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

31–40 of 138 posts

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

#31

Post by intransigent »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #22
Sanddancer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California that the train in China didn't have to consider. For example, the high speed train in California also has to cross notoriously rugged mountain ranges. The Diablo Range has a smattering of two-lane roads winding through it because it's so difficult to build through the gnarled hills. In the south, the Sierra Pelona and…

Switzerland tunneled through the alps for $12B. The issue isn't engineering. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

Political quagmires like this only get untangled by terrifying psychos, unfortunately.

People only shut their mouths when they get threatened into a fearful silence, and/or sometimes if they get bribed enough.

Otherwise, you'll always have a substantially sized group of complainers dragging down a project this big, and the complainers leech into operations and mysterious expensive mistakes erode the budget of an already expensive operation.

There's just enough shrug factor here for people to not care about how much gas they burn driving to places that might not be very exciting to begin with.

Many would just as soon not have to travel at all, and even more would prefer to not be taxed so as to pay for trips they personally don't want to take to begin with. Most people just want their actual lives to be generally easier.

Without confrontational intimidation, bribery is probably the only other political lever to press in the United States.

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

#32

Post by scentedmeat »

Sanddancer wrote: post #19
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…

There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California that the train in China didn't have to consider. For example, the high speed train in California also has to cross notoriously rugged mountain ranges. The Diablo Range has a smattering of two-lane roads winding through it because it's so difficult to build through the gnarled hills. In the south, the Sierra Pelona and…

While I agree that comparing China to California in terms of large scale engineering works is comparing apples to oranges (guess which is which). I disagree (kind of) on the following:

> There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California

Japan is a mountainous, earthquake prone country, and they seem to have figured it out. The biggest problem geography-wise is probably all the NIMBY complaints. To be fair, they are really loud trains that would kill property values, and the complaints are valid. I think thats where a lot of those lawsuits are coming from.

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

#33

Post by akiselev »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #22
Sanddancer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California that the train in China didn't have to consider. For example, the high speed train in California also has to cross notoriously rugged mountain ranges. The Diablo Range has a smattering of two-lane roads winding through it because it's so difficult to build through the gnarled hills. In the south, the Sierra Pelona and…

Switzerland tunneled through the alps for $12B. The issue isn't engineering. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

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. You will have to swap out drilling equipment as you hit different types and densities of rock but you can often go miles without doing so.

To build on top of a mountain range, there is a smaller overhead cost to survey, do an engineering/environmental study, cut earth, and lay down road but you literally have to pay that overhead for every few hundred feet because as the terrain changes, the equipment and other infrastructure you require also changes drastically. To build a highway you have to have strong ground to build on, which is why US freeways largely bob and weave all over the place instead of just going in a straight line, and civil engineers avoid weak ground where soil stabilization will be most expensive. On mountain roads, not only are the options for soil stabilization limited to very labor intensive methods, but you also often have no choice but to take a bad (expensive) route because you have to design safe turns and gradients. The problem isn't that the engineering is harder, there's just a lot more of it to do.

Also, United States property rights are pretty unique as far as Western countries go. To build a tunnel you'd have to get the mineral rights from every single property owner in your path whereas in most European countries, mineral rights are owned by the government. If you're going to compare a Swiss tunnel to any US road projects, you have to account for the massive differences in legal fees and land acquisition because whether you build above or below ground in the US, you have to deal with the property rights of private owners and all of the extra safety/environmental/etc regulations that come as a consequence.

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

#34

Post by Animats »

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=5CKwchJKTYU

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

#35

Post by labrador »

As a California usually in favor of all sorts of new technologies and futuristic projects, I am totally opposed to building this train system. The air travel infrastructure is already in place and could work even better with an investment of a fraction of the $64B. Airplanes don't need expensive rails to ride on in the sky. What's better about getting into a coach of a train and rolling on the ground over getting in the coach of a plane and flying through the sky? Let's stick with what is and what works and spend the money on desalination plants, wind farms, solar plants and a smart electrical grid.

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

#36

Post by WillPostForFood »

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.

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

#37

Post by timr »

scentedmeat wrote: post #32
Sanddancer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California that the train in China didn't have to consider. For example, the high speed train in California also has to cross notoriously rugged mountain ranges. The Diablo Range has a smattering of two-lane roads winding through it because it's so difficult to build through the gnarled hills. In the south, the Sierra Pelona and…

While I agree that comparing China to California in terms of large scale engineering works is comparing apples to oranges (guess which is which). I disagree (kind of) on the following: > There are also a lot of rather substantial engineering issues that have to be overcome in California Japan is a mountainous, earthquake prone country, and they seem to have figured it out. The biggest problem geography-wise is probab…

"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 look reasonable, if not exactly cheap.

I generally agree that the SF-LA line is too expensive, but the OP's reasoning is just completely wrong. India and China are cheaper because everything in India and China is cheaper than the US.

[1] https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-cost-differences-between-...

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

#38

Post by wycx »

akiselev wrote: post #33
yummyfajitas wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland tunneled through the alps for $12B. The issue isn't engineering. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

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 problem.

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

#39

Post by 205guy »

hourislate wrote: post #17
antimatter wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is an embarrassment for the state and this country that we are unable to build something so trivial for other countries without such massive costs.

Maybe it's best that this doesn't happen because it will just turn into a boondoggle and the tax payers will be on the hook for it. It would make sense hiring a European or Asian country to come in and build it for us with 1/5 of the resources and in 1/3 the time. If a country like Switzerland can dig through solid granite for 35 miles under a mountain (Gotthard Base Tunnel) someone out there other than a US company…

The French already said they could build the California high speed train for half the current estimate, or something like that. As mentioned in other comments, it's the popular opinion and government fragmentation in the US that makes this impossible. In France, the train builders and operators are nationalized (roughly) and the central government is much more powerful (not in terms of absolute power but rather in public acceptance). So in France, where high speed trains have been successful for years, the state run constructors can get eminent domain, lay track and run trains with only a few nimbys that most people ignore. Another way to see it is if Parisians want to take a high speed train through your back yard to get to the ski or sun, too bad for you. That doesn't happen in the US with weaker central government and stronger property rights (for corporations too). Japan and China are the same way (centralized command-based government).

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

#40

Post by ubernostrum »

labrador wrote: post #35

As a California usually in favor of all sorts of new technologies and futuristic projects, I am totally opposed to building this train system. The air travel infrastructure is already in place and could work even better with an investment of a fraction of the $64B. Airplanes don't need expensive rails to ride on in the sky. What's better about getting into a coach of a train and rolling on the ground over getting in…

If you think the existing air travel infrastructure was built in its entirety for "a fraction" of $64B (in 2016 dollars), I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.

Most of the cost of air travel is hidden in places you don't think about, and might surprise you if you knew how much it added up to (or how much tax money -- in the US, around $300 million per year currently, and around $9m/year of it in California -- goes into subsidizing unprofitable air routes in order to keep airlines flying them, for sake of maintaining connectivity).

Post reply on HN