4 ms·
$77B was after they did severe "cost cutting". It used to be $100B. And, if the past is any indicator, it would have ballooned to $120B - $150B by the time it
by 1024core 8y ago
$77B was after they did severe "cost cutting". It used to be $100B. And, if the past is any indicator, it would have ballooned to $120B - $150B by the time it was done. At what point do you say it's not worth it?
- erentz 8y agoPersonally I think it’s still worth it at that price, even if the project would’ve been better done in the way I described. It’s better than the alternative. If we don’t spend $77b on rail we’ll still have to spend it expanding freeways and airports instead. and infrastructure costs are insane across all forms of infrastructure in the US.
- ananonymoususer 8y agoHow much would the train need to charge each passenger to earn enough money to pay both the interest (assuming normal cost-of-money) and the principle? Would this amount be less than the cost of an airplane ride?
- WillPostForFood 8y agoThe alternative is spending money on rail inside SF and LA. Connecting the cities is a solution to a non-problem.