[dntrkv]

> We could've vastly expanded a lot of train systems with the amount of money that's been burned trying to make cars drive themselves.

I'd like to see the numbers on that. Given the cost for the CHSR is around $100B, I don't think that statement is true. The bigger issue here is the US's inability to build fast trains, affordably, and on a reasonable timeline.

[joshuamorton]

Counting only published investment in companies like Cruise, Zoox, Argo, Nuro, Aurora, etc. gives investment of around 20B . But its likely that the money invested "privately" in Tesla's AV division, Uber ATC, lyft's AV division, Waymo, and Cruise post acquisition is much higher.

I think a very conservative guess is that there's been $40B invested in this space. That would, for example, cover the south bay BART expansion 4-5 times over.

[bluGill]

> That would, for example, cover the south bay BART expansion 4-5 times over.

I've become more cynical about CA (and the US in general) lately. By reasonable costs it would, but I think the various corruption interests would find their way to increase the price tag until it is only half done, while they enjoy their $40 billion.

[ac29]

I'm pretty cynical myself, but the first phase of BART extension to the south bay is already completed and has been running for nearly a year, and cost $2.9B. The second phase is a bit more difficult because it requires substantially more underground work in downtown San Jose, but $40B would be quite a bit even by CA standards.

[bluGill]

Madrid does all underground lines lines like your phase 2 for about 1 billion. Someone needs to learn about cost control. Think of how much more they could get with Madrid prices.

[joshuamorton]

Not saying that CA prices aren't inflated, but there are also geological differences that probably matter. Madrid isn't near active fault lines (not to mention generic soil differences that can matter, but IDK if they do in this case).

[bluGill]

I don't have Japanese costs, but they are lower, and deal with worse earthquakes than CA

[ryathal]

There is basically no good place to build high speed rail in the U.S. Cross country routes aren't remotely competitive with air travel. Regional routes only make sense on the coast where they have unfavorable terrain like mountains, and some of the most populated/valuable land in the country. HSR really starts losing in time cost to flights in the 800-1000 mile range, and needs about 200 miles to make it better than driving. That a very narrow band for the U.S.

[rini17]

800 miles is quite far from the coast.

Also there are considerations other than time, it's much more convenient that driving or flying. I know in USA there's last mile problem going out of railway station but that can be solved by car trains.

[dntrkv]

Even if all that were true, it still does not explain the high costs. There are countless examples in other countries proving it's possible.

[ocdtrekkie]

Imagine the investment wasted on self-driving cars being spent to solve that problem.