2 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI 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.