Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

xman747x t1_j9w1jfj wrote

hope this project is done in my lifetime

265

SilverNicktail t1_j9wapvi wrote

End of the decade is the aim date. It's a hell of a big project.

35

domainmaker t1_j9xgva0 wrote

The end date has been moved about 10 times at this point and the project has shrunk every time.

49

woolash t1_j9ywiqo wrote

The new plan is from one side of Fresno to the other.

16

med780 t1_j9z8d8m wrote

Here is a great read from the NYT on the complete travesty that is the CA high speed light rail.

My prediction is it will never go from LA to SF Bay Area.

https://archive.ph/C8zPQ

7

RamsHead91 t1_j9yu385 wrote

Yeah largely do to push from car and oil industry interests.

3

domainmaker t1_j9zmjka wrote

Everything is not a conspiracy theory, it's been documented California originally consulted with Japan and European bullet train makers. They came in and made recommendations on route and construction processes. They were all ignored, California made their own plan and all the foreign companies pulled out realizing early this would turn into a shit show.

I'm for the bullet train but being lied to and having all this money squandered is not the way to go. The current plan is to have a train from Merced to Bakersfield that no one will ride and it's not high speed anymore, I think the max speed is 110mph in a small section somewhere and the ticket is supposed to cost over 100 per person per direction.

3

Altruistic-Text3481 t1_j9ywakw wrote

Elon Musk tried to derail it with his Boring Company Hyper Loop scheme. He admitted creating Boring Company just to stop High Speed Rail.

11

Cunninghams_right t1_ja8bjap wrote

it is funny to watch the evolution of false information gradually change over the course of months.

2

Iz-kan-reddit t1_j9xhkwi wrote

>End of the decade is the aim date.

That's foe only the first section, which has been pared way back.

10

SilverNicktail t1_j9xwyt5 wrote

The "first section" is the longest section by a very long way, though.

1

FightOnForUsc t1_j9yo7l2 wrote

And also the easiest by far…

3

SilverNicktail t1_ja0j9sn wrote

Because they should have started with the hardest part and gotten more bogged down?

0

FightOnForUsc t1_ja0jqf6 wrote

Well there’s already a train from Merced to Bakersfield (I’ve ridden it). There’s no train from Bakersfield to LA and none from Merced to SF or SJ. Either of those parts would be vastly more useful for people. Imagine being able to live in a cheap area and commuting to an area with some of the highest salaries in the country. Also LA and the Bay Area have some public transportation, Merced and Bakersfield have almost none. It will have lower ridership than either other route might have. I don’t see who is going to use going from Merced to Bakersfield on the regular

1

SilverNicktail t1_ja0zur4 wrote

> Either of those parts would be vastly more useful for people.

....Which is why they're building those too? https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/

2

FightOnForUsc t1_ja182h2 wrote

So they wanted to build the part that won’t get used on its own before building the parts that might get used on their own? Seems like an excuse to keep going with construction (sunk cost)

2

Iz-kan-reddit t1_j9zdho6 wrote

Yes, but that whole section is only drawing the two ovals of the owl.

Getting out of the two ends of the Central Valley is going to be an expensive and technologically-challenging son of a bitch.

3

SilverNicktail t1_ja0jdvs wrote

I know naysaying is an Internet sport, but I think the phase 1 delivery's getting a bit downplayed. Phase 1 is San Fan, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Burbank, L.A. and Anaheim. It's hardly nothing.

https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sections/

I dunno, I just get frustrated because people have bitched for decades about not having high-speed rail, and when a state actually does it they bitch about a 1500km long public works project being slow and expensive.

2

Iz-kan-reddit t1_ja13s61 wrote

>Phase 1 is San Fan, San Jose, Fresno, Bakersfield, Burbank, L.A. and Anaheim. It's hardly nothing.

Despite the label of Phase 1, that's actually Phase 2. The real first phase, is Merced to Bakersfield. They're being really disingenuous when they include the Bay Area and So Cal in Phase 1, considering they won't be served for years after the Merced to Bakersfield section is up and running.

> and when a state actually does it they bitch about a 1500km long public works project being slow and expensive.

It's exploded in cost and timeframe several times over from what it was sold as when it was voted on. The system was to be operational by 2020, for a cost of about $34 billion. The price is now ranges from $88 billion to $128 billion, and even the high end estimate makes questionable assumptions.

Hell, I enthusiastically voted for this, but it's grown into an utter boondoggle. It will, however, be a pretty good system for the Central Valley.

2

SilverNicktail t1_ja1505w wrote

OK, I think we're just arguing semantics at this point. The phases are further broken down into sections, and obviously some are going to come online before others.

> It's exploded in cost and timeframe several times over from what it was sold as when it was voted on. The system was to be operational by 2020, for a cost of about $34 billion. The price is now ranges from $88 billion to $128 billion, and even the high end estimate makes questionable assumptions.

But that's, like, every large infrastructure project. There's always stuff missed, contractors always talk horseshit to get through the bidding process, etc.

2

Iz-kan-reddit t1_ja1grqc wrote

>OK, I think we're just arguing semantics at this point. The phases are further broken down into sections, and obviously some are going to come online before others.

There isn't even a projected completion date for Phase 1.

>But that's, like, every large infrastructure project.

Not to this extent. Even doubling in cost is rare, and this is set to break the percentage increase record set by the Big Dig.

2

Jenetyk t1_j9wpd6r wrote

Inject California high speed rail directly into my veins. This state is too big and has too much to see to NOT have a cheap way to get from A to B.

142

kynthrus t1_j9xglfe wrote

That America as a whole hasn't invested in creating a high speed rail system for the whole country for the last 50+ years is ridiculous.

60

bagkingz t1_j9xsg2r wrote

Maybe if we didn’t blow so much money in the Middle East for 20 years we’d have HSR by now…maybe…

3

kynthrus t1_j9xtm6q wrote

We could afford it even with those 20 years. There is nothing stopping the US from investing in bullet trains except for old money train tycoons too scared to step into the modern age.

13

Jerund t1_j9yioh4 wrote

Federal money is used for the war. California themselves uses state money to build the high speed rail. It seems like money wasn’t the issue for this HSR. Too many land rights and bad planning. We invested most of our money in airports instead. Look at how many airports we have compared to rest of the world. Think we have more than the next 5 countries combined

1

littleferrhis t1_j9ydmzy wrote

It doesn’t make much sense to build.a large HSR network in America, Australia is the same way. Canada is the same way.

One simple reason, population dispersion.

Sure from SF to LA there is a large population in pretty much every city to support it, but what if we were to go through the midwest or the Great Plains, or the rockies, midwest suburbs, all of which require a lot of expensive track to build for a population of a few thousand? Even when talking about cities are small cities have 300k, 400k, with suburbs 10, 20, even 30 miles away, which combined have a nice big population, but they’re so far apart it would be impractical to build HSR. Roads and airports are relatively cheap. You can just plop them down anywhere with a little bit of pavement and in an airports case an FBO or tiny terminal.

America has 300 mil. people spread over 9.8 mill kilometers. China has 1.4 billion over 9.6 mil. Km. Western Europe has a smaller population, about a third of the US, but its spread out over a 9th of the size of the U.S. .

In places with tight populations like China or Japan, it makes sense to have really intricate HSR networks. In places like Europe where populations are more concentrated it makes sense. In the high population parts of the US it makes sense, which is why they are either built or are in the process of being built.

With the entire U.S. though it makes zero sense.

2

Ave_TechSenger t1_j9ygllo wrote

Here’s the thing.

Japan has most of its population centralized in a few cities but still has HSR and standard rail options to the boonies. It’s pretty sparsely populated outside of those cities. The difference is that infrastructure including public transit is seen as a necessary public service in much of the world, cities and spaces are typically more pedestrian and bicycle friendly, etc.

China’s gotten there too. 20ish years ago, there was no train line to my hometown (with a population of about 20,000 and century old homes that still had unused open sewers repurposed as storm drains). We took a 6 hour bus from Shenzhen, then a 2 hour car ride. 15ish years ago, they put in a rail line to a nearby city (Chaozhou), so 3 hours on a train and 1 hour by car. 8 years ago, a maglev line was completed with a stop 15 minutes’ drive from the grandparents’ house, cutting total transit time to like 90 minutes from Shenzhen.

Here in the US, we do have very sparsely populated areas that this wouldn’t make sense in such as the plains, the Dakotas, etc. But certain circuits would make sense such as the coasts, regional hubs such as around Chicago, etc. would maybe be feasible along with connecting lines to link major hubs over distances. It would be seen as government bloat, anti/car, etc. most likely and those would be political obstacles…

15

littleferrhis t1_j9ykffp wrote

See I totally agree with that. Standard Gauge rail has worked in the U.S. over small populations in the past, and has proven to work in countries with higher population dispersions like Russia. It’s in fact working really well right now with cargo rail.

If I wanted to go forward with a plan to bring rail back into common use with the U.S. I would go to CSX, Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific, etc. and propose government subsidized passenger cars/trains on their trains to government owned stations along their routes. The routes are already there, the U.S. already has one of the largest cargo rail networks in the world. The cost would be relatively minimal for these companies, the real question is how much profit is there to be gained from it? The problem with Amtrak is its sharing the cargo rail for passenger service, essentially competing with the cargo companies on their rail. The key would be to work with these companies so that they make them a priority.

This guy was talking about HSR across the U.S., which is laughable given our population dispersion.

5

kynthrus t1_j9ye2ye wrote

The point is to be able to disperse the population without the inconvenience of living in buttfuck nowhere. To be able to commute from North Dakota to Seattle In more comfort than an airplane while being able to get work done

6

littleferrhis t1_j9ygmpw wrote

It makes no economic sense to do so. Say you have buttfuck nowhere station, and you want to bring it to buttfuck somewhere station. Buttfuck Nowhere has a population of 3000. To get to buttfuck somewhere station it is 50 miles.

For this project in California its some 200 million per mile. That’s a low estimate, but it is in Cali. So we’ll be extra gracious and call it 100 mil per mile. 100 mil per mile for 50 miles is now a 5 billion dollar project not counting upkeep. Now how are they, either the government or a business going to make a return on their investment for 3000 farmers who maybe say 50 will use it on any given day for a fee of 20 bucks(which low fees are why someone would take it over car), and that’s being gracious as well because farmers don’t really need to leave their farm every day to go to the bigger city.

Thats 1000 bucks a day for a 5 billion dollar project. 365k a year. Now how much is the for the planet excuse going to work when there’s a .000073% return on investment in the first year?

Now if we’re talking a small town with a population of 3 mil to a population of 50 mil like in China it totally makes sense to have HSR. Not in the U.S..

5

ray12370 t1_j9yk6m7 wrote

I don't think trains or hsr have to make any economic sense. They're a public service. The less cars they have out on the road the better.

We spend so damn much on highway maintenance here in California and no one bats an eye because it's a public service.

3

priznut t1_j9zjqdu wrote

I think you are way to short sighted on this.

Itd been proven that local access to transit systems pushes populations to other areas.

Like in California (where its too many people in the main bay area and LA). The incentive is to have other larger towns and cities across the I-5 absorb more of the population.

Which is happening, when Caltrain was established people started to move further south of San Jose. When bart finished their line further into the suburbs the home values for Brentwood went up as people bought homes knowing they have transit systems.

If the high speed rail completes people will move further out for cheaper homes.

Folks keep thinking trains don’t alter populations are not seeing the bigger picture.

2

ligerzero942 t1_ja0epc4 wrote

Failing to recognize how transit induces demand is pretty common, just look at any highway expansion "to reduce congestion" always leads to congestion occurring again in a few years due to inducement.

1

kynthrus t1_ja6cdmn wrote

Like I said the point is to be able to spread the population so we aren't living like roaches behind a fridge. It's not about economic growth, it's an investment in society, not economy.

1

littleferrhis t1_ja7qjg1 wrote

Alright then it would be a serious misallocation of funds. I’m not saying that connecting people from small towns to big cities is a silly thing for the government to do, but going with the most expensive option of doing so definitely is. The government right now operates the essential air service which does basically what you said, connects people in small towns to big cities, and it does it for over 150 small towns across the U.S.. every day as a public service. However, the EAS only spends about 350 million a year total in subsidies to these routes.

Like I said before for a 50 mile stretch of track its 5 billion with a lot of benefits of the doubt, which is over 14x that, for one single small route. Spending that for say all EAS routes, which again I’ll round out to 50 miles for each even though most are going to be significantly longer is 795 billion dollars. So sure if you want that high speed rail for the small towns to the big cities go for it, but just throw away pretty much all of the defense budget for the year on a single public service very few people are going to use hedging your bets that people will come, and that jobs won’t dry up in those cities super quickly.

You act like government aren’t economic entities. No amount of nationalization or socialism breaks you from being an economic entity. From North Korea to the U.S., money is still king. We can’t go wasting millions on expensive projects that can be done cheaper and pretty much just as conveniently.

2

FightOnForUsc t1_j9yohj0 wrote

And then when you get to those cities there isn’t good public transportation so you need a car. So if you’re only going a couple hundred miles it starts feeling like it makes more sense to drive. Especially if you have lots of luggage or multiple people as the costs don’t scale with the number of people in a car

4

kippypapa t1_j9zkeap wrote

Right. HSR isn’t cheap. I took it in Europe and there were way cheaper ways of getting around. For one, it makes sense cost wise, but once you start adding people, the prices are out of control.

2

kippypapa t1_j9zjn0z wrote

Totally. People don’t seem to understand that France is the size of Texas with several more major cities they can connect.

SF to LA already has a train and 90% of it goes through rural areas. Many people are saying “if it was fast, I’d go,” but that means they don’t have reason enough to go LA to SF unless it’s convenient, which means HSR won’t have a ton of ridership.

2

Scorch6200 t1_j9yzula wrote

Because of union fees and environmental impact studies this project will go wildly over budget in the first 10 miles and get cancelled before it gets anywhere, just like the last time California tried this

2

HandsyBread t1_j9x7gp6 wrote

I’m interested to know what you would classify as cheap? For example getting from LA to SF?

17

Jenetyk t1_j9x97s2 wrote

I mean, it's an 8 hour+ drive. If rail was even close to the cost of gas/fees, and didn't leave me dead tired upon arrival: it would be worth it. I live in San Diego, I would pay a couple hundred per person for the convenience. Japan spoiled the shit out of me for public long-run transit though.

71

whackwarrens t1_j9yhvqm wrote

LA to SD is like a 30min flight but the airport... Be dope to just hop on a train for an hour. You'd probably get there in the same time with no airport bs to deal with.

17

jpcorry t1_j9ytwjj wrote

You realize you can fly on a literal jet airplane...in about an hour...from SD to SF for less than $300, right?

−8

eh_brah t1_j9yvyg8 wrote

Yeah but a trip to the airport is literally half your day at least. Getting dropped off, TSA, waiting for an hour just for boarding and takeoff, baggage claim, etc. -- There's so much overhead in plane rides for short trips.

A bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka runs you $100 each way without any of that. Even the cheap seats are spacious, along with awesome food to boot.

Train rides can be so much more than the sad "afterthought" we've made them in America.

19

digit4lmind t1_j9yz5hd wrote

Saying air travel takes “about an hour” is intentionally disingenuous

13

AquiliferX t1_j9zrgsj wrote

It's time to start thinking about the impacts of short distance air-travel. Commercial air is the largest polluter by a longshot. Fuck them planes

2

Fabulous_Ad4928 t1_j9xep3r wrote

Barcelona to Madrid is a similar distance. I paid like 10-20 euros for the Ouigo and not much more for AVE and plane ticket (went back and forth a lot). They have some competition in HSR already and it shows in service and options, many trains take 2.5-3 hrs. Heck, even Uzbekistan already has a cheap and fast HSR line of a similar length!

34

fuck_huffman t1_j9xditr wrote

> a cheap way to get from A to B.

LAX to SFO under $100 every half hour or so

14

trackdaybruh t1_j9xfpyp wrote

Now getting to LAX is going to take longer than actually flying from LAX to SFO

20

Iz-kan-reddit t1_j9xhnk0 wrote

Then go to Burbank, Ontario, Long Beach...

6

trackdaybruh t1_j9xi5p8 wrote

Since they’re smaller (which means less flight), they don’t always have same day flight availability

And they tend to be more expensive than LAX

5

Iz-kan-reddit t1_j9yv8sb wrote

>Since they’re smaller (which means less flight), they don’t always have same day flight availability

The smaller airports fly to fewer destinations. They have enough seats for everyone who wants one to go to the bay area.

Southwest runs 13 flights from LAX to SFO, versus 10 from ONT. Plenty of seats for whomever wants one

>And they tend to be more expensive than LAX

$308 from LAX versus $348 from ONT. Factor in the pain in the ass of LAX and it's a wash, unless your time is worthless to you.

2

trackdaybruh t1_j9z47rq wrote

Where are you getting $40 difference? For same day flight (today) I’m getting around a $100 difference between LAX vs ONT ($450 vs $550)

And we’re moving away from the “LA to SFO for under $100” price point at this point like the OP was claiming

2

Iz-kan-reddit t1_j9zctq8 wrote

Actually, I think I grabbed tomorrow's prices.

As for the sub-$100, that's long gone, including HSR projected pricing.

It seems like not that long ago I'd take the ONT-SJC flights for $89 like someone would ride the local bus, but it's been twenty years.

3

VentureQuotes t1_j9xljqc wrote

Who knows how long for security, so arrive an hour before. Get to lax and sfo by surface car, not fun. After you land, wait however long on the tarmac because the airline doesn’t have its shit together. And jet flying is like injecting AIDS into earth’s veins

8

priznut t1_j9zk0uj wrote

With a family of 2 fuck that. My wife and I just drive between LA and bay area. Less than 5-6 hours and no shitty airport issues.

When that train is available I’m the first one to disney land.

3

shockwave1211 t1_j9xrp6x wrote

going to Japan and being able to get nearly anywhere via train has made me bitter about the state of transportation In CA. you either pay a (usually exhorbant) fee to fly from places like LA to SF, or you tank the 6 hour drive and put miles on your car or pay up for a rental. Being able to travel across the entirety of Japan in 4 hours kinda blew my mind

8

lil_hyphy t1_j9yo25z wrote

Flying and driving are also exhausting in each their own ways. My experience going long distances by train or bus was much less tiring. Would like to not feel like shit when I get to my destination.

8

kippypapa t1_j9zj2ki wrote

We already have many ways to get anywhere in the state. Amtrak exists, also many commuter trains. Planes, ferries, subways, busses. People still prefer to drive because it’s cheaper if you’re a family and more convenient.

2

mrchuckles5 t1_j9x30ku wrote

So die hard Californian here. Love this state despite its many flaws, and I’m definitely pro rail but this is a complete embarrassing shitshow. I’ve heard about this project for decades. It’s total bullshit.

118

Shoot_from_the_Quip t1_j9xjdrh wrote

Hell, Metro Rail was started in 1990 and promised a train to the airport among other things.

33 years later and they're only now building the people mover in LAX.

31

priznut t1_j9ziscf wrote

Projects like this take decades.

I call bullshit on this ignorant comment.

The big dig was first designed in 1982, it was completed in 2007.

Y’all need perspective.

6

mrchuckles5 t1_j9zm0pc wrote

Interesting that you chose to cite the Big Dig, a project that was a complete fucking mess. Major cost overruns, leaks, deaths, ceiling collapse, several hundred million dollar lawsuits, etc. probably not the best example buddy.

6

priznut t1_j9zmr4l wrote

Ugh did the japanese bullet train go way over budget?

Because I remember clearly it went waaaaaaaaaaay over budget.

Infrastructure projects are complicated projects that involve major public and private planning, development and cooperation.

I’m pretty sure most major projects go over budget or deal with problems as they deploy.

Some infrastructure projects just straight up fail (see places in the Middle East that don’t complete).

Y’all expect too much.

5

Stardustchaser t1_ja04mfp wrote

Napa has been waiting for BART to get there since the 1950s. Brentwood finally got their line in 5 years ago….with outdated diesel technology and a rail not compatible with the electric line the rest of the BART system uses, so entirely different trains have to be used for this newer 10 mile stretch. Not what was promised.

So yes, when people see a shitshow they will call it.

4

priznut t1_ja164q1 wrote

Lol dude it’s still better than nothing.

When I lived in Boston, I had to switch from one line to another system. A smelly trolley to the shaky box cars we know. And that’s just some of the switches you have to make.

I’d take what Brentwood had thank you.

I don’t necessarily disagree with your points. I do.

Regardless I feel folks are spoiled.

Also Napa does need better transit. But it is what it is and folks fought it.

If Bart to Brentwood is a shit show my commutes in Boston were a diarrhea box filled with vomit.

I’ll happily take crappy bart over many metro train systems.

2

mordecai14 t1_j9yvq8f wrote

Seems very similar to the bullshit high speed rail being built here in the UK actually

5

SilverNicktail t1_ja9ukmp wrote

Almost everything reported on this project is FUD bullshit, TBH. Oooh it's slow and over budget? Weird how we never get that reporting with highways, or the massive subsidies we hand to fossil fuel providers.

1

mrchuckles5 t1_ja9zflu wrote

I’m not against the project. I’m just against seeing it turn into a nightmare like the BIg Dig in Boston.

Funny how in my city the PW projects for bridges and roads come in on time and on budget, sometimes even under but we can’t get that at the state level. 🤔

1

Longey13 t1_j9y4mz6 wrote

If you look it up, they've been actively building for a bit now. There are plenty of regular video updates from the organization building it.

−2

Marston_vc t1_j9xvkh9 wrote

Construction has already started. Testing is meant to begin two years from now in 2025 and conclude in 2027. Given the scale and scope of this project, I think it’s okay that it’s taken a while.

−4

kaloskagathos21 t1_j9y6aaa wrote

Bullshit. While I’m glad construction has been occurring, China has put in over 20,000 km of hsr since 2008. It’s a joke how long infrastructure projects take here.

17

InvisiblePhilosophy t1_j9yb9vy wrote

Well, we could be a dictatorship and just forcibly move entire population centers.

But I’m glad we don’t, even if I do get frustrated by Nimbys and how long infrastructure projects take.

6

AquiliferX t1_j9zr7ir wrote

What happens when you don't need to deal with contractors and sub-contractors and sub-sub contractors. China can build infrastructure quickly thanks to central planning and vertical integration.

3

Phedis t1_j9w00dc wrote

North Haverbrook. Where have I heard that name before?

84

up_N2_no_good t1_j9w9567 wrote

At this point, mentioning the super train is like crying wolf to commuters.

43

Macattack224 t1_j9whvih wrote

I remember the one that was voted on in 08, burned up hundreds of millions then nothing happened.

30

Iz-kan-reddit t1_j9xhvmf wrote

>I remember the one that was voted on in 08, burned up hundreds of millions then nothing happened.

This is that project. Yes, it's taken this long.

20

mtcwby t1_j9w1r3n wrote

The feds haven't given them the funding requested recently and the amount of fluff in those 10k jobs is ridiculous. Search any of the construction subs here and see what they're saying about that shitshow.

25

Randomperson1362 t1_j9wsf6x wrote

At over 100 billion in costs, that is 10 million per job created.

25

itsfuckingpizzatime t1_j9wznv3 wrote

Yeah that’s not the point. This isn’t a communist job program. It’s fucking infrastructure.

16

Randomperson1362 t1_j9wzts7 wrote

Which is fine, I'm just pointing out that 10,000 jobs isn't really a great success when you are spending 100 billion dollars.

11

tacosdepapa t1_j9xgazx wrote

Think of the revenue from tourism. I’m in Southern California and would be spending weekends going up and down the coast if I could get to Northern California in three hours and I don’t have to drive. This project would payoff tenfold. I’ve taken scores of trains up and down all over Europe in the past 20 years but have only been on amtrack twice in the U.S. lived in L.A. all my life. It’s time to get this project done. I won’t enjoy it but my children will.

3

kippypapa t1_j9zld06 wrote

That train already exists. An extra couple of hours is what’s holding back your travels? If an extra few hours of travel time is what’s holding back this amazing tourist spend, then I’d argue that the demand isn’t sufficient for it to be built. It’ll also be expensive like HSR is in Europe compared to other modes of travel. If a foreign tourist can pay $100 or $50 but the cheaper option takes longer, they’ll take the cheaper option because they’re on vacation, they’re not in a hurry.

4

eh_brah t1_j9zn4e1 wrote

That's flawed thinking, it's not about jobs created, it's about infrastructure value -- jobs are a bonus.

For example, BART only employs 3500 people, yet cost 2B to build. "Oh no it costs 500K per job", but the infrastructure moves 26M people annually and without it the bay traffic would be even more unbearable.

Over 2M people fly annually between LAX and SFO alone, with ground travel magnitudes larger. Yes rail is an expensive project, but the value created would pay itself over multiple times. For example, The SF/Oakland bridge was $6B dollars to build, but they get $800M in tolls per year. ROI potential for these types of infrastructure is huge.

1

Randomperson1362 t1_j9zndwh wrote

This train is also projected to be slower, and more expensive than flying, so all 2 million are not going to switch to the train.

3

eh_brah t1_j9zvuw0 wrote

I didn't say that. I'm merely pointing out that there are a large amount of travel between norcal/socal that can be replaced with a bullet train.

The bullet train will be comparable to a plane ticket and coming in at an estimated $86 each way. A bullet train could take only 3 hours, which beats the 6-7 hour drive and half a day you spend at the airport. TSA, pre-boarding, waiting on the tarmac, enduring your 32" economy legroom, baggage claim, and all the unnecessary overhead.

In any country with a bullet train, telling someone you want to fly to the next major city is usually met with "yeah you could, but why the hell would you do that? Why not take the train?"

1

Ragnar_DanneskjoldSr t1_j9xhx7y wrote

I don't know the specifics about this project, but a nationwide high-speed rail implementation is an investment. Not an expensive.

−1

itsfuckingpizzatime t1_j9x02lh wrote

I mean, if it took more people to build, wouldn’t it just cost more?

It just shows the majority of the costs are not labor. Question is, where is the money going?

−2

atl_cracker t1_j9x1xxh wrote

> where is the money going?

consultants.

that's usually the short answer version of public-private ventures costing way more than they should.

15

Lanian55 t1_j9xi0zm wrote

Don't forget eminent domain of expensive California real estate.

6

duderguy91 t1_j9xjmep wrote

Just FYI, the spelling is eminent.

11

Lanian55 t1_ja0s2q4 wrote

That it is good sir! Always happy to improve my diction. (Fixed)

2

wartortle87 t1_j9wyldc wrote

Good thing the benefit of the rail isn't exclusively limited to jobs created

3

adub887 t1_j9wruf5 wrote

they have been talking about this project for over 20 years.

19

MissAmyRogers t1_j9wvc09 wrote

Yes. Decades of talk. Billions of dollars. Sad expensive joke.

17

trackdaybruh t1_j9xftlc wrote

They’ve already been building, you can see the progress at buildhsr.com

2

hawkxp71 t1_j9y7ozu wrote

At a total cost of 105 billion, up from 33 billion. 10k jobs is depressing.

16

med780 t1_j9z8kay wrote

The costs will keep rising. I would not be surprised if it reaches 200 billion.

4

sololegend89 t1_j9xzilk wrote

This grift is more than a decade old now. Soon to be a teenager!

14

Significant_Show7504 t1_j9x3uuc wrote

It’s not perfect, but considering that roads and highway projects go over-budget and take longer than planned all the time I would rather invest in a high speed train and actual decent infrastructure that pretty much all high GDP countries have besides us

7

impulsiveclick t1_j9y0988 wrote

This is like the I5 Bridge with light rail for Washington and Oregon that we have planned since 1991.

We finally built the waterfront here in Vancouver we planned… but we mostly just kept the project on embers until we could afford chunks of it. The Bridge is still being fought about cause cost

6

ivegot3dvision t1_j9ylz6e wrote

Yeah, because Washington will not put any money in on it. It's such a shit show.

3

impulsiveclick t1_ja3xik9 wrote

because Vancouver Washington residents don’t make nearly as much money as very rich upper class Portland. It’s not Vancouver’s fault that the people who could actually afford to pay a toll are on the other side of the bridge that won’t be using it.

This is exactly why I don’t think anybody in Oregon is a real socialist or cares about the lower class.

if you saw Vancouver Washington was capable of paying that kind of money in the 90s you’re just lying. I couldn’t afford it in the 2000s either. And it certainly couldn’t afford it through the 2010s while Portland was booming.

Vancouver Washington didn’t even have enough money to expand our jail in order to fit the amount of people is necessary. Our jail is significantly smaller for the population size than it should. And if we can’t afford a jail, what makes you think we could afford a bridge ?

Silver spoon in your mouth. We do not have income tax. Remember who would get taxed. Poor people. Disabled people.

it hasn’t been fun the past decade in Vancouver Washington watching as our housing prices go up and up and up because Portland Oregon won’t deal with its shit and all of our housing prices are based upon Portland and not ours. Because we can’t attract builders unless we make our apartments the same price as your low income apartments and these days you’ve got it cheaper.

The people who don’t have to cross the bridge and live in Vancouver Washington have it much better than the people who have to. There are people from Skamania county who have to go to Portland in order to work at all. Because there’s no jobs where they live.

but people in Portland wouldn’t know anything about that. They wouldn’t know anything about post 2008 economic crash realities that hit rural areas more than it hit them. Nor are they thankful that they actually came out of that significantly better off than the entirety of the rest of the country. (#1 in raised median income isnt doing bad!)

went from the most livable city to one of the most expensive in the span of a decade. All because y’all are selfish. You became just the people you demonize so very much. And you look down at your nose from your high tower at Poor Vantucky. Demanding that we give money we do not have because we’re peasants who dared to work where you live and we cannot afford. Demanding we pay like some place that is economically competitive.

Imagine treating Eugene like they’re Seattle. Because that’s what you’re doing to me and others here.

Imagine expecting the same amount from Federal way as you would Seattle. But now there’s a state line involved with opposite tax realities, so it’s just so much worse. It’s not even like I can use Medicaid facilities where you are at. I have to go to Seattle. That’s how that works.

I want to see our cities is two halved of a whole and I more relate to this area as its own state within itself then within my own state or just Oregon. We are like fraternal twin sisters or something.

If I was in Seattle and this was a Seattle and Portland problem then it would be equal. But it’s just not.

I can throw so many bitter words at Portland… and you can throw a lot of bitter words at me. and I will still love Portland. But I don’t think you love Vancouver. I know Camas stinkville fuckheads suck for Portland when they do go over but they cause us a lot of trouble too. You see the anti- school levy campaign for Vancouver? Yeah, that was people who live in Camas. Patriot Prayer? Camas.

I’m not in a position of power, and I assume you aint either. I want the light rail. The types who live out in Camas don’t even wanna pay for basic public transit.

I can only say “just raise taxes” isn’t an option. No state income tax. And the people who use the bridge are some of the least able to pay. If they were well off, they would find some way of working closer to home where they have political representation.

2

ivegot3dvision t1_ja409sm wrote

Look, the fact of the matter is that there's a lot of people that live in Portland (and surrounding areas) that are nowhere near rich. If you think that Portland is some rich stronghold, you're very mistaken.

My main issue is that if a state/city/whatever is going to benefit from an infrastructure project, like a bridge between states, both parties should fund it. I don't see how that's a lot to ask.

Also, I am very, very against any tolling on the 5. It's going to be a mess.

2

impulsiveclick t1_ja4avoc wrote

We do not have income tax. What about that do you not understand? You have no sales tax. We have no income tax. Sales tax hurts poor people. Property taxes often also hurt poor people.

1

ivegot3dvision t1_ja5jk0u wrote

I understand that you don't have income tax and that Oregon doesn't have sales tax. Budgeting for projects state wide takes into account what money is coming in from various sources.

I'm not going to back down on my opinion that if there's a bridge between two states, both states should pay for it. I don't quite understand your hatred and refusal for this.

1

impulsiveclick t1_ja5oq9e wrote

And I won’t back down because it was not put on the state. It was put on the city.

my hatred is coming from your blaming. And the fact that you deny what was really going on. Raising sales tax for everyone again really?

Washington state neglect pretty much everywhere that isn’t Seattle. And a lot of people in Oregon say the same thing if they don’t live in Portland.

Why would the most populated area, Seattle or the second most populated area Spokane, give a flying shit about anyone who isn’t themselves?

Portland can sway their state and government very easily because they’ve got the population to do so. because they have the economics to do so.

blaming Washington state for wanting a smaller bridge which y’all refused to accept a smaller bridge because we couldn’t afford it because it was a Vancouver Washington that was paying Not the rest of it.

Spokane, Seattle, Tacoma, Olympia. Those are the big cities here. Oh Oregon has one big city and then they have Eugene and Salem. it just happens to be that y’all are on the border of the state.

There was fighting. Stupid fucking people protesting the fucking light rail. Oh I can’t even call that particularly controversial as an element these days. I am only responsible for things that happened after 2008. Because that’s when I start voting.

But ultimately this was a huge fucking fight because the state didn’t want to pay for it. Because only our city would be using it. And high and mighty ivory tower Portland Oregon victim blaming

2

impulsiveclick t1_ja5qcog wrote

Oh and here’s a down vote since you down voted me. And you know I really don’t appreciate how y’all sent Joe Kent over here. he was a monster. And that’s what your culture produces. He was a real piece of work. He thought he could put a different bridge someplace else.

but hey if you want to put down my state, two can play at that game. I can absolutely rip Oregon a new one for violating peoples constitutional rights on the daily for the last decade. And by constitutional rights I mean like a right to a speedy trial. And endangering the public with its lack of public defenders. but if you said you just didn’t have the money I’d understand.

you know I’d understand a lot better if it wasn’t for the fact that the median income raised in Oregon more than any other state. everyone is in reality richer, and we are more at each other’s throats than we’ve ever been.

I miss when Portland was poor like we were. Because at least then you were nice

2

Boatster_McBoat t1_j9x4dns wrote

They really should standardise this into some sort of job-years statistic

2year project ... average job length 1.5 years. This creates 15,000 job-years or the same amount of work as 300-400 permanent jobs.

4

Samwoodstone t1_j9x8k8x wrote

It’s so cool…but there’s no place to live at an affordable price and the water is running out

4

wowbragger t1_j9wj63k wrote

Having lived in Sacramento even they first voted this cursed project in.. Man, I think back in 08..?

Is this the same project they're trying to celebrate?

For those not in the know of the disaster this project has been..https://youtu.be/T09EEyxxfWY

3

GenXer1977 t1_j9who2g wrote

I really hope we get this, but I’m not going to believe it until I’m riding it.

2

98VoteForPedro t1_j9xeyo0 wrote

Hyperloop will create 1billion jobs-elon musk probably

2

Expensive_Food t1_j9xj2ty wrote

Well under budget too 🤣🤣🤣🤣

2

skilliard7 t1_j9xm7em wrote

This project is a massive boondoggle and a waste of taxpayer money and talented workers. This isn't uplifting news. Tens of Billions of dollars spent on a project that is overbudget and behind schedule.

2

Spartan3153 t1_j9y142s wrote

Yeah it provides jobs but are the jobs actually gonna be good ?

2

ChargerIIC t1_j9yc1d4 wrote

The high speed rail project: if we keep throwing money at it something good is bound to happen, right?

2

omsblackelf t1_j9yhmbe wrote

But high speed rail, the most efficient way known to move people, goes completely against capitalism! WTF?

2

ExternalSpeaker2646 t1_j9yl12v wrote

It would be great for California to have high speed rail! It’d facilitate travel across the state so much easily.

2

PanickyFool t1_j9yqg4d wrote

Give them small spoons in place and have them operate at even lower productivity! Why aren't we spending 10x on 10x the jobs?

This is totally never getting past the bus to LA.

2

The-Great-Beast-666 t1_j9ytjb5 wrote

What hyper loop didnt solve traffic? I thought we just need more lanes underground

2

Jaymanseeya t1_j9z1fkg wrote

What about that hyperloop tho lol

2

Stardustchaser t1_ja0419p wrote

California has been working on this for 15+ years and it’s in development hell. For many this project is just a money pit and not a job creator. Would love to see otherwise but not holding my breath on it.

Meanwhile Napa is still waiting for BART to reach it as promised in the 1950s….

2

SerendipitySue t1_ja0bnko wrote

Sometime ago I read an interesting to me article. It stated the Federal government was counting 1 person working 1 year as a job for certain legislation, laws and projects. This is a rare way to count jobs, but not unheard of.

For example, 1 person working for 2 years would count as 2 jobs. So the project created 2 jobs over 2 years.

It explains these amazing "jobs created" numbers I have seen for certain legislation.

2

AutoModerator t1_j9vyshe wrote

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Downtown-Cress-5202 t1_j9xzhtg wrote

Great idea but it's bogged down by a corrupt expensive ridiculously slow virus

1

W33Ded t1_j9yob34 wrote

No it won’t, California is going to regulate the hell out of it. It will never get started and the only people to benefit from it will be the politicians bought off for the subsidies and the executives who own and run the company who were chosen to build it. That’s America

1

VictoriousStalemate t1_j9xfdmy wrote

They only person who supports this expensive boondoggle is Lyle Lanley.

0

dgj212 t1_j9y4okj wrote

Hopefully they offer more than a "livable" wage.

−1

jackofallchange t1_j9x52kr wrote

This is the biggest scam since water “rights”

Edit: people seem to not understand how much money had been wasted and obviously funneled through the railway program that California has been trying to launch for 2 decades. It is a rigamarole of bullshit and legislation, where a lot of the wrong people have gotten paid to do NOTHING. Legit, the valley is still the worst commuting in the entire state. Second, my comment about “rights” is actually tongue-in-cheek, because California has some super funky laws about who owns the water and right to water, and it definitely isn’t the people. The responses show that you guys are completely disassociated from the reality that this state does absolute damage to everyone when funding public projects where most of the money ends up going to legislators and other “project managers”. But it’s okay, can’t judge a blind guy for smelling fish and calling it pussy

−3

hisurfing t1_j9zog2n wrote

Yes...water rights. People have a right to basic necessities in this country last I checked water is a basic necessity. Now bring on your bot down votes.

3

Ragnar_DanneskjoldSr t1_j9xi145 wrote

Fossil fuel and automobile manufacturing Fluffer is not a good bullet point on your résumé

−3

SilverNicktail t1_j9w12lm wrote

But the Intarwebs has repeatedly informed me that Cali were complete suckers and cancelled all their high-speed rail because Musk put out a render video of a thing that doesn't exist. Turns out they were continuing to build the entire time?

−4

Ithxero t1_j9xhqzl wrote

Yeah. And if it were to ever finish (it won’t) it’s going to make it even harder for those of us who live outside of LA and the Bay Area to live and work where we do now. But sure, open the door to even more commuters making three or four times what we are so rent can go even further into the stratosphere.

And let’s say that capitalism loses (it won’t) and somehow the housing crisis is averted or resolved, your cute little bullet train is going to have so many goddamn stops, it’s going to be effectively worthless.

Take that 100+ billion, dump that shit into other public transportation infrastructure, build some affordable high density housing in places where’s it’s needed and start fixing this place.

Signed: someone who actually fuckin’ lives here and doesn’t buy for a fucking second this wasn’t ever a joke.

−4

Marston_vc t1_j9xvrix wrote

Lmao, capitalism is when, checks notes, “we don’t let people move freely to compete” lmao

6

Freeeeedommmmmm t1_j9x7sks wrote

Propaganda. Building rail for transportation is like building coal mines for energy.

gif

−10

Ragnar_DanneskjoldSr t1_j9xicqc wrote

You are the propaganda dissemination tool. It's by far the most efficient and resource renewable transportation in the world. Fossil fuel fellator isn't exactly going to look good on your résumé

2