> Look at the route California's HSR takes [1]. That's a map drawn for short-term political gains, not long-term utility.

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.

I had exactly this thought yesterday when thinking of my experience of China. The states are so disconnected exactly because there’s no rapid transportation that would also involve local centers. And don’t tell me about the country size, I’ve ridden large parts of transsiberian railway many times as a kid. Like 4 days on a train there and back again every year to see my grandparents.

I second that. Having a <1 connection from smaller cities to SFO will make commuting from there a realistic option and could help to somewhat normalise prices in SF and Bay Area.

While I obviously think cheaper and faster is better, connecting two of the worlds largest city economies with vacant land is a feature not a bug.

Can you elaborate on why you think the route is drawn for "political gains"? I ask because the route makes sense to me geographically given that the initial useful core route is SJC/LAX.

Main use of HSR is going to be getting to and from peripheral cities. Fresno to SF and Bakersfield to LA in under an hour would be HUGE. That's going to get used more than the full SF to LA trip.

I'm not convinced the HSR is a good idea. But I actually suspect, if it turns out 50 years from now to have been, it's because it created a corridor through relatively undeveloped country (yes, there are significant cities but small relative to the endpoints) that could develop along a fast transportation link. Convenient (ADDED: somewhat) fast transit between SF and LA is almost beside the point.

Absolutely agree. Even just this first segment, from Fresno to the Bay Area, is going to be transformative.

> Comparing non-American infrastructure costs and benefits to American infrastructure is misguided because American infrastructure costs unreasonably more

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.

> 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...

The Citylab article provides 7 Reasons U.S. Infrastructure Projects Cost Way More Than They Should.

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.

> The Citylab article...doesn't explain why you believe a non-US comparison is misguided

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 question, again, is why is there such a big difference in the cost? What are taxpayers and consumers of this infrastructure getting in exchange for these higher costs? That is, what's the opportunity cost? Even if it's a cultural opportunity cost, knowing that is party of assessing if it's really worth it.

Did you read the New York Times link above?

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"

Not the OP. I imagine unions and insurance play a huge role.

I’m not interested in starting a union/anti-union fight. Please.

I find it hard to believe U.S. unions and insurance are more expensive than their equivalents in other countries, but maybe - seeing as health insurance is universal everywhere except in the U.S.

> "The Times observed construction on site in Paris, which is building a project similar to the Second Avenue subway at one-sixth the cost."

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.

Exactly. The comparison to non-US based projects is inadequate. California and other US states need to "earn the right" to spend this much money on one single monstrous project by proving it can handle smaller projects with 100% cost accuracy. BART extensions, LA Metro Rail and projects in the smaller cities should have near 1-to-1 precision in planning cost to implementation, before going after the big kahuna. Jerry Brown wanted to galvanize the population but instead it has bred cynicism state and nation-wide. Oh, and it will cost over $100 billion in taxpayer dollars before it's completed.

> The comparison to non-US based projects is inadequate

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)

I think there are just a lot of intangibles so it's hard to compare mega projects, like the existing state of the subway where it is integrating into (like extensions), how many stations are being added, cost of labor, etc. I think comparing dozens of similar projects like the cost of replacing one street light, overpass or kilometer of highway from a non-US project, or even better within a single city in the same country, would be more informative.

looks like the map is drawn to go into various city centers, unless I am mistaken