He’s talking about this vs BART, built in the 60s/70s, not the railroad that was built 100 years prior to that. Obviously things were much more different in the mid 1800s than today, though the 60s/70s should have much greater overlap to today.
The transcontinental railroad (at least the Union Pacific part) was also a total rip-off (see Credit Mobilier Scandal) The government lent $94 million (about $2 billion in today's money) to Union Pacific to build the railroad from Omaha to Promontory Point. Union Pacific was controlled by a bunch of crooks who also controlled a company called Credit Mobilier, who actually did the construction. The y built the railroad for about $50 million and pocketed the remaining $44 million, some of which was used as bribes to assorted politicians. Genuine Third World Style corruption that ushered in what is now known as the "Gilded Age."
The ten miles laid in one day was a pre-planned record, not an average day.
Primarily huge differences in regulations and exponential growth of groups opposed to building anything new. The current complex of environmental regulations did not exist in the 1960's. The overwhelming NIMBYisms did not exist in the 1960's. BART was not near as easy and quick at the time as it looks from today's perspective, although it was a lot quicker than most (all?) urban transit projects built since. In my opinion, the environmental regulations have been misused in fact I would say even prostituted by those that for whatever reason oppose the project being built. Probably behind the scenes there is strong opposition to it from the airlines currently serving this market. A three hour train ride would take a lot of people out of the air and onto rail. An example of this: When the Taiwan High Speed Railway opened with 95 minute fast trains and 2 hours even "slow" trains, the number of flights between Kaohsiung and Taipei went from something like 15+ a day to two, and those two mainly being used for connections. There were no long waits for these existing flights, either. Thirty minutes was the nominal check in time and many cut it finer than that. One personal example: I got to Kaohsiung airport 45 minutes before my scheduled flight, and when checking in was asked if I wanted an earlier flight. I walked away from the check in with slightly less than 15 minutes before takeoff. No problem. (Usually I took the 4 to 5 hour train ride. Don't remember now why I was flying on this occasion.)
Amen to that. Not only the special interests, like the airlines, but also there is a large part of the general population that thinks that passenger mobility based on just private cars and airplanes is just fine and dandy, and nothing more is needed.
Although I think people are starting to move away from that point of view since highway travel is becoming increasingly less pleasant for several reasons - more congestion, since highways cannot expand to meet demand for the same reasons i.e. environmental regs and nimbyism, the fact that the highway system built in the 60s and 70s now needs considerable repair work so lane closures and even more congestion, and tight budgets so that major projects get scaled back or postponed (looking at you Connecticut and I-84 through Hartford). Air travel also had its own issues as have been well documented elsewhere.
This topic might be worth its own thread. I recall reading recently about an environmental study that had to be done for the replacement of the Sawtooth Bridge on the NEC. It's located between Newark and Secaucus in the middle of what looks like an industrial wasteland. The only nature I can see as I ride by is weeds growing in the ballast of the numerous railroad tracks. Whatever ecology was there before the bridge is replaced will be the same as it will be when the project is done. It seems to me that an environmental review of the project could be completed by calling in a bunch of experts and having a one-day meeting to discuss the topic and issue a consensus report that the project will cause no significant environmental changes.
The sort of people who are fine with having only cars and planes also advocate for highway projects, or else just move to smaller towns with less traffic. Although there is NIMBYism for highway projects, too, it seems that they are more likely to get built, and relatively quickly, in the end. It's a psychological thing, a large portion of the population has their identity tied up with being able to drive their own private cars, and having to ride a bus or a train to get around causes a diminishment of their self-worth.
The Sawtooth Bridge replacement is actually way more than just replacement of the two track bridge across the M&E. It also includes either immediately building or creating easements for four tracks across the M&E. It involves modification of land use essentially from the west end of the Portal South Bridge Project through Swift Interlocking through to Hudson interlocking taking over considerable additional wetlands east of Sawtooth in the area of the Swift interlocking and a little further east for the modified Swift ramps to accommodate four main line tracks on the NEC.
And the guy probably does not realize the irrational mental gymnastics his absolutely incompatible arguments indicate. The two urban transit projects I spent the longest time working on were Washington Metro and Taipei Rapid Transit, and other than the language used, the arguments against them were the same: It costs too much. It takes too long to build. There will never be enough people riding it to justify its existence. It will not really help urban mobility. I think it can safely be said that ridership in both systems have exceeded expectations. Also, in both systems several (most?) of the "maybe someday" additions to the systems have been or are being built. Many or most people in both these urban areas have trouble even imagining how the city would move without these systems.On a slightly different note, I recall well that one particular commenter in the Seattle Times frequently expressed vehement objections to the expansion of our light rail system, arguing that it was a hyper-expensive boondoggle that would not get enough riders to be useful. A couple of weeks back, the same guy was commenting on the extension of light rail to Everett, arguing that it was a waste of money to build it since the light rail was so crowded that it was too unpleasant to be useful. The only constant? He feels very strongly that we shouldn't build light rail... I guess like Yogi Berra he says that nobody uses it anymore because it's too crowded.
I would beg to disagree here. At least from my own personal perspective. I hear politicians and campaigners foaming at the mouth while they condemn rail transit as a wasteful if not even dangerous boondoggle. But I rarely meet people who share those talking points. I meet a lot of people who say "I like driving and I like my car and I don't see the point of transit" but if I tell them "other people would use it and reduce congestion, which would benefit you too", they nod and agree that's a good point.
I think the cost is a major concern and kills a ton of interest in certain projects. Unfortunately cost is generally not discussed with highway projects as frequently for some reason.
I recommend reading The Geography of Nowhere and Home from Nowhere by James Howard Kunstler. As I read it, his thesis is that Americans have a subconscious fantasy to be either the "lord of the manor" or "pioneer settler," and our suburban sprawlscape consists of cartoon versions of manor houses and cabins in the woods. Of course, a high class lord of the manor would never think of walking, and riding a bus or train is the motorized equivalent of being a low-class pedestrian. (Also see Horse People by Michael Korda) And we've seen enough western movies to know that no successful self-reliant pioneer would walk (even if that's what most of them did in real history), they would ride a horse. Your own car is the equivalent of a horse or carriage. Driving a car really is the American cubicle dweller's cartoon version of being a noble lord or a rugged frontiersman. It's wrapped up in our American identity in a way that Europeans and Asians just don't have.
