3 ms·

It's not just that $77 billion is outrageously expensive. It's that it's not what Californians voted for in 2008. If you go back and read the original text and

by ohazi 8y ago

It's not just that $77 billion is outrageously expensive. It's that it's not what Californians voted for in 2008. If you go back and read the original text and fiscal impact estimate of proposition 1a, it was supposed to cost around $10 billion dollars to build, and was expected to cost the state around $20 billion after accounting for interest and bond fees. There needs to be some sort of circuit breaker that trips when your original assumptions are so utterly out of touch with reality. Just like the actual text of the brexit was essentially "Would it be cool if we, like, left the EU?" -- the public should not be voting on things that have not been fully fleshed out.

luxuryballs 8y ago
both situations stink of corruption
capkutay 8y ago
that's what happens when publicly elected lawyers and actors draw up complex infrastructure projects. something completely idiotic and infeasible must have been done in during the planning process.
adrianratnapala 8y ago
It seems like the opposite. The Brexit vote question was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or Leave the European Union". For better or for worse, UK is set to leave the EU, and nothing extra will happen. In other words the question exactly matched the reality -- largely because of rather than in spite of its brevity. Californian referenda are infamous for containing long confusing texts and for including spending promises. It is precisely by pretending to spell out the details that they fail to match the reality.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If you go back and read the original text and fiscal impact estimate of proposition 1a, it was supposed to cost around $10 billion dollars to build, and was expected to cost the state around $20 billion after accounting for interest and bond fees. No, it wasn't. The $9.95 billion was the state direct costs (before bond fees, interest, etc.) for HSR ($9B) and the associated other transit improvements ($0.95B), with the remainder of the system costs envisioned coming from federal and other sources. High (though hostile) estimates at the time of the total system cost, referenced in the opposing ballot argument, actually exceeded the most recent $77B estimate @ $90B.
- masonic 8y ago
  actually exceeded the most recent $77B estimate @ $90B That's disingenuous. The original figures are for the entire finished project as originally scoped; the modern $77B is for the current, useless scaled-down fragment.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The original figures are for the entire finished project as originally scoped; the modern $77B is for the current, useless scaled-down fragment. No, the $77B is for the entire project, and is the reason cited for limiting substantive state-funded work (outside of completing environmental reviews and efforts to secure outside funding) to the 119 mile segment previously identified as the initial construction segment.
    - masonic 8y ago
      The "entire project" was the full 800+ mile network as promised in Proposition 1A. Quoting from the ballot pamphlet[0]: "Proposition 1A is a $9.95 billion bond measure for an 800-mile High-Speed Train network that will relieve 70 million passenger trips a year that now clog California's highways and airports—WITHOUT RAISING TAXES (emphasis theirs)." As aside from your misdefinition of the "entire project", we're not even getting the Phase 1 we were promised at that $77B price point: "The current price tag is $77 billion, up from $33 billion when the project was approved. Funding has become a problem for the rail authority, which can’t afford to complete even a partial operational segment — slow or fast. In its 2018 business plan, the authority deleted construction of a 13-mile tunnel under the Pacheco Pass from its first phase because it did not have enough money. The decision will leave about 80 miles of track in the Bay Area disconnected from 119 miles of track in the Central Valley." This is not the 520-mile, contiguous, 220MPH LA-Sacto-San Jose project that was promised for Phase 1. Not remotely close. And I'm not even counting the promised Phase 2. [0] http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-re... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180816125913/http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20180729/california-bullet-train-might-not-attain-states-mandated-speed# https://web.archive.org/web/20180816125913/http://www.marini...

by ohazi 8y ago

luxuryballs 8y ago

both situations stink of corruption

capkutay 8y ago

that's what happens when publicly elected lawyers and actors draw up complex infrastructure projects. something completely idiotic and infeasible must have been done in during the planning process.

adrianratnapala 8y ago

It seems like the opposite. The Brexit vote question was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or Leave the European Union". For better or for worse, UK is set to leave the EU, and nothing extra will happen. In other words the question exactly matched the reality -- largely because of rather than in spite of its brevity. Californian referenda are infamous for containing long confusing texts and for including spending promises. It is precisely by pretending to spell out the details that they fail to match the reality.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If you go back and read the original text and fiscal impact estimate of proposition 1a, it was supposed to cost around $10 billion dollars to build, and was expected to cost the state around $20 billion after accounting for interest and bond fees. No, it wasn't. The $9.95 billion was the state direct costs (before bond fees, interest, etc.) for HSR ($9B) and the associated other transit improvements ($0.95B), with the remainder of the system costs envisioned coming from federal and other sources. High (though hostile) estimates at the time of the total system cost, referenced in the opposing ballot argument, actually exceeded the most recent $77B estimate @ $90B.

masonic 8y ago
actually exceeded the most recent $77B estimate @ $90B That's disingenuous. The original figures are for the entire finished project as originally scoped; the modern $77B is for the current, useless scaled-down fragment.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The original figures are for the entire finished project as originally scoped; the modern $77B is for the current, useless scaled-down fragment. No, the $77B is for the entire project, and is the reason cited for limiting substantive state-funded work (outside of completing environmental reviews and efforts to secure outside funding) to the 119 mile segment previously identified as the initial construction segment.
  - masonic 8y ago
    The "entire project" was the full 800+ mile network as promised in Proposition 1A. Quoting from the ballot pamphlet[0]: "Proposition 1A is a $9.95 billion bond measure for an 800-mile High-Speed Train network that will relieve 70 million passenger trips a year that now clog California's highways and airports—WITHOUT RAISING TAXES (emphasis theirs)." As aside from your misdefinition of the "entire project", we're not even getting the Phase 1 we were promised at that $77B price point: "The current price tag is $77 billion, up from $33 billion when the project was approved. Funding has become a problem for the rail authority, which can’t afford to complete even a partial operational segment — slow or fast. In its 2018 business plan, the authority deleted construction of a 13-mile tunnel under the Pacheco Pass from its first phase because it did not have enough money. The decision will leave about 80 miles of track in the Bay Area disconnected from 119 miles of track in the Central Valley." This is not the 520-mile, contiguous, 220MPH LA-Sacto-San Jose project that was promised for Phase 1. Not remotely close. And I'm not even counting the promised Phase 2. [0] http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-rebutt1a.htm http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/2008/general/argu-rebut/argu-re... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180816125913/http://www.marinij.com/general-news/20180729/california-bullet-train-might-not-attain-states-mandated-speed# https://web.archive.org/web/20180816125913/http://www.marini...