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

Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

city-journal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 201 posts

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#111

Post by njarboe »

scythe wrote: post #52
niftich wrote: post #17

While this article finds an issue with the way the Tejon Pass route was eliminated in favor of the Tehachapi Pass route, Tejon Pass route would skip a station in Lancaster/Palmdale, which would be a mistake. As the article acknowledges, these are rapidly growing exurbs that are refuge from the exorbitant land prices in the LA Basin. There is existing commuter rail service between there and Downtown LA, but a HSR is a…

> these are rapidly growing exurbs that are refuge from the exorbitant land prices in the LA Basin. What kind of country are we building where we send people to live in exurbs in a literal barren desert -- I'm not exaggerating, I was in Palmdale a few weeks ago, and it could have inspired Solzhenitsyn -- with a fast train into the city, lest the petit bourgeois of L.A. be forced to live in - ugh - townhomes? There ar…

Most of the LA basin was open desert, not that much different than the land around Palmdale, until developed, water piped in, and new vegetation grown.

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#112

Post by michaelt »

AlexB138 wrote: post #8

So, this article has some valid criticisms, but why is this the case? Why does it seem like modern America can't manage any public works projects without them taking twice as long and costing twice as much as projected? Is it regulation? Lack of work ethic? Graft? It seems like a major problem.

I don't know about the "taking twice as long" problem, but I can tell you why they cost twice as much: A long history of (a) rewarding underbidding and (b) bailing out under-bidders.

If I'm buying a widget costing $1 billion, and everyone in the widget industry knows I'm going to accept the lowest bid which will be about $0.5 billion, then I'll end up paying that bidder $1.5 billion... well, I'm going to end up accepting someone who responded rationally to the incentives I'm offering them.

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#113

Post by peterhunt »

amunicio wrote: post #53
ummonk wrote: post #14

I used to support the HSR project on the grounds that connecting the state (both LA / Bay Area and the Central Valley towns) would yield long term economic benefits due the increased flow of people within the state. Decreasing the effective distance between people by making travel faster and cheaper has a lot of value in the information economy. Nothing beats face to face communication. I now no longer support the pr…

All big infrastructure projects are very expensive, always miss their deadlines and go way over budget; it is the nature of the beast. I'm not saying it is ok or that it could not be managed better: it could and it should. The thing is that the cost of such projects is an investments and a legacy for future generations to enjoy. Imagine if we had to build the BART or the highway system in this they and age. How much…

There's no need for high-speed, long-distance, expensive commuter rail in today's era of high-quality, reliable, free, socially acceptable, and highly available videoconferencing solutions. Business travel is in decline for a reason!

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#114

Post by Someone »

eloff wrote: post #98
richk449 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sale for $3M?

Yes, but I have my doubts

“aims to have one flying early next year.”, and HN is skeptical about it (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18602771)

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#115

Post by geezerjay »

peterhunt wrote: post #113
amunicio wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All big infrastructure projects are very expensive, always miss their deadlines and go way over budget; it is the nature of the beast. I'm not saying it is ok or that it could not be managed better: it could and it should. The thing is that the cost of such projects is an investments and a legacy for future generations to enjoy. Imagine if we had to build the BART or the highway system in this they and age. How much…

There's no need for high-speed, long-distance, expensive commuter rail in today's era of high-quality, reliable, free, socially acceptable, and highly available videoconferencing solutions. Business travel is in decline for a reason!

> There's no need for high-speed, long-distance, expensive commuter rail in today's era of high-quality, reliable, free, socially acceptable, and highly available videoconferencing solutions.

That baseless assertion is so profoundly wrong at so many levels. It's like claiming that there is no need for cars just because skype is cheap.

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#116

Post by geezerjay »

eloff wrote: post #50
ummonk wrote: post #14

I used to support the HSR project on the grounds that connecting the state (both LA / Bay Area and the Central Valley towns) would yield long term economic benefits due the increased flow of people within the state. Decreasing the effective distance between people by making travel faster and cheaper has a lot of value in the information economy. Nothing beats face to face communication. I now no longer support the pr…

For $100B you could buy ~33,000 $3M-dollar electric commuter planes with 10 person capacity and 600mi range - not quite anything like that on the market yet mind you - but it seems close at hand. You could cover nearly the whole state, not just LA SF, and have 330,000 person capacity. By what measure would this train be better? Certainly not economic, noise, land-use, speed, convenience, coverage, or flexibility. Pro…

> For $100B you could buy ~33,000 $3M-dollar electric commuter planes

If you intend to make a honest comparison then you need to factor in at least the cost of building and operating at least two airports.

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#117

Post by steve_gh »

burfog wrote: post #108
kaikai wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How were you imagining that many trains running on the tracks simultaneously? Stopping on a siding and waiting for a train to pass going the other direction takes time, never mind if there were trains running in both directions for every possible combination of stops.

You seem to be assuming there would only be one main line, and that this is a proposed reduction. I don't see it that way at all. Assume the line is two tracks. Add two more at each station, for a total of four, but just at the stations. It's like with cars: we pull over to the side instead of just turning off the engine in the middle of the road. At a station that uses island platforms, from west to east you have: s…

In the UK, many of our main passenger rail lines run 4-track in commuter areas - you can run a slow local stopping service and high speed intercity services simultaneously without problems.

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#118

Post by woolvalley »

yellowapple wrote: post #89
rangibaby wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if Japan can manage it America can

The more relevant comparison would be California specifically instead of all of America. Still, given that if California were an independent country it'd be right behind Japan in terms of GDP, if Japan can manage high-speed rail, we should be able to.

The issue is a large chunk of tax revenue goes to the federal govt, not the state of calfornia.

That and their mismanagement of property tax and pubic pensions.

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#119

Post by scatters »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #43
illvm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is also the environmental impact to consider. Air travel has a much larger emission profile compared to train travel, and train travel has a much larger capacity. Plus, rail station are often in the center of the city rather than on the outskirts like airports are. e.g. traveling by train from Boston to NYC vs flying is almost a wash time wise due to travel to/from the airport + buffer time for security.

Getting to the city center, though, is often problematic. You either follow the existing railroad lines, which often have tight curves, or you build your own, which involves ripping out a long path through the already-existing city.

Or you tunnel. Expensive, but effective.

Re: Fast Train to Failure: California’s Mismanaged High-Speed Rail Project

#120

Post by steve_gh »

xienze wrote: post #79
landryraccoon wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 1976 BART cost $10B in today's dollars to construct. If you were alive in 1976 would you have said it was a boondoggle and the project should have been killed? IMO people consistently underestimate how much public infrastructure is worth. The US highway system was sold at a cost of $27B [1] but cost over $100B and has cost nearly $500B today [2]. Does that mean the US Highway system wasn't worth it? Of course it…

> IMO people consistently underestimate how much public infrastructure is worth. I think you mean “politicians consistently lie about how much public infrastructure projects will cost.”

Transport hubs encourage development. In the UK look at all the satellite industries around Heathrow and Gatwick. Look at the offices being built close to Paddington and Kings Cross stations in London, or Reading.

The sensible thing would be for the city to buy up land round the stations, then build offices and lease them. The income would offset the costs.

Post reply on HN