I know this project is costing a fortune but I'm a proponent of it. The connection of so many cities will eventually be a boon for California.<p>The red line in Los Angeles had a similar history with cost overruns and extreme costs but now it's a vital part of the Los Angeles transportation system. I see the same happening to this system.<p>We marvel at the Roman aqueducts not because of their costs but at the fact that they were built in the first place. Similarly, we will say the same thing about the bullet train.
Man this must be a hey-day for property lawyers in the valley.<p>You could just sorta guarantee this would happen -- the nimbyism in California is like full-tilt. I'd suspect the costs will go up even more from here and the time to completion will be even longer than this<p>It's a shame we can't have nice things here.
That's almost the cost of the $100 billion international space station.<p>And it's not even a maglev. A maglev would've been way cooler.
Honestly, how long will it take for this to be a good investment? My guess is more than 50 years. Will we need a bullet train in 50 years? Probably not. Anyone that wants to go anywhere will be able to step inside a pod, take a nap, and wake up wherever they want to be. Such a waste of resources...
When I was in kindergarten, there was a proposed (Washington) metro station down the street. Metro put up a sign, "Coming soon...". Twenty years later the sign fell down. The station was eventually built. The first time I used it, I took my daughter, who was just about to start kindergarten. Now, I live in northern CA, just a mile from where the proposed bullet train will run. When people talk about the impact, I tell them, that's our children's problem, and reference the above story.
I'm all for this train, but if it costs this much to build and even more to maintain, and it's not even the newest train technologies, then it's probably just doomed to fail.
Just did some quick calculations, for the bullet train connecting beijing and shanghai which is about twice the length of the cal bullet train system, the chinese spent about $30B
This reminds me of the aerospace industry adage (F-22 / F-35 related), that if you extrapolate the continuing growth curve of fifth generation air superiority aircraft acquisition costs, in 75 years from now the USAF will be able to afford to purchase a single fighter and it will cost $9.5 billion.
I would consider this project a success if they can build a functioning high-speed rail line from Fresno to San Jose. Connecting the Central Valley to Silicon Valley - or the fifth largest city to the third largest city in CA - would bring tremendous benefits. If this portion of the project can be proved out, building out to SF and even Sacramento is feasible. I'm not sure it's ever going to be economically feasible to tunnel through the mountains to SoCal.
tl;dr - Since in California all construction requires an absurd amount of licenses, approvals, environmental studies, etc., and because local residents can sue for almost anything, the cost has skyrocketed.<p>Isn't this what eminent domain was created for? Shouldn't California state have the ability to make things happen for its own rail projects?
I'm left wondering: how much would a hyperloop cost to span the same distance? At 2 or 3 times the speed?<p>They've already started it? Never too late to stop a disaster. It'll be $150B by the time it's finished.