It seems concerning that the US isn't able to complete basic infrastructure projects. Even if they're a little over time and budget. In other parts of the world, infrastructure is getting done.<p>Looking at how much high speed rail China has built, and operates, then you look at the USA who cannot event get a train built between to major cities it's quite crazy that this is such a struggle.<p>I know that it's not a priority because Americans are "rich" and like cars, but something about this failure seems deeply problematic to me.
Meanwhile - Brightline, Orlando to Miami 125 MPH, $6B and 4 years.
<a href="https://www.wptv.com/news/region-martin-county/stuart/brightline-trains-ready-roll-to-orlando-amid-treasure-coast-concerns#:~:text=%E2%80%94%20The%20first%20Brightline%20trains%20will,runs%20starting%20in%20early%202022" rel="nofollow">https://www.wptv.com/news/region-martin-county/stuart/bright...</a>.
I've spent large amounts of time in other countries. America is an absolute embarrassment.<p>There are countries you can go where it feels like the government actually cares about trying to help people have a better life. There are countries where infrastructure projects get completed. There are countries where infrastructure isn't just completed, <i>it's good</i>. There are countries where the administrative overhead of health care is 2% instead of (a likely underestimated) 25%.<p>You can't fix infrastructure policy, or any other policy, in America without first fixing campaign finance reform.<p>As long as senators and justices can be openly bought and sold there is no hope of getting responsible leadership that acts in the interests of citizens.<p>Very good video explaining the core issue of American politics by Harvard Law professor and founder of creative commons Lawrence Lessig-- <i>Our democracy no longer represents the people</i>: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE</a>
> told lawmakers the project has $28 billion dollars on hand, but noted it was still a few billion dollars short to complete the Central Valley segment between Merced and Bakersfield. Depending on how long the segment takes to finish, it could cost between $32 Billion to $35 Billion<p>California will spend tens of billions and multiple decades connecting two cities in the middle of nowhere. And in the most conservative part of the state, where people didn’t want high speed rail to begin with. And then the project will get cancelled because no way this thing is ever getting built. Truly excellent trolling.
this project will never be complete; they will finish the central valley and stop there. There is no way to get a high speed train all the way to SF on the same two tracks that caltrain uses, even after electrification. It will be a miracle if they get to Diridon.
This is a one-party failure of the California democratic party 8-(<p>They're so in bed with the real estate mafia that it's almost impossible to get anything involving land accomplished.<p>With the number of people flying daily between southern California and the bay area, a high speed rail would be boon for the region. It's ironic that after the whole idea of California high speed rail was first introduced by a San Diego legislator in the '80s, after a trip to Japan, San Diego is no longer even on the initial planned route.<p>There's a simple solution to the funding problem: a $5-$10 dollar tax on each flight between SoCal and the bay area. These short hop flights are exactly what the high speed rail is supposed to eliminate, and the number of people taking them everyday is huge. Make the problem pay for the solution.<p>The same approach could fund the transition away from petroleum. The problem, of course, is that both major US political parties primarily represent the entrenched equity stake holders, not the population at large.
For reference, Wikipedia says SpaceX has spent $3B on the Starship program through May 2023. Another 2B estimated in 2023 at that point, so somewhere less than 10B total, easily.<p>It went to space today, and these jokers can’t lay railroad track like we did in the 1800s.
The project is too profitable for it to end. Why would anybody at the trough be against stretching the timeline and budget in perpetuity? Yum yum, unless you're a CA taxpayer.<p>The $1.7M toilet feels like a steal in comparison to this.
Title author clearly isn't from CA. They've been hyping HSR since the 80's. Never gonna happen without lots of pork barrel waste and, like VTA light rail, no one's going to use it. Americans are in love with meat agriculture, political toxicity, feelings over knowledge and competency, uninformed opinions, and single occupant vehicles stuck in traffic with long commutes.
It's a rule that all infrastructure projects will be behind schedule and over budget. A correlary to this is, like a vacuum, a project will always use the money and time that is originally allocated and need more.<p>With this in mind, the way the current project is being funded and run is actually the most practical way (regardless of the horrible optics): Doing chunks at a time, rather than trying to plan and fund the entire time and cost up front. The fact is that estimations are inherently political and always, always, always incorrect.<p>Though it seems a ludicrous way to work, the project would never had started had the actual time and cost had been known at the outset. Though some parts of the project cost more because of the lack of complete funding and slower pace (things cost more now), the overall efficiency is actually improved by making sure that the money is spent as needed.<p>So, if they're saying it'll cost another $100B to complete, the real cost is probably $250B. If they say it'll be done by 2030, it'll probably be 2035 at the earliest. And that's fine. As a country we need to stop thinking in the short term. Unless we want to start acting like China and just bulldoze our way across the country regardless of property owners, residents and the environment, this is how it has to be.<p>Anyone who's been on this earth for more than a few decades should know this by now.
"The purpose of system is what it does". High speed rail (and almost all US train systems) are not about moving people in a cost or time efficient way. The purpose is to transfer taxpayer dollars to employees, consultants, and politicians.
Where is all the money fricken going? Seriously? Who in California is vacuuming this up and buying lambos with it? Absolutely unbelievable.<p>What's worse, is if you even begin to question this stuff, people are like "stop being anti-<insert buzzword> blah blah"
<a href="https://archive.ph/uG7KA" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/uG7KA</a> for those who get "Sorry, this content is not available in your region."
What if everyone involved received equity which is worth more with every dollar from the initial cost estimate not spent? Giving them an incentive to save money and pocket the difference
This was a project that was never needed. High speed rail make sense in corridors that have a large number of big population centers that are just far enough where driving is not a great solution and flights are inefficient to move large number of people around. Europe, Japan, American North East etc.<p>There’s not a whole lot between LA and the Bay Area, and people didn’t need the train when flights work. It’s the same kind of feasibility study that put a multi billion dollar transit terminal in the middle of San Francisco, that is not connected to all major transit operations that exist in the city