3 ms·

>... I also don't agree that a project should be killed because it's cost has increased ~$20B over what was approved in 2008. You aren't even close. The fisca

by opo 8y ago

>... I also don't agree that a project should be killed because it's cost has increased ~$20B over what was approved in 2008. You aren't even close. The fiscal impact statement of what was voted on in 2008 was: >...State costs of about $19.4 billion, assuming 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $647 million per year. When constructed, additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed train system. The costs would be at least partially, and potentially fully, offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.[6] >...First, 10 years of inflation alone from 2008 to 2019 accounts for $10B of price increases. How are you calculating that? The cumulative rate of inflation from 2008 is < 17%. >...The annual payments on the bond would be around $1B/year, out of a total annual budget of $200B How are you calculating the bond payment? (It sounds very low.) In the original ballot measure, where 10 billion was issued in bonds, the payments on the 30 year bonds was estimated to be about $647 million per year. Your total annual budget number is misleading - I've read that only about 22% of the CA budget is discretionary. >...the laughable assertion that a train from Bakersfield to Merced is a good idea is clearly a face saving measure. I agree. This is now a train to nowhere and makes people leery about any spending on infrastructure.

marcell 8y ago
> You aren't even close. The fiscal impact statement of what was voted on in 2008 was: ... $10B The $10B was not billed as the total cost of the project, just bond that voters approved. The rest of the project was to be funded with "TBD" sources. I believe the initial cost estimates were in the $40B range. [1] > How are you calculating that? The cumulative rate of inflation from 2008 is < 17%. I assumed 2% annual inflation over 10 years, inflating an initial cost estimate of $50B. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Yes-on-Prop-1A-A-21st-century-vision-3266507.php https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Yes-on-Prop-1A-A-21st...: "The project is expected to cost $40 billion and take eight years to complete, according to proponents."
- opo 8y ago
  >...The rest of the project was to be funded with "TBD" sources. I believe the initial cost estimates were in the $40B range. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize that. I wonder how many of the people who voted for the bonds knew that there was an estimated extra 30 billion in cost. Even going from an estimated 40 billion to 77 billion is still a huge increase. The original article mentioned that the state estimated the cost might actually be $98.1 billion.
  - marcell 8y ago
    I don't have a good sense for how the typical voter contexualizes these things. The numbers are so big and abstract I don't see how you can tell $20B from $60B as a voter. I think though, if people had known in 2008 that not even 100 miles would be completed by 2019, that might have swayed some minds. In my view, the big tragedy here is the painfully slow construction, not so much the cost.

by opo 8y ago

marcell 8y ago

> You aren't even close. The fiscal impact statement of what was voted on in 2008 was: ... $10B The $10B was not billed as the total cost of the project, just bond that voters approved. The rest of the project was to be funded with "TBD" sources. I believe the initial cost estimates were in the $40B range. [1] > How are you calculating that? The cumulative rate of inflation from 2008 is < 17%. I assumed 2% annual inflation over 10 years, inflating an initial cost estimate of $50B. [1] https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Yes-on-Prop-1A-A-21st-century-vision-3266507.php https://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Yes-on-Prop-1A-A-21st...: "The project is expected to cost $40 billion and take eight years to complete, according to proponents."

opo 8y ago
>...The rest of the project was to be funded with "TBD" sources. I believe the initial cost estimates were in the $40B range. Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realize that. I wonder how many of the people who voted for the bonds knew that there was an estimated extra 30 billion in cost. Even going from an estimated 40 billion to 77 billion is still a huge increase. The original article mentioned that the state estimated the cost might actually be $98.1 billion.
- marcell 8y ago
  I don't have a good sense for how the typical voter contexualizes these things. The numbers are so big and abstract I don't see how you can tell $20B from $60B as a voter. I think though, if people had known in 2008 that not even 100 miles would be completed by 2019, that might have swayed some minds. In my view, the big tragedy here is the painfully slow construction, not so much the cost.