Well $78m/mile is about €35m/km so the initial estimates are not too high.
The Spanish route has a lot of civil engineering too, this is pretty typical:
The Spanish route has a lot of civil engineering too, this is pretty typical:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The Return of Rail
- Thread starter tonybelding
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Transportation
Norbert
TSLA will win
Whereas the new estimates, if TEG's numbers and my reading are correct, would go up to above everything else except the Channel tunnel.
Mycroft
Life happens
This is California we're talking about. If you don't triple initial estimates, you're not even trying. :-/
Adm
Active Member
I am pretty sure that getting the installations/civil engineering objects earth quake resistant in California will make it much more expensive than in Spain.
That's the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (not the Channel Tunnel itself), which is the link from London to the UK coast. However that route contains as much total tunnel length as the Channel Tunnel, as there is a significant amount under London and then the Thames. There was also a lot of gold plating on that project. The restoration of the London Terminus alone was £800m.
But not Japan, so that should set an upper bound.
I want to see the California high speed rail project get completed. Perhaps it won't even be done in my lifetime, but I think it is a good idea.
But, watching the slow progress and claims of wasteful spending is painful.
Doubly so because public funds are in short supply, and those apposed to rail will use the waste as a reason to try to end the project.
Because of the above, I don't want to overemphasize the endless stories in the press because you could say some of it is sensationalism or negative press from naysayers.
With that said, here are some more stories critical of the cost waste already seen in this project which you could say is only still just getting started:
Stop the high-speed rail gravy train | speed, high, california - Our View - Appeal-Democrat
California High Speed Rail Route: The Planning is So Inept That it's Souring Residents from North to South
California's High-Speed Rail Could Become 'Big Dig West' - Voice of OC
State audit blasts High-Speed Rail Authority
I wish our government was more effective at managing a large scale project like this in a way that prevents so much money and effort getting misdirected.
But, watching the slow progress and claims of wasteful spending is painful.
Doubly so because public funds are in short supply, and those apposed to rail will use the waste as a reason to try to end the project.
Because of the above, I don't want to overemphasize the endless stories in the press because you could say some of it is sensationalism or negative press from naysayers.
With that said, here are some more stories critical of the cost waste already seen in this project which you could say is only still just getting started:
Stop the high-speed rail gravy train | speed, high, california - Our View - Appeal-Democrat
California High Speed Rail Route: The Planning is So Inept That it's Souring Residents from North to South
California's High-Speed Rail Could Become 'Big Dig West' - Voice of OC
State audit blasts High-Speed Rail Authority
I wish our government was more effective at managing a large scale project like this in a way that prevents so much money and effort getting misdirected.
Last edited:
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
Well seems like there's a common denominator...
Like I said, snouts in the trough.
If you want a US firm with a good reputation for these projects, get Bechtel in.
Like I said, snouts in the trough.
If you want a US firm with a good reputation for these projects, get Bechtel in.
UK Transport Secretary gives the go ahead to the HS2 high-speed line in the UK: BBC News - HS2: High-speed rail network gets go-ahead
However, additional (vanity) tunneling will take place - alongside major roads in each case - to placate protesters. Tunneling is expensive, produces more construction emissions and slows trains down, so this isn't really a welcome development.
Work (costing £2bn/year) should get underway in 2016 when work on London's Crossrail (costing £2bn/year) finishes.
Personally I think not including a direct link through Heathrow from day one is a major mistake. Arup's plan for that was exactly what was needed, but the last government ruled it out. Now they are in opposition they are calling for it.
However, additional (vanity) tunneling will take place - alongside major roads in each case - to placate protesters. Tunneling is expensive, produces more construction emissions and slows trains down, so this isn't really a welcome development.
Work (costing £2bn/year) should get underway in 2016 when work on London's Crossrail (costing £2bn/year) finishes.
Personally I think not including a direct link through Heathrow from day one is a major mistake. Arup's plan for that was exactly what was needed, but the last government ruled it out. Now they are in opposition they are calling for it.
I don't understand the point of the regional rail speed of up to 125 mph. If we're going to spend billions of dollars and entice people to use rail, I think the high speed rail makes more sense. I guess it comes down to cost though and I imagine the regional rail is simply cheaper.
I'll defer to any experts, but I believe that these true "express" projects require a much higher degree of isolation of the tracks -- no at-grade crossings, etc. -- for safety reasons. They also require much straighter runs, which in some areas will require obtaining new rights-of-way. I frequently take the Acela from Boston to NYC, and there is simply no way that a 250 mph train could operate on the existing tracks. They are far too twisty and, near NYC, are shared with commuter rail trains and freight. It would be breath-takingly expensive, however, to purchase new rights-of-way along the Connecticut coast and through the New York suburbs and outer boroughs. In reality, the Acela is only an "up to 125 mph" train, and then only very, very briefly.
I look at this map and think, how sad -- the US rail system once had strong links from the east coast to Chicago. Not only is that a thing of the past, but the bureaucrats don't even see it as a thing of the future.
I look at this map and think, how sad -- the US rail system once had strong links from the east coast to Chicago. Not only is that a thing of the past, but the bureaucrats don't even see it as a thing of the future.
Yeah, I couldn't understand why NY - Chicago was never on the list. State of the art high speed rail would do it in about 3.5 hours, or (whisper it) maglev in about 2.5 hours.
SByer
'08 #383
Public transportations systems should be put together as a cohesive, coordinated hierarchy (dreamin'!). You can't put HSR between every two semi-significant points, so you hit the highlights and if you do the timing to the next step down right, nobody is waiting more than half an hour before the next regional, and so on. There is much less friction changing trains than planes, so a 3 or 4 train journey seems downright reasonable as long as the connections are a very short wait.
Yeah, the Shinkansen is highly separated from it's surroundings - and it has to be. The air effects at that speed, no matter how streamlined the train is, are significant. The separation between trains travelling opposite directions has to be greater as well, and even then, the sideways wobble in the trains at those points is noticeable.
Yeah, the Shinkansen is highly separated from it's surroundings - and it has to be. The air effects at that speed, no matter how streamlined the train is, are significant. The separation between trains travelling opposite directions has to be greater as well, and even then, the sideways wobble in the trains at those points is noticeable.
Similar threads
