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

151–160 of 201 posts

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

#151

Post by ummonk »

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!

Working in the tech industry, one can easily experience the massive advantage that in-person interaction has over remote. It's not even close.

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

#152

Post by protomyth »

Tsubasachan wrote: post #150
protomyth wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if it wants to challenge China in manufacturing they need to rebuild the entire railroad system. Can you explain this point? The USA has a great cargo rail system that is efficient and integrated with other transportation systems.

American railroads are slow, old, neglected, unsafe and need to be shared with passenger trains. Forty years of planned and extensive investment in infrastructure is how China lifted itself out of its misery. There was a time when the US did the same but something happened along the way.

> American railroads are slow, old, neglected, unsafe and need to be shared with passenger trains.

Other than need to be shared with passenger trains, where are you getting the rest? It is certainly not true of cargo trains. How fast do you need cargo to go?

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

#153

Post by ummonk »

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…

Look, we're looking at a price tag of around $10,000 for every household in California. Assuming the costs don't go up further, as they likely would. That's a lot of money for a connection between SF and LA, especially when airlines are simply not that bad.

Especially given the poor state of public transit in SF and LA, we can do much more useful stuff with the money. For example, we could build a proper transit network in SF: http://www.newmunimetro.com/m-market/

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

#154

Post by ArchTypical »

captainperl wrote: post #83

For the people reading these postings, I noticed there's some misunderstandings about California HSR ... 1) It's not for transportation. It's a jobs and pension program for appointees. State leaders are willing to spend $100 billion (or more) of taxpayer money for $1 billion of pork. 2) The state cannot even manage Caltrain well, which is only 50 miles long (SF to Gilroy.) There's no way they can manage a route 400 m…

> It's a jobs and pension program for appointees > There was never an affordable model for building HSR

If someone isn't aware of how these free money contracts were awarded, they really don't understand the depth of the fantasy ...which Jerry Brown is almost single-handedly responsible for.

> The state cannot even manage Caltrain well

Yup. There are trains that go from San Diego up to San Fran, with transfers, mostly along the coast. It's so expensive to ride with EXISTING rail that it's running on subsidy.

Some of the comments on these multi-billion dollar scams are ridiculously positive for no apparent reason.

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

#155

Post by api_or_ipa »

chrischen wrote: post #9
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.

We're all spread out really really far compared to the rest of the world.

California has as many people as all of Canada. There's _tons_ of people in this state to null your point. Maybe in the midwest your argument might hold true, however.

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

#156

Post by philsnow »

rayiner wrote: post #144
georgeecollins wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At $50B, yes. BART will exist in some form for at least a century. It is so hard to understand how valuable it is to make something that so many people use every day for that long but it is really valuable.

How valuable? $50 billion is enough to create a fund that pays out $2 billion annually in perpetuity, or about $15 for every BART ride. That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Does BART generate $15 in positive value per ride above and beyond ticket cost, relative to driving? I’m skeptical. $3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the sam…

You haven't taken into account how much the bay area would have needed to spend on bridges and freeways if BART hadn't been built.

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_... says (as of 2017) 70k people go through the transbay tube in each direction during peak commute hours.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.htm... isn't dated but says that 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day.

These numbers aren't directly comparable because they're not measuring the same thing, but taking things as pessimistically as possible, let's say those 270k vehicle crossings all happen during the same time period as the BART numbers. If all those commuters crossed the Bay Bridge by themselves in a vehicle (because the overwhelming majority of car commutes are one person per car), that would be (270k + 70k) / 270k or a 26% increase in vehicles, when it's already ludicrously packed every single day. The bridge would need to have been widened by now (or another bridge built entirely, with feeder freeway interchanges on both sides).

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

#157

Post by amunicio »

rayiner wrote: post #144
georgeecollins wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At $50B, yes. BART will exist in some form for at least a century. It is so hard to understand how valuable it is to make something that so many people use every day for that long but it is really valuable.

How valuable? $50 billion is enough to create a fund that pays out $2 billion annually in perpetuity, or about $15 for every BART ride. That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Does BART generate $15 in positive value per ride above and beyond ticket cost, relative to driving? I’m skeptical. $3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the sam…

Let's take your own reasoning and let's apply it and see where the numbers fall.

The Bart cost was $1.586 billion (according to Wikipedia) or around ~$10 billion of today's dollars.

Let say that back then we had put that money ($1.586 billion) into an annuity in perpetuity and given the money each years to the riders so they will find alternative means of transport.

So if instead of building bart back in the 70's we had put the money into a perpetual annuity, we would be receiving the sum of $63.5 millions a year from the annuity (your own numbers seem to indicate a 4% yield). That is less than 50 cents per ride (according to Wikipedia Bart gives 129 million rides a year).

I don't think the cost is insignificant compared with the level of economic activity that the 400.0000 daily riders generate for SF and the Bay Area in general.

And now imagine 20 years from now how much $63.5 millions a year will buy you compared with the benefits of mass transportation.

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

#158

Post by opo »

jorblumesea wrote: post #26

Who contributed to this article? > Connor Harris is a policy analyst at the Manhattan Institute. https://www.manhattan-institute.org/about Reading through their other literature, seems pretty partisan and not very objective. Can we get a less biased source? I'm not doubting the problems of HSR or the project, it would just be nice to get someone with less of an axe to grind.

The state senator who actually authored the legislation establishing the California High-Speed Rail Authority was Quentin Kopp. After seeing how this has turned out he is now opposed to it (and I think joined a lawsuit against it). In an op ed he had this to say:

>...Consequently, there won’t be enough riders paying fares to cover operational costs. The 2008 ballot measure prohibits taxpayer subsidy of this now-planned track to nowhere. As the “father” of true high-speed rail, I regret its “horizon” isn’t now bright, unless the governor and Richard restore 2008 promises to taxpayers.

https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article...

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

#159

Post by harryh »

amunicio wrote: post #157
rayiner wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How valuable? $50 billion is enough to create a fund that pays out $2 billion annually in perpetuity, or about $15 for every BART ride. That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Does BART generate $15 in positive value per ride above and beyond ticket cost, relative to driving? I’m skeptical. $3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the sam…

Let's take your own reasoning and let's apply it and see where the numbers fall. The Bart cost was $1.586 billion (according to Wikipedia) or around ~$10 billion of today's dollars. Let say that back then we had put that money ($1.586 billion) into an annuity in perpetuity and given the money each years to the riders so they will find alternative means of transport. So if instead of building bart back in the 70's we…

Your math is wrong. You can (at least historically) get a 4% annuity that rises with inflation in perpetuity.

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

#160

Post by yellowapple »

tathougies wrote: post #95
cco wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What the heck is the train line doing near Fresno? Why is it not following I-5 and making zero stops in between the South Bay and LA?

Fresno is the third largest city in the state and the agricultural capital of the state. Going through Fresno will link the three largest industries: technology, entertainment, and agriculture.

"and the agricultural capital of the state"

We Sacramentans would object to that. We wouldn't adopt some silly slogan about being the world's "Farm-to-Fork Capital" otherwise.

Granted, Sacramento's already the actual capital, so I'm fine with letting them have this one.

Post reply on HN