California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by randoramax on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @06:46PM (#16173202)

You ignore the value in the intermediate stops. Think about living within 45 minutes from San Francisco downtown, somewhere in between LA and SF. Also think how bloody miserable are flights in economy, and taking your shoes off before boarding a plane. Trains are luxury!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by borkt on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @07:01PM (#16173302)

a 40 minute flight between the two destinations in economy is not at all miserable, certainly not miserable enough to justify the expense on this project that will never be completed.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by kelnos on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @07:07PM (#16173342)

The intermediate stops bite both ways, though: if you're on a train that stops several times in the central valley, and in SJ, I'd expect your travel time to be a bit more than 45 minutes.

Why not spend (a small fraction of) that money to improve Caltrain and service between Caltrain and the central valley in a different manner?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by chipotle_coyote on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @08:44PM (#16173929)

They are spending money to improve Caltrain; the plan is to move to electrified trains by 2021. It's the "service between Caltrain and the Central Valley" part that's a more significant challenge.

I'm not convinced that the current HSR project is the best way to do it, but I'm also not aware of any serious counterproposal -- and it's hard to even imagine one that wouldn't also be a huge, expensive undertaking with limitless opportunity for missed schedules, cost overruns and undue optimism.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by ubernostrum on Wednesday January 17, 2018 @09:54PM (#16174275)

I'm not convinced that the current HSR project is the best way to do it

Most criticism boils down to a "perfect is the enemy of the good" problem. Anything that isn't the most perfect possible solution from a given critic's viewpoint is attacked as a "boondoggle" while ignoring that opening up the corridor and making it easier to travel between SF, LA, and smaller cities in between will be a good thing (and that there's plenty of evidence for it in similar rail lines elsewhere).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by chipotle_coyote on Friday January 19, 2018 @02:36PM (#16189049)

Yep, I agree. That's what I (imperfectly) meant by the lack of serious counterproposals: I'm not sure the current HSR is the best approach, but I haven't seen anyone come up with a better idea, and I'd rather have something than nothing.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by kelnos on Thursday January 18, 2018 @10:53PM (#16184026)

I agree that it's a good thing, but is it good enough to warrant its price tag, when we're painfully aware of significant issues with our existing transit systems?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by ubernostrum on Saturday January 20, 2018 @07:21PM (#16196211)

If only some of the money for HSR were going to be used to improve existing transit systems as well as building a new line.

(hint: some of the money is going to be used to improve existing transit systems!)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B by kelnos on Thursday January 18, 2018 @10:52PM (#16184020)

The main problems with Caltrain seem to be cost, too-infrequent trains, and delays. Does electrification address that?

And even if it does, this doesn't improve VTA, BART, SF Muni, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]