5 ms·

Who cares if it’s slow and costly though? If that’s what it takes, so be it. Every high speed rail in history has come in way over budget, and when it’s done no

• bitlax 4y ago
  opportunity cost
• marincounty 4y ago
• inferiorhuman 4y ago
  Every high speed rail in history has come in way over budget I'm gonna have to go digging through some stuff to see if I can find a source but I'm pretty sure that's not the case (even if you ignore authoritarian style countries like China). California government is fairly dysfunctional and that makes things more expensive, and I say this as a proponent of CAHSR. The biggest problem with CAHSR though is that the rich suburban fucks (especially on the SF peninsula) are trying to kill HSR with death from a thousand paper cuts^W^W lawsuits. That's how you get things like cities (coughathertoncoughbelmontcough) wanting underground sections built on someone else's dime. They'll cite things like noise while ignoring that a.) electric trains are quieter than diesels and b.) grade separation eliminates the need to sound the horn. It's a really nasty self-fulfilling prophecy.
  • antognini 4y ago
    A relevant comparison here is with Spain. California is currently projected to spend around $110 billion for about 500 miles of track. By contrast Spain built out a network of 2000 miles of rail for about $70 billion. Other European countries have similar costs. California is the outlier.
    • ZoomerCretin 4y ago
      America is the outlier. The problem doesn't just exist in California.
    • brnt 4y ago
      Spain is sparsely populated though, with the highest urban density in the world. It would be a place where rail both makes sense due to excellent urban networks and not much right of way issues.
• icelancer 4y ago
  > Every high speed rail in history has come in way over budget Uhh... isn't this is a good reason to vote against them?
  • sofixa 4y ago
    No, the main reasons to vote for or against an infrastructure project would be its utility (how many people would take it, what things it will enable, how many people would take it instead of a car or plane and the benefits that will bring), not how good it is at estimating costs.
    • icelancer 4y ago
      But the budget and the cost estimate is used as the denominator in the utility justification function, so if it returns positive ROI at a certain cost, but cost overruns are 2-10x that, then it carries negative utility...
• skellington 4y ago
  Your naivety and lack of care is the reason why this project will enrichen a handful of people while incrementally making everyone else poorer. This is no ordinary 25% cost overrun which can be understandable in complex projects. This is 105 BILLION dollars horrendously wasted (the original estimate was 33 BILLION). They've already spent 10 BILLION and NOT A SINGLE MILE OF TRACK has been constructed. Imagine what great and useful things could be done with 105 BILLION dollars. Homelessness, Traffic in urban centers (LA, SF, etc.), healthcare...
  • dahdum 4y ago
    Don’t forget the ongoing subsidies required and the unfunded pension liabilities it will rack up. Still, it’s not even projected to be on par with airfare, but I suppose CA could pass some special taxes to force equivalency.
  • ZoomerCretin 4y ago
    Homelessness and traffic are not issues that money could fix. They are both problems borne from car-centric low-density urban planning.
    • culi 4y ago
      well money can fix car-centric low-density urban planning...
  • panick21_ 4y ago
    > Traffic in urban centers (LA, SF, etc.), What California really needs is adding more lanes to fix traffic. There are way to better spend money, but fixing traffic is literally the last thing anybody should try to do. Unless fixing traffic means public transport and bike infrastructure.
    • pkulak 4y ago
      Adding lanes has never fixed traffic before, but it sure will this time!