The hunt for dollars to build the $64B bullet train • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by billions » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 7:23 AM UTC

WillPostForFood wrote: post #36

martinald wrote: post #2

I really hope this project gets built. It will be such a huge boost for California. In the longer term it will be completely essential and people will wonder how the state functioned without it. It would massively increased the bay area's effective commuting area too.

How is it essential? It does nothing for the real transit issues in California, which is urban/suburban commuter traffic. There is no particular need for high speed rail between SF and LA - that need is served by air travel and the 5.

And who wants to commute to Bakersfield?

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

#52

Post by akiselev » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 7:27 AM UTC

wycx wrote: post #38

akiselev wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue isn't engineering, it's the cost and amount of labor. It can be significantly cheaper to tunnel through a mountain range in an almost straight line than to build on top of one. Once you've started digging into the mountain, you just keep digging and building the tunnel. Barring any maintenance and additional surveys, there is little interruption and the overhead costs can be amortized over the entire length…

I do not think US mineral rights are much of an issue. Australia has similar, or perhaps worse problems with high cost intercity high speed rail. Every time a Sydney to Melbourne fast train is investigated, cost estimates are among the highest in the world per kilometer, without the challenging geography of California. I suspect some form of rent seeking (or likely multiple layers of rent seeking) is part of the prob…

They're not an issue if you're not building a tunnel. My point is that in Switzerland and most European countries they're not a problem even if you are. Although all infrastructure projects in western countries are subject to rent seeking and NIMBYism that drive up their costs, the degree of rent seeking depends on the state/province/country and project complexity.

Much of the relevant land in the mountainous parts of the Western US is owned by the federal government so I'm talking mostly about the actual construction costs. Unfortunately, the high speed rail is useless without tracks to and from the mountain sections so the cost of obtaining right of way still matters. From my understanding, the Swiss tunnel is an extension of an existing network, so the 36 miles of tunnel didn't depend on lots of new above ground construction and the risk that comes with it.

For example, the interstate 70 expansion through the Rocky mountains that connected the western and eastern halves of Colorado cost $800 million per mile for 12 miles, even though all of the land was already owned by state and federal governments. There was little opposition, it was badly needed, and the project went very well (winning several awards) but it still cost over 40 times more than initially predicted because it turned out that building a massive highway through the Rockies was a lot harder than anyone had thought.

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

#53

Post by DrScump » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 7:36 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #46

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…

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. Happil…

There are other opinions:

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/05/28/portland-or-lrt-is-c...

They quote an operational farebox recovery rate of less than 28%, so taxpayers are subsidizing almost 3/4 of the operational cost plus all of the fixed costs and construction.

(As disappointing as that it, it's still over 8 times better than VTA in the San Jose area!)

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

#54

Post by DrScump » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 7:38 AM UTC

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…

  doesn't want passenger trains running on it

I think "can prioritize freight over passenger rail when schedules conflict" is a fairer description.

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

#55

Post by hyeonwho2 » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 7:48 AM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #23

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.…

While that density is impressive, Japan is the only place where that density happens. Here in Korea, we generously run a train only every twenty minutes on the Seoul-Busan corridor. I would argue that this is much higher than what is likely to be attained in California, as both Seoul and Busan have well-developed public transit infrastructure and a comparatively low rate of car ownership, which reduces the burden on riders at both ends.

(Even ignoring the TSA, 6B in ridership fees to be made up, and general messiness of American commuters.)

So now your 1300 passengers, generously, are spread out over 20 miles of freeway, instead of three.

(2600 passengers/20 miles) * (1 car / passenger) * (250 lane-ft/car) * (1 mile/5280ft) = 6.1 lanes.

Now, that was assuming one passenger per car. Add a single bus per mile-lane (seated passengers only) and this drops to four lanes. With self-driving cars and more busses, you could safely add only a single dedicated self-driving car lane and a sigle dedicated bus lane in each direction, and still have room to increase "ridership". For the price, I think that is ridiculous.

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

#56

Post by Frondo » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 7:53 AM UTC

DrScump wrote: post #53

Frondo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Happil…

There are other opinions: http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/05/28/portland-or-lrt-is-c... They quote an operational farebox recovery rate of less than 28%, so taxpayers are subsidizing almost 3/4 of the operational cost plus all of the fixed costs and construction. (As disappointing as that it, it's still over 8 times better than VTA in the San Jose area!)

In 2015, TriMet's farebox recovery ratio was 39.1%.

Funnily enough, that blog post seems to have made up the numbers out of thin air. They quote a 2011 FRR of 27.8%, while TriMet's published numbers are 35.9%.

Regardless, it's a public good. I simply wouldn't expect public transportation to make money, just like I wouldn't expect the court system or the DMV to make money. These things exist to benefit the city or state as a whole. I'm happy to pitch in.

How much it should be subsidized is a fair question, but that it should be at all, not even a concern for me.

(Source, TriMet's operations data: https://trimet.org/pdfs/publications/trimetridership.pdf)

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

#57

Post by akiselev » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 7:54 AM UTC

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.

Chuo Shinkansen hasn't been completed yet so at best that's the minimum bar for what it will actually cost. Until they know for sure that they won't find any underground surprises, that estimate will continue going up.

The reality is that estimating underground rail construction costs is significantly harder and riskier than above ground [1]. According to the AACE's classification system for cost estimates, the current number is a borderline class 2/3 estimate which means the estimate could be off as little as 5% or as much as 600%. Historically tunneling projects have ended up in the upper half of that range.

[1] http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/umrcourses/ge441/Too_Dangerous_...

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

#58

Post by trhway » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 8:11 AM UTC

well, the good thing about that staggering out-of-your-mind price tag (which, trusting to and believing in the process, i suppose will grow even more in the coming years :) is that it provides an opportunity for the R&D for alternative transportation options. That has potential to make CA and specifically Silicon Valley a leader in the transportation innovation too. By efficiently building such railroads at $4B a piece China effectively stripped its own innovation houses of such an opportunity :)

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

#59

Post by akiselev » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 8:13 AM UTC

Animats wrote: post #34

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…

The most expensive line under construction is the Tokyo-Nagoya maglev line, at $50 billion for only 286km. It's maglev at 500km/hr, and it's 90% in tunnels. They're going straight through the Japanese Alps. Under construction since 2013, opening scheduled for 2027. 43km of track is already in operation as a test track. Here's a ride video.[1] JR expects it to be profitable. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CKwchJ…

That is an early cost estimate and tunneling estimates are by far some of the most innacurate in civil engineering because you never know how much the geology will differ from what the estimate assumed. Construction on the first tunnel segment started a year ago and won't be complete until the 2020s so it'll take a while before the developer knows how bad the overrun will be on that section, let alone for the whole line.

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

#60

Post by akiselev » Mon, Dec 26, 2016, 8:22 AM UTC

Frondo wrote: post #56

DrScump wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other opinions: http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/05/28/portland-or-lrt-is-c... They quote an operational farebox recovery rate of less than 28%, so taxpayers are subsidizing almost 3/4 of the operational cost plus all of the fixed costs and construction. (As disappointing as that it, it's still over 8 times better than VTA in the San Jose area!)

In 2015, TriMet's farebox recovery ratio was 39.1%. Funnily enough, that blog post seems to have made up the numbers out of thin air. They quote a 2011 FRR of 27.8%, while TriMet's published numbers are 35.9%. Regardless, it's a public good. I simply wouldn't expect public transportation to make money, just like I wouldn't expect the court system or the DMV to make money. These things exist to benefit the city or sta…

Another factor to consider is the self fulfilling prophecy. Fiscal conservatives who are opposed to subsidizing public transportation throw up obstacle after obstacle, which drives up the cost and all but guarantees that the system will need to be subsidized, especially with underground mass transit. A single injunction stopping work for a few weeks while a judge reviews the case can cost an insane amount because you can't move the highly customized and now unutilized drill to an active work site or stop paying the highly specialized crew while they sit on their hands and maintain an imobile megamachine.