this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
627 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

59160 readers
2341 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

USA Will Invest in High-Speed ​​Train to Fight Climate Change::The USA Will Invest in High-Speed ​​Train to Fight Climate Change - US President Joe Biden announced in a speech on December 9, 2023 that they are carrying out the first high-speed train projects in US history. These projects are across America

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BombOmOm 56 points 11 months ago (6 children)

These projects are part of an $10 billion investment

California’s HSR system come in at $80 billion for 520 miles, or $154 million per mile. Amtrak estimates that it would cost $500 million per mile to turn its Northeast Corridor route into a true high-speed system. source

For $10 billion, we are talking an additional 20 to 65 miles of high speed rail to be built. This is basically nothing...

[–] [email protected] 60 points 11 months ago

The worst part is that it usually follows well known cycle of:

  • project is estimated at $10b, government assigns $10b
  • private companies spend it on consultants and analysis, little gets built
  • government agrees to invest another $5b but requires cuts to the initial scope
  • with reduced scope projected passengers numbers drop, project is less attractive
  • repeat until cost is 1000% of the initial estimate and usefulness is 0. cancel project
[–] [email protected] 16 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Most of this is to fund studies and the rest is probably to cover overruns. Is it political for election season? Yes, but still a step in a positive direction. We're not talking infrastructure week here.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

There's ~$34 million in there to study new routes. The $3 billion of this going to CAHSR will:

  • Fund six electric trains for testing and use
  • Fund design and construction of trainset facilities
  • Fund design and construction of the Fresno station
  • Fund final design and right-of-way acquisition for the Merced and the Bakersfield extensions
  • Fund construction in the Central Valley

See https://hsr.ca.gov/2023/12/05/news-release-high-speed-rail-authority-to-receive-record-3-1-billion-from-biden-administration/

[–] mean_bean279 23 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The HSR going through the Central Valley of Cali is INSANE. the bridge and strip of it is infrastructure that area and region has legitimately never seen. I keep telling all of my friends and family here in Cali that once you can travel from Stockton to Bakersfield in 45-1 hour it’ll completely change the region. The massive economic boom from just the construction alone will be huge, but then the effect after will be felt for generation.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Even better, I just hate that people are crapping all over making steps in a positive direction.

[–] QuarterSwede 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

After decades of promises and zero high speed rails in use in the US, why believe it?

[–] qooqie 5 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Drop in the bucket, I’m curious how much it would take to make most of the US/NA traversable by high speed rail

[–] AA5B 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Depends on what you mean by most.

  • most of the population is quite achievable. Send a little time at https://www.ushsr.com/
  • most of the geography, trillions, and we couldn’t afford to keep it operating

I really think that confusing this is a common mistake. People claim high speed rail is impossible in the US because we’re big (and ignoring China, eu), but we have plenty of cities, and most of them are clustered. High speed rail is great for cities within a few hundred miles of each other. We got those, and that’s most of the population

It’s specious to take scenarios high speed rail doesn’t do well at and claiming that it means it can’t work. Let’s apply a little intelligence here’d and use the right technology for the right scenario

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] qooqie 2 points 11 months ago

Kids might say bajillions

[–] dezmd 1 points 11 months ago

Jacksonville FL to Mobile AL is not included even though old rail and established railway right of way is already in place. Its an incomplete plan out of the gate before even looking at the realities of the funding equating to near goddamn nothing. We need real Trillion dollar funding plans at this point for high speed rail on a national level, use the long range east west/north south interstate cooridors to build over/under to connect coasts and Mexico to Canada on 4 or 5 major lines each.

[–] [email protected] -5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Think if we instead of giving trillions of dollars to the Ukraine, spent it on our own country. If we spent all that money on this project alone it might actually be beneficial to our people

[–] BombOmOm 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Allowing Russia to conquer our allies will hardly get us high speed rail. Furthermore, the vast majority of lethal aid for Ukraine actually pays for US industry and US jobs. Congress approves money for Javelin missile production, US contractors produce the components and assemble it, then the Javelins are sent to Ukraine to blow up Russian invaders.

There is visual confirmation of Ukraine destroying over 13,000 Russian vehicles, including over 2,500 Russian tanks. Click the link, every single example has a picture or video detailing Russia's devastating losses.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Exactly.

Allowing Russia to start conquering Europe will just mean that the US will eventually have to fight a war against Europe, China, Iran, and North Korea. If we allow it to get that far I'm sure they will recruit more countries to their axis. And then the US will have a lot worse problems than lack of high speed rail.

I've been against every US military engagement in my 50 year life except this one.