ft spacing is equivalent to a 60 lane normal freeway.

For the air travel equivalent (much lower latency, but higher cost) you would need 1000 full 737-900 every hour (8000/day) compared to the total number of flights on California on a busy day, 3000.

If you build it, will they come?

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#25

Post by imjustsaying »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #5

I'm pretty sure the people calling it a boondoggle are correct. Obama included $3B in the 2009 stimulus package for it back in 2009. Not a single yard of track has been laid. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/high-speed-train-in-ca... http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/263782-obama-high-s... The project is hoped to finish in 2029, which is 12 years from now. For comparison, China build the Qinhuangdao–Sheny…

You are comparing California labor construction costs to the costs of third world laborers. What's the cost difference here; 10 to 1? Surely 5 to 1 at the least?

Then you gotta figure the cost of compliance with all the different bureaus and regulations that don't exist in China or India to make something like this happen in California.

And then there's the litigious cost amplifier that is another distinctly American feature.

This is the reality we live in.

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#26

Post by dmoy »

imjustsaying wrote: post #25
yummyfajitas wrote: post #5

I'm pretty sure the people calling it a boondoggle are correct. Obama included $3B in the 2009 stimulus package for it back in 2009. Not a single yard of track has been laid. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/high-speed-train-in-ca... http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/263782-obama-high-s... The project is hoped to finish in 2029, which is 12 years from now. For comparison, China build the Qinhuangdao–Sheny…

You are comparing California labor construction costs to the costs of third world laborers. What's the cost difference here; 10 to 1? Surely 5 to 1 at the least? Then you gotta figure the cost of compliance with all the different bureaus and regulations that don't exist in China or India to make something like this happen in California. And then there's the litigious cost amplifier that is another distinctly American…

Less than a tenth. The laborers in Beijing building subway lines are not pulling in that much. More like $4/hr.

Edit: original Parent post was taking about $100:$10, I'm agreeing and saying even less, more like $4/hr in Beijing.

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#27

Post by toomuchtodo »

Sanddancer wrote: post #21
rtpg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We also need to focus on the right problems. I know we all want fast trains, but if we're going through major cities we likely won't get that fast (unless we do like the Shinkansen and build the entire train on a 3-story platform). If we're willing to spend $50 billion, let's spend that on some slower trains that connect cities anyways. Maybe you don't do LA-SF, but giving higher inter-connectivity is good. What happ…

One of the problems is that the corridor in question is underserved in passenger rail right now. The only way to get between the two cities right now involves taking a train and a bus or two, because the rail company that owns the trackage between LA and Bakersfield doesn't want passenger trains running on it, and the rail company that owns the track between Ventura and San Jose would love to see passenger trains on…

Eminent Domain. Nationalize freight rail and lease it back at a reasonable rate.

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#28

Post by Sanddancer »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #22
Sanddancer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California that the train in China didn't have to consider. For example, the high speed train in California also has to cross notoriously rugged mountain ranges. The Diablo Range has a smattering of two-lane roads winding through it because it's so difficult to build through the gnarled hills. In the south, the Sierra Pelona and…

Switzerland tunneled through the alps for $12B. The issue isn't engineering. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

That's a single 35 mile tunnel, in a comparably geographically stable area. The high speed rail project would need essentially two of those, each of which would need to cross the San Andreas fault. Additionally, a substantial amount of the remaining amount of track would need to be newly laid, because the existing rail infrastructure in the area is already near capacity, and the freight companies are hostile to any sort of improvements to passenger infrastructure. Yes, some of the issue is political, but it is an immensely challenging engineering problem to work through.

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#29

Post by smallnamespace »

imjustsaying wrote: post #25
yummyfajitas wrote: post #5

I'm pretty sure the people calling it a boondoggle are correct. Obama included $3B in the 2009 stimulus package for it back in 2009. Not a single yard of track has been laid. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/us/high-speed-train-in-ca... http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/263782-obama-high-s... The project is hoped to finish in 2029, which is 12 years from now. For comparison, China build the Qinhuangdao–Sheny…

You are comparing California labor construction costs to the costs of third world laborers. What's the cost difference here; 10 to 1? Surely 5 to 1 at the least? Then you gotta figure the cost of compliance with all the different bureaus and regulations that don't exist in China or India to make something like this happen in California. And then there's the litigious cost amplifier that is another distinctly American…

You're missing one of the biggest costs, which is obtaining the right of way from existing property holders. There's plenty of prime real estate in California that the route would need to pass through, and every local community is going to try to negotiate the best deal along the route.

Re: The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train

#30

Post by 55555 »

hourislate wrote: post #17
antimatter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an embarrassment for the state and this country that we are unable to build something so trivial for other countries without such massive costs.

Maybe it's best that this doesn't happen because it will just turn into a boondoggle and the tax payers will be on the hook for it. It would make sense hiring a European or Asian country to come in and build it for us with 1/5 of the resources and in 1/3 the time. If a country like Switzerland can dig through solid granite for 35 miles under a mountain (Gotthard Base Tunnel) someone out there other than a US company…

I wouldnt want China or India to build it for us, but I would offer Japan, Germany, or Switzerland a premium.
Post reply on HN