
U.S. cancels $929M in California high speed rail funds after appeal rejected - petethomas
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-rail/u-s-cancels-929-million-in-california-high-speed-rail-funds-after-appeal-rejected-idUSKCN1SM2F9
======
notJim
The US desperately needs to figure out how to do big infrastructure projects
like this. High-speed rail is a critical piece of a greener economy, because
it can truly compete with air travel at medium distances, and blows car travel
out of the water. It's really unfortunate that the political incentives seem
to be that Republicans are just outright opposed to any kind of government
infrastructure spending unless it's a money-making scheme for their donors,
and Democrats want to defend any project that sounds good, and damn the costs
or whether it's actually successful.

What we need is a willingness to do major, expensive projects (high-speed rail
is just _not_ going to cheap in California, or anywhere), _and_ ruthless
commitment to making them happen efficiently. When a project like this fails
in this way, all it does it play into the hands bad-faith actors who will
never support major infrastructure projects. Then, people who _are_ acting in
good faith oppose them too, because there aren't enough counter-examples of
successful projects.

~~~
awinder
I’m definitely with you in spirit but I really wish we could also work on the
“disagree but commit” skill directly. This project was going to have 10B in
cost overruns, meanwhile the F-35 project has hundreds of billions sunk into
it and the project is in no serious risk. Part of learning how to build
infrastructure effectively is going to be to start building infrastructure and
gaining experience, so if we are going to do it, let’s give a bit of breathing
room to let it work.

~~~
djrogers
> This project was going to have 10B in cost overruns

This project was $10B over projections before we even finished voting to fund
it a decade ago, let alone now.

------
rsync
Good.

I want an _actual high speed train_ from the new downtown SF transit station
to Union Station LA in two hours or less.

I would like a high speed train that won't be obsolete the day it is opened.

What was being (haltingly) built was a ridiculous route-by-committee with time
consuming (and sprawl inducing) stops in whichever districts had an assertive
rep willing to sacrifice a project of national importance for their little
town.

All you needed to know about CA HSR could be learned by seeing it was not
built on the I-5 corridor. Fresno and Palmdale should be _spurs_ \- not route
benders.

~~~
martinald
No, it really wasn't. Have you looked at a map of topography of California? I5
was built that route for a reason - it is the easiest route unless you want
the route to be in 100s of km of incredibly expensive tunnel.

~~~
brianpgordon
I don't think you're disagreeing with the parent comment.

------
noonespecial
The really humbling thing about visiting things like the Hoover Dam is
realizing that things like this are impossible today.

If they started that dam today, they'd spend 20 years and twice the money the
dam actually cost just on lawsuits and papers and have nothing to show for it
decades later.

~~~
sonnyblarney
96 people died building the Hoover Dam [1]. It was built 'on time and on
budget' to a great extent at the expense of lives.

That's a lot of deaths.

For comparison, only 147 total coalition deaths as a result of combat with the
enemy [2] in the 1991 Gulf war, involving hundreds of thousands of soldiers,
the liberation of Kuwait and the overrunning of most of Iraq.

And that's saying nothing of the comp, overtime and other externalized issues.

Of course, the failure of rail is pretty bad and we need to learn, but we
can't hold the Hoover Dam up as 'the example'.

[1]
[https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/history/essays/fatal.html](https://www.usbr.gov/lc/hooverdam/history/essays/fatal.html)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War)

~~~
randyrand
Is killing people required to build things quickly? I think you might
conflating issues.

How many people die on Chinese infastructure projects?

~~~
AlotOfReading
The 3 Gorges dam claimed over 100 lives before it was completed. I wasn't able
to find fatality info for other large chinese dams, but I'd imagine they're
not significantly better.

~~~
ukoki
Is 100 lives that bad? This [1] source says 250,000 workers were estimated to
be working on it in 2003 so we could estimate 5 million worker-years for
construction. That's an annual death-rate of 0.002%. By comparison this [2]
source says the average death rate for 30-34 year old males in the US is about
0.2%, or 100x more likely.

1\.
[http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/13/china.t...](http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/06/13/china.threegorges/)
2\. [https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-
age...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/241572/death-rate-by-age-and-sex-
in-the-us/)

------
dberg
77 billion for a train in 2033 ? And people wonder why we in the US think the
government is completely unable to run these types of projects effectively.
Total joke.

~~~
justfor1comment
Even I was surprised by the timeline. A high speed train by 2033, really?
China has them now, Japan has them now. India is building a bullet train with
roughly the same length as SF to LA in 3 years. The US shouldn't be so slow
compared to these other countries.

~~~
kitsunesoba
What I’m curious of is why we haven’t yet tried contracting the companies
responsible for Japan’s train system and just letting them run the show, with
our only responsibility being acquiring the required land and clearing
associated political hurdles. I’m sure Japan would be willing to lend a hand
and they may even be able to do it for less time and money than domestic
companies could.

~~~
samlevine
My understanding is that the French offered to build out HSR along I-5 between
SF and LA during the Great Recession and California said they could do a
better job for less money.

~~~
1024core
Yes, I believe it was Thalys with a proposal to build the train for $55B, _and
no further government subsidies!_ But that would not have helped the
Californian politicians line their pockets, so that proposal was rejected.

------
kenneth
Nothing quite embodies the utter failure of the US and CA in particular as
this embarrassing high-speed rail project. This is something that has been
pioneered, developed, and commoditized in other countries, both in Europe and
Asia.

The CA project had incredibly modest ambitions: a single line, over a
relatively short distance, through terrain that isn't too challenging, going
at moderate speeds, using completely standard technology. This isn't a
hyperloop, a maglev, a hyperfast train, a dense network, or anything else that
can fail because of technology risk. It's purely a failure at execution,
pretty much entirely because of politics and corruption. In the US, the
process for infrastructure construction is entirely broken, and the never-
ending political battles that pop up with every project completely
incapacitate development.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
>and the never-ending political battles that pop up with every project
completely incapacitate development.

This is distinctly a CA problem.

~~~
dmix
The Boston tunnel was a pretty great example of the massive weight politics
and hiring/mismanaging bad gov contractors puts on every infrastructure
project (it "started" in 1982, broke ground in 1991, and finished 2007 at 200%
over budget):

> The Big Dig was the most expensive highway project in the US, and was
> plagued by cost overruns, delays, leaks, design flaws, charges of poor
> execution and use of substandard materials, criminal arrests, and one death.
> The project was originally scheduled to be completed in 1998 at an estimated
> cost of $2.8 billion (in 1982 dollars, US$6.0 billion adjusted for inflation
> as of 2006). However, the project was completed in December 2007 at a cost
> of over $8.08 billion (in 1982 dollars, $14.6 billion adjusted for
> inflation, meaning a cost overrun of about 190%) as of 2006.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Dig)

~~~
ghaff
OTOH, it was eventually completed and it is a big improvement for a variety of
reasons (including the elimination of an ugly deteriorating elevated highway)
even though Boston traffic is mostly as bad as it's ever been.

~~~
Anechoic
_even though Boston traffic is mostly as bad as it 's ever been_

Boston traffic is not even close to being as bad as it was during the mid-to-
late '90s. Back in those days, Medford to Dorchester would a 60-to-90 minute
odyssey between 6am to 10am and 3pm too 7pm. Yeah, there is stop-and-go
traffic at peak hours, but back in the day, it was often faster to take 128 to
travel between the northern and southern burbs, right now it's just normal
rush hour traffic.

~~~
ghaff
Fair enough. I'm more familiar with East-West driving than North-South on 93.
My perception is that the morning commute into Cambridge/Boston (and the
reverse commute) via either the Pike or Route 2 is worse than it was ten years
ago. But that may just reflect how relatively built-up Cambridge has become.
TBH, the issue is mostly how long it takes to move on surface streets within
the city.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
2 is worse than ever because the density of rich people from Littleton on east
is too high for the state to steamroll them which is what would need to happen
for those lights to turn into overpasses and additional lanes to appear.

90 is terrible but that has more to do with the fact that Worcester is a much
cheaper place to live.

------
mikepurvis
Even for people who hate the "green" aspect, high volume mass transit is
important for enabling the vision where autonomous taxis actually serve last
mile rather than just sitting in traffic jams for hours like you do in your
regular car.

~~~
galaxyLogic
I'm all for this but I wonder if FLYING autonomous taxis will be a better
solution in the end. And couldn't there be flying trains as well?

~~~
Johnny555
_couldn 't there be flying trains as well_

Aren't those called airplanes?

~~~
gumby
Airplanes are busses; they rarely tow another plane.

Technically I suppose if you tow a sailplane into the sky then the powered
aircraft is a locomotive with the sailplane in train. So yes, there can be and
are flying trains.

~~~
jharger
What about a chain of airships?

~~~
gumby
I’ve never seen one and I would think they would be hard to stabilize,
somthey’s Need engines...in which case just let them fly alone.

~~~
objektif
What abiut multiple airplanes flying close to each other.

~~~
gumby
Technically I suppose they are in train, like a column os soldiers, sure, but
I think by ‘train’ in this context the idea was the one in front pulls the
others. The closes you could get with flying in formation would be drafting in
a V as birds do — quite dangerous for planes! (Consider the XB-70). Wingtip
coupling isn’t “in train” plus has always been fatal

------
6gvONxR4sf7o
It's really shitty if this is a selective action against California and not
large projects overrunning costs in other states. At the same time, when the
project costs 10x what was promised, saying no seems like a good thing. If
this kind of cancellation was applied to all projects going as poorly as this,
it'd be a really fair decision.

~~~
LanceH
It was well pointed out before it started that it would cost multiple times
the estimates the state was claiming. It should never had made it this far.

~~~
xienze
>It was well pointed out before it started that it would cost multiple times
the estimates the state was claiming.

It followed the trajectory of basically every progressive pet project:

“We need to do X! It’ll only cost $Y!”

>Yeah right, it’s gonna cost 10 times that and be 20 years late.

“Typical Republican fear mongering! Ignore them!”

Years later on HN:

“It was obvious from the beginning that project X could never be done for $Y.
How come no one realized that at the time?”

------
pascoej
Honestly glad. Highspeed rail is not going to work in America if it takes 77B
and and over 10 years to complete one line. About 10 years ago China had only
1 high speed rail line, now look.

~~~
manigandham
China can do massive infrastructure projects because it has a very efficient
authoritarian government. They make a decision and get it done, for better or
worse.

~~~
andbberger
Great we've identified the problem, our government is horribly inefficient.

Time to fix how we organize our societies.

edit: I am __not__ advocating for authoritarianism

~~~
eanzenberg
Uhhh.. so you're cool with interment camps, no free speech, and effective
police surveillance?

~~~
andbberger
I said nothing of authoritarianism.

China provides evidence (if we really needed it) that it is possible to
organize more effectively.

I am not insinuating any causal relationship between the authoritarianism and
the more efficient organization.

I think that as a species we can absolutely do better than all of that,
engineer an organizational system that is both efficient and above all
_actually_ humane and democratic.

~~~
aeternus
There's a strong argument to be made that a truly benevolent dictator is by
far the best form of government. Efficient decisions that are in the best
interest of the overall population.

China may have come close to that over the last decade. The question is
whether it can maintain that, or whether the power of the authoritarian regime
will eventually lead to corruption and decisions that are counter to the
overall interest of the people.

------
rayiner
Probably better for the environment that this failed. Construction would
release so much CO2 that the California HSR would have to be as busy as the
entire Northeast corridor to break even in terms of carbon impact.
[https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-
hig...](https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/11/how-green-high-speed-
rail/492). That is basically a fantasy given that the northeast corridor
passes through the densest megalopolis in the country, and connects seven
major population/business centers, while the California HSR would pass through
nothing.

~~~
jonahhorowitz
Have you seen the number of flights daily between LAX and SFO, not to mention
the other nearby airports. HSR planned to run trains every 5-12 minutes during
peak hours.

~~~
rayiner
LA to SF is 3.5 million flights (edit: passengers) per year. It’s one of the
busiest routes, but just 1/3 of what it would take to make HSR a net win in
terms of CO2 footprint.

The idea of an SF to LA HSR matching the Northeast Corridor’s passenger volume
is completely laughable. You can ride the train all the way from the mountains
north of NYC to exurban VA. Neither SF nor LA have the massive transit
infrastructure connecting to the intercity rail that you have in Boston, New
York, Philadelphia, and DC.

~~~
kenneth
6 million _passengers_ a year. 3.5M flights is about as many as the whole
world has.

------
geogra4
It's unbelievable how awful we are at building high speed rail, or any rail at
all in this country.

------
jonathankoren
As someone who voted for the the $10B bond, and would love to see HSR, all I
have to say is: Good.

We have to admit that CalHSR is a failure, and building a train between
Bakersfield and Merced is stupid.

The United States has some systematic problems when it comes to
infrastructure. We see it at both the micro and macro level.

At the micro level, it takes four guys more than a month to fix an escalator
at a BART station. Months to paint lanes on a street in San Jose.

At the macro level, $13B becomes $98B.

CityLab ran a story about why NYC stopped building subways.[0] In it, it
plotted the cost subway construction cost per mile at different times in
_constant 2017_ dollars. First line cost $125M/mile in 1904. In 1944 it went
up to <$500M, and even in 1988, it was just above $500M. Not bad for 44 years.
Then cost go exponential in 2017 and 2019, ending at $4000M/mile! This is
stupid.

Another article (which I have sadly lost) compared the cost of construction in
the US to France. I think they compared a Boston subway line to a Parisian
one. The Boston one costs twice as much, and requires twice as many people for
“safety”. I’m sorry, but this is grift.

Then of course there’s all the environmental and neighborhood reviews that
cost more, and stymie everything.

If we want to make any progress, I’m thinking we’re going to just have to bust
all of this up. Cut the red tape, and go with closed price bids. Hell, use
foreign contractors. The French are apparently half the cost, faster, and high
quality. Just hire them and be done with it.

[0] [http://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-new-york-city-
stopped-...](http://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-new-york-city-stopped-
building-subways)

~~~
Wowfunhappy
The causes of the NYC subway cost issues are pretty well documented, and
egregious: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-
subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-
construction-costs.html)

------
dantheman
This project didn't make sense from the start - look at where the construction
is and what's been done. It should be SF to LA not all this other nonsense.

~~~
gumby
That "other nonsense" would tie the Central Valley (probably the third largest
economic region in the state?) into the two largest economies of the state (SF
Bay and LA Basin), making it possible for people to live out there and still
participate in the booming regions. Not as a daily commute but it makes it
feasible to live and work out there, with a commute from SF-Bakersfield about
as long as SF-Livermore is by car today.

This would reduce a lot of the population pressure on the SF Bay, lowering
real estate prices and knitting the state more tightly together.

~~~
thrower123
But they weren't going to connect either end to anything. It was just a
boondoggle railroad through nowhere. If at least one end had been in the Bay
or in LA, it might have made a little sense.

~~~
dragonwriter
> But they weren't going to connect either end to anything.

Yes, they were. There was confusion caused by Newsome's restatement of the
status quo (that the outside funding sought for construction outside of the
initial construction segment had not yet been secured, and until it was, that
construction wouldn't happen), but the plan was always to continue
environmental clearances _and_ work on lining up funding for the entire Phase
1 SF-LA project, with focus on first finishing the SJ-Bakersfield initial
operating segment (of which the Merced to Bakersfield initial construction
segment included a large part.)

------
tick_tock_tick
Can't say I'm surprised. While in general the USA has had a very hard time
with new infrastructure projects California has always taken it to the next
level.

------
esilver
Merced to Bakersfield will probably be the fastest-growing corridor in the
state for the foreseeable future, however, the state received HSR funding
contingent on the development of a San Francisco to Los Angeles route.

It’s completely unsurprising that the Department of Transportation wants the
funding back after the state downsized the project from nationally-significant
to regionally-significant.

------
jedberg
Good. It was a huge waste of money anyway. It was being built in the wrong
order (why would you build the parts that would get the least ridership
first?!), it was going to the wrong places, and at the end of the day, it
would not have helped the poor communities between SF and LA.

We have hundreds of flights a day between SF and LA. We don't need a train to
replace that.

~~~
martinald
It was built in the "wrong order" because the areas near cities had existing
commuter rail, and therefore weren't eligible for federal "new start" grants.

Of course, FAA grant money is available to expand SFO, OAK and LAX... no
questions asked.

~~~
asdff
Because airlines have a ticker and a public train does not, unfortunately.

------
jorblumesea
It seems that every major American infrastructure project is dominated by
concerns other than building a practical, efficient forms of transportation.

Transportation projects are dominated by politics, handouts, corruption and
excessive opposition to transportation even existing, while ignoring practical
and common sense ideas.

The Cal High speed rail is a perfect example. Routes that don't serve major
population centers, fights over land use, fights over whether a rail line
should even exist, circuitous routes to reward political supporters, lack of
transparency and auditing tools, cost overruns and corruption...

There's a good write up here: [https://www.city-journal.org/californias-high-
speed-rail-pro...](https://www.city-journal.org/californias-high-speed-rail-
project)

Europe and Asia just build transit to be transit. In the US at least, if
something actually gets built and used it's just a nice side effect.

~~~
arcticbull
That really does embody the spirit of US infrastructure projects: "I'm here to
make some money, and if {$infrastructure} gets built along the way, that's
fine too, but by no means a deal-breaker."

------
docker_up
A train between Merced and Bakersfield? The talks of Bridges to Nowhere dwarf
the ridiculousness of this Train To and From Nowhere. Who the hell would use
this to make it profitable enough to justify?

~~~
asdff
The plan is still to link SF and LA once a clearer funding situation
materializes, the project has since been scaled back as work has already
started between Merced and Bakersfield. If you want to blame someone, don't
blame the politicians who are trying to make this happen, blame the local
politicians along the route and private contractors who've been hobbling and
sucking the blood out of this project since it was announced.

~~~
docker_up
No, Newsom killed that plan.

It's insane to think that this would actually be completed. It's more like the
stealth fighter project that should never have gotten funding, or should have
had its funding cut decades previous at this point.

------
SubiculumCode
I can't help but feel that the solution to overblown infrastructure costs
would involve less contracting and more of construction directly with state
employees and resources. Sure government is less efficient than the private
sphere, but government contractors have awful incentives when it comes to cost
effectiveness...bilking the state for more hours/supplies is more much
profitable than doing a job quickly and cost-effectively, and contractors are
very efficient at doing that.

------
tomohawk
Pretty massive blow to CA style politics / governance. This was a feather in
the cap of the Democrat party and they turned it into an anchor. Complete
failure to execute.

------
reaperducer
As a fain of rail travel, and someone who sometimes needs to travel this
corridor, I was really looking forward to riding this line.

I noticed a lot of the California headlines about this have painted it along
the lines of "Evil Trump administration killing California high speed rail!"

The reality is, though, that California botched this project. The Federal
funding was contingent on California making progress, and the amount of
funding was sized for the size of the project.

California has made little progress, and the size of the project has been
reduced. It's only fiscally responsible for the feds to take back the money.
Just like if you promise a VC a million users in the first year, but only
deliver 10,000 they're going to look at you sideways.

FTA: _Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), said on Thursday it had canceled
the funding awarded in a 2010 agreement after it said the state had
“repeatedly failed to comply” and “failed to make reasonable progress on the
project.”_

Fortunately, high speed rail is making (slow) progress in other states like
Florida, Illinois and Texas. Hopefully the money can do some good in those
places.

~~~
asavadatti
>In March 2018, the state forecast project costs had jumped by $13 billion to
$77 billion and warned costs could be as much as $98.1 billion.

I love train travel as well but that is an obscene amount of money. I wish
they would upgrade the existing tracks so that traveling from Emeryville-LA
Union station goes from 10 hours to 4-5hrs (and runs multiple times a day)

~~~
ghaff
An Acela-like train probably wouldn't be that fast. On the Northeast Corridor,
the Acela is only around an hour faster than the regional and part of that is
just making fewer stops. My guess is you'd still be looking at 7+ hours in CA,
at which point most people would just fly.

(Very few people actually take the Northeast Corridor from Boston to DC
because it's pretty much a full-day trip. But New York is in about the middle
so there are two popular sub-sections--unlike the case with CA.)

~~~
vonmoltke
The Acela is only that slow because the rail infrastructure can't support the
maximum speed of the train's rolling stock. The purchase of the rolling stock
was supposed to spur the redevelopment of the tracks, but that never happened.

~~~
ghaff
My comment was mostly in the vein of wondering what a "cheap" (relatively)
not-really HSR could have looked like and the answer is probably "not fast
enough to get from Emeryville to LA in a timeframe where people would really
use it."

And, of course, the rolling stock had various problems so I'm not sure what
the theoretical top speed ended up being.

------
manigandham
This project isn't economically viable in the first place. Unless engineering
and real estate costs drop by an order of magnitude, there's not enough
visitor travel or transit density or cost differential where this makes sense
as planned. It was doomed from the start.

------
inspector14
wasn't a large amount of corruption surrounding this deal specifically a major
plotline in true detective season 2?

~~~
anderber
You're right about that being a plot for True Detective. Although the city of
Vinci plot is very much based on the real Vernon, the high speed rail plot not
so much (at least from what I understand):
[https://www.laweekly.com/news/just-how-ridiculous-is-true-
de...](https://www.laweekly.com/news/just-how-ridiculous-is-true-detectives-
high-speed-rail-plot-line-5774399)

------
myrandomcomment
I agree. Merced to Bakersfield - really who cares? LA to SF is the only route
that makes sense. Do that or do nothing. Who the heck needs high speed rail
line between Merced and Bakersfield? That being said, this was very politicly
motivated, of that I have no doubt.

------
lchengify
Having lived for 6 years in the rail transport capital of the US (NYC / Philly
/ Northeast Corridor) and 4 years in SF, I can honestly say that I don't think
there is a world where this was going to work.

Let me state for the record that I am a _huge_ fan of rail and public transit
in general, but the forces and timing working against this project were too
large to be overcome even with $10B in backing.

Here are some of the reasons:

1\. Lots of people here are comparing this project to projects in China. I
think it's hard to overstate how one of the most expensive process (land
acquisition by the government) is fundamentally different in China vs the US.
The idea of "land ownership" in China is entirely different: Most private
entities don't "own" land in the US sense, they may lease it for a long time
(~99) years but ultimately its incredibly easy for local and national
governments to execute eminent domain with little or no regard for land
rights. Yes, this make public transport easier, but land rights are
fundamental for the continuation of a democracy. It's not something we want to
mess with.

2\. Culturally, California is just not a train state. In the Northeast
Corridor, trains and public transit are just more engrained in the culture.
Kids learn at the age of 5 that NJ Transit, LIRR, or Metro North is the best
way in and out of NYC. Most of my friends in NYC don't even have drivers
licenses. Things are closer together, land is flatter, there aren't huge
swaths of nature in between things, and there's such a high density of people
and economic activity that trains have made sense for a long time. Yes, the
NYC subway has its problems, but I can always bet that 24 hours a day, 7 days
a week, I can get from Manhattan to JFK in an hour. In SF it's hard to even
tell if I can get across the Bay past Midnight.

3\. The small decisions made about stops, contracting, and procurement for the
high speed rail were more about making the project politically palpable than
actual need or engineering practicality. Taking a weird detour to Palmdale, as
detailed in the Vox article below, is the best example of this [1]. The
Palmdale route alone made the north-south trip 12 minutes slower while costing
$5 billion in extra spending. If you're going to make that kind of decision
over and over again and stack turtles until everyone's happy, you're going to
make a great piece of paper but nothing that will ever turn on.

4\. The decision to do this wasn't organic. If you take a look at regional
transit needs in CA generally, no one was stack ranking high speed rail at the
top. In LA you have basic problems with inaccessibility within most of the
city, the most egregious being the lack of connectivity to LAX (which just
started getting built last year). In SF you have gridlock where we can't add
diesel trains to CalTrain because it needs to get Electrified first by law,
but that process won't happen until 2022 [2]. If we can't upgrade a regional
rail that serves 1/3rd of the economic activity of the state, what makes us
think we can build a high speed rail that is (back of the envelope) 10x as
long? At least in the northeast, trains systems were built where there was (1)
incredible demand and (2) an understanding that it could be built where value
would be opened up as it was happening. Which is why those rail lines start in
major metro areas and extend outward, rather than building in the central
valley and working backwards.

5\. Air and car travel, despite its (obvious) climate change problems, just
works. It's relatively cheap, it's well understood, and given the vast
distance and significant nature features between population areas, it's a good
solution to a hard problem. LAX sucks, but LA has 4 regional airports that can
be used once you understand how. Flights are frequent, have lots of type
options, and can be purchased for $50 one way. Roads and cars work better on
mountain terrain than rail, and can better serve a dispersed population. Yes,
we cannot run on gasoline forever if we want to save the planet, but right now
it's easy to understand why California has stuck with this solution so long
given its difference to other major areas that use trains.

Overall, I was rooting for this, but this end was inevitable. But it's not the
end of the world. We will learn from this and find a way, and I'm convinced in
the end it will be more economical and fit California's unique parameters
better than a $90B train. The solution may be something we can't see now
(self-driving battery-powered cars on isolated freeway lanes, anyone?), but
we'll find it. I know we will

[1] [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/2/15/18224717/c...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/2/15/18224717/california-high-speed-rail-canceled) [2]
[https://calmod.org/](https://calmod.org/)

~~~
bdamm
Yep, exactly. You know what works great? Airline service between SF and LA,
with a matrix of three major Bay area airports to four major LA area airports,
and a constellation of smaller airports being served by smaller companies such
as Surf Air.

Let's get rapid public transit linked up to the airports much like public
transit is linked up to the major rail stations of Europe. Let's save SJC and
SMO. Let's get jet fuel refined with reduced carbon processes. Let's get
electric airliners and hybrid electrics R&D funded. There's a lot we can do,
and it'll cost way less than that ridiculous train.

------
musicale
Looks like Bakersfield won't become that booming metropolis that everyone was
expecting it to be. ;-/

More seriously, the feds seem to be kind of right; it has been 9 years and
California hasn't made much if any progress.

------
ummonk
Wasn’t part of the criteria of the original funding grant that the project
could be scaled back to derive direct benefit from the funding without needing
additional full construction of the high speed rail?

------
lostdog
Newsom should have used the money to upgrade Caltrain and SF rail stations,
and THEN cancel the project. At least then something useful would have gotten
done.

~~~
dawnerd
They'd still have to pay back funds for failing to stick to the original plan.
The funding did have some requirements.

------
paxys
Kinda happy this shitshow is put to rest. I just hope this doesn't have any
effects on Caltrain electrification funding.

------
calebgilbert
I don't see for all the world how this isn't an utter failure for both the
management for this project and the ultra combative style that the previous
and current California gubernatorial administrations approach just about any
and all dealing with the feds since Trump was elected. Have a feeling this
might be where 'more red meat for the base' might have met it's match in terms
of cognitive dissonance for at least some California voters.

UPDATE - : CA Governor Newsom this afternoon (via Sacbee): "The Trump
Administration’s action is illegal and a direct assault on California, our
green infrastructure, and the thousands of Central Valley workers who are
building this project,” he said. “Just as we have seen from the Trump
Administration’s attacks on our clean air standards, our immigrant communities
and in countless other areas, the Trump Administration is trying to exact
political retribution on our state. “This is California’s money, appropriated
by Congress, and we will vigorously defend it in court"

Exactly the type of rhetoric, attitude, and threats that help push this
situation in the first place (well, along with the gross mismanagement by the
state for years) and he still can't quit digging.

------
rurban
This really cries for Elon, cutting out the expensive middle men. Wonder if he
dares.

------
eam
I've seen several parts of the legs laid out already so I was wondering if
they can just convert it to a highway. The current highway, route 99, which
runs almost parallel to it is beginning to get congested quite often, so it
could probably get repurposed for a highway, otherwise it will just be a
symbol of failure.

------
HillaryBriss
> _The ... state had [originally] planned to build a 520-mile (837 km) system
> ... from Los Angeles to San Francisco ... Newsom said in February the state
> would instead complete a 119-mile high-speed link between Merced and
> Bakersfield..._

Um... That's not really gonna help.

------
pelemele
...and next step should a proper audit of the while train fiasco...

------
viktorvamos
It's more of a Shelbyville idea...

------
nabakin
> The largest U.S. state has repeatedly sued the Trump administration and
> officials expect the state will sue over the rescinding of rail funding.

Um..did we forget about Texas and Alaska?

~~~
esilver
I think they meant in terms of population and, transitively, users of
infrastructure.

California (39.5 MM) will likely be “larger” than Texas (28.7 MM) for some
time, despite a much lower growth rate.

[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2018/estimate...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2018/estimates-national-state.html)

~~~
nabakin
That makes sense ty

------
tomatotomato37
See, this is kinda my problem with the whole push for nationalized healthcare
in the US; it's not the nationalized healthcare part that's the problem. The
Germans can do national healthcare beautifully. The Swedes can do national
healthcare beautifully. The UK can do national healthcare... competently. But
if the current US bureaucracy was put up to the task, than in a year we'll end
up having serious articles about the resurgence of the plaque in Kentucky. I'm
not sure how, but we _really_ need to fix the current bureaucratic situation
before we give them any more responsibility in the manner

~~~
bgroins
A bit hyperbolic don't you think? We've had Medicare since 1966 and despite
the bad press the VA gets it has the highest rate of satisfaction of any
system in the US. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-
hea...](https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-
satisfied.aspx)

~~~
rayiner
Medicare the system with an unfunded liability of $37 trillion?

~~~
tptacek
Is that really a meaningful number? Isn't that projecting out something like
50 years and assuming no changes to allocations?

------
starpilot
Hyperloop seriously has a better chance of building an SF-LA line than the
state of CA, and also SpaceX has a better chance of reaching Mars before 2024
than NASA returning the moon in that time (in 2004, GWB announced NASA would
return to the moon by 2020). Government just can't do big projects any more.

~~~
andbberger
an idea has a better chance of building rail infrastructure than a nation-
state? Dubious.

You seem to be drawing an impossibly broad conclusion. I have taken the
liberty of editing your concluding statement by adding an appropriate amount
of uncertainty and removing overly general statements.

Here's what it says: ''

~~~
loceng
An idea that Elon is actively implementing with The Boring Company. There was
also the idea of reusable rockets and he believed it was possible as well -
and that has been done too. I'm curious how much or little you know about The
Boring Company's efforts so far?

~~~
andbberger
musk is not implementing anything. I find the consistency with which the
asshole figure heads (musk, jobs) are idolized deeply troubling.

cool yeah, new tech, wooh. very exciting.

but you know what's more important than that? being a good, kind person.

which you definitely are not if you are heading a large organization designed
to systematically squeeeeeeeze everything it can get out of its peons while
giving them as little as possible in return. and also definitely if you like
to do things such as publicly call someone risking their life to save
strangers a pedophile.

~~~
loceng
Well you're clearly being absurd, and it looks like you don't have a balanced
view and you've bought into negative press that's heavily been propaganda
generated by media for click views and by short sellers.

Would be a useful exercise, if you can manage, to make a list of positives of
what Elon and his companies have accomplished so far. Maybe work on your
negativity and emotional reactions so you can understand things more clearly,
develop compassion by developing balanced logic which includes full
perspective more than just hate.

------
staunch
Startups really do seem to be the best solution to problems like these. Elon
Musk is leading teams that are solving some of the world's biggest problems.
Those efforts greatly benefited from government subsidies, funding, etc.

Let's just admit finally that governments are really only good at writing
checks, that they suck at managing projects, and then just work very hard
figure out where those checks should go.

Our governments(s) should give a bunch of teams $10M to design projects, then
a few teams $100M to prototype them, and then one or two teams the billions
required to build them out. I bet there's a qualified and moral person on HN
that could lead a successful high speed rail project with government backing.

~~~
apexalpha
Prototype for what? All the tech for high speed rail already exists and is
proven to work.

Lots of governemnts around the world do proper infrastructure projects.

