4 ms·

> $113bn for California’s non-existent high speed rail. Those are some serious costs. The cost of the TGV links in France are definitely in the 10s of billion

> $113bn for California’s non-existent high speed rail. Those are some serious costs. The cost of the TGV links in France are definitely in the 10s of billions but no 100s of billions. Are you sure those budgets aren't getting eaten by consultants or lawyers doing the impact assessments? Even with higher labour costs that is a pretty steep hike.

ncmncm 4y ago
The opportunities for siphoning money to certain factions may be seen as the real purpose of the project, with any actual train more or less incidental. The same may be seen in recent nuclear power projects, urban tunnels, NASA's SLS rocket, and numerous military procurements, F-35 prominent among them. Actual completion of a project means the money spigot is turned off, which nobody involved wants ever to happen. But sometimes an end is inevitable, and if foreseen, actual delivery of a product might be effected, to save face, as for the case of Finland's nuke.
- rightbyte 4y ago
  Ye you need to be hard as steel -- like SAP -- and call the bluff by just failing until the sunk cost is so high there can't be another cent added.
- johnebgd 4y ago
  Government procurement is a broken process today. The railroad companies were reimbursed once the track was set down. We need that for modern projects. Then competent people will get the job done and get paid.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    How would you change the political culture of the US to go back to the mid 1800s without all the drawbacks of back then?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      NASA, SLS aside, is doing arguably non-broken procurement. SLS of course costs more than everything else combined. Very numerous cash-strapped municipal transit projects manage to avoid wasting money. It is well understood how not to waste money when that is actually intended. It is why we can be sure that waste is the whole point on such high-cost projects, better-equipped than others to engage competent management. Ensuring "waste" goes only where intended and not to others must be hard.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        I’d be very careful of using the word ‘waste’ as many large programs would never have been passed through Congress in the first place without the ‘waste’ guaranteeing critical votes, such as the SLS. As in the alternative between ‘waste’ would likely be no program instead of some idealized ‘less wasteful’ program.

ncmncm 4y ago

The opportunities for siphoning money to certain factions may be seen as the real purpose of the project, with any actual train more or less incidental. The same may be seen in recent nuclear power projects, urban tunnels, NASA's SLS rocket, and numerous military procurements, F-35 prominent among them. Actual completion of a project means the money spigot is turned off, which nobody involved wants ever to happen. But sometimes an end is inevitable, and if foreseen, actual delivery of a product might be effected, to save face, as for the case of Finland's nuke.

rightbyte 4y ago
Ye you need to be hard as steel -- like SAP -- and call the bluff by just failing until the sunk cost is so high there can't be another cent added.
johnebgd 4y ago
Government procurement is a broken process today. The railroad companies were reimbursed once the track was set down. We need that for modern projects. Then competent people will get the job done and get paid.
- MichaelZuo 4y ago
  How would you change the political culture of the US to go back to the mid 1800s without all the drawbacks of back then?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    NASA, SLS aside, is doing arguably non-broken procurement. SLS of course costs more than everything else combined. Very numerous cash-strapped municipal transit projects manage to avoid wasting money. It is well understood how not to waste money when that is actually intended. It is why we can be sure that waste is the whole point on such high-cost projects, better-equipped than others to engage competent management. Ensuring "waste" goes only where intended and not to others must be hard.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      I’d be very careful of using the word ‘waste’ as many large programs would never have been passed through Congress in the first place without the ‘waste’ guaranteeing critical votes, such as the SLS. As in the alternative between ‘waste’ would likely be no program instead of some idealized ‘less wasteful’ program.