Look at the route California's HSR takes [1]. That's a map drawn for short-term political gains, not long-term utility.
Unless we develop technology that cancels out inertia, that track is speed limited for much of its route. Comparing non-American infrastructure costs and benefits to American infrastructure is misguided because American infrastructure costs unreasonably more [2].
[1] http://www.ushsr.com/images/632_CA_HSR_Phasing_632.jpg
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
It did feel like this to me at the time (and was widely discussed as such) but having used the HSR Japan and Germany I reflected and realized they really helped the smaller cities to thrive. Tying Fresno and Bakersfield into the economies of LA and the Bay Area will be great for all concerned, relieving pressure on the megalopolises and expanding he economic opportunities of the Central Valley.
Can you elaborate why you believe the comparison is misguided?
It costs more because it costs more is self evident, but doesn't suffice as an explanation in depth.
I linked to a New York Times article [1] that analyses the issue well. For a shorter, bloggier read try this CityLab piece [2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
[2] https://www.citylab.com/life/2014/04/7-reasons-us-infrastruc...
That doesn't explain why you believe a non-US comparison is misguided, rather it supports the notion of a non-US comparison.
US infrastructure projects cost more because the US isn't Japan or Europe would be a neat summary.
So you skimmed one article and didn't read the other. Here:
"The Times observed construction on site in Paris, which is building a project similar to the Second Avenue subway at one-sixth the cost."
Most of the factors in the CityLab piece are uniquely American. We pay more for the same infrastructure. Something that makes economic sense for one country may not for America, just as a tractor may make sense for a farmer at $100,000 but not at $10 million. Our inflated costs throw out of whack the balance of costs and benefits that makes certain infrastructure value adding abroad.
TL; DR We can't automatically assume infrastructure that works abroad works here.
The issue is in the absence of effective controls on corruption, it's in the self-interest of those holding the reigns to buy a $3 billion tunnel for $12 billion if the latter nets them $10 million in "campaign contributions"
I’m not interested in starting a union/anti-union fight. Please.
I'm not taking issue with the fact that similar infrastructure projects have different costs in different countries, nor that there are reasons as to why this is.
I'm trying to understand why you think the comparison is misguided.
Only by way of comparison are we able to ascertain that the US is, probably, paying too much for infrastructure.
I mean, this whole conversation is predicated on the comparison.
It's not that the similar infrastructure can't work in the US; it's that for reasons-known similar infrastructure may be untenable. If the infrastructure was built anyway, say by an Act Of God, it would probably still function as expected.
Can you explain why? For example comparing NYC's subway to Paris' subway. Why would one be more expensive than the other, since I don't think the base cost are that different
(I'm not from the US, I'm just trying to understand your point)
Critical qualifier: in the United States. The British rail system, as I understand it, runs with significantly lower variable costs than e.g. Amtrak or BART.
You're right that short term thinking and underinvestment in infrastructure is a problem. But you have to choose your projects intelligently: things like revamping BART and New York's MTA, and taking better care of the most-used roads and bridges are far far better uses of public money.
Part of the reason we underinvest in infrastructure is that people see these pointless multi-billion-dollar boondoggles and cry out their money is being wasted. If you really want more spending on infrastructure, give up on your dream projects and spend on things that will actually make a big difference in people's lives.
This desperately needs the support of at least one such “well thought out” cost/benefit analysis.
Good point. The government may not run all the trains[0], but the rail companies help with congestion and up-keep as well. And that is just the trains running on the National Rail, not including private rail lines.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_operating_tr...
That could be the reason why flying is 4x cheaper than trains there.
Most of Europe pays less for a superior experience. Reasons: Europeans literally rebuilt their networks from scratch post-WWII, and used the chance to electrify and modernise most of them - whereas Britain, that was bombed much less, just kept using very old lines (most of them are STILL not electric, in 2018, which is absurd). That's investment failure #1, driven by short-sightedness.
Then you have the privatisation shenanigans from the 90s onward. This is investment failure #2: in order to reduce running costs and avoid having to deal with running trains, every few years taxpayers end up paying huge one-off sums that basically offset any potential savings. In the rest of Europe, despite attempts at privatisation, the old state-funded companies still dominate, achieving economies of scale and efficiencies that private competitors will never be able to match.
So maybe it would be worse with one or more private companies, but public companies are no silver bullet and will fail sometime.
Where did you get your info about train production? I would be interested how the figures vary from country to country.
But then there is some local knowledge to add, like the fact that pretty much all factories left are just tweakers for the internal market (narrow-gauging and so on), afaik the only one with significant production and occasional export is Bombardier in Derby - which got very close to shutting down around year 2000 and is basically run from Berlin anyway. Most European factories, despite some consolidation after the EU common market reached full gear, still pump out trains sold around the world - and then you have Japan and China that play on a different level.
Afaik the best trains in the UK are all bought from abroad at the moment. Things might change with the HS2 (high-speed) project that should be tendered out this year [1], but note how the main candidates are basically just reselling Japanese tech.
Once the land is purchased, levelled, and conditioned you now have a space that can have trains running on it for the next fifty, one hundred, or more years. Look at the UK's railway lines, some of them have been operating for two hundred years and counting.
This type of short term thinking is why infrastructure spending in the US is at an all time low. Instead of spending for tens of years into the future, we only evaluate the costs relative to the next five years and therefore make decisions more valuable to tomorrow than next week.
Once CA buys this route, they own this route forever. And in a state gaining more and more people every day, cutting out land for infrastructure is only going to get more painful in time.