Slashdot Mirror


California Bullet Train Costs Soar To $77.3 Billion, Will Take 5 Years Longer To Complete

The California High-Speed Rail Authority announced today that the cost of connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco would total $77.3 billion, an increase of $13 billion from estimates two years ago, and could potentially rise as high as $98.1 billion. They also said the earliest trains could operate on a partial system between San Jose and the farming town of Wasco would be 2029, five years later than the previous projection. Los Angeles Times reports: The disclosures are contained in a 114-page business plan that was issued in draft form by the rail authority and will be finalized this summer in a submission to the Legislature. The rail authority has wrestled with a more than $40-billion funding gap, which would increase sharply under the new cost estimates. The biggest immediate driver of the cost increase has been in the Central Valley, where the rail authority is building 119 miles of track between Wasco and Merced. The authority disclosed in early February that the cost of that work would jump to $10.6 billion from an original estimate of about $6 billion. Roy Hill, one of the senior consultants advising the state, told the rail authority board, "The worst-case scenario has happened." In its 2014 business plan, the rail authority optimistically projected that it could begin carrying passengers in just seven years. But the warning signs of uncontrolled cost growth had already started mounting then, even though until this year the rail authority has vehemently denied that it was facing a problem. The project began having trouble buying property for the route almost immediately after it issued its first construction contract in 2013.

269 comments

  1. Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... and autonomous vehicles.

    Goofus starts a $100B fixed rail project that will be ready about 5 years after Gallant's work renders it completely obsolete.

    1. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Goofus drives a car. Gallant takes mass transit. Goofus thinks "Smart Roads" mean something. Gallant realizes that they can't be any smarter than the idiot driving his Uber.

    2. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Goofus arrives to his destination on time. Gallant gets mugged and arrives hours late.

    3. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Gallant gets a nap on the train, gets some work done, arrives refreshed. Gallant's self-driving, no steering wheel car was bricked in an OS update, like his Oculus Rift. It's still sitting in his garage as he calls for a "ridesharing" service, who are not responding because all their self-driving cars have also been bricked in an OS update.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Gallant wakes up and realizes that the High Speed Rail is just a boondoggle used to drain California of more of it's money.

      Goofus waves as he is driven by the train station.

      Gallant hops on a Greyhound, and cries into his chai tea.

    5. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gallant gets a nap on the train, gets some work done, arrives refreshed.

      You've never been on a train, have you?

    6. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      A fleet of networked self-driving cars *is* a train. It's a bad idea to build a new new fixed-rail system from scratch. It will cost a ton of money, take forever... and even when finished, it will be just another choo-choo train, good for transporting people from one place where they don't want to be to another place where they don't want to be.

      For some reason, people around here only like trains if they run on dedicated railbeds. Weird.

    7. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gallant is still waiting years later for a train that still hasn't come, and is paying ever more from his wallet for that never-ending construction to make a train - sometime in the future.

    8. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true!

      Modern "train tracks" should be a strip of asphalt or concrete with a single line in the middle of each lane for the autonomous vehicles to follow.

      These tracks should have no speed limit on the straightaways, and the turns should be build for at least 90 MPH.

    9. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha ,,, feckin-A Cali-kom progressive cuntling gonna pay & pay ... to play and slay. Bet the M-13 bangerz get ""tax rights"" on the trains and without gunnnz whatcha gonna do when they come for you nancyboiz ... nancyboiz ...

    10. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Nope. Metal to metal friction is much lower than tire on asphalt. Also, it's much easier to feed a train running on metal rails with electric power than a car on a road. No environmentally vile batteries required. Rail is still a good tech, despite how badly it's implemented in most of the US.

    11. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Gallant is still waiting years later for a train that still hasn't come, and is paying ever more from his wallet for that never-ending construction to make a train - sometime in the future.

      There's already a train. This is just a faster, fancier train, because this is California and we have nice things.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The inefficiencies inherent in a non-end-to-end system absolutely dwarf the differences between rubber and metal wheels, or whatever it is you're prattling on about.

    13. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      You've never been on a train, have you?

      All my life. I take the Coast Starlight that rolls right along the stunningly beautiful California coast. You can see the ocean almost all the way. It has good wi-fi and comfortable seats that can recline almost completely. It''ll take you from L.A. to Seattle and everwhere in between. The food is even good. Do they serve food and fresh coffee in your self-driving econobox? Oh wait, I'm sorry, your self-driving econobox doesn't exist yet. Does it, Goofus?

      The train exists today. It has existed for the past half-century. It's going to be replaced by a fancier, faster model. But it can do today what your autonomous vehicle of the future with its "smart road" will not do in your lifetime.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 2

      Not really. Not if both end stations have electric cars for rent that only need a battery range of 40 to 50 miles. You're not lugging around as much heavy battery, you don't need to manufacture and recycle batteries as much, no need for fast charging infrastructure either. Rail plus electric cars is a beautiful combination. And you can get up, walk around, take a piss, buy food on the train. Even chat with other passengers. In a car, you're stuck in your little glass and steel isolation bubble till you stop.

    15. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I usually release the parking brake before I drove. I believe the term you are looking for is rolling resistance.

    16. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      Except that for political reasons, the newer, faster replacement is going to run through the distinctly not so scenic central valley rather than along the coast. And it's presumably going to cost a lot more than the Coast Daylight if they hope to ever recover construction costs. And there's a distinct -- once_you_get_to_X,_you_need_a_car_to_get_to_where_you_really_want_to_be problem in California's sprawling urban areas

      I'm not against trains. I even ride them sometimes. But I think perhaps California needs clearer vision rather than a probably doomed attempt to imitate Europe, East Asia and the US East Coast corridor.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    17. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Depends on how crowded the trains are. In the UK, there is a good intercity train network that takes you between cities in the South Coast and London within an hour. It's even possible to get between the South Coast and the Midlands within a couple of hours (Southampton -> Bristol/Birmingham).

      When things work well, train carriages can be empty or full enough that everyone still has a seat, can sit down at a table and use Wi-Fi with their laptops/smartphones. and there are refreshment trolleys going up and down the train.

      When something goes wrong like signalling problems, then everything falls apart. Passengers just start grabbing whatever train is available to take them that bit closer to where they want to go, ending up with crowding so bad that people are standing in the interconnects between carriages and next to the doors.

      With the EuroTunnel, you can drive a car onto the train much like a ferry, and then move to the passenger compartment for the journey, then drive off at the end.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    18. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Train networks in the UK do something similar. They are now moving to the point of increasing capacity by getting smaller train services formed by a couple of carriages to "join up" to form a larger train when going across busy lines, then they split up again. The only hazard is that you have to know which carriages are going where (carriages A to D go to the coastal town, E to H continue onto the next city).

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    19. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the reason high speed rail succeeds in Japan, South Korea and even parts of Europe is because they grade-separate the train (either by elevation or subway) and thus property acquisition becomes less or not an issue.

      Yes, all rail projects are at some level, a boondoggle, but for California, "doing nothing" is not an option. High speed rail is competative with air travel, which both SFO and LAX are already problems, so ultimately getting High Speed Rail up the Pacific coast to Vancouver, and south to Dallas and Austin would solve a not significant amount of air travel congestion.

    20. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Except that for political reasons, the newer, faster replacement is going to run through the distinctly not so scenic central valley rather than along the coast

      Since it's high-speed, it doesn't really matter too much. Better to run through the Central Valley where nobody wants to live than displace or disrupt the lives of those of us near the coast.

      And it's presumably going to cost a lot more than the Coast Daylight if they hope to ever recover construction costs.

      The Coast Daylight hasn't run since 1974. I assume you're talking about the Coast Starlight. And there are other ways besides high fares to recover construction costs. One of the reasons California has a $2.5 trillion economy is that there is good transportation connecting the cities North and South. So yeah, I expect the fares to be higher, but not prohibitive. And there will always be the other trains if you aren't in a big hurry.

      Except for right in either LA or SF, the traffic on the coast is light. I ride my bicycle on HWY 1 and HWY 101, even at midday, and sometimes there will be minutes without me seeing a car. Although the other day I saw my first McLaren 12C on the Pacific Coast Hwy. It was like seeing a visitation from heaven.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    21. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Bruce Perens can't see the enormous advantages of self-driving vehicles all communicating? No "idiots driving Uber". And eventually, no roads, no paving 1/3 of the world, no ongoing maintenance of said infrastructure, etc.

    22. Re: Gallant works on smart roads.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Badly implemented" when you write things like that it tells everyone you know nothing about rail. The rail system in the US is one of the worlds best. It's just for the last 60 years all of the effort has been around designated for cargo service. So no it's not great for passenger service in the same way a roofing hammer isn't great for frameing. Can you use it for that yes, but it isn't tool you'd pick if you had a choice.

    23. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Riding the train is great. Changing trains, getting to the station or to your final destination: not so much, unless you're lucky. When I lived in the city, taking the train to work was pretty much a door-to-door journey. Now that I'm out in the sticks, I drive to work. We live close to a station but changing trains 2 times sucks and is a colossal time waster. Even on the worst of days, driving is much faster. Plus I can swing by the supermarket after work to pick up some stuff, that sort of thing, saving even more time.

      Electric autonomous vehicles might well make passenger trains obsolete.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    24. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      that was true 20 years ago nothing new ... I remember announcements on Network SouthEast like "at Basingstoke, the train will divide". Using the old 3rd rail coaches with the slam doors too.

    25. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by jcr · · Score: 1

      High speed rail is competative with air travel,

      If you actually believe that, then write up a business plan and see if you can get anyone to risk their capital voluntarily to find out if you're right.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    26. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by AC-x · · Score: 1

      Gallant knows that other western countries have been making decent high-speed rail networks since the 60s that are considerably faster than driving, and decent city public transport systems that are often faster than traffic too, and wonders what's taking the USA so long.

      Goofus doesn't realize this and instead of insisting on decent public transport from the government is just waiting on the pipe dream that technology will eliminate the traffic jams he sits in every day.

    27. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 2

      All my life. I take the Coast Starlight that rolls right along the stunningly beautiful California coast. You can see the ocean almost all the way. It has good wi-fi and comfortable seats that can recline almost completely. It''ll take you from L.A. to Seattle and everwhere in between.

      a) You better NOT be anywhere near in a hurry to get to your destination. I've looked at this train to get from LA to Davis, CA (have to make a connecting stop) and it took WAY WAY longer than just driving there. Did I forget to mention WAY longer?

      b) Took the Surfliner multiple times from Santa Barbara to San Diego area. Took much longer on the train than driving by night (don't even try driving in LA area during the day to get anywhere in a hurry). Wifi sucked.

      c) Big problem with trains is that unless someone is there to pick you up, 90% of the stops do not have any decent transportation options such as rental cars. (As an aside, Zip Car, why the **** aren't you at all Surfliner stations??????) So unless you can walk from the train station to your ultimate destination, it's going to take even longer if you have to make a connecting bus.

      All I can say is you're experience with Amtrak is different than mine.

      The food is even good. Do they serve food and fresh coffee in your self-driving econobox? Oh wait, I'm sorry, your self-driving econobox doesn't exist yet. Does it, Goofus?

      The train exists today. It has existed for the past half-century. It's going to be replaced by a fancier, faster model. But it can do today what your autonomous vehicle of the future with its "smart road" will not do in your lifetime.

      d) Do they have food on the Surfliner? Don't think so.

      e) I'm going to be long gone before I get on a CA HSR ride, if it's ever built. Meantime I can fly from Burbank to San Francisco in a couple of hours right now, or drive to Davis in 6 hours right now. Going on Amtrak to the same destinations (and here's the important point) and not using ANY cars (including taxi)? 2 to 4 times as long. Better not be in any hurry at all on Amtrak.

      f) And I have not even gone into what happens when a train hits something and cancels ALL runs for the rest of the day. This has happened more than once to me. Do you like to be standing on a train platform with no alternatives on getting to your destination?
      As an aside, the Coast Starlight may partially go along the ocean, but CA HSR is going through the scenic San Joaquin valley, so you're not going to see much here except cows and almond trees.

    28. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      d) Surfliner has a cafe car. f) like massive scareport delays never happen

    29. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Interesting

      a) You better NOT be anywhere near in a hurry to get to your destination. I've looked at this train to get from LA to Davis, CA (have to make a connecting stop) and it took WAY WAY longer than just driving there. Did I forget to mention WAY longer?

      You're in California. Why be in such a hurry? Geez, man, you've got to learn to relax or you'll die young from stress-related illness. If you want to be in a hurry to get somewhere, go to Kansas. Oh wait, I'm sorry, there's nowhere worth going in Kansas.

      Took the Surfliner multiple times from Santa Barbara to San Diego area. Took much longer on the train than driving by night (don't even try driving in LA area during the day to get anywhere in a hurry). Wifi sucked.

      I did LA to the Central Coast back in January. The wi-fi was good enough to stream video and it didn't take me any longer than driving would have (note: I drive like a fucking old lady, so YMMV).

      c) Big problem with trains is that unless someone is there to pick you up, 90% of the stops do not have any decent transportation options such as rental cars.

      In my sleepy little coastal town, there is a nice bus that can take me home or I can leave my bike at the train station and pedal home in about 20 minutes.

      d) Do they have food on the Surfliner? Don't think so.

      Here is the menu for the Coast Starlight

      https://www.amtrak.com/content...

      and here is the menu for the Surfliner:

      https://www.amtrak.com/content...

      e) I'm going to be long gone before I get on a CA HSR ride, if it's ever built.

      I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're going to be long gone before there are ubiquitous autonomous cars and "smart roads", too.

      As an aside, the Coast Starlight may partially go along the ocean, but CA HSR is going through the scenic San Joaquin valley, so you're not going to see much here except cows and almond trees.

      I have to say that if you don't like cows or almond trees, you may be too cranky to live in California. Maybe scenic Arizona would be more your speed.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    30. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Both wish they weren't in the central valley.

    31. Re: Gallant works on smart roads.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Freight = OK (not great) implementation. For one thing, there's no direct, cross-Hudson freight route within 150 miles of NYC, meaning everything has to be unloaded in NJ and trucked into the city.

      Passenger = mediocre, even on dedicated passenger systems.

    32. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      "Rolling resistance" is a measure of tire-on-road + bearing, gear, etc friction. Same thang, different name.

    33. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Whatsmynickname · · Score: 1

      If I'm not in a hurry, what's the point of a HIGH SPEED railway? Isn't Amtrak sufficient then?

      There you go, just saved CA $77.3 billion, you're welcome!

    34. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      If I'm not in a hurry, what's the point of a HIGH SPEED railway?

      If you can drive, then what's the point of a SELF-DRIVING car?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    35. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the way people drive? They (we) suck.

      You said you drive like a grandma. The guy in the McLaren you saw the other day? He can't drive much faster than you do most of the time, due to congestion, speed limits and road-hogging morons in the left lane. Even if he could, some other moron with a texting addiction will eventually swerve into him or push him through a red light at a busy intersection.

      It's inconceivable to me that we couldn't double our traffic capacity and halve travel times if we had the necessary combination of political and technical leadership to do self-driving cars right. All while saving tons of energy, not to mention about 30,000 lives a year. Instead, our best and brightest techies ride a bus to their workplace where they are tasked with finding new and better ways to sell ads on the Internet. Meanwhile, our best and brightest automakers are busy building half-assed "autopilots" that will only encourage people to text each other while camping out in the left lane. To this motly mix, we've added yet more morons who think choo-choo trains are somehow the answer.

      Oh, well. The important thing is how easy it is to feel superior to everyone involved. :-P

    36. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      I think I understand your sentiment. Roads would be much nicer and more efficient if we just got rid of all the human beings.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    37. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      When something goes wrong like signalling problems, then everything falls apart. Passengers just start grabbing whatever train is available to take them that bit closer to where they want to go, ending up with crowding so bad that people are standing in the interconnects between carriages and next to the doors.

      My favorite UK train experience was when I was in the standing-room area of a train, and a rather irate gentleman was upset that he had purchased a rather pricey first-class ticket and was standing wedged between the train door and the tea cart. That was a fun conversation to listen in on.

    38. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Air travel is subsidized. Passengers don't pay all the costs of airports or air traffic control. Air travel also has significant externalities; it uses more fuel than rail (meaning more pollution), and because the pollution is released at a high altitude it has more effect on the ozone layer than ground level pollution does.

      People complain about rail subsidies. But EVERY form of transportation is subsidized in present day society. There are arguments in favor of ending all those subsidies, as they cause people to make decisions that would be bad ones without the subsidies. Individuals travel too much and live far from their workplaces. And we get centralized manufacturing, centralized agriculture, and Amazon because shipping goods is artificially cheap.

    39. Re:Gallant works on smart roads.... by jcr · · Score: 1

      Air travel is subsidized.

      If you want to argue for the end of all subsidies, I'm all ears, but this is not a reason for one more boondoggle.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Raise taxes to pay for it...

    1. Re:Easy... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Raise taxes to pay for it...

      Or, just use that $6.1 billion budget surplus to pay it off.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given all the illegals there. That won't net much.

    3. Re:Easy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the point, it will cause the property near the train stations to increase in value and thereby increase tax revenue.

  3. European mass transit v US mass transit by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3, Informative

    This appears to be part of a general trend, transit costs in the US have been massively subject to "cost disease" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease. However, the effect is much more pronounced for mass transit in the US than in Europe or elsewhere http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2541-01?journalCode=trr. While there are some arguments that how the US treats trains has advantages over Europe http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=11847, the cost difference in new ones is gigantic. In this particular case, it is combining very badly with other issues, including the insanely high prices of land in California.

    1. Re: European mass transit v US mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe 2018 travels dirt cheap on Ryan air and other airlines

    2. Re: European mass transit v US mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      European trains are so highly subsidized for people transport that large item transport has suffered to the point where it is now handled by truck traffic.

    3. Re: European mass transit v US mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of freight in Europe does go by rail. There are a lot of train-to-truck interchanges to facilitate this.

    4. Re: European mass transit v US mass transit by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Any business relying on government deals is shady: construction, waste management, software programming.

      Everyone knows that once you locked a government contract, you can lay back and count money.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    5. Re: European mass transit v US mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Large item transport never went by train. Railways are utterly unsuited to it because of the overhead lines.

    6. Re:European mass transit v US mass transit by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      The 'cost disease' starts with very over-optimistic cost estimates that are used by politicians to justify the projects. Then they issue construction contracts that don't hold any one company accountable for the overall cost (largely because no company would sign such a contract because they know the estimates are low). Of course, once the project gets to a certain point where there is no turning back, the bad news seems to start coming.

      I'd like to see politicians promise to quit if the such a project goes over budget by more than 15%. But we know that would never happen.

    7. Re:European mass transit v US mass transit by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      I'd go one further, I'd like to see the authorizing body (city council, state legislators) held personally liable for costs over 15%. But that is not going to happen either.

    8. Re:European mass transit v US mass transit by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      The main issue is inflation. When this was originally proposed about 20 years ago, the “cost” was about $10B. Inflation in California is about 5% annually, so take ~50 years of inflation, and you are magically at $100B. The original cost was likely half of the real cost at the time, so this is what you get... $1Million/mile for the track was a reasonable cost at the time, double it for land, double the total again for cars and stations.

      But, the real problem is land acquisition. They should have condemned the land in the first year for the route, and completed purchase before breaking ground. They should have also condemned a 1/2 mike (or more) radius around each station to foster transit-oriented development.

      Sadly, it has been so screwed up now, I don’t know what they can do to get it on track in my lifetime.

    9. Re: European mass transit v US mass transit by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Idea: require politicians to purchase insurance (covering completion of said project within budget) with their own salaries; reimburse politicians after completion...

    10. Re:European mass transit v US mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Project management rule of thumb - whatever you are doing, it will cost twice as much and take four times as long as you initially estimate. Cost twice as much because you will always see things you initially forgot, or you're basing your costs on way old data. And take four times as long because, well, double the initial estimate once because unexpected stuff always happens, and double it again because inevitably the initial estimate was unrealistically optimistic to begin with.

      This rule has never let me down.

    11. Re: European mass transit v US mass transit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully Elon Musk can save us from govt bureaucracy and wrong incentives particularly around budgets

  4. From Massachusetts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ...and the victims of "The Big Dig", we feel your pain.

    1. Re:From Massachusetts... by David_Hart · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and the victims of "The Big Dig", we feel your pain.

      I feel for those who had to suffer through the construction.... but as one of the tens of thousands of beneficiaries of the Big Dig,... It was worth it!!!

    2. Re: From Massachusetts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you have stock in the construction company or did you figure out a way to short the tax payers?

    3. Re:From Massachusetts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they ever get the deteriorating concrete, Ginsu guardrails and rusting metal issues fixed or did they just say "Meh, we'll repair things as they collapse"?

    4. Re: From Massachusetts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just benefits from the improved infrastructure?

    5. Re: From Massachusetts... by David_Hart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bingo!! Anyone who commuted into Boston before the Big Dig and then after would say it was well worth it. I had to work in Cambridge last week and while there were backups, they only lasted 15 to 20 minutes. Before the Big Dig you could easily spend upwards of 60 minutes sitting in traffic. People who live directly in Boston may not see the benefits but the 80% of the population that commutes into Boston it's a huge difference.

  5. California Sqaundering Money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm shocked! Next on Gov. Moonbeam's list: building a non-stop bullet train from Mexico to Cali.

  6. Race between Texas and California by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The official web site of the proposed Texas bullet train, from Houston to Dallas, says that the Texas project will cost "over 12 billion" and start construction in 2019. Like the California project, the Texas project has been plagued by delays and cost increases. I wonder who succeed first, or at all.

    1. Re:Race between Texas and California by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Texas Central is confident they will transport the first true high speed passengers in the country, despite not having yet turned a shovel. If they can manage to reach construction, I think they will win because the route is easier (mostly flat open land), 100% new build (versus sharing with existing passenger/freight RoW), and less encumbered by regulations (e.g. FRA crash safety standards can be relaxed as it does not connect to the national freight network).

      And by not taking government subsidy, they were able to come up with the route of "least resistance" versus routes that involve deviating to serve every local politician's one horse town. Stations are pretty expensive, and by only having one intermediate one they save on cost, time, and legal wrangling.

    2. Re:Race between Texas and California by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      I wonder who succeed first, or at all.

      Well, the folks who "win", will be the employees of the project who succeed in dragging out their project the longest. If they pad the project out correctly . . . they can make it last until their planned retirement, and never need to look for another train construction job again.

      If they finish on time . . . they will need to go out and look for a new job in a few years.

      Now, which option do you think they will choose . . . ?

      Anyway, when rail construction in the western got stuck in the late 1800's, they solved the problem by importing Chinese workers.

      Maybe California and Texas could try that again . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    3. Re:Race between Texas and California by tonique · · Score: 1
      It seems the Houston station is not going to be in the centre but instead outside I610. That seems non-ideal. Perhaps they thought it would be too expensive to have station in the centre? Quote:

      Houston’s passenger station will be located in northwest Houston just outside 610 between Interstate 10/290. This area was recognized by the FRA as the location with the right combination of minimal environmental and community impact. This route allows the train to follow existing rights of way, while providing high-speed train passengers with easy, efficient roadway access and connectivity with planned transit improvements.

      The current light rail in Houston doesn't go the location of the HSR station.

    4. Re:Race between Texas and California by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      planned transit improvements.

      That seems to be the operative sentence. If they manage to extend the local network in time it would be a fine idea.

      Of course, rail planners everywhere seem to think only in terms of their prestige project and not about local connectivity, so I'm afraid that it will turn out to be another station to nowhere.

      (As an example, the Netherlands insisted on a High Speed rail link going all the way to Amsterdam, for reasons of 'international prestige', instead of terminating at Rotterdam and spending the rest of the budget on local improvement. Now we have a fast connection to Paris, that terminates in an increasingly rickety local network in Amsterdam. Never mind that no-one seemed to mind at the time taking the Paris Metro to go from the Gare du Nord to the Gare du Lyon if they want to travel via TGV to the south)

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    5. Re:Race between Texas and California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an issue with HS2 in the UK. For example, the time from London to Birmingham will be reduced by 30 minutes, except it will be nearly Birmingham. I doubt there will be much time reduction at all to central Birmingham. With self-driving cars and telepresence, HS2 seems a waste compared to improving existing capacity. Great news for construction firms, though.

    6. Re:Race between Texas and California by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      There not only Amsterdamers who want to travel somewhere there are plenty of people that want to travel to Amsterdam, too.
      And for them a train stopping in the center of the city is convenient.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    7. Re: Race between Texas and California by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me wonder about accusations of a Democrat boondoggle in CA. I guess if there is one, in Texas it would have to be a Republican one in Texas, wouldnâ(TM)t it since they control â..." of the legislature.

    8. Re:Race between Texas and California by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      You conveniently overlooked the second parenthetical remark. Try visiting Amsterdam less, the dope is not helping your brain.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    9. Re:Race between Texas and California by njahnke · · Score: 1

      I don't think it'll be a deal breaker for many of their initial customers - business types who would have been flying. They'll get into their cars and drive home to Katy or whatever suburb. Of course, if this actually gets built, and METRORail isn't there, the sudden increase in demand will force their hand. "If you build it, they will come."

    10. Re:Race between Texas and California by Tony+Isaac · · Score: 1

      The station being outside the loop is not a problem for Houstonians. I've lived in Houston for almost 30 years. We consider "the loop" to be the boundary of the "inner city." For most of us, that's plenty close to downtown.

      Keep in mind, this train is not really targeting people who rely on public transportation. This train is intended to compete with airlines. Houstonians won't have any issues driving to the station on 290.

    11. Re:Race between Texas and California by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I live in Germany ;D
      We have the same dope as in Amsterdam.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  7. Hard to believe by AlanObject · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $78B? OMG. That is like almost 8% of the cost of the Iraq war.

    No way we could ever fund something that big.

    1. Re:Hard to believe by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Iraq war was funded by the US govt. It was a national effort. This train is a state project.

      Secondly, just because you wasted a lot of money on a big worthless project in the past, doesn't make it okay to keep on wasting money on further worthless projects. And yes I do agree that Iraq was a clusterfuck and that US should GTFO of the middle east completely.

      I'm hoping Elon will put this matter to rest with his Boring company. By that I mean, the Senate Launch System, which at $1 billion+ per launch is a wasteful pork barrel project designed only to line the pockets of former Shuttle defense contractors. But with the successful launch of the Falcon Heavy (which currently costs less than 1/10th of the SLS but eventually with reusability will probably reach 1/100th the cost of the SLS) not even the most pork-doling corrupt senator will be able to justify the SLS's existence.

      Anyways I'm hoping Boring company will do to worthless pork barrel trains what SpaceX has done to worthless pork barrel rockets.

    2. Re: Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      California contributes vastly more to federal coffers than it gets back.

      Implement the Wyoming Rule and watch things change.

    3. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So just because an entire nation wasted a flushed a fuck load down the shitter on a needless war then a single state should be easily able to pay a little under 10%. FY if you scale this by size of the paying base this is around 5 times more expensive than the Iraq War.

    4. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California is about 10% of the US population, this actually means the relative cost of this is similar to the Iraq war on a per capita basis, will be significantly more by the end of the project.

    5. Re: Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by the time its done cali will account for 20% of the US' population

    6. Re: Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Boring Company will accomplish almost nothing. Like most of Musk's ideas, it is long on talk, short on reality.

    7. Re:Hard to believe by RazorSharp · · Score: 0

      Iraq war was funded by the US govt. It was a national effort. This train is a state project.

      That state is 20% of the U.S. economy.

      worthless pork barrel trains

      You should visit California and you should visit Europe. I don't see how anyone could visit those two places and not come to the conclusion that California needs to copy Europe's high speed train model. Going anywhere in Cali is a hazardous nightmare. In Europe, you can get anywhere efficiently and without much stress.

      Elon Musk struggles to pay his employees and keep the lights on. I wouldn't trust him to take on a project of this magnitude. The goal of Falcon Heavy was to keep the costs down so he could boast about it to investors (and the government, so he can get their money, too). He's still has a long way to go to demonstrate that 1) he can compare to NASA 2) that he can turn space exploration into a profitable venture. NASA may burn the government's money, but Musk is burning investor money.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    8. Re: Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until an earthquake hits and fucks it all up!

      Damn shame you finished building that sandcastle, time for nature to knock it down and wash it out.

    9. Re: Hard to believe by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Funny, ever heard of Japan and South Korea. High speed rail, properly built, works just fine in seismic zones.

    10. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that I mean, the Senate Laundering System, which at $1 billion+ per launch is a wasteful pork barrel project designed only to line the pockets of former Shuttle defense contractors.

      FTFY

    11. Re:Hard to believe by burtosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The government has been misplacing a trillion dollars per year for 20 years. It's now sitting upwards of 21 thousand billion, or as I like to say 1/50th of a quadrillion dollars At this point any tax paying citizen should have zero respect for how tax money is spent and demand reform.

    12. Re:Hard to believe by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      All problems that can be solved by Calexit...
      (1) A terrorist attack against a train itself is unlikely (why not just attack the tracks?), but will be even less likely in an independent California that's neutral and not involved in wars that make people hate the US.
      (2) California pays more money to DC than it gets back. An independent California would have much more money to play with without subsidizing parasitic states.
      (3) Assuming an independent California, they'd still have to deal with state bureaucracy, but the Federal layer goes away, simplifying things quite a bit.

    13. Re:Hard to believe by vovin · · Score: 1

      Please god yes. Cal exit.
      (Oh, and surprise ... Cal gone a couple of years after that ... water rights go away with Cal exit, and Cal goes away w/o water).

    14. Re:Hard to believe by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      Nuclear and/or solar desalination using Israeli or Chinese tech. Assuming Oregon, Washington, and Nevada don't join the movement.

    15. Re: Hard to believe by jeti · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In 2017, twenty-nine orbital rockets were launched from the US. Nineteen of those were a Falcon 9.

      http://spaceflight101.com/2017...

    16. Re:Hard to believe by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Iraq war was funded by the US govt. It was a national effort. This train is a state project.

      Interstate highway system is a national effort. No reason a high-speed rail network should not be.

      Secondly, just because you wasted a lot of money on a big worthless project in the past, doesn't make it okay to keep on wasting money on further worthless projects.

      If the interstate highway system had started five years ago, it would also be a "big worthless project" and completing it would involve an astronomical sum.

    17. Re:Hard to believe by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Didn't we just get tax reform? Lower taxes for all. That will solve the problem. Oh and fire 20 weather forecasters to cut costs.

    18. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Calexit would stop the subsidies to the redneck flyover states, sounds good to me, why should they pay for a bunch of useless gun crazed inbreds?
      Draw a line a couple of hundred miles in from each coast, let the coastal areas leave and watch the dumbfucks kill each other.

    19. Re: Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the route doesn't cross any major seismic zone actually. Biggest seismic challenge is the tunnels through the San Gabriel mountains.

    20. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Stargate program is expensive.
      You can't build intergalactic battlecruisers for free.

    21. Re: Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .... And we still don't pay for your State Highways. Are you seeing the difference yet?

    22. Re:Hard to believe by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You want a Calexit? Ok, but take all the Democrat refugees that have been fleeing from the state and taking their shitty policies with them that caused them to flee in the first place. Then you can officially become annexed by Mexico.

    23. Re:Hard to believe by burtosis · · Score: 1

      I'd honestly love it if we were building intergalactic battle cruisers, mostly because it would be actual technological progress and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't get to genocide any alien life quite yet and genociding earth life is already a mature technology. No, given how bad regular funded stuff is, I'm expecting money to insurgent groups like isis we currently are "fighting" so we have someone to actually fight, massive amounts of illegal drugs, embezzlement and fraud with the latest nanotech internet of things pork belly liner, and straight up illegal payoffs to foreign nations and deep state members.

    24. Re:Hard to believe by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that State we are talking about has a larger GDP than almost all other countries?

      --
      Good-bye
    25. Re: Hard to believe by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Like Falcon Heavy? Lol, take your head out of the sand. SpaceX has three commercial, fully paid launches slated in the **next 30 days**. There have been 50 Falcon launches. But yeah, the guy cant execute...

      --
      Good-bye
    26. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is more like 3% of the cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan war as of 2007. CBO reported the cost to be 2.4 Trillion

    27. Re: Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we don't want to pay for your roads.. guess who pays who if you add it all up?! No road for you!

    28. Re: Hard to believe by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Where do you think federal highways go through - outer space? How many times were you dropped on the head as a child?

    29. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you visit both California and Europe, you will find that people in California are not like the people in Europe. In particular, you will find that you really do not want to share a train car with the vast majority of people in California. That is one of the reasons Californians really like their cars.

      If you want evidence, compare crime rates, murder rates, child abuse rates, gun ownership rates, assault rates, etc., not to mention personal hygiene, rudeness, puking on trains, and other things that don't so readily show up in statistics.

    30. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The state’s two largest public retirement programs, the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teacher’s Retirement System (CalSTRS), cover 65% of the four million state, county, and local employees who are eligible for public pension benefits. These two programs reported $62 billion and $74 billion in unfunded liabilities, respectively, for the 2013 fiscal year. An unfunded liability is a disparity between the estimated amount of a pension plan’s obligations and the current value of its assets. Over the past twenty years, CalSTRS’ unfunded liability has increased more than $65 billion and the CalPERS liability has grown by more than $63 billion.

      Like many public pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS are long-term investors—their investments can be volatile in the short term but are expected to produce higher returns over a 20-year period. From 1993 to 2013, CalPERS and CalSTRS’ average investment returns were 8.57% and 8.46%, respectively—above the assumed rate of 7.5%.

      The fact that liabilities have continued to grow even though average market returns have exceeded expectations suggests that the state pension systems have been underfunded over time. But shifting demographics are also a factor. The number of California adults age 65 and older has grown from 9% of the population in 1970 to 13% in 2013, and is projected to be as much as 17% by 2025. In the same period, birth rates have slightly declined, meaning that as the baby-boom generation ages there will be fewer younger workers to support the increasing number of public employee retirees. For many of these retirees, the state is also covering the cost of health care benefits.

    31. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you can't even take your car with you?

    32. Re:Hard to believe by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

      How is sharing a train car worse or better than sharing a restaurant dining room, sharing a beach, sharing a workplace? Also, having taken the metro and commuter train in San Diego, San Diegans are on average better behaved and less drunk than many Europeans.

    33. Re:Hard to believe by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      "The train is estimated to take 3 hours, compared to 5.5 hours by car."

      Ten or Fifteen years ago, Mythbusters staged a race between a Bay Area starting point and an LA area destination with a pair driving a car and an individual taking a plane (nominally about an hour) then renting a car in LA. The racers arrived within a few minutes of one another. Their conclusion. Depending on luck, both take about the same time. My guess is that HSR would likely be about the same (fewer delays than air travel, but slower and won't sit at the airport for hours waiting for the fog to lift at LAX.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    34. Re:Hard to believe by rewardian · · Score: 1

      No mod points available, but excellent synopsis. Thanks.

    35. Re:Hard to believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russkie troll. Deficit spending saved the world's economy from collapse. What did Putin do? Nothing because he was busy converting his stolen Rubles into yachts, real estate, and gold,

  8. We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been to a lot of different countries, and it's always ironic how much better their mass transit is than in the U.S. I have rarely had to rent a car or even take a taxi to get anywhere I want to go - outside of the U.S. And it's very rare for me to have to take a bus in another country. Train go everywhere, except in the country I live in.

    Given the insane amounts we spend on airports and aircraft, and roads, there just isn't any justification for not having the good trains they have in other countries. Consider little Switzerland, and its incredible transit systems. Take the train from London to Paris. Nothing you would see in the U.S.

    So-called "smart roads" (which aren't going to work except for those leased vehicles with locked-down hoods) and autonomous vehicles might work for urban transit eventually. For inter-city routes they are still molasses-slow and inefficient.

    And I am not really sanguine about the hyperloop. The safety issues make my mind boggle, and companies are having trouble even getting a model to go fast in one.

    1. Re:We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take the train from London to Paris.

      I’ll take a plane instead.

    2. Re:We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Iâ(TM)ll take a plane [from London to Paris] instead. Well, it doesn't really sound like you've had the opportunity. Planes go from airport to airport. The last time I took Eurostar, I went from the center of London to the center of Paris. And took a lot less time than getting to and from each airport.

    3. Re:We still need good trains by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      I can take an airplane from San Jose to Burbank for $121 and even with security, it takes about 2 hours I can drive to Shafter (about halfway) in about 2.5 hours and cost about $23. Why do I need a train that takes twice as long and is *certain* to cause $300-400, not to mention bankrupting the state in the process? Who gives a crap what happens in Europe, why does *this* train and the astonishing and ever-growing cost make sense?

    4. Re: We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      You are not counting the real cost of your vehicle, which is probably about $8,500 per year before you drive a mile. You can find more accurate figures here.

    5. Re:We still need good trains by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Take the train from London to Paris.

      I’ll take a plane instead.

      I have done London-Paris using both modes. Trust me, you would prefer the train. Get in in downtown London, get off in downtown Paris while airport travelers are still dealing with the latest wildcat strike at CDG.

      The People's Republic of California could order every component of this bullet train system right out of the Alstom catalog, so technology is not the issue in the Gilded State. It's strictly because of the stupid politics that you will be able to hop a self-driving car to the Hyperloop station before the HSR is finished.

    6. Re: We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Use this URL. For some reason Slashdot's mobile HTML is not presenting a preview button.

    7. Re:We still need good trains by gravewax · · Score: 1

      done both, the train is easier and faster.

    8. Re: We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It cost about $60 to rent a car from San Jose and drop it off in Shaffer, so the total cost is $83, which will be couple times cheaper then this train.

    9. Re:We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on your fast efficient trip. But don't be surprised if the terrorists discover exactly how easy it would be to rent a piece of heavy equipment and very efficiently take out a rail.

      My favorite response to this sort of thing is this entirely accidental equivalent for roads.

    10. Re: We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Actually, the lowest I got on Kayak was $86, and that's using your own insurance.

      Then add in the cost of a driver. You aren't driving the train, and you get to do other stuff.

    11. Re:We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I’ll take the plane.

    12. Re:We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic? Are you sure about that?

    13. Re:We still need good trains by RazorSharp · · Score: 1

      I can take an airplane from San Jose to Burbank for $121 and even with security, it takes about 2 hours

      I haven't been to San Jose's airport, but if you were to leave from LAX you'd have to get to their airport two hours before takeoff to make it to your gate in time. That's not counting LA's crazy traffic, where it takes an hour to drive ten miles.

      why does *this* train and the astonishing and ever-growing cost make sense?

      It will greatly reduce traffic, decongest airports, reduce pollution, provide economic opportunities for the underprivileged, and projects like this are a boon to the economy.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    14. Re:We still need good trains by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      I recently flew to Frankfurt from outside London. It would have been similar door-to-door on the train, and about the same cost, although there are sometimes very cheap airfares on offer, which would tip the balance.

    15. Re:We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Done both, the plane always wins.

    16. Re:We still need good trains by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed we need good trains. But regular railway track through rural areas costs about $1.5 to $3 million per mile.

      This stretch of track is going to cost $10.6 billion / 119 miles = $89 million per mile.

      The U.S. bet on highways in the 1940s and 1950s. While highways are probably a good idea for personal vehicles in a country the size of the U.S., they had the side-effect of subsidizing the trucking industry. The higher tire pressures of trucks cause almost all the damage to our roads and highways, but their fuel taxes only pay for about half of it. So in effect, passenger cars are subsidizing the trucking industry, dropping the economic cost of truck transport below that of rail (where you have to pay for labor to transfer cargo from a ship/truck to the train in the source city, then from the train to a truck in the destination city). That's what we need to fix if we want to spur more railway development in the U.S. Make trucks bear the true cost of the damage they do to our roads, and suddenly rail transport will be more financially attractive.

    17. Re: We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It takes more time and it's less comfortable.

    18. Re: We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet Alanis Morissette really hates you

    19. Re:We still need good trains by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why should the train ticket be such expensive?
      I had expected a price around $50, perhaps $60.

      For EUR75 I ride from my town to Paris, 450km, 2:30h, city center to city center.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    20. Re:We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Comparisons to Europe are meaningless. LA is not London. SF is not Paris. 2030-2040 is not 1995 when the trains connected London and Paris. You can’t easily drive from London to Paris like you can from LA to SF. California is not Switzerland. California government is much worse than European governments.

    21. Re: We still need good trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youâ(TM)ll still need a train after that because Gatwick and Heathrow are a long way from London. So is de Gaulle. You donâ(TM)t have to go through security and once on board, the seats are comfortable, you can walk around and you only have to take your shoes off if you want to. You get on in the center of Paris or London, or Zurich or Rome or Amsterdam and you disembark in the center of your destination. It works well.

      Have you ever gone through security at Heathrow or de Gaulle? It has sometimes taken me two hours.

    22. Re:We still need good trains by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 2

      Probably because LA to SF is 600+ km and CA ($90-100 million/mile) is spending way more per mile of track than France ($3-4 million/mile) did.

      For reference, a current Amtrak one-way train takes 11 hours and costs anywhere from $65-$215 depending on class of service. Taking the bus is less time (9h) and money ($30), although presumably not as nice. Current prediction is $86 for subsidized single "low-cost" high-speed ticket (3h) on the new line, but that may still increase.

      Cheapest (one tank of gas) and fastest (5h) combined is still to just drive, if you aren't traveling alone, as it's the same cost for multiple people to take one vehicle.

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    23. Re:We still need good trains by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,
      it is not the same cost if you have multiple people in a car.

      I guess your american problems with mass transit is mainly driven by gasoline prices.

      If I would go by car from Karlsruhe to Paris, 450km is about 45EUR for fuel and about 90EUR road tolls and 5:30h trip (train is 2:30h). Or you take the long route and save the road tolls but then it is 7:00h and more money for the fuel.

      In Europe it is basically never cheaper to use a car. The cheapest train tickets from Karlsruhe to Paris are 39EUR, you start in Stuttgart and go via Karlsruhe (why those tickets don't exist from Karlsruhe on, I don't know).

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    24. Re:We still need good trains by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      It's not about gasoline. It's about the astronomical costs of building and maintaining it, particularly over a vastly larger area. You spend an inconceivable (it's really $98 billion and it;s still 10+ years away - meaning if it ever gets built at all (which is extremely doubtful) it will really be $250 billion) amount of money to build something that is definitively and will always be a secondary choice to better solutions. Better solutions that already exist and take a fraction of the time and cost to use.

    25. Re:We still need good trains by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      If I would go by car from Karlsruhe to Paris, 450km is about 45EUR for fuel and about 90EUR road tolls and 5:30h trip (train is 2:30h).

      That doesn't really tell me whether road or rail transportation is better, only that in Europe, it's public policy to discourage car use (for better or worse).

      Gas in the US is currently $2.50 a gallon. An economy car* will get 40 MPG, which means the 450 km (270 mi) drive will cost about $17.50 in gas. Freeways are free to use, so all that's left is the car's maintenance costs, which is about $0.07 a mile for an economy car, adding another $20 for the trip. In total that's $37.50, or 30 EUR. Americans will also drive at or above 70 mph, so the trip would only take 4 hours instead of 5:30.

      If the US started collecting a very high toll, I imagine it could become more convenient to travel by rail than car, but there's no reason that needs to happen. The US government currently spends less on freeways ($69 billion) than the top 10 countries in Europe do on rail ($80 billion combined).

      *An economy car in the US is something like a Ford Focus or Toyota Corolla, which can seat 5 people.

    26. Re: We still need good trains by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      People that spend $8500/year on a car are engaging in conspicuous consumption. That's not a transport cost, that's an impress your neighbors cost.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    27. Re: We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      If you look at the AAA cost breakdown you can see where the money goes. That turns out to be reasonable cost of ownership of a new car over its lifetime. People who are considering this issue don't necessarily even count the cost of their insurance. There's also a significant cost to the credit in buying a new car. Don't know where your money is going from week to week? Probably a good deal of it is going to your automobile.

    28. Re:We still need good trains by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Well,
      the distance is 450km by train, by car it is longer.

      Americans will also drive at or above 70 mph, so the trip would only take 4 hours instead of 5:30.
      There are to many speed limits for that, use a route planner if you don't believe me. There is no direct "free way" connection, you have to deroute far to the north or far to the south.

      That doesn't really tell me whether road or rail transportation is better
      Well, there are many things to consider.
      E.g. just a few month ago EU banished roaming fees for mobile phones and mobile internet.
      Before that it was super inconvenient to drive with a car into Paris because of lack of navigation utilities (no internet) ... of course you can prepare, especially if you have a competent co-driver, or preload maps etc. (but then you still have only the map and no navigation)

      Of course we discourage car usage. First of all we want to save fuel, secondly we don't want the pollution in towns, thirdly we have public transport, so people should use it, or it is pointless.

      So now we only have the problem of parking ... basically every spot in Paris is a pay to park place. If you park in a hotel you pay extra $15 per night for your car.

      For many city to city travel in Europe it simply makes no sense to take a car. Except you have special circumstances.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    29. Re: We still need good trains by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      What did I say? New cars are to _impress_the_neighbors_, not for transportation.

      Especially when talking about $8500+/year worth of new car.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    30. Re: We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      I've driven a 1990 Toyota Camry from brand-new to 150,000 miles and 17 years of age, when I replaced it with a 2007 Prius which I have so far driven from brand-new to 120,000 miles. I also have a 2015 Jeep which I use to pull my trailer. There are three drivers in the home.

      All of these are modest vehicles not purchased to impress the neighbors, and all are driven to the point that the cost of a single service to replace rubber parts (engine mounts, CVC boots, etc.) approaches the remaining book value of the vehicle.

      I can make a pretty good case that the annual cost of ownership of each of these vehicles approaches $8500, given the cost of insurance, tires, maintenance, legal compliance (inspection, registration), and fuel. For the Prius, the AAA estimated cost per mile comes out to around a dollar, and it's been driven 10K/miles year, so this is really a no-brainer.

      Given that we take good care of these vehicles and drive each of them to the point that further maintenance is uneconomical, rather than when they become "unimpressive" (not that they ever were impressive), I don't believe you can make a case that a used vehicle would have been a better value.

    31. Re: We still need good trains by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your on crack. New cars _are_ to impress the neighbors. Lose 40% of value in their first year.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    32. Re: We still need good trains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Well, if you buy American cars that might be true. They are still mostly rip-offs. Edmunds claims that it's 11% the moment you drive off the lot, and about 20% per year, on average. I'd actually like to find that guy who takes care of his cars perfectly for a year, doesn't put too much mileage on them, and sells year-old cars at 40% of new value. But then I never pay full price for new cars anyway, so maybe that is counting the fake dealer price.

      A new Camry, Prius, and Jeep don't really impress anyone. They're purchased for other reasons.

  9. Re:The train California deserves. by AlanObject · · Score: 5, Funny

    Exactly no one with any brains is surprised. This is government working the way it always does, badly.

    Right. The Interstate highway system was such a complete disaster. And who could ever forget the mistake called Hoover dam. The power grid and water system never did do what it was supposed to. Private enterprise and the free market were the only reason we had no air carrier fatalities for 10 years and don't get me started on the U.S. Army. A high-school football team could probably push them over.

    Too bad we didn't just leave it all up to AC. What were we thinking.

  10. Bezos by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

    That is half the net worth of Bezos! That is a lot of money, right? He could only buy two.

    1. Re:Bezos by Dorianny · · Score: 1

      Paper worth is not the same thing as money in the bank. Bezos would love nothing more then to liquidate his assets so he can fund his pet projects but he can only sell about 1Billion worth of his Amazon stock holdings a year without negatively affecting the stock price, at this rate it will take about a century to liquidate his assets and that's assuming that the price of Amazon stock remains stable

  11. lol by Hugh+Jorgen · · Score: 0

    Kennedy - To the Moon! Obama - Let's build trains!

  12. Even $60 Bn is preposterous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell are they spending 60 Billion dollars on in a single rail line? Are they laying tracks from solid gold, set with sapphires? This is nuts! In any other country of the same size you would probably build half a national railway infrastructure from scratch for that kind of money.

    1. Re:Even $60 Bn is preposterous! by ZorinLynx · · Score: 1

      I know, right?

      Also, 60 BILLION dollars. That's 60,000 million dollars. It's such a vast some of money. You just KNOW there's cash being skimmed off the top all over the place. A lot of people can become quite rich from just a couple percent off this budget.

    2. Re:Even $60 Bn is preposterous! by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      Are they laying tracks from solid gold, set with sapphires?

      No, the gold and sapphires are going to the Central Valley farmers whose land the train will cross. Land which after the train goes through will be so much higher in value that a rational government could have had them bid for the privilege of paying for the right to have the track running through.

    3. Re:Even $60 Bn is preposterous! by careysub · · Score: 1

      Only where there are stations. Believe it or not a high speed train running non-stop through your community does not raise land values.

      And a lot of stations means no "high speed rail".

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    4. Re:Even $60 Bn is preposterous! by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      a lot of stations means no "high speed rail"

      That's not true at all. Express trains have existed for ages. You can build 10 stations on the line, but not stop at all of them in any one trip. Train #1 might stop at station #1, and then skip the other 9 stations. Train #2 only stops at station #2 and #8, and so on.

  13. Hyperloop One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God dam! For that price I'm thinking they could have done all the necessary R&D to build a hyperloop one, and had the thing built. Well, Elon Musk might have anyway.

    P.S. Yes, I believe he is a modern day hero. The only reason the alt-right doesn't is because he is going to show just what solar energy can do.

    1. Re:Hyperloop One by gravewax · · Score: 1

      Elon Musk is many things, but someone that runs projects on budget and on time aint one of them.

    2. Re: Hyperloop One by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      There are some significant technical challenges to a 400 mile long evacuated tunnel. And you probably need three of them to make it practical, one for each direction and one to be down for service while the other two operate. Also all of the drawings I've seen are about cars in very tight tubes with no arrangement for evacuation of the people aboard, and just what happens from a derailment is still up in the air.

    3. Re: Hyperloop One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it count as evacuation if you expose the passengers to vacuum or explosive decompression? I'd say they would be thoroughly evacuated :-)

    4. Re:Hyperloop One by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      Forget Hyperloop, even traditional tunneling costs are lower than this - let alone the costs Boring Company is looking for. While it's easy to focus on the most expensive, ridiculously priced urban tunnel projects in history, which can be over a billion dollars per mile, most tunnels are far cheaper. The Shanghai River crossing tunnel in China, for example, was $27m/mi. For tunnels in the western world, Westerschelde in the Netherlands was $60m per mile. For 11m diameter twin tunnels.

      $10,6B for 119 miles is $89m per mile, primarily in "land acquisition", "relocating utility systems" and "the need for safety barriers" - none of which exist on a per-mile basis for a bored tunnel of sufficient depth. You don't even need improvements in boring technology to make tunnels more economical than this, you just need a reasonable bid on a fixed-price contract at current modern pricing. And if you bore, the number of miles can generally be reduced. It's just crazy that 119 miles from Wasco to Merced costs so much. Look at it on a map; it's just farmland.

      --
      "Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
    5. Re:Hyperloop One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost of boring is inversely proportional to the length of the tunnel. Other factor greatly influence the cost, a large one being local geology. Of course, in cities, there is also the cost of the access land/properties.

      As for the cost of 119 miles from Wasco to Merced being 'just farmland', that doesn't mean its low cost to get rights of way. On top of land cost there are legal costs. We see similar cost impacts when trying to build transmission lines down new corridors. The cost of the line itself may not be that much, but the land acquisition and legal battles that ensue drive up costs tremendously. Most people don't bother to consider that for some reason.

    6. Re: Hyperloop One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still need to buy the land for the hyper loop, donâ(TM)t you? That is what the article says is driving up the costs for the train line. Would the hyperloop be any different?

    7. Re:Hyperloop One by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      The extreme costs are because a system has grown to snag every possible dollar going into these public pocket projects. If we don't learn how to take control of that, the same will happen to the underground projects in time. Since too many powerful people get their wealth from this system, we won't take control of it.

      Therefore, this is what is going to happen. When technology for underground tunneling reaches a critical mass that allows tunneling projects to so far outperform above-ground alternatives that the money behind the above-ground projects can't continue to suppress the competition, we will have a window of time during which we can cost-effectively build underground systems as we had a window of time with highways. It will be shorter than the one we had with highways because many of the means to milk money from the government developed for highway systems will transfer and the established powerful people in the above-ground projects will move their focus. But, it will be long enough to develop an irreplaceable system and a very strong argument to keep building more because that is to the long-term advantage of those milking the money from the system.

      Inevitably, we'll do things like take all of the underground rights to the land and sell them at ridiculously low prices to people who can afford to buy vast regions who will then hold them for a while and sell them back to the government for ridiculously high prices or we'll create crazy regulations that support an infrastructure of paper pushers doing nothing of value to the project while the companies employing them siphon vast profits.

      It is a fiction that the regulations of the US are anti-business. They are anti-small business. They are the protective wall carefully built by big business to wall out the competition of small-business and entrepreneurs with good intentions. They are intentionally designed to drive up the cost of entry into the business, decreasing competition, and allowing profits to rise. Corrupt regulations and licensing are the most important tools of the system that siphons the money from these public projects. That is not to say that regulations and licensing are bad, just that ours have been largely hijacked.

    8. Re: Hyperloop One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and just what happens from a derailment is still up in the air.

      Up in the air...? That would be one heck of a subterrainean derailment!

  14. Gee Who Woulda Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of the older Reason Magazine articles that detailed how this project was a boondoggle from the start (and the Democrats knew it):

    http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/28/the-political-class-knew-california-high

    It's also been a nightmare for property owners along the route for this expensive but imaginary train, thanks to eminent domain

    http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-land-problems-20180204-htmlstory.html

    1. Re:Gee Who Woulda Thought by PPH · · Score: 1

      It's also been a nightmare for property owners along the route for this expensive but imaginary train, thanks to eminent domain

      http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-land-problems-20180204-htmlstory.html

      To be fair, they aren't property owners anymore after the train authority buys their land. The people that suffer are the ones living next to boarded up houses and buildings. This I don't get. Why doesn't the municipality just pass an ordinance that these unoccupied structures be bulldozed within (say) 30 days of a sale. No crack houses. No dens full of bums. Just flat land. Lease it to a parking management outfit (for example) for a few years until it's time for construction. And someone will have an incentive to police it.

      Seattle does this as well. Sell a building to developers and they can't flatten it until the building permits are finalized. They are almost advertising for hobos to move to the city and take up residence in boarded up structures.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Gee Who Woulda Thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing fair about someone forcing you to sell your property at a price they dictated to you. Especially when it's the government doing it in defiance of constitutional law, and the stated reason that they're doing it is for a project that they never realistically had a chance of paying for or even finishing. Some "public good", that.

    3. Re:Gee Who Woulda Thought by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      To be fair, they aren't property owners anymore after the train authority buys their land. The people that suffer are the ones living next to boarded up houses and buildings.

      The obvious solution to this is to not take over the land until construction starts. Have the owners sign something along the lines of "the rail authority will pay X for your property on Y date, but you may continue to use the property until the rail authority gives you notice to move out, which you must comply within Z days of receiving it."

  15. Can you say "taking advantage"? by davecb · · Score: 2

    "The project began having trouble buying property for the route almost immediately after it issued its first construction contract in 2013."

    --
    davecb@spamcop.net
    1. Re:Can you say "taking advantage"? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I know. They should just have rolled in the equipment and built it the way Stalin built those canals in the 1930s.

    2. Re:Can you say "taking advantage"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is a happy medium. most countries have rules around acquiring land by the government. Here the government can forcibly acquire land but they have to pay the market rates as evaluated by an independent body. Government is never entirely happy as they are often forced to pay more than they would like and people are never completely happy as everyone always wants more, but that is life.

    3. Re:Can you say "taking advantage"? by davecb · · Score: 1

      Canada too, but we have to declare all the land that we want to buy at the beginning, and pat the price as of that date.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    4. Re:Can you say "taking advantage"? by Kohath · · Score: 1

      Why should land owners want to sell? The train is being built for other people, not for them.

    5. Re:Can you say "taking advantage"? by davecb · · Score: 1

      Hint: it's the same reason you have to pay the same school taxes whether you have six kids oe none.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
  16. Cancel it by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 1

    Theres no way this is better than simply taking an airplane between the cities. The whole thing is a boondoggle. Cancel the whole thing. Probably a racket here, some Democrat giving kickbacks to a contractor. Would be better to subsidise an express bus service for people needing a lower cost option. Florida wanted to build something similar. It was realized it would be a wasteful boondoggle. It was cancelled by Rick Scott, the wisest decision he ever made.

    1. Re:Cancel it by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Theres no way this is better than simply taking an airplane between the cities.

      Proposition: trains suck.

      Proof: Europe does not exist.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  17. WTF are they building? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the rails made of solid platinum?
    it's under 400 miles and at $78B thats almost $200M PER MILE.
    That has got to be at least a 90% profit margin on the main contractors.

    1. Re: WTF are they building? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Senators Husband is one of the owners.

  18. Re:The train California deserves. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While the Interstate system is a great success story, it spawned the very hurdles that CAHSR is trying to overcome. Highways were built by:
    1. Siezing and demolishing everything they *might* need to use for a RoW
    2. Completely ignoring anything resembling environmental impact

    The only reason we have our successful system now is that by the time the legal system caught up and mechanisms to stop the "destruction" were put in place, most of it was already built.

    Engineering, labor and materials costs have mostly kept up with inflation. At this point that's maybe 20% of the total cost of this project; the rest is in fighting lawsuits.

  19. Just to Slashdottify this, an AI would have learned by now to not try high speed rail in the US ...

  20. I'm shocked.. by dave562 · · Score: 2

    ..shocked I tell..

    Wait, no I'm not. This thing is the boondoggle of our generation and has been since the beginning.

    If the legislature gave two shits about the citizens of California they would cut their losses and scrap the project. They don't and they won't.

  21. Re:The train California deserves. by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

    Actually, California's train project has more in common with the Soviet's Hero Projects.

    --
    "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
  22. Re:The train California deserves. by yusing · · Score: 3, Informative

    Righto. What did US private enterprise do to the electric trams that had spread across the US by a century ago? They ganged together (look closely at L.A. for one example) to get them destroyed and replaced with buses, selling engines and tires and ... and getting people to abandon them and proliferate private ownership of vehicles, and sell leaded gas. Then they got the government to foot the bill for the Interstate system (socializing the cost, privatizing the profits).

    Fast forward a century and what is replacing the carbon-spewing traffic jams? Electric trams, now known as 'light rail'. NOT being paid for by private interests but by the taxpayers. Was that the best possible solution for modern mass transit? NO, but it was best for all of the private contractors ... in the same way that NASA paid out way more than SpaceX. Follow the money ... always.

    'Studies' make the costs go up. 'Inventions' make the costs go down. Your choice, folks.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  23. Re:The train California deserves. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's taken longer to dredge a South Carolina harbor 5 feet deeper to accomodate the upcoming supercargo ships for the Panamax expansion than it took Teddy Roosevelt to dig the original Panama Canal itself.

    When an empire stops keeping the trade routes open and instead turns to preying on its own people, it falters, and the center of empire moves to the growing regions on the edge.

    It matters not how good the intentions. If the net effect is the same as massive corruption, oh well.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  24. Re:The train California deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have to go back.

    (Immigrants? No, Californians.)

  25. By the time this is finished it will be obsolete. by Jarwulf · · Score: 1

    Once selfdriving electric cars become a thing. There's literally no purpose for this boondoggle anymore.

  26. The bullet train Californians would actually use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nevada should get it together and build a 30 minute (or so) bullet train between Barstow and Las Vegas. (Barstow is the last real city between Riverside County/Los Angeles and Las Vegas).

    People would flock to LV if it meant not having a 4+ hour drive there and an 8 hour drive back. Or an airport experience that's twice as long as the actual flight.

    After the LV people have to expand the tracks for the second time to deal with the heavy demand, they'd get around to making a second line to Sacramento or so. Then people from San Fran could get on the train there, change in LV, arrive in Riverside, and there you go.. And it would probably be a few years faster than California's plan and not operate at a loss.

  27. HSR in California? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

    Have they figured out how to get from Bakersfield to Los Angeles yet? Last I heard they punted on that decision until sometime after 2022... So we can move people from Fresno to Bakersfield, great! But still no plan to connect to the second largest metropolitan area in the US.

    --
    Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    1. Re:HSR in California? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Stockton to Bakersfield.

      Frezno is, more or less, Bakersfield. They share a smell.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  28. Re: The train California deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, the army has lost 5 wars this century.

  29. Not worth it--wrong vision for California by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 1

    Would the riders/economic benefit of such a railway ever support the interest payments on the billions? I'm skeptical on that point.

    How about we invest $80B instead in "virtual presence" and better networking technology, so that people can stay home and their avatars can go to work, and business travel becomes unnecessary and archaic?

    I think California has the wrong vision. Instead of making travel cheap, California should work on developing tech to make travel obsolete.

    --PeterM

  30. Priorities bonkers by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    CA's regular transportation needs some serious help. Roads are falling apart and have faded lines. Because cars got more efficient, there's less gas tax revenue to fix them. Fix stuff actually used first rather than invent needs.

    1. Re:Priorities bonkers by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Because cars got more efficient, there's less gas tax revenue to fix them.

      No, there's less gas tax revenue because gas taxes have not being increased to keep up with inflation. So the money you're getting now doesn't go as far in road maintenance expenses than it did before.

  31. How about a tax refund? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are approximately 37 million legal citizens in California, You could have just let them keep an extra $2,645 in their pocket and they can decide on the best and most economical way for them to travel rather then some fantasy train.

  32. If you didn't see this coming... by nip1024 · · Score: 1

    ...you don't know politics. I suspect the costs to soar even higher than this estimate and will take 3x as long.

  33. Omitted details make this MUCH worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [a] As projected costs were rising, the decision was made to eliminate half the rails, so instead of there being a pair of tracks that would allow northbound and southbound trains to operate simultaneously in the corridor, there will be only one track.
    [b] Due to the projected costs and the need to fool the public into supporting it, the decision was made to start at a rural point north of LA and not reach all the way to San Francisco. Seven years from now they claim they'll begin service between San Jose and BAKERSFIELD. Yup. LOTS of people need THAT commute. The idea is that once they start operating that line, the sunk cost fallacy will kick-in and the taxpayers will be willing to cough up many billions more to expand the line and make it useful.
    [c] Due to projected costs, they decided to cut in half the number of trains they'll build and operate.
    [d] To save costs and speed the initial build, they are planning to electrify a bunch of the existing rail system and route the "high speed" trains on those newly electrified segments, but this imposes a speed limit because OLD RAILS (duh!) so the system will be limited to 110mph (some people drive their CARS that fast when they are out in the middle of nowhere). it's certainly NOT a "bullet train". Of course, by using existing surface lines and rights-of-way they incur the burdens of train track crossings, risks of associated accidents, etc which another reason this will never go much faster than an Amtrak Acela and certainly never compare favorably to something like a TGV train. Every time an Amtrak hits somebody who walked on the tracks or crossed in front of a train, activity is halted for many hours for the investigation - worse if the impact is with a vehicle.
    [e] There have been proposals to build a Hyperloop in CA instead, but the Brown administration has connections to "Big Rail" and insists on decades old slow "high speed trains", particularly for the contracts they can let to their friends for the heavy construction of conventional rail systems.

  34. Is it this expensive in other countries? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    Did other countries pay comparable money for bullet trains?

    BTW: the price will likely keep going up. Figure around $300B by the time it's finished.

    1. Re:Is it this expensive in other countries? by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      The numbers are hard to find, but RFF (the infrastructure partner in the French HIgh Speed network) carries around a magnitude less of that $300B figure in debts incurred in construction.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  35. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  36. Goofus got swindled by Jerry Brown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is also probably a California government employee. Wait until Goofus finds out his state is broke and Jerry Brown isn't going to give him his pension OR a train.

  37. Just likely lovely Venezuela! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait until those 12 figures in unfunded liabilities come home to roost. Commiefornia is going to look like Detroit.

    1. Re:Just likely lovely Venezuela! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      Wait until those 12 figures in unfunded liabilities come home to roost. Commiefornia is going to look like Detroit.

      The rest of the US will collapse long before California. And Detroit doesn't have surfing.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: Just likely lovely Venezuela! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your quake is over due , go watch CSU vids. Your Fukled 5 miles in , if tsunami don't kill you the gas lines on fire will burn you, if not that , then the millions of Mexicans will loot and rape you.

    3. Re: Just likely lovely Venezuela! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your quake is over due , go watch CSU vids. Your Fukled 5 miles in , if tsunami don't kill you the gas lines on fire will burn you, if not that , then the millions of Mexicans will loot and rape you.

      That's just what we tell people like you to keep you from moving to California.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re: Just likely lovely Venezuela! by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Ha ha, that was a good one!

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    5. Re: Just likely lovely Venezuela! by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      ditto

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    6. Re: Just likely lovely Venezuela! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re: Just likely lovely Venezuela! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      California's already the most populous state. Also, the population has continued to grow. That's why all the "people are leaving California" articles are in the opinion section and not news.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  38. Tariffs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This doesn't even include the added steel cost of the proposed tariffs.

  39. Re: The train California deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the roads are falling apart prices of shit nobody can afford.

  40. Re: The train California deserves. by spinitch · · Score: 1

    Away wars that were deemed worth abandoning not unconditional surrender.

  41. Funding Fantasia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Free passes for CA public employees as part of pension , compensation to help fund... ;/ or some other wacky plan because a boondoggle ... which should be re considered

  42. Re:The train California deserves. by Moldiver · · Score: 1

    What I don't get - It isn't decided which train system to use but construction is already under way?

  43. Re:The train California deserves. by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    America DOES spend billions on keeping the trade routes open - for other countries. The US Navy is a subsidy for the whole world that American citizens see little benefit from. Could BRICS countries have risen if not for the Americans paying for them? But when it comes to spending at home, suddenly the purse is closed. That's globalism for you.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  44. Re:The train California deserves. by vtcodger · · Score: 1

    An even better example might be the Erie Canal which was built by New York State in the 1820s. NY built it after private capital refused to take the chance. The Erie Canal opened up settlement of mid-continent North America a couple of decades before the railroads got to be competetive. It cut travel time from the coast to the Great Lakes from a month to nine days. It turned places like Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo into boom towns It cemented New York City's position as the nation's leading port. And it actually paid for itself.

    That said, To me California' HSR project iooks like an (expensive) solution in search of a problem. I lived in California much of my life and I've also travelled a bit and lived overseas. My guess is that California probably needs a transportation system based on personal transportation, not -- with a few exceptions -- public transit. But maybe "cars" don't need need to be so big, intrusive, and generally obnoxious -- at least not in the Bay Area, LA Basin and San Diego. In the hinterland -- say Mono County -- I can't imagine what you'd replace them with.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  45. With that much money... by HotNeedleOfInquiry · · Score: 1

    California could buy and distribute 155 million $50 airline tickets.

    --
    "Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
    1. Re:With that much money... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      California could buy and distribute 155 million $50 airline tickets.

      And how much would the additional road and airport capacity required to support that additional load cost?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:With that much money... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      As a practical matter, you don't add runways. You switch to larger airplanes. SF and Oakland are carrying as many flights as they can, but still have a _ton_ of additional capacity available.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  46. Re:The train California deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/07/10/cost-of-high-speed-rail-in-china-one-third-lower-than-in-other-countries

    > ... "China’s high speed rail with a maximum speed of 350 km/h has a typical infrastructure unit cost of about US$ 17-21m per km, with a high ratio of viaducts and tunnels, as compared with US$25-39 m per km in Europe and as high as US$ 56m per km currently estimated in California" ...

  47. Re:The train California deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who are you going to sell your shit to if you cany export?
    The US only acts in its own interests, youre jusr a dribbling idiot RWNJ.

  48. Re:beau -- click bait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Awww, useless fat virgin fuck from 4 chan is triggered, sad.

  49. Realworld situation by DrYak · · Score: 2

    Not really. Not if both end stations have electric cars for rent that only need a battery range of 40 to 50 miles.

    Which is actually a real-world situation in switzerland, with the biggest car-sharing cooperative (Mobility) also having cars available at trains stations, including electric cars in bigger cities (Renault Zoe - currently equipped with the smaller 125km range battery, progressively getting upgraded to the bigger 250km).

    This is currently successful commercially.

    no need for fast charging infrastructure either. Rail plus electric cars is a beautiful combination

    Actually, due to how train work, you happen to have a fast charging solution available almost for free at the train station.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  50. Re: The train California deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was probably a super bowl or Olympic planning committee that made the decision.

  51. Re:By the time this is finished it will be obsolet by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Once selfdriving electric cars become a thing. There's literally no purpose for this boondoggle anymore.

    How many cars can sustain 200 miles per hour for 4 hours? And electric, self driving cars still take up far more space per passenger than trains. Electric and self driving cars aren't magic pixie dust that make everything work.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  52. This just in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Expensive train will cost more and take longer than predicted!

    -Ric Romero

  53. Not enough diversity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The problem is clearly that the workforce involved is not diverse enough. Perhaps Caliphornia should pass a bill requiring at least 40% of the workers to be transsexual and 40% to be homosexual. The ideal worker for them is a gay, black, trans pygmy. I hope they go looking in San Francisco for the ideal workers.

  54. Re:The train California deserves. by Raenex · · Score: 1

    That's the benefit of a one-party system that gives no fucks about citizen complaints.

  55. Cost/Benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I personally love large engineering projects, but they need to have a good cost/benefit analysis, be well built and be finished on time/budget. In the US (maybe its common internationally?) though we seem to blow massive amounts of money on underwhelming/badly built/poorly designed infrastructure that takes forever to finish. A (small) example of this sits less than a mile from my house, almost a half million was spent replacing a bridge a few years ago that itself wasn't 20 years old (the steel beams were rusting out). That's all well and good if it was necessary but the creek it crosses isn't more than 5' wide with little flow, a large box culvert would have cost a quarter of what was spent, took a third the time to put in place and lasted longer than any bridge. Californias High Speed Rail project seems to be the epitome of a wildly expensive project with little return, The ridership estimates have steadily been decreasing even as the cost projections have been skyrocketing. For the cost of the HSR project they could have repaired the entire road system and had money left over to bolster public transit (buses, automated taxis, etc).

  56. I just don't believe estimates by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    The city did an expansion of "Mopac" and the cost/time overrun was crazy. Now the sound walls have a problem. A report just came in that the drainage tunnel the city put in downtown which was 161 million in the end quoted as 26 mil is structurally deficient. The did not put rebar in so buildings over it may collapse. And who can forget the boston big dig. Government has somehow become incompetent to build things on time/budget. Gov needs to start putting teeth into contracts. If you miss on quality/time/price we will recover costs and if that means that it takes out a large construction firm, so be it. Bid accurately. Today gov just throws them more money and when they bid contractors know it. The city is looking at burying 35 thru town and they actually believe it will cost only 2 bil. My guess is 50 to 100 bil. But hey whats a few bil between friends.

  57. Re: The train California deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iâ(TM)m confused. Is this sarcasm? It sounds like it, but it also correctly points out that the Hoover dam was a huge disaster.

    What was your point?

  58. That will be $60bln for prevailing wage and union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The train system will cost $10bln the rest is on the insane cost of labour all public works in California has. Prevailing wage law ($40 / hour to be a cleaner on public works anyone?) and the union are sucking up the rest.

  59. As predicted the costs have ballooned. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zero suprises in a public works project inflating like this. The question is, how much will they sink into it before the whole project goes belly up?

  60. Trains. Are. Stupid. Wastes. Of. Money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars.

    Democrats and other leftists are obsessed with trains for some reason.

    The Bullet Train will *NEVER* be completed. Ever.

    Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

  61. Let's do the math, shall we? by jcr · · Score: 1

    Your contempt for Uber drivers doesn't change the fact that Governor Moonbeam's Spiffy Boondoggle Express costs about as much as it would take to fly 700 million people from LAX to SFO on a typical budget airline. There are 39 million people in this state. If Moonbeam is allowed to continue, then we will each pay the equivalent of about 17 trips to line the pockets of Moonbeam and his cronies instead of spending that money in pursuit of our own goals.

    If passenger rail still made any sense economically, it wouldn't take tax money to make it happen.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  62. Re:The train California deserves. by jcr · · Score: 1

    This is government working the way it always does, badly.

    Once you realize that the purpose of this project is to loot the taxpayers for the benefit of Moonbeam and his friends, you'll see that government is doing precisely what it was always intended to do.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  63. Re:The train California deserves. by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

    So your theory is that private enterprise is responsible for every poor decision the government makes? Therefore we need what, more government deciders running more things?

    It sounds like you have your causation and solution a little bit backwards, there....

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  64. Just build a teleporter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At this point CA should just start building a teleporter. It will be cheaper and has about the same chance of being completed.

  65. Re:The train California deserves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only reason we have our successful system now is that by the time the legal system caught up and mechanisms to stop the "destruction" were put in place, most of it was already built.

    You say that like it's a good thing. It sound's trite, but you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette. We used to know and accept this, now we are paralyzed into inaction. The courts are an incredibly BAD place to balance cost against benefit.

  66. Re:We still need good trains (and good brains) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Opinion)
    You see, it's really not that simple, because you need to make sure that all tracks use the same gauge and we didnt do that when we put the tracks down the first time. In fact, its also a common problem in Europe as some countries operate using "non-standard" gauges for track. In some places, the differences are small and within tolerable limits, like Finland.......but in most cases, the trains simply cant go on the tracks.

    So, the statement works as a generalization but really, each inch of track and transfer need to be assessed to determine what upgrades, if any, are possible and necessary. The use of narrow gauge track in most of the Midwestern and Western US mean that you either need to re-lay all that track or re-engineer these trains you want to order.

    (Evidence)
    The vast majority of North American railroads are standard gauge (4 ft 8 12 in/1,435 mm). Exceptions include some streetcar, subway and rapid transit systems, mining and tunneling operations, and some narrow-gauge lines particularly in the west, e.g. the isolated White Pass and Yukon Route system, and the former Newfoundland Railway.

    Most railways in Europe use the standard gauge of 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in). Some countries use broad gauge, of which there are three types. Narrow gauges are also in use.

    Standard gauge was favored for railway construction in the United States, although a fairly large narrow-gauge system developed in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado and Utah. Isolated narrow-gauge lines were built in many areas to minimize construction costs for industrial transport or resort access, and some of these lines offered common carrier service. Outside Colorado, these isolated lines evolved into regional narrow-gauge systems in Maine, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Iowa, Hawaii, and Alaska.

  67. That's a fair amount of cash by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You could have a school with a capacity of 100,000 where the average student had a BSc/BA by 18 and 15% had PhDs by then, and teachers and researchers were paid a decent salary, and run it for 40 years on the same money. That includes the cost of building it. The benefit to the economy would be infinitely greater than the train system, which should have been built for far, far less. Maybe set the design of its replacement to the kids.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  68. Not to worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first section being built through drought ravaged Central Valley farmland may be over time and budget, but they'll make it up when they get into the much more reasonably priced urban centers at either end.

  69. Re:The train California deserves. by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

    There's a time to give fucks, and a time to withhold them. The USA gives too many, China gives too few. Europe and Japan seem to have struck the right balance; we need to see where we went wrong.

  70. The US has the best rail system (not kidding) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It all depends on what you focus on. The US uses rails where they make the most sense (for cargo) and planes where they make sense (people).

    The US handed all passenger rail traffic off to a government outfit called Amtrak many years ago, and then spun that off into a supposedly commercial company that gets huge subsidies. Unfortunately, that scheme gave Amtrak certain monopoly legal control over all passenger rail service in the US and like any monopoly Amtrak got fat, dumb, and happy blocking all innovation and competition.

    For cargo, however, the US maintained its older commercial competative arrangements. As a result, the natural tendency of market economics and money flowing to where it's most-efficiently used did its job and the result is that the US moves an absolutely astonishing amount of goods with an extremely reliable delivery schedule over its immense rail system with an amazing safety record and a relatively tiny workforce - and does it so well and reliably and efficiently that most people are not even aware it is happening. People who are interested and have some spare time to burn should educate themselves on the matter. Here's a couple of starting points: the Bailey Yard, the Bailey Yard 'hump' in action, the ever-increasing freight 'ton-miles' in the US system, and in case you think the Bailey yard is an isolated thing, consult wikipedia's List of rail yards and note how much of that list is within the US compared to so many countries whose rail systems are presumed superior simply because of a few fast passenger trains.

  71. Trains: Yesterday's answer to tomorrow's problems by mileshigh · · Score: 1

    Trains are obsolete for the US. The future is automated, convoyed electric automobiles driving at 120+ mph. And that future will be here before the CA bullet train. The technology's inevitable, just a matter of time.

    Going, say, from LAX to SFO is 380 miles, so call it 3.25 hrs @ 120 mph, realistically 3.5 - 4.0 to allow for slower urban traffic at each end. Faster in the future as the tech improves. Hell, we already drive 80 - 85 on that stretch of road most of the time.

    Cars convoying almost bumper-to-bumper can be impressively energy efficient, especially electric ones, and they don't travel when they're empty. Vehicle efficiency just keeps going up and up. Speaking of schedules, individual cars don't have 'em. They leave when it's convenient for you and run door to door. Don't have a car? Take a 120 mph convoying bus, Uber, or Uber Pool.

    Look at the numbers: trains aren't that energy-efficient per passenger mile IRL since they don't usually run full. They're also a very inefficient way to use land if you don't happen to already own the rights of way. Trains have high recurring costs: they require crew, people at the stations, management, sales & marketing, parking, their own dedicated maintenance operation, etc, etc. Maintaining RRs is very expensive, especially to bullet-train standards.

    We already have the real estate to do convoying. A reserved lane on the I-5 would do the trick. We already pay to maintain that road quite nicely, so no extra recurring cost there. If you want to get fancy, widen the I-5 to add a special lane for convoyed vehicles for pennies on the dollar we're spending for the bullet train.

    Which would you prefer? i) Sit down in your autonomous car, work or sleep *uninterrupted* for 3 - 4 hours and you're there, or ii) Shop for dececently-priced tickets, drive to station stressed because you're late as usual, go thru security, hang around waiting room, board the train and find a place, work or sleep for a while, find transportation to your final destination. Don't forget, you're messing with your luggage the whole while.

    We're going to end up implementing this, train or no train, if only to relieve commuter-traffic congestion. It's just a matter of time. Seeing as bullet-trains are 50-year investments, does this train make any sense at this stage of technology?

  72. Trains need pedestrian cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I lived in Japan for two years. Loved the trains and other mass transit, but the HUGE difference is that Japanese cities are fundamentally pedestrian cities. Once you get off the train at the appropriate stop you can WALK anywhere you need to go. Japanese and European cities evolved as pedestrian/horse cities, US cities did not. This will be a difficult problem to solve and it needs to be fixed with the zoning first. How many bedroom communities are there with virtually zero industrial, commercial or even retail? How many commercial districts have significant residential? Until you solve the problem of needing a car once you get there, trains are going to be the second choice of travel.

  73. Re:We still need good trains (and good brains) by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

    Sheldon, you're raising an objection that is not relevant to high speed train operation. Tracks and right-of-way have to be rebuilt for high speed, such as reducing curve radii, in any case.

    When you take the regular train from Barcelona into France, it stops at the old pre-EU border between Portbou and Cerbère for about a half hour of people running around outside the train and hammering on the wheels. What they're doing is changing the train gauge from the broad Spanish standard to the narrower EU standard. This has not stopped the Spanish AVE bullet train system from being the longest in the world outside China.

  74. Re:We still need good trains (and good brains) by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    My Kingdom For An Edit Button: ...increasing curve radii.

  75. Re:Trains: Yesterday's answer to tomorrow's proble by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    What security? You currently board the 150mph Boston-NYC-DC trains without all that nonsense -- this isn't changing anytime soon. No x-ray, no metal detector, no shoe carnival. Even less need for security if Calexit happens and California withdraws from the endless wars that have been making people hate the US for the past 70 years.

    Trains have two major advantages:
    (1) They can be powered on the fly, from the tracks and/or overhead lines. No need for millions of environmentally nasty batteries which may or may not end up being recycled.
    (2) Guidance/keeping on the "road"is mechanical and more reliable than a computer in a self-driving car will ever dream of being. Rolling friction of steel-to-steel is also much lower than rubber to concrete.

    Also, they tend to be maintained to high standards. All it takes is a part falling off one vehicle to turn a "train" of self-driving cars going bumper-to-bumper at 120mph into a large deadly pileup.

  76. One HUGE difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hyperloop, as originally envisioned, is like the privately-funded Texas rain project: ABOVE GRADE.

    When you place the track/tube on pillars above the ground you do not need to buy all the land along the route, you just need the dirt where the columns are and the right-of-way to be up in the air above the other dirt along the way (which in addition to being far cheaper is also far less objectional to the affected land owners. Consider the track in a rural area. In the Texas or Hyperloop scheme, the farmer/rancher can keep using most of his land, can farm under the track, easily operate vehicles between parts of his land on either side of the track and so forth. In the California model, the rancher/farmer loses a solid strip of land and also gets huge permanent inconveniences getting between what remains of his land on one side of the route and his land on the other side of the route.

    The California scheme of surface-level rails is the worst possible option for private land owners and therefore is the one that naturally attracts the most protest and legal action - all while being the slowest performing and the most likely to have crashes with fatalities. It will mix speeding car speed trains with slow trains on the same rails and then temp collisions at numerous crossings with pedestrians and surface vehicles. Jerry Brown chose the stuck-on-stupid model of big government offensive infrastructure, and without a single positive feature (other than political graft) to justify all the negatives. It will be most expensive, least safe, slowest, and more dangerous while offending the most people.

    The California mess was not just 100% predictable, it WAS in fact predicted over and over and the stupidity of the thing was part of the inspiration for Musk's Hyperloop (which governor Jerry "moonbeam" Brown lacked the inspiration and forward-thinking to embrace).

  77. Re:Trains: Yesterday's answer to tomorrow's proble by mileshigh · · Score: 1

    Security checks: sooner or later trains'll have their own 9/11 on US soil. Stuff happening in far-off lands is one thing, but a single major US incident is all it'll take. Security checks will then become imperative just to get people back to riding the trains.

    In California, the majority of people have cars. I'd guess the rate of car ownership is over 90% for the top 90% of San Francisco - LA travellers. Those nasty cars & batteries are going to be produced whether people take their cars or the train to travel North-South.

    Rails are far from foolproof. Trains are currently only 10x safer per mile than human-guided cars. This will improve very significantly with automation, But forget all that: people have long ago made up their minds that auto safety is acceptable.

    Note that the quality of train maintenance has its ups & downs, depending on availability of money due to sporadic budget cuts, ridership, recency of accidents, subsidies, government policy, etc.

    At 100+ mph, rolling resistance of rubber vs. steel is the least of your efficiency concerns. Air resistance is well over an order of magnitude more important. The big efficiency for rail in CA is ridership, and a 75% empty train cannot be efficient. The "build it and they will come" gamble sure hasn't panned out for the LA subway!

    It's a safe assumption that autonomous cars will be networked very soon. I fully expect that network to allow exchanging some kind of maintenance info or other proxy for reliability. I don't know about you, but I'd instruct my car to never join any convoys with substandard vehicles in it. Likewise, I'd expect a pack would get to decide on which other cars will be allowed to join it.

    Large-scale pileups? Like train derailments? Doubtful. (a) You only need 10 - 15 cars in a pack to get almost all your efficiency. Obviously you limit pack size to make them generally more manageable & also limit pileups, especially when the tech is young. Packs are intentionally separated by some distance for the same reasons. (b) Our current understanding of freeway pileups is not useful in this context. Convoying functions of the cars will act to greatly limit the extent of any pileup. Don't forget, we're discussing cars with very fast "reflexes." And they're all networked -- not watching the tail lights of the car in front of them. Let's say a car in the middle of the pack misbehaves. Or danger increases for any reason. Every car in the network knows instantly. This allows cars at the rear to very quickly brake in a coordinated manner, and the pack spreads apart almost instantly.

  78. Re:The bullet train Californians would actually us by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Vegas? So last century.

    Casinos are everywhere, should be even more common, no reason for Indians to have exclusive rights.

    Vagas is a shithole, just a bigger, even shittyier version of Reno.

    CA should make gambling legal, everywhere. Close Vegas down. Keep the taxes in state.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  79. California, a bullet train to their own head by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, my estimate is that they will have the first part done by 2050 at a cost of 200 Billion. They will fund this monster with increased property taxes (not that California has had enough people moving to other states), and of course, legalized pot will be taxed a little heavier, to right around $1000 per ounce. Once again bringing pot trafficking from Mexico via illegal methods back. Meanwhile, a couple hundred thousand people will continue to be homeless, just like the good little socialists want it. The train project does have a name "The Venezuela Solution". I only hope that California is no longer a part of the US at that time.

  80. Re:Trains: Yesterday's answer to tomorrow's proble by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Train security: there have been incidents on trains in the US. Rail security is still a bad joke, fortunately.

    Outside the US, in Madrid, they x-ray luggage before boarding high-speed trains. But the line moves quickly -- the level of security is comparable to 1980s airlines. No big deal. They're not concerned about hijacking, only about large bombs or guns, since the driver's cab is separate from the rest of the train, and they'd just cut the overhead line power if someone "stole" a train.

    Same with the Chunnel trains, where they check passports and x-ray luggage due to border security. Fast, easy, and not stupid compared to airlines.

    As far as cars in a pack, it would be very difficult to maintain a following distance of a meter or so in all road conditions without ever hitting. A steel coupler between train cars, does that job wonderfully, without worrying about friction differences on the road, objects on the road, failure of a car ahead causing a rear-ender that cascades through the pack, etc.

    BTW - the idea is not to get rid of cars. Just to relegate them to shorter trips, where they can be electric and not lug around a large battery, and where they can take their time recharging.

    Your post smells of tech hubris.

  81. Re:Trains: Yesterday's answer to tomorrow's proble by mileshigh · · Score: 1

    Hubris? I'll thank you to skip the personal stuff, though I'll admit I thought the same thing about the idea of soft-landing rocket boosters with folding legs. On a rolling and pitching barge.

    However, I'll point out that several companies are demonstrating (Tesla claims to be actually selling) exactly this for interstate 18-wheelers. They will make this work; the payoff is just too huge.

    Note that there's a whole continuum between "shorter" and "longer" trips. Flying LA to NYC is a clear-cut win, but with any scheduled mass transit there's a whole set of tradeoffs due to the fixed overheads and allowances for delays between legs involved in actually going door to door. Even flying commercial jets where the actual flight takes only 1 hour, I have to leave my house in LA well before 6 to reliably make a 10 AM meeting in San Jose. Yet, it's not quite a 5 hour drive. And those 4+ hours are shot into little pieces. That might be different if I could afford to fly private, but an autonomous car will certainly be within my budget before too long.

  82. Re:Trains: Yesterday's answer to tomorrow's proble by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Hubris. An unmanned rocket booster can plop in the ocean one out of 100 landings and still be economical. A car full of people can't crash that often and still be useful.

    Should be significantly shorter than a commercial jet flight. Boarding will be 10-15 min at most. Trains will run every 30 minutes if NYC-DC is any guide. You'd have at most a 45-min wait with a 2:00 to 2:15 travel time from LA to SJ, and no taxiing and waiting for a gate on either end.h

  83. Re:Trains: Yesterday's answer to tomorrow's proble by mileshigh · · Score: 1

    Hubris? Nah... Reusable rocket boosters landing on retractable stilts -- on a pitching & rolling barge -- now, THAT'S tech hubris. Silly, unrealistic 1940's pulp science fiction. It'll never, ever happen.

    Seriously, several real manufacturers have announced (and Tesla claims to be actually selling) convoying 18-wheelers. They will make it work 'coz the payoff is too huge to ignore.

  84. Re:Trains: Yesterday's answer to tomorrow's proble by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    The trailing trucks just contain cargo and will be driverless. The booster is just a booster. Neither will be tragic (in the human sense) if they crash.

  85. Golly! Who could have predicted that? by eric_harris_76 · · Score: 1

    Golly! Who could have predicted that?

    Anyone who knows the meaning of the word "boondoggle" and can cite an example.

    If it were possible, I would have bet on this happening.

    But I'm sure politicians have made that illegal. For some reason.

    --
    There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.
  86. Dump the expensive bullet trains... by msc.buff · · Score: 1

    and go with SkyTran instead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTran