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

Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–67 of 67 posts

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#61

Post by asdff »

dekhn wrote: post #53
adastra22 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but why are we optimizing around the Central Valley population centers? When I voted for this high-speed rail (which I now regret), it was a bullet train between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Now it connects to neither.

over the past few decades the central valley has grown into a political power that can't be ignored (billions of dollars of agriculture). the path was a compromise, but also a huge mistake.

Also 6.5 million people live in the central valley so its not exactly empty. For reference, the bay area has 7.7 million people

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#62

Post by asdff »

adastra22 wrote: post #59
CogitoCogito wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't followed this for a while, but this map still seems to connect SF to LA: https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sec...

It was originally supposed to have a raised track to isolate the high-speed rail from jumpers and to avoid street crossings. That project was dropped. The segments in SF and LA will use commuter tracks (e.g. existing CalTrain) and run at a maximum of half the speed it obtains in the long Central Valley segments. Given the trouble that Caltrain has with clearing and keeping people and foreign objects off the tracks, I…

Metro link doesn't seem to have these issues and a lot of projects are in store to upgrade that right of way (like LINK union station to permit run through at union station instead of it being a stub). A lot of thought is being put into this. Using an existing right of way that can later be upgraded is sensible imo, especially when these terminii will have the highest land acquisition costs by far. The metrolink right of way from burbank into union station already has many key grade separations done. Its sensible to make use of it when its almost a direct shot as the crow flies.

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#63

Post by hkt »

koolba wrote: post #48
hkt wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is the way with most government debt - ideally, economic growth will outpace the cumulative interest accrued by the debt. There are other externalities too, like the economic benefits from quicker transport between major cities. If you want to ask the size of those benefits, imagine London or New York without their underground/subway systems. It is a big deal and can't just be counted by ticket prices!

> As is the way with most government debt - ideally, economic growth will outpace the cumulative interest accrued by the debt. Actual growth might not, but as most infra spending is financed with fixed rate bonds, a couple more years of Biden’s 9.6% inflation will take a nice bite out of those costs in future dollars.

"Biden's 9.6%" - I'm not american so this seems like a peculiar way of putting it since inflation is spiking across the whole western world. It seems weirdly partisan, was that the intention?

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#64

Post by dekhn »

asdff wrote: post #61
dekhn wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

over the past few decades the central valley has grown into a political power that can't be ignored (billions of dollars of agriculture). the path was a compromise, but also a huge mistake.

Also 6.5 million people live in the central valley so its not exactly empty. For reference, the bay area has 7.7 million people

What is the relative density of those areas? High speed trains only make sense moving between dense areas. The central valley is many multiples of size of the bay area and the population served by the train will be small.

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#65

Post by shalmanese »

Traster wrote: post #17

Are there many large infrastructure projects in America that actually turn out to be a waste of time? It seems like any large infrastructure project tends to get a whole load of pushback and political shenanigans (which often are the direct cause of spiralling costs), but in the end once it's built (if it's built) it's a massive benefit. Is the real lesson here just that we should all just shut up and get on with it?

It never got built but it's hard to see how the famous Alaska Bridge To Nowhere [1] could have ever penciled out if it were built.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#66

Post by asdff »

dekhn wrote: post #64
asdff wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also 6.5 million people live in the central valley so its not exactly empty. For reference, the bay area has 7.7 million people

What is the relative density of those areas? High speed trains only make sense moving between dense areas. The central valley is many multiples of size of the bay area and the population served by the train will be small.

Where it actually stops is not in the fields but in the city centers of places like fresno, a city larger than sacramento.

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#67

Post by TrueGeek »

Traster wrote: post #28
thrwaway9871 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the end once it's built (if it's built) it's a massive benefit Like what?

Like any literally any infrastructure, no one is standing around going "Wow, that Interstate highway system sure was a waste of time".

Roger Rabbit
Post reply on HN