4 ms·

Actually, it’s not as bad as you think. The Shanghai-Beijing line had a final budget of around $35bn for an 810-mile service. California is looking to spend $78

Actually, it’s not as bad as you think. The Shanghai-Beijing line had a final budget of around $35bn for an 810-mile service. California is looking to spend $78bn for a 520-mile service. That means a cost-per-mile of $150m for California vs. $43m for China - in other words, California’s system is around 3.5 times as expensive as China’s. Honestly, given the difference in land values and regulation, that doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable.

ImSkeptical 9y ago
There are three problems with your analysis. 1. You're comparing the final cost of the Shanghai-Beijing line to the current baseline estimate of a nascent project that has dramatically increased cost projections already. The high end estimate for the project is 100 billion, and I'd bet they find a way to exceed that if they ever finish. 2. Land values is not the only source of the difference. The 2018 California High Speed Rail authority business plan estimates the land costs at 15 billion. Even if land were free the project would be about twice as expensive as China's longer rail line. 3. You are assuming that because the differences are explained they are acceptable. "More regulation and higher land value - okay, we can spend four times as much per mile.". But that neglects comparing the actual usefulness of the project. How many people, over what time frame, would need to ride the line to make it worthwhile? High speed rail may make sense in China where it can be done cheaply. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do it in California where it's more expensive.
omgwtfbyobbq 9y ago
It's actually better than that. The Shanghai-Beijing line cost ~$40 billion in 2018 dollars. The cost estimates for the California line are in year of expenditure dollars, which means the $78+ billion is amounts that are spent from 2008 until completion in 2033. The dollars spent early in the project cost more because of inflation, and along the same lines, the dollars spent later in the project cost less because of inflation. For instance, if we spend half of the $80 billion in the last 5 years of the project, that's something like $30 billion in 2018 dollars even though it's $40 billion in 2028 to 2033 dollars.

ImSkeptical 9y ago

There are three problems with your analysis. 1. You're comparing the final cost of the Shanghai-Beijing line to the current baseline estimate of a nascent project that has dramatically increased cost projections already. The high end estimate for the project is 100 billion, and I'd bet they find a way to exceed that if they ever finish. 2. Land values is not the only source of the difference. The 2018 California High Speed Rail authority business plan estimates the land costs at 15 billion. Even if land were free the project would be about twice as expensive as China's longer rail line. 3. You are assuming that because the differences are explained they are acceptable. "More regulation and higher land value - okay, we can spend four times as much per mile.". But that neglects comparing the actual usefulness of the project. How many people, over what time frame, would need to ride the line to make it worthwhile? High speed rail may make sense in China where it can be done cheaply. That doesn't mean it makes sense to do it in California where it's more expensive.

omgwtfbyobbq 9y ago

It's actually better than that. The Shanghai-Beijing line cost ~$40 billion in 2018 dollars. The cost estimates for the California line are in year of expenditure dollars, which means the $78+ billion is amounts that are spent from 2008 until completion in 2033. The dollars spent early in the project cost more because of inflation, and along the same lines, the dollars spent later in the project cost less because of inflation. For instance, if we spend half of the $80 billion in the last 5 years of the project, that's something like $30 billion in 2018 dollars even though it's $40 billion in 2028 to 2033 dollars.