[HN Gopher] California approves final high-speed rail link conne...
___________________________________________________________________
California approves final high-speed rail link connecting San
Francisco to LA
Author : edward
Score : 48 points
Date : 2024-06-30 21:48 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sfchronicle.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sfchronicle.com)
| jandrese wrote:
| I assume they finally approved it once the stations were moved
| well outside of the city so they wouldn't inconvenience a single
| driver.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Isn't that an opportunity to build up new multi use development
| at a lower cost? Recent HN thread discussed what must come
| first, mass transit or development for example. In this case,
| the mass transit can come first, with interconnections to
| existing higher density mass transit systems as needed.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Most places could build a lot of 5+1s for the $128 billion
| cost _. Not so sure California can+.
|
| _https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-03-11/new-
| cost...
|
| +https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/high-rise-building-
| in-...
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's a lot more profitable (in the good way) to build the
| rails and stations first, on cheap land, and have the cities
| grow around those. The builders of the railway get to capture
| the increased land value, rather than having to buy (or
| otherwise pay off) huge uninterrupted tracts of very
| expensive developed land containing thousands of homes etc.
| Buy low, sell high and all that.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Tangentially, one of my big hopes of this upcoming election in
| the UK is that Labour get a big enough majority in parliament
| that they can force through a lot of infrastructure projects with
| minimal process. We could have a golden age again where
| parliament pass individual acts supporting simplified processes
| for HS2, a third Heathrow runway, etc, given the upcoming super-
| majority
| pestatije wrote:
| third Heathrow runway?...say that often and loud enough and
| your Labour majority goes up in smoke
| ducttapecrown wrote:
| https://hsr.ca.gov/2024/06/27/news-release-california-high-s...
|
| https://www.buildhsr.com/
| Invictus0 wrote:
| $100 billion for 463 miles of track is outrageous, and that's
| surely to double by the time it's completed. In 1964, Japan was
| able to build its 320 mile long Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka in
| just 5 years for less than $12B, inflation adjusted.
| bsimpson wrote:
| New York has the most famous Mafia, but it does seem like
| Americans have just accepted that our urban infrastructure
| construction is rife with corruption. See also the Central
| Subway in SF, the Big Dig in Boston, and the general perception
| that anything infrastructure related will cost infinity dollars
| and approximately never be completed.
| lazide wrote:
| It's largely a factor of all this being 'nice to have', no
| one having a reason to cut through the BS, combined with an
| outrage driven media/culture.
|
| Because let's be serious - California doesn't actually _need_
| high speed rail.
|
| No one sane wants, or needs, to rock the boat - especially
| since doing so just gets a giant eye of Sauron pointed at
| them. Extra bonus? Turning the crank endlessly on this while
| everyone complains gets them rich.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Do we really need airports? Or paved roads for that matter?
| Hell, Vermont gets by just fine with dirt roads, and
| they're better to drive on than many roads in CA.
|
| Also HSR is something that a large contingent of people in
| CA have been kvetching about for decades, not sure your
| "everyone is afraid to say anything" holds water here.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > have been kvetching about
|
| Yeah but they don't want this bullshit route. They want
| to go from LA to SF and MAYBE go through Santa Barbara,
| or go to Las Vegas or San Diego.
|
| Plus, Even with inflation, it's super cheap to fly from
| SF to LA. Who is going to pay more than airfare to go
| between those two cities in a longer amount of time?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I'm surprised that you are surprised that there is a difference
| in both property and labor costs between a japan 19 years post
| allied strategic bombing and present day california.
| kortilla wrote:
| Im surprised you think the issue is labor and land costs.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| What would you peg it on then? Profiteering subcontractors?
| I'd file that under labor.
| hooo wrote:
| Why don't we have foreign workers temporarily come and do
| this cheaply then?
| kingkawn wrote:
| Pay what it costs for people to live good lives
| 1992spacemovie wrote:
| I can't tell if you are joking or serious. Joking answer:
| Because you'll get cheap results. Serious answer: Get a
| grip on your worldview and think critically instead of
| searching for fill in the blank answers; life is never
| fill in the blank answers for anything that matters.
| nelsondev wrote:
| Complying with environmental regulation, permits,
| planning, etc
| numpad0 wrote:
| [delayed]
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| Are profiteering government employees and environmental
| NGOs considered "labor"?
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Most of the land for the Shinkansen route was actually
| acquired in the 1930s, before any strategic bombing.
| martinald wrote:
| This line will last for 100+ years - I really don't think it's
| that much for a state with a GDP of $3trillion+ to connect many
| of the major cities.
|
| The other thing to think about is what is the alternative -
| road or airport construction in california is not cheap.
| Replacing 2 bridges on I-5 in stockton is going to cost nearly
| $1b alone.
|
| And I think a lot of the benefit won't just come from the main
| SF LA route, it'll be intermediate stations to SF or LA too.
| It'll only take 19 minutes to go from Palmdale to LA for
| example - compared with 1hr+ now. In a way it would have been
| better to have the IOS be one of those routes, but they are
| also the most difficult geography.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| > it'll be intermediate stations to SF or LA too. It'll only
| take 19 minutes to go from Palmdale to LA
|
| Is there evidence that people will want to pay the high price
| of such a train ticket... And then what, once you're in LA?
| The last mile problem in LA and San Francisco (mind you HSR
| is not currently planned to enter the city, and BART is
| insanely expensive) is real.
| matthalvorson wrote:
| Feel like by the time this rail is done, last mile will be
| fully covered by robotaxis
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| BART is insanely expensive? I went from Oakland to San
| Francisco last night for $4.70, which is cheaper than the
| bridge toll. I don't know if that's expensive compared to
| other systems, but it's totally fine by my standards.
| jwagenet wrote:
| I don't know where the HSR is expected to stop, in or near
| SF (although last I heard was the Caltrain corridor to 4th
| and King), but Bart is neither especially expensive if only
| travelling on the peninsula, nor is it the primary transit
| for SF (Muni).
| twelvechairs wrote:
| Of course what they should do to fund it is what they figured out
| in Hong Kong or Singapore decades ago. Have government
| requisition land around stations and redevelop it as high density
| towers and profit on the sales.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Wouldn't they have to confiscate the land first?
| throwup238 wrote:
| Caltrans would buy it the land this case. They've got a
| pretty significant real estate portfolio that they've
| acquired for a variety of projects over the decades.
|
| One random house I think they still own is Julia Child's
| childhood home in Pasadena.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| I imagine the price of land thats going to be rezoning into
| residential would be much higher than land thats marked for
| transportation.
| twelvechairs wrote:
| If you dont want government to compulsorily purchase land
| first, you can also do "value capture" which is in essence
| saying "anything developed to the new planning controls needs
| to pay money based on the difference between old and new
| controls". The economics is quite simple for developers to
| cost in but it needs to be there early, not imposed after all
| the developers have bought land without factoring it in.
| lmm wrote:
| All long-distance transport construction requires
| "confiscating" land. Somehow it's completely routine to take
| huge swathes of land for freeway widening, but build one
| little train line and everyone loses their minds.
| aqme28 wrote:
| I'm all for eminent domain when it comes to providing
| infrastructure, but I feel icky about it being used just to
| hopefully profit. Reminds me too much of Kelo v. New London
| handelaar wrote:
| https://archive.is/D6LT5
| johnea wrote:
| For anyone who's used high speed railin Japan, Europe or China
| knows how much more efficient it is than flying.
|
| It really is sad just how hard it is to build anything in the US
| at this point.
|
| As a San Diego resident, it's also sad that it was a state
| representative from San Diego that first introduced this idea to
| the state legislature, and yet now, San Diego has been dropped
| from the planned route. 8-(
| ghaff wrote:
| It really depends. I try to train in Europe when time and price
| aren't overriding considerations but flying is often
| faster/cheaper over any real distance--especially between
| countries.
| vondur wrote:
| I doubt it will ever be completed. If they can at least linkup
| the Bakersfield area with SoCal that would be a win. There are a
| lot of people commuting between the LA area and Bakersfield.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-30 23:00 UTC)