4 ms·
I hate this kind of math because it really doesn't tell you much. What are the fixed costs? What's the maintenance? What are the costs to extend? If this is the
by Pet_Ant 3y ago
I hate this kind of math because it really doesn't tell you much. What are the fixed costs? What's the maintenance? What are the costs to extend? If this is the cost now, what is the cost for the next phase? How much benefit are we getting out of those 2 miles?
You comment reduced a complex issue to an elementary word problem in math.
- mschuster91 3y ago> I hate this kind of math because it really doesn't tell you much. It tells you enough: Europe, more specifically Germany, builds HSR for about 40 million euros a kilometer [1]. This project here is 8 billion dollars for about 3.2km, or about 2.500 million dollars a kilometer - that is three orders of magnitude more expensive than Germany. [1] https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article171431132/Die-Beule-in-der-neuen-Rennstrecke-kostet-20-Minuten-und-2-Milliarden.html https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article171431132/Die-Beule-in...
- vaidhy 3y agoI believe 40mill is the average across the network. The 8 billion is for a specific portion in a high CoL area with the majority being land acquisition costs. If you have a dig a new subway station in middle of Frankfurt, for an infrastructure that does not exist today, it would not be the average.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago> The 8 billion is for a specific portion in a high CoL area with the majority being land acquisition costs. This is exactly the kind of thing I was suspecting was by misleading by the original number. "America can't build affordable high-speed rail" suggests that that their is same lacking capability in engineering. "Land costs make building in dense areas unprofitable" is a completely different story.
- ianburrell 3y agoAlso, the $8 billion includes building the train station under the Transbay Terminal. Train stations, especially underground ones, are really expensive. Plus, it is digging a tunnel for the tracks.
- bluGill 3y agoGermany avoids doing those things. Good engineering could get the cost down as there are options
- ianburrell 3y agoI almost used the example of Stuttgart 21 project which is way over budget (9 billion) and over time (6 year delay). It is bigger scope, with whole new main station and lots of track.
- mschuster91 3y ago> "America can't build affordable high-speed rail" suggests that that their is same lacking capability in engineering. "Land costs make building in dense areas unprofitable" is a completely different story. The reason doesn't matter - the end result does, namedly that America is incapable for a multitude of reasons (lack of political support, NIMBYs, excessive land value, unions ridiculous even to a union-loving European, lack of experience in planning and construction of such projects) to build high-speed rail.
- renewiltord 3y agoAh, I see. Let me clarify. The amount of spending until it opens is at least $8 billion. It will then cost more through its usable life. Therefore, you're right. It will cost tens of billions once maintenance is included. As a comparison for how much benefit will be gained, presently 12000 people board transit at the 4th and King station every day. I suppose it's my fault for having underestimated the total cost of this section of CA HSR. But perhaps you can link some of your analyses that include these various numbers for other projects and then we can put together one such analysis in these comments together.
- eesmith 3y agoMinor correction which changes nothing - at least $7.5 billion. Your source says "$729 million of the cost increase is attributed to a request that the federal government credit the costs of a train box at the terminal that has already been built."
- renewiltord 3y agoThank you for the correction! I'll remember to use the revised number in future.