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

41–50 of 138 posts

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

#41

Post by kalleboo »

timr wrote: post #37
scentedmeat wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree that comparing China to California in terms of large scale engineering works is comparing apples to oranges (guess which is which). I disagree (kind of) on the following: > There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California Japan is a mountainous, earthquake prone country, and they seem to have figured it out. The biggest problem geography-wise is probab…

"Japan is a mountainous, earthquake prone country, and they seem to have figured it out." Japan's high-speed trains also cost a hell of a lot more than the OP is talking about. The Chuo Shinkansen will cost around $51 billion for a 286km train (i.e. half the distance from SF to LA). The Hokuriku Shinkansen was much cheaper, but still 10x more expensive ($18 billion) than the Chinese line. [1] Both make the LA-SF line…

The Chuo Shinkansen is a very special kind of expensive, since something like 80% of that 268 km is going to be tunnels they have to drill. It works well to illustrate the point that you need some more nuance to compare costs.

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

#42

Post by billions »

Sanddancer wrote: post #28
yummyfajitas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Relative to past engineering challenges, this represents a drop in the bucket. There is sufficient precedent to be able to emulate existing solutions for all portions of the track. Compare that to engineering accomplishments of the 20th century that had to be designed from scratch: the Itaipu dam, Panama canal or the US highway system.

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

#43

Post by timr »

kalleboo wrote: post #41
timr wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Japan is a mountainous, earthquake prone country, and they seem to have figured it out." Japan's high-speed trains also cost a hell of a lot more than the OP is talking about. The Chuo Shinkansen will cost around $51 billion for a 286km train (i.e. half the distance from SF to LA). The Hokuriku Shinkansen was much cheaper, but still 10x more expensive ($18 billion) than the Chinese line. [1] Both make the LA-SF line…

The Chuo Shinkansen is a very special kind of expensive, since something like 80% of that 268 km is going to be tunnels they have to drill. It works well to illustrate the point that you need some more nuance to compare costs.

Yes, granted. But again, the Hokuriku line was "normal", and was still 10x the cost of the Chinese line.

The point of citing both was definitely to show that you can have a pretty large variance in costs, even if you're the world expert in building these things in earthquake-prone areas.

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

#44

Post by kalleboo »

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…

What also happens in Japan is that the train company owns that land, the mall, and maybe a couple apartment buildings nearby, so that they have an interest both in people riding the train and shopping at the mall (so e.g. the train company has an incentive to keep fares low enough to keep shoppers coming).

A significant portion of Japanese train companies' income comes from retail real estate.

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

#45

Post by maxxxxx »

rjeli wrote: post #20
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…

I am reminded of Thiel's op ed in the Wapo[0]: "Our government used to get things done [..] Our newest fighter jet has already been under development for more than 15 years and it costs more than 15 times as much as the Manhattan Project (adjusted for inflation), but last year it lost a dogfight to a plane from the 1970s [..] Instead of spending a fortune, Trump won the primaries by saying things that made sense to v…

That's the problem. There has been so much propaganda about the impossibility of government to do anything right that people don't even try to run an efficient government. But they also don't try to shrink it so money just gets wasted. This happens with healthcare, defense and infrastructure.

I think this may get even worse with Trump. During Bush's the Republicans just cut taxes while spending a lot of money on war so I would expect the same to happen again. People like Paul Ryan only turned into deficit hawks when Obama became president. They will probably forget the deficit now that they are in power.

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

#46

Post by Frondo »

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…

They did that in Portland (I used to live there). They built the MAX line out to the airport, and put an Ikea and an outdoor shopping center there, and it was frickin awesome. People would even haul stuff from Ikea on the MAX!

Everywhere they built the MAX line, shops and commerce would spring up around it.

Of course, there's still a small, incredibly vocal contingent who opposes public transit no matter what.

Happily, they were able to keep extending the MAX in different directions despite that small, vocal opposition.

Portland got a lot wrong, especially with the homeless, but their public transit is just great.

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

#47

Post by billions »

ubernostrum wrote: post #40
labrador wrote: post #35

As a California usually in favor of all sorts of new technologies and futuristic projects, I am totally opposed to building this train system. The air travel infrastructure is already in place and could work even better with an investment of a fraction of the $64B. Airplanes don't need expensive rails to ride on in the sky. What's better about getting into a coach of a train and rolling on the ground over getting in…

If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Most of the cost of air travel is hidden in places you don't think about, and might surprise you if you knew how much it added up to (or how much tax money -- in the US, around $300 million per year currently, and around $9m/year of it in Californi…

Per your numbers 64B / 9m per year = 7 thousand years California could continue subsidizing those air routes for the cost of the track. Can't you see the disparity in cost?

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

billions wrote: post #47
ubernostrum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Most of the cost of air travel is hidden in places you don't think about, and might surprise you if you knew how much it added up to (or how much tax money -- in the US, around $300 million per year currently, and around $9m/year of it in Californi…

Per your numbers 64B / 9m per year = 7 thousand years California could continue subsidizing those air routes for the cost of the track. Can't you see the disparity in cost?

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by ubernostrum »

billions wrote: post #47
ubernostrum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Most of the cost of air travel is hidden in places you don't think about, and might surprise you if you knew how much it added up to (or how much tax money -- in the US, around $300 million per year currently, and around $9m/year of it in Californi…

Per your numbers 64B / 9m per year = 7 thousand years California could continue subsidizing those air routes for the cost of the track. Can't you see the disparity in cost?

That's to keep service on a few routes that get direct subsidies. That's not the cost of running the entire airport and air-travel infrastructure in the state, which also runs on a lot of direct or indirect taxes. And it's not the cost of building out that infrastructure in the first place.

And I suspect that when you add it up you'll find that $64B is not much money compared to what having a well-developed air-travel network costs, and in fact this sort of argument is precisely the point people make when they argue for building out better rail service along major corridors: the cost seems steep when someone presents you with the bill up-front, but we routinely pay and have paid bills just as high or higher for things that we'd now yell and scream about if they got taken away.

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

#50

Post by kalleboo »

labrador wrote: post #35

As a California usually in favor of all sorts of new technologies and futuristic projects, I am totally opposed to building this train system. The air travel infrastructure is already in place and could work even better with an investment of a fraction of the $64B. Airplanes don't need expensive rails to ride on in the sky. What's better about getting into a coach of a train and rolling on the ground over getting in…

One problem with domestic air travel in the U.S. in particular is all the dead time in getting to the airport, security, boarding. In comparison, here in Japan you can show up at the airport 20 minutes before your departure time with no problems. If you didn't book a ticket in advance, make it 30 minutes to get a ticket from a vending machine. It really is an air-BUS.

The question is what kind of security theater will end up applied to high-speed rail in the U.S.

Post reply on HN