4 ms·

$77 billion doesn’t sound like a big number because of the absolute amount of money involved. It sounds like a big number because similar projects in other plac

$77 billion doesn’t sound like a big number because of the absolute amount of money involved. It sounds like a big number because similar projects in other places cost far, far less. That number represents an incredible amount of waste. I think they should focus on getting the project to cost a reasonable amount and then do it, rather than either accepting it as-is or abandoning it.

pas 8y ago
How can these projects/plans/programs get the costs down?
- mikeash 8y ago
  Beats me, but it’s clearly possible.
  - pas 8y ago
    Why? Maybe it's just what this costs. Better than dreaming up a lower number that has no connection to reality. (Just as software projects are estimated based on wishes instead of hard data.) As trite is to use Musk as an example, BoringCo at least tries to do something to bring costs down. (And they put some money toward that goal.) But a completely powerless and political project planning committee can only make more and more sheets of wasted paper, I'm afraid. Someone mentioned how highways are also very expensive. I don't know why. ( https://medium.com/@TimSylvester/i-agree-it-sounds-astronomical-but-i-actually-understated-the-costs-according-to-artba-2e8baeac2a46 https://medium.com/@TimSylvester/i-agree-it-sounds-astronomi... ) But without changing the fundamentals, without innovation the costs won't come down. We can probably do a very minimal estimate by simply using average/median income, and estimating how much worker hours we need to plan it, review it, procure/tender it, get stuff there (from surveyor equipment and machines to people going there), do the earthworks, fill in the rocks and gravel that will serve as the foundation, then pour the concrete (or better yet use prefab/precast), then surface works, then put there all the signs, safety stuff (railings), environmental protection stuff (noise barrier), and maybe that's what it costs. So, as long as we can't streamline, uniformize and scale up these processes, it'll be just very labor intensive and expensive.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      "...because similar projects in other places cost far, far less." If Alice is doing something and Bob says it's impossible, I don't need to know how to do it to point out that Bob is wrong and it's actually possible. (And it's not just a matter of saving costs through environmental destruction and labor abuse. Infrastructure costs much less in other first-world countries too.)
      - pas 8y ago
        But other places have other price tags. Sure, there are problems - for example there is a frequently referenced study by one EU oversight institution from 2013. And it turns out that highways built between 2000 and 2012 sponsored by the EU were cheapest in Germany, where components were more expensive, than in Spain (where everything from labor to land and concrete were cheaper, including compliance to environmental regulations). Of course that's corruption. But the US has probably a different problem. Cost inflation, because the market bears it. Supply and demand. States pay a lot, so suppliers ask a lot.
ryandrake 8y ago
To put it into perspective, the Hoover Dam cost $49M, which is $750M in today's dollars [1]. They claim these train tracks cost over 100X more. One estimate of the cost to build the trans-continental railroad, including the Central Pacific ($47M) and Union Pacific ($77.5M) [2] is $3.5B in today's dollars, so this railroad costs 22X what two cross-country lines once cost. 1: https://www.marketplace.org/2010/05/28/sustainability/why-we-might-not-have-built-hoover-dam-today https://www.marketplace.org/2010/05/28/sustainability/why-we... 2: http://cprr.org/Museum/FAQs.html#Cost http://cprr.org/Museum/FAQs.html#Cost
- StrictDabbler 8y ago
  Hey, if you can: -collapse the global economy so that incredibly skilled engineers and tradespeople are desperate to work for little more than what it takes to feed their families and live in on-site housing -reduce safety regulations enough that it's acceptable to have people regularly dying during construction -build the train out in the middle of the desert on government-owned land instead of running it through major cities Then yeah, you could make these trains pretty cheap.
zimpenfish 8y ago
Crossrail[1] is currently projected to cost £15.4bn (~$19.8bn) for 73 miles of non-high-speed rail (~90mph). For the 520 miles California was proposing, you'd be looking at £110bn (~$140bn) and that's ignoring the fact that London has no mountain ranges to contend with and that HSR requires much stricter paths. In that context, $77bn looks like an absolute bargain. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail
- mikeash 8y ago
  I’m not sure an urban line with substantial underground sections and a bunch of new stations is entirely comparable.

pas 8y ago

How can these projects/plans/programs get the costs down?

mikeash 8y ago
Beats me, but it’s clearly possible.
- pas 8y ago
  Why? Maybe it's just what this costs. Better than dreaming up a lower number that has no connection to reality. (Just as software projects are estimated based on wishes instead of hard data.) As trite is to use Musk as an example, BoringCo at least tries to do something to bring costs down. (And they put some money toward that goal.) But a completely powerless and political project planning committee can only make more and more sheets of wasted paper, I'm afraid. Someone mentioned how highways are also very expensive. I don't know why. ( https://medium.com/@TimSylvester/i-agree-it-sounds-astronomical-but-i-actually-understated-the-costs-according-to-artba-2e8baeac2a46 https://medium.com/@TimSylvester/i-agree-it-sounds-astronomi... ) But without changing the fundamentals, without innovation the costs won't come down. We can probably do a very minimal estimate by simply using average/median income, and estimating how much worker hours we need to plan it, review it, procure/tender it, get stuff there (from surveyor equipment and machines to people going there), do the earthworks, fill in the rocks and gravel that will serve as the foundation, then pour the concrete (or better yet use prefab/precast), then surface works, then put there all the signs, safety stuff (railings), environmental protection stuff (noise barrier), and maybe that's what it costs. So, as long as we can't streamline, uniformize and scale up these processes, it'll be just very labor intensive and expensive.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    "...because similar projects in other places cost far, far less." If Alice is doing something and Bob says it's impossible, I don't need to know how to do it to point out that Bob is wrong and it's actually possible. (And it's not just a matter of saving costs through environmental destruction and labor abuse. Infrastructure costs much less in other first-world countries too.)
    - pas 8y ago
      But other places have other price tags. Sure, there are problems - for example there is a frequently referenced study by one EU oversight institution from 2013. And it turns out that highways built between 2000 and 2012 sponsored by the EU were cheapest in Germany, where components were more expensive, than in Spain (where everything from labor to land and concrete were cheaper, including compliance to environmental regulations). Of course that's corruption. But the US has probably a different problem. Cost inflation, because the market bears it. Supply and demand. States pay a lot, so suppliers ask a lot.

ryandrake 8y ago

To put it into perspective, the Hoover Dam cost $49M, which is $750M in today's dollars [1]. They claim these train tracks cost over 100X more. One estimate of the cost to build the trans-continental railroad, including the Central Pacific ($47M) and Union Pacific ($77.5M) [2] is $3.5B in today's dollars, so this railroad costs 22X what two cross-country lines once cost. 1: https://www.marketplace.org/2010/05/28/sustainability/why-we-might-not-have-built-hoover-dam-today https://www.marketplace.org/2010/05/28/sustainability/why-we... 2: http://cprr.org/Museum/FAQs.html#Cost http://cprr.org/Museum/FAQs.html#Cost

StrictDabbler 8y ago
Hey, if you can: -collapse the global economy so that incredibly skilled engineers and tradespeople are desperate to work for little more than what it takes to feed their families and live in on-site housing -reduce safety regulations enough that it's acceptable to have people regularly dying during construction -build the train out in the middle of the desert on government-owned land instead of running it through major cities Then yeah, you could make these trains pretty cheap.

zimpenfish 8y ago

Crossrail[1] is currently projected to cost £15.4bn (~$19.8bn) for 73 miles of non-high-speed rail (~90mph). For the 520 miles California was proposing, you'd be looking at £110bn (~$140bn) and that's ignoring the fact that London has no mountain ranges to contend with and that HSR requires much stricter paths. In that context, $77bn looks like an absolute bargain. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossrail

mikeash 8y ago
I’m not sure an urban line with substantial underground sections and a bunch of new stations is entirely comparable.