4 ms·

It's a rule that all infrastructure projects will be behind schedule and over budget. A correlary to this is, like a vacuum, a project will always use the money

It's a rule that all infrastructure projects will be behind schedule and over budget. A correlary to this is, like a vacuum, a project will always use the money and time that is originally allocated and need more. With this in mind, the way the current project is being funded and run is actually the most practical way (regardless of the horrible optics): Doing chunks at a time, rather than trying to plan and fund the entire time and cost up front. The fact is that estimations are inherently political and always, always, always incorrect. Though it seems a ludicrous way to work, the project would never had started had the actual time and cost had been known at the outset. Though some parts of the project cost more because of the lack of complete funding and slower pace (things cost more now), the overall efficiency is actually improved by making sure that the money is spent as needed. So, if they're saying it'll cost another $100B to complete, the real cost is probably $250B. If they say it'll be done by 2030, it'll probably be 2035 at the earliest. And that's fine. As a country we need to stop thinking in the short term. Unless we want to start acting like China and just bulldoze our way across the country regardless of property owners, residents and the environment, this is how it has to be. Anyone who's been on this earth for more than a few decades should know this by now.

alephnerd 3y ago
The RoI just isn't there for this specific project though. That additional $100B could have been used to drastically enhance the existing public transit systems within California. Projects like the ACE expansion, the LA Metro expansion, the Caltrain electrification, etc have all had tangible positive effects, and a bit more money could have been poured into multiple local projects instead. At this price point, what would the ticket be for a SF to LA train?!? If it reaches the $100-200 range you can't beat flying.
- jeffbee 3y ago
  Sure, the cost of flying looks great, because you completely externalized the cost of the airports and all of the pollution.
  - nothercastle 3y ago
    Pollution isn’t the problem the tsa lines are the problem because they double your trip time
- Hobadee 3y ago
  HSR between LA and SF will never be able to compete with air travel, especially with how many stupid stops they are planning on. A flight takes ~1hr, plus another hour for TSA and whatnot. Rail will take several hours at best. Unless rail significantly undercuts the cost of a flight (which can be had for extremely cheap these days) people just aren't going to use it.
  - hedora 3y ago
    Not disagreeing that they’ll screw it up, but it’s only about 400 miles from the Bay Area to LA. That should be about 2 hours for a modern train. Assuming the train runs frequently enough for spur-of-the-moment trips (why wouldn’t it?!?) I’d definitely prefer that to screwing around with booking a flight, getting to the airport, and dealing with the TSA, even if the flight was only an hour.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    > plus another hour for TSA I'ce never faced a 1 hour TSA line for domestic flights at SFO, SJC, SMF, SAN, or SNA, and I travel a lot for work. Most of my security lines have been around 20 tops. And I'm a brown guy so I'm the demographic that should be hassled the most.
ETH_start 3y ago
>>So, if they're saying it'll cost another $100B to complete, the real cost is probably $250B. If they say it'll be done by 2030, it'll probably be 2035 at the earliest. And that's fine. As a country we need to stop thinking in the short term. Unless we want to start acting like China and just bulldoze our way across the country regardless of property owners, residents and the environment, this is how it has to be. At this dismal level of spending efficiency, the US would go bankrupt long before it matches China's scale of public works construction. So if the choice is between falling behind China as an industrial power, or exercising eminent domain, and sidelining environmental regulations and labor unions, to get infrastructure built like China, the choice is easy. Build the way China does. Every major US city being connected by high speed rail lines would have innumerable benefits far exceeding the costs associated with rapid construction.
- danielhep 3y ago
  Not just China, which people often correctly point out is willing to do things with zero input or concern for individuals, but most of Europe is able to build stuff with much lower costs than we are while respecting property rights and the environment. We should just bring over some Spanish or French rail administrators and ask them how we can fix our bureaucracy.

alephnerd 3y ago

The RoI just isn't there for this specific project though. That additional $100B could have been used to drastically enhance the existing public transit systems within California. Projects like the ACE expansion, the LA Metro expansion, the Caltrain electrification, etc have all had tangible positive effects, and a bit more money could have been poured into multiple local projects instead. At this price point, what would the ticket be for a SF to LA train?!? If it reaches the $100-200 range you can't beat flying.

jeffbee 3y ago
Sure, the cost of flying looks great, because you completely externalized the cost of the airports and all of the pollution.
- nothercastle 3y ago
  Pollution isn’t the problem the tsa lines are the problem because they double your trip time
Hobadee 3y ago
HSR between LA and SF will never be able to compete with air travel, especially with how many stupid stops they are planning on. A flight takes ~1hr, plus another hour for TSA and whatnot. Rail will take several hours at best. Unless rail significantly undercuts the cost of a flight (which can be had for extremely cheap these days) people just aren't going to use it.
- hedora 3y ago
  Not disagreeing that they’ll screw it up, but it’s only about 400 miles from the Bay Area to LA. That should be about 2 hours for a modern train. Assuming the train runs frequently enough for spur-of-the-moment trips (why wouldn’t it?!?) I’d definitely prefer that to screwing around with booking a flight, getting to the airport, and dealing with the TSA, even if the flight was only an hour.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > plus another hour for TSA I'ce never faced a 1 hour TSA line for domestic flights at SFO, SJC, SMF, SAN, or SNA, and I travel a lot for work. Most of my security lines have been around 20 tops. And I'm a brown guy so I'm the demographic that should be hassled the most.

ETH_start 3y ago

>>So, if they're saying it'll cost another $100B to complete, the real cost is probably $250B. If they say it'll be done by 2030, it'll probably be 2035 at the earliest. And that's fine. As a country we need to stop thinking in the short term. Unless we want to start acting like China and just bulldoze our way across the country regardless of property owners, residents and the environment, this is how it has to be. At this dismal level of spending efficiency, the US would go bankrupt long before it matches China's scale of public works construction. So if the choice is between falling behind China as an industrial power, or exercising eminent domain, and sidelining environmental regulations and labor unions, to get infrastructure built like China, the choice is easy. Build the way China does. Every major US city being connected by high speed rail lines would have innumerable benefits far exceeding the costs associated with rapid construction.

danielhep 3y ago
Not just China, which people often correctly point out is willing to do things with zero input or concern for individuals, but most of Europe is able to build stuff with much lower costs than we are while respecting property rights and the environment. We should just bring over some Spanish or French rail administrators and ask them how we can fix our bureaucracy.