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

61–70 of 138 posts

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

#61

Post by akiselev »

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…

California is an international trade, manufacturing, and agricultural powerhouse with several of the biggest ports in the western hemisphere that supply the entire country. I don't think it's unreasonable for the private rail owners to reject a much less predictable revenue stream. It's not on them to provide the capital for public transit and I'm not sure the benefits of forcing them would outweigh the economic cost.

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

#62

Post by rangibaby »

timr wrote: post #43
kalleboo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Japanese HSR is engineered to a very high standard and has also never had a fatal accident in over 50 years of operation.

Chinese HSR had a fatal one within three years of the line opening: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision

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

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> Not a single yard of track has been laid.

True but misleading. Actually laying track is the cheap and easy final part of construction; building the viaducts, grade separations, etc., and doing the other construction which prepares the route for track to be laid.is the time consuming, expensive part, and plenty of that has been done and is being done in the initial segment.

> Here in India, we've built an entire city Metro system for about $6B.

Which is a very different problem than a regional transit system. And, in any case, acquiring right of way is cheaper in India, due to land prices.

> That's twice what it cost California to explore the idea of maybe someday laying track

California's done a lot more than explore the idea of construction.

> Anyone who talks about finding $64B and 12 years for what should be a $2-4B railway in 4 years is fundamentally unserious.

Anyone who thinks that a statewide high speed rail system in California should be $2-$4 billion dollars in 4 years is fundamentally unserious.

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

#64

Post by [deleted] »

dmoy wrote: post #26
imjustsaying wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#65

Post by nickff »

maxxxxx wrote: post #45
rjeli wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I once heard a comment from a (George W Bush) White House staffer who said something to the effect of: 'there is no point trying to save money while we are in power, because the democrats will just come in and spend it; we should just spend it on our favorite programs.' This is somewhat aligned with Bruce Buena de Mesquita's theories on how politicians act to retain power.

I think that the Bush administration's largest impact on the budget was definitely Medicare Part D, which is not as obvious as the war in Iraq, but is much more expensive (>> $100 billion/year), and will probably last much longer (10 years so far).

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

#66

Post by enraged_camel »

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…

>>Instead of spending a fortune, Trump won the primaries by saying things that made sense to voters.

I'm afraid Peter is misinformed. Trump did spend a fortune to win the primaries. $63.3 million, to be exact. Only Ted Cruz spent more than him, at $85.8 million. You can look at the numbers by the Federal Elections Commission here: http://www.fec.gov/press/summaries/2016/tables/presidential/...

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

#67

Post by PhantomGremlin »

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…

their public transit is just great

Not all of Portland's transit ideas are smart or successful.

Here's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WES_Commuter_Rail a $166 million fiasco. Only 2,000 riders a day (and they may be lying about that number; I watch many trains go by with only a handful of people on them).

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

#68

Post by trome »

dragonwriter wrote: post #63
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…

> Not a single yard of track has been laid. True but misleading. Actually laying track is the cheap and easy final part of construction; building the viaducts, grade separations, etc., and doing the other construction which prepares the route for track to be laid.is the time consuming, expensive part, and plenty of that has been done and is being done in the initial segment. > Here in India, we've built an entire cit…

The right of way, design, and labor differences are the main differentiator, besides the fact that this is high speed rail over a few hundred miles, not a few dozen mile light rail alignment.

That being said, here in Seattle we approved nearly as much money to build out our light rail network, and in the context of the US and what it costs to build bridges, freeways and rail here, that cost isn't far out of line. Considering the state of our region currently, even if the economy imploded tomorrow it'd still be a sound investment to do, especially since we are connecting all the way from Tacoma to Everett, with 116 miles of rail.

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

#69

Post by trome »

billions wrote: post #42
Sanddancer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Damn, way to demean someone's work. Just cause a similarly impressive feat of engineering was recently completed doesn't mean building twice more in a much different environment, with multiple active fault lines and through varied soil/types of rock is going to be smooth sailing.

After the Army Corps of Engineers built the Panama Canal in 1914, it was not all smooth sailing to build the Chittenden Locks in Seattle, between dropping the lake 10ft, reversing the course of/eliminating multiple rivers and streams and dealing with the fallout of that it was and still is quite an engineering marvel.

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

#70

Post by trome »

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…

Good luck with that, our safety standards for train cars in the US are head and shoulders above Europe, and in a whole different universe than India & China. Add to that that it is illegal to buy up all the land around rail lines and lease it out to subsidize the rail company, and its no wonder we have to spend more!

This is before we even talk about fault lines, soil conditions, land cost, lawsuits, etc. that are involved in building High Speed Rail. You need a dead straight alignment for HSR, and as it stands there are businesses and homes in the way right now, which means a large legal mess to even start to clear up, before we even get into preliminary system design.

Post reply on HN