from the let's-go-build-that-railway,-all-218-miles-of-it dept.
"After years of promises and years of lip service, we finally have all the funding needed, all the approvals, all the permits, all the union workers, and there's only one thing left to do now to get this party started.
We need to build it. And that starts today."
U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., April 22, Las Vegas.
It looks like America is going to get its first real high-speed rail train.
On Monday, April 22, U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg officially opened the start of the works for the Brightline West High-Speed Rail Project. The 218-mile rail line will operate between Las Vegas, Nevada, and Rancho Cucamonga, California, and will be a fully electric, zero-emission system.
The high-speed train should average an 186 miles an hour speed, bringing the overland travel time between Las Vegas and Los Angeles down from 4 to 2 hours. To do so, 195 miles (315 km) of new track needs to be laid down to exacting standards, on the mid-shoulder of Interstate 15. There will be stations in Las Vegas, Victor Valley, Hesperia and Rancho Cucamonga, California. The line should be fully operational by 2028, in time for the Olympic Games.
Funding, to the tune of 12 billion dollar, comes half from private industry, and half from the Federal Government ($6.5 billion in grants and financing). An estimated 35,000 jobs, including 10,000 direct union construction jobs, and 1,000 permanent jobs once the line is operational, are associated with the project initiated by Brightline, a company which already runs a train service between Miami and Orlando.
"Today answers the question that has been asked too often, likely," Buttigieg said during the groundbreaking ceremony.
"The question whether America can still build massive, forward-looking engineering marvels that make people's lives better for generations ... and this is just the start."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Frosty Piss on Saturday April 27, @06:50AM (3 children)
Of course, this will only benefit East Coast travelers, the folks in DC have never acknowledged the possibility of any West Coast high speed, between SF and LA or God forbid between Seattle and SF/LA. For us on the West Coast, it's just a long off dream. Although, there's money to be made with a high speed train between LA and Las Vegas...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday April 27, @12:12PM
Putting it "on the mid-shoulder of Interstate 15" is a lot like the routing of the Miami Metro Rail, elevated right along the worst traffic jam in Florida: US-1 south from the southern end of I-95.
You people in cars can just watch the train pass you by... In Miami they also used the presence of the rail alternative to justify the dismal "Level Of Service" on the adjacent roadway, preserving federal funding that would otherwise be cut due to the unacceptable driving conditions.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday April 27, @07:55PM
America's first HSR is already well underway [buildhsr.com]. It should be ready to move people between some of the above cities by 2050 or 2100, maybe a bit later.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday April 29, @03:51PM
Texas is looking at a possible High Speed Rail line between Houston and Dallas, though it seems to be in the "wouldn't it be nice" state still.
I was curious about Train travel and how much/if I could do a Train trip from Texas to the West Coast. The cost of doing that was stupendously expensive and the trip took much longer than getting a flight. Just to be clear the cost of travel by rail was also way more expensive than round-trip airfare. Beyond that, I believe there's no rail line that would get you there without multiple exchanges. Pretty sure any of the things I chose had you getting off/on multiple trains and greyhound busses. In case you really thought flying was bad. Just look at railway travel in the USA. It's overpriced and stupid.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by EJ on Saturday April 27, @08:41AM (7 children)
I'm not going to get into the merits of the Ukraine situation, but we just tossed $95 billion over there. Didn't The Pentagon fail an audio to the tune of multiple TRILLIONS of dollars?
Imagine what this country could be if our government invested our tax dollars in actually improving the country for its citizens.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Saturday April 27, @08:44AM
audio = audit
(Score: 2) by quietus on Saturday April 27, @10:24AM (2 children)
Only 3.5 billion in grants really -- the remaining 3 billion of government funding are loans.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Saturday April 27, @10:47AM (1 child)
I meant the total cost. I'm suggesting that this should be something our tax dollars could trivially fund while creating jobs that help the economy.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday April 28, @05:41AM
Or we could just skip collecting the tax dollars and create jobs that help the economy that way. If we're going to do trickle down, I'd rather it be done in a way that spends less tax dollars.
(Score: 2) by DadaDoofy on Sunday April 28, @10:34AM (1 child)
What if the government didn't get to confiscate trillions of dollars from us, and the citizens could improve the country for the citizens?
(Score: 3, Funny) by EJ on Sunday April 28, @10:50AM
I was trying to keep my fairy tale somewhat plausible.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 29, @05:28PM
I have to admit I'm skeptical.
Trillions would not have gone unnoticed.
Billions, maybe.
Millions, just a rounding error.
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday April 27, @09:55AM (8 children)
2008 to 2020 China high-speed rail construction: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00972-6/figures/1 [nature.com]
from Development patterns, material metabolism, and greenhouse gas emissions of high-speed railway in China [nature.com].
compiling...
(Score: 3, Informative) by quietus on Saturday April 27, @10:22AM (7 children)
Note that in China almost all high-speed rail is built and exploitated by China State Railway Group. At its core it is government-funded, like most -- if not all -- other initiatives in Europe (and SE Asia).
This US initiative, on the other hand, is thought out, funded and will be exploitated by, a for-profit company. The Federal Government only plays a limited role (only $3.5bn as a grant, and the rest as loans) here, something which I didn't stress in the sub.
If this initiative turns out to be profitable [enough], it might attract other business groups to try and do the same, leading to an even faster build-out of high-speed rail as in Europe, or even China.
This might especially be the case if US investments in HSR are offset against carbon credits -- I assume, as the EU already has its carbon credit market, and China is starting out with its own initiative, the US will follow soon [with a separate carbon credit trading initiative].
(Score: 5, Funny) by RamiK on Saturday April 27, @11:34AM
This is why the interstate highways is a communist plot to ruin the US and why real red blooded Americans only drive off-road and fly jets and choppers the way God and his prophet Adam Smith intended.
compiling...
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Saturday April 27, @08:56PM (2 children)
It won't be. One doesn't need to give a business considerable funds to build and service a highly profitable route. That the government would be pushing this project with a vast amount of money via direct funding and subsidized loans indicates it never would be profitable in the first place without that.
If this were profitable enough, the US would outpace Europe or China in such a hypothetical build-out.
At some point, someone will need to show that those poorly planned carbon credit markets are justified. Currently, they're just a tool for other countries to get ahead of yours.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Monday April 29, @06:25PM (1 child)
Source: The First U.S. Transcontinental Railroad: Expected Profits and Government Intervention. Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press (full article) [sci-hub.ru].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 02, @02:42PM
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday April 28, @12:07AM (2 children)
>If this initiative turns out to be profitable [enough], it might attract other business groups to try and do the same, leading to an even faster build-out of high-speed rail as in Europe, or even China.
That's quite the leap. If private investment in drug stores, grocery stores, gas stations and banks is any indication, we are more likely to get a 2nd HSR competing on the same route because the traffic there indicates a profitable capacity for it. Taking a risk in another (unproven) market is rare for private investment.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by quietus on Monday April 29, @07:00PM (1 child)
Not necessarily.
The first transcontinental railway was built in 1869. Only 40 years later the US railroad system was at its peak: and all of it was built by private industry.
What is interesting is that the current administration is turning to the same tools that were used to boost the original development of rail in the second half of the 19th century. Land grants -- that mid-shoulder on the I-25 and some places to build stations are apparently worth nearly $3bn -- cheap loans, and, I guess, some mild tax credits for the companies involved.
Neither of these measures weigh on the federal (or state) budget, but are very visible: which means that it is a nearly cost-free political win for either a Democrat or a Republican administration.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday April 29, @07:26PM
In 1869 wealth in the US was concentrated in the hands of a few men who didn't much listen to quantitative market analysts... they rightly guessed that owning the new transportation modality of railroads would make them more wealthy and powerful than they already were... I don't think we'll be building HSR with the kind of labor and free land that was the basis of 1860s railroad construction.
>Land grants -- that mid-shoulder on the I-25 and some places to build stations are apparently worth nearly $3bn
Well, free land is still part of the equation, but not like in the 1860s... There's also the question: who is that land in the middle of I-25 worth $3B to? Can we build an industrial park there? Not really, with the access restrictions of the interstate. Pretty poor location for residential and commercial development too... I suspect the $3B is just a figure to fill out some of the paperwork with, not a serious valuation for open-market uses.
>it is a nearly cost-free political win for either a Democrat or a Republican administration.
Not sure who could feel like they are politically winning by suppressing the construction of HSR? Airline lobbies, I suppose.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Funny) by corey on Saturday April 27, @10:27AM (6 children)
For a moment i was trying to convert 186 mph to km/h. Then i remembered the speed of light is 186,000,000 mph or 3e8 km/h. So, the train goes 300 km/h, easy!
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Saturday April 27, @10:50AM (2 children)
Those of us in Europe who frequently travel between the UK (miles) and Europe (kilometers) use a quick and dirty approximation of muliplying miles by 5/3 or kilometers by 3/5. It is close enough for most purposes.
(Score: 4, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Saturday April 27, @12:09PM (1 child)
I always remember 1.6 km per mile... it helped to grok speed and distance while biking in Germany / Denmark.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by corey on Sunday April 28, @01:22AM
Yeah that’s what i do as i remember 100 mph ~= 160 km/h.
Anyway they’ve been talking about high speed rail here in SE Australia for decades but never done anything but fund a study every 5-10 years.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cereal_burpist on Sunday April 28, @03:18AM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by drussell on Sunday April 28, @03:00PM
As cereal_burpist points out above, you got the units wrong, but since you still had the ratio correct, you still got the correct answer, despite borking the units.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Monday April 29, @11:38PM
A nerd victory!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by srobert on Saturday April 27, @05:05PM (3 children)
Great, Vegas needs more ways to transport the rubes into and out of our city. And by subsidizing their ride, they'll have more money left in their pockets to be siphoned out while they're here. Then we can ship the empty pockets back to Cali for a refill at high speed. It's like an assembly line conveyor belt packed full of chumps.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Sunday April 28, @03:05PM (2 children)
Are you seriously suggesting that other modes of transportation are not or should not be "subsidized" in any way by the government?!
So you are saying that all roads should be private toll roads, for example, then too, right?!! 🙄
(Score: 3, Funny) by srobert on Sunday April 28, @03:46PM
"Are you seriously suggesting that ..."
I'm not seriously suggesting anything. I'm just trying to be funny. ;-)
No, I'm more of a democratic socialist when I'm serious.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday April 29, @05:38PM
<no-sarcasm>
I read it as sarcastic and funny.
I see the truth behind the humor in the fact that Vegas is designed to separate gamblers' money from them.
Just look at all those billion dollar properties. Do you think that was paid for by people who came to Vegas and won?
Just so you know: I was born in Vegas and grew up there until I was 14. The 1960s and early 1970s. It was a very different place back then. But still designed to separate gamblers from their money. Anyone who lived there knew better than to gamble. Today, not so much.
Also, the mob ran everything so there was lower crime. They would never have tolerated the gangs that moved in after all the casino's went legit and became corporations for profit.
</no-sarcasm>
Every performance optimization is a grate wait lifted from my shoulders.
(Score: 3, Touché) by VLM on Saturday April 27, @05:15PM (5 children)
I'd be more impressed if it were profitable.
The main problem with high speed rail in the USA is its a hyper-expensive technology to travel very fast between two points where almost no one as a percentage wants to visit, but we'll all end up wildly overpaying for it.
oof about $2/mile and that's after massive government kickbacks and it only leaves on it's schedule not your schedule. Ouchie.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by EJ on Saturday April 27, @08:15PM (2 children)
So...like an airplane
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday April 28, @02:17AM
Well, hopefully not that much [youtu.be] like an airplane.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday April 28, @05:07AM
If airlines had $400 tickets between LA and LV, which they don't. At a glance, I see tickets between $30 and $120 one way. Paying for additional luggage will make those more expensive so it might be comparable to the most expensive tickets with a bunch of luggage per person. And you can also drive with no weight limits on your luggage at all.
My take is that they could get most of the benefit of high speed rail by halving the wait time of security theater in airports. It probably wouldn't take $12 billion and it would have nation-wide benefit.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday April 28, @03:11AM
Could be worse... when the ballot prop for the CA N-S HSR came along, using their own numbers x3 (because 3x is a minimal cost overrun in CA, turns out I wildly underestimated that part) it worked out to something like $1500 per one-way trip (or about $3.75/mile, figured that way).
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Monday April 29, @07:08PM
That same argument played when building the transcontinental railways in the 1800s: the South arguing that them railways all went in the wrong direction, and they wouldn't dream of paying for such an undertaking. It took [until after] the Civil War to end their opposition.
(Score: 2) by quietus on Monday April 29, @07:14PM
After years of promises and years of lip service, we finally have all the funding needed, all the approvals, all the permits, all the union workers, and there's only one thing left to do now to get this party started.
I started the sub with that quote because I thought it kinda weird: that's not how unions work, is it? I've been a Socialist Union member myself, and I've never heard of such quota before.