4 ms·

As someone who voted for this project, I'm really bummed with how it's actually turning out. The actual costs are so much more than what people voted for, yet n

As someone who voted for this project, I'm really bummed with how it's actually turning out. The actual costs are so much more than what people voted for, yet no one's being held responsible. At the same time, I don't really have a solution to this problem. We need to invest in large scale transportation initiatives for the future — projects just as forward-looking as BART once was. Yet not even NYC can pull it together anymore to extend their subway lines on budget and on time. Worse, every time this happens, initiatives like this become harder and harder for voters to consider.

landryraccoon 8y ago
The 1976 BART cost $10B in today's dollars to construct. If you were alive in 1976 would you have said it was a boondoggle and the project should have been killed? IMO people consistently underestimate how much public infrastructure is worth. The US highway system was sold at a cost of $27B [1] but cost over $100B and has cost nearly $500B today [2]. Does that mean the US Highway system wasn't worth it? Of course it was, the public just doesn't understand how much it had to cost. The Iraq war cost trillions for zero benefit for future generations, even if 50% of the cost of HSR is waste it's still a better deal by far. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_195... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
- xienze 8y ago
  > IMO people consistently underestimate how much public infrastructure is worth. I think you mean “politicians consistently lie about how much public infrastructure projects will cost.”
  - steve_gh 8y ago
    Transport hubs encourage development. In the UK look at all the satellite industries around Heathrow and Gatwick. Look at the offices being built close to Paddington and Kings Cross stations in London, or Reading. The sensible thing would be for the city to buy up land round the stations, then build offices and lease them. The income would offset the costs.
    - masonic 8y ago
      Transport hubs encourage development. In the Bay Area, compare the degree of development along the BART tracks with development well away from BART (e.g. San Mateo county, Silicon Valley, etc.) Check out the BART tracks from Oakland to Fremont especially.
- rayiner 8y ago
  > The 1976 BART cost $10B in today's dollars to construct. If you were alive in 1976 would you have said it was a boondoggle and the project should have been killed? And what would BART cost today to build? $50 billion? Would it be worthwhile at that price? The problem is that costs for public infrastructure are ballooning much faster than inflation. That puts more pressure on public infrastructure projects to produce benefits that justify the investment. I fully expect many public infrastructure expenditures today won't ever justify themselves, for example DC's silver line.
  - georgeecollins 8y ago
    At $50B, yes. BART will exist in some form for at least a century. It is so hard to understand how valuable it is to make something that so many people use every day for that long but it is really valuable.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rayiner 8y ago
      How valuable? $50 billion is enough to create a fund that pays out $2 billion annually in perpetuity, or about $15 for every BART ride. That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Does BART generate $15 in positive value per ride above and beyond ticket cost, relative to driving? I’m skeptical. $3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the same infrastructure as Europe. That pushes the required value per ride that needs to be generated to unrealistic levels.
      - philsnow 8y ago
        You haven't taken into account how much the bay area would have needed to spend on bridges and freeways if BART hadn't been built. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_June17_0.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_... says (as of 2017) 70k people go through the transbay tube in each direction during peak commute hours. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.html http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.htm... isn't dated but says that 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day. These numbers aren't directly comparable because they're not measuring the same thing, but taking things as pessimistically as possible, let's say those 270k vehicle crossings all happen during the same time period as the BART numbers. If all those commuters crossed the Bay Bridge by themselves in a vehicle (because the overwhelming majority of car commutes are one person per car), that would be (270k + 70k) / 270k or a 26% increase in vehicles, when it's already ludicrously packed every single day. The bridge would need to have been widened by now (or another bridge built entirely, with feeder freeway interchanges on both sides).
- masonic 8y ago
  The US highway system was sold at a cost of $27B [1] but cost over $100B and has cost nearly $500B today [2] This is disingenuous. First of all, the original bill estimate was just for the first 41,000 miles. Secondly, the $27B is in 1956 dollars, while the "$500B" is in 2006 dollars. BIG difference. $27B in 1956 dollars is roughly $248 billion now, and, again, the scope of the interstate system expanded broadly. (I'd bet that the modern figure includes both the Interstate system and the U.S. highway system, which lacks meaningful usage distinction now from the designated "Interstate" routes.)
rayiner 8y ago
> As someone who voted for this project, I'm really bummed with how it's actually turning out. The actual costs are so much more than what people voted for, yet no one's being held responsible. Anyone who didn't expect a California-run HSR project to not be wildly over budget is a fool.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Yeah, exactly. Voted for the High-speed rail line knowing full well the budget was an absolute joke. It doesn't matter. While i would like to have a more efficient state, it's abundantly clear we need a high speed rail system between our economic centers. Otherwise, there won't be any money left to pay for anything.

landryraccoon 8y ago

The 1976 BART cost $10B in today's dollars to construct. If you were alive in 1976 would you have said it was a boondoggle and the project should have been killed? IMO people consistently underestimate how much public infrastructure is worth. The US highway system was sold at a cost of $27B [1] but cost over $100B and has cost nearly $500B today [2]. Does that mean the US Highway system wasn't worth it? Of course it was, the public just doesn't understand how much it had to cost. The Iraq war cost trillions for zero benefit for future generations, even if 50% of the cost of HSR is waste it's still a better deal by far. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_195... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System

xienze 8y ago
> IMO people consistently underestimate how much public infrastructure is worth. I think you mean “politicians consistently lie about how much public infrastructure projects will cost.”
- steve_gh 8y ago
  Transport hubs encourage development. In the UK look at all the satellite industries around Heathrow and Gatwick. Look at the offices being built close to Paddington and Kings Cross stations in London, or Reading. The sensible thing would be for the city to buy up land round the stations, then build offices and lease them. The income would offset the costs.
  - masonic 8y ago
    Transport hubs encourage development. In the Bay Area, compare the degree of development along the BART tracks with development well away from BART (e.g. San Mateo county, Silicon Valley, etc.) Check out the BART tracks from Oakland to Fremont especially.
rayiner 8y ago
> The 1976 BART cost $10B in today's dollars to construct. If you were alive in 1976 would you have said it was a boondoggle and the project should have been killed? And what would BART cost today to build? $50 billion? Would it be worthwhile at that price? The problem is that costs for public infrastructure are ballooning much faster than inflation. That puts more pressure on public infrastructure projects to produce benefits that justify the investment. I fully expect many public infrastructure expenditures today won't ever justify themselves, for example DC's silver line.
- georgeecollins 8y ago
  At $50B, yes. BART will exist in some form for at least a century. It is so hard to understand how valuable it is to make something that so many people use every day for that long but it is really valuable.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 8y ago
    How valuable? $50 billion is enough to create a fund that pays out $2 billion annually in perpetuity, or about $15 for every BART ride. That’s not counting ongoing operations and maintenance. Does BART generate $15 in positive value per ride above and beyond ticket cost, relative to driving? I’m skeptical. $3 I’ll believe. Which is why the constant factors kill us relative to Europe. It costs us 3-7x to build the same infrastructure as Europe. That pushes the required value per ride that needs to be generated to unrealistic levels.
    - philsnow 8y ago
      You haven't taken into account how much the bay area would have needed to spend on bridges and freeways if BART hadn't been built. https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_June17_0.pdf https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BARTfactsheet_... says (as of 2017) 70k people go through the transbay tube in each direction during peak commute hours. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.html http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/tollbridge/SFOBB/Sfobbfacts.htm... isn't dated but says that 270k vehicles cross the Bay Bridge every day. These numbers aren't directly comparable because they're not measuring the same thing, but taking things as pessimistically as possible, let's say those 270k vehicle crossings all happen during the same time period as the BART numbers. If all those commuters crossed the Bay Bridge by themselves in a vehicle (because the overwhelming majority of car commutes are one person per car), that would be (270k + 70k) / 270k or a 26% increase in vehicles, when it's already ludicrously packed every single day. The bridge would need to have been widened by now (or another bridge built entirely, with feeder freeway interchanges on both sides).
masonic 8y ago
The US highway system was sold at a cost of $27B [1] but cost over $100B and has cost nearly $500B today [2] This is disingenuous. First of all, the original bill estimate was just for the first 41,000 miles. Secondly, the $27B is in 1956 dollars, while the "$500B" is in 2006 dollars. BIG difference. $27B in 1956 dollars is roughly $248 billion now, and, again, the scope of the interstate system expanded broadly. (I'd bet that the modern figure includes both the Interstate system and the U.S. highway system, which lacks meaningful usage distinction now from the designated "Interstate" routes.)

rayiner 8y ago

> As someone who voted for this project, I'm really bummed with how it's actually turning out. The actual costs are so much more than what people voted for, yet no one's being held responsible. Anyone who didn't expect a California-run HSR project to not be wildly over budget is a fool.

tathougies 8y ago
Yeah, exactly. Voted for the High-speed rail line knowing full well the budget was an absolute joke. It doesn't matter. While i would like to have a more efficient state, it's abundantly clear we need a high speed rail system between our economic centers. Otherwise, there won't be any money left to pay for anything.