Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 67 posts

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#11

Post by MichaelBurge »

asdff wrote: post #7

So the total projected end to end cost is up to $105b from $100b 2 years ago. Isn't that just accounting for inflation? The LA times really has an axe to grind whenever they write about the bullet train.

In 2018, the entirety of all corporate income taxes collected was $200b, and the entire Medicaid program was $389b[1].

" In 2021, the solar industry generated more than $33 billion of private investment in the American economy": So the entire solar industry is 1/3 of this single rail line.

You can't just casually call it "inflation" when you're spending significant percentages of the annual budget on a single train line and somehow it's still not enough. 1/6 of the entire solar industry is not "inflation".

Amtrak requested $4 billion in COVID relief from the government to maintain its national rail network, and $1.5 billion to "expand rail service"[2]. That entire amount you just called "inflation" for a single rail line, and they're running 26 lines all over the country. Also: Even if the construction costs somehow end up comparable, Amtrak's entire annual revenue is $2.3 billion. How long's it going to take to pay back $105 billion with this single rail line, if the entire Amtrak network would take 50 years to pay this one line back ignoring all operating costs?

[1] https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55342 [2] http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Amtrak-Ge...

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#12

Post by adastra22 »

asdff wrote: post #8
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #2

One thing about the route I don’t get… why don’t they use the space between the roads on the 5? Isn’t that mostly accounted for by the government already? Especially if so much of the tracks is raised.

Because the 5 is not where the population is in the central valley.

I'm sorry, but why are we optimizing around the Central Valley population centers? When I voted for this high-speed rail (which I now regret), it was a bullet train between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Now it connects to neither.

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#13

Post by adastra22 »

vmception wrote: post #4

Alright that settles it I’m going to move to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe for half a year to cash out my QSBS stocks. California taxes are a tax on poor people, exclusively. California voters will just authorize a new bond issuance anyway.

You'll still pay California taxes. Getting around California taxes is VERY hard to do, and they will come after you if they think you left to avoid taxes. Even if you never return to the state.

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#14

Post by Gibbon1 »

asdff wrote: post #7

So the total projected end to end cost is up to $105b from $100b 2 years ago. Isn't that just accounting for inflation? The LA times really has an axe to grind whenever they write about the bullet train.

The LA times only reports the high cost estimate for California's high speed rail because for whatever reason the LA Times has a hate boner for the project. If you go by them the costs keep massively going up while nothing has been done so far. One can also read progress reports from the rail authority and look at satellite pictures. Which will both show that estimated cost is increasing 'a bit' and steady progress being made in the central valley.

https://www.buildhsr.com/

Quote: The current cost estimate to deliver the 500-mile system linking San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim via the Central Valley ranges from $69.01 to $99.9 billion.

From here https://hsr.ca.gov/about/capital-costs-funding/

You can compare that to the BART Silicon Valley Extension Phase II. Budget for that is 6.9 billion for a six mile extension. Which the press is studiously ignoring.

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#15

Post by CogitoCogito »

adastra22 wrote: post #12
asdff wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the 5 is not where the population is in the central valley.

I'm sorry, but why are we optimizing around the Central Valley population centers? When I voted for this high-speed rail (which I now regret), it was a bullet train between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Now it connects to neither.

I haven't followed this for a while, but this map still seems to connect SF to LA:

https://hsr.ca.gov/high-speed-rail-in-california/project-sec...

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#16

Post by pharmakom »

California (like most places) can clearly benefit from high quality rail infrastructure:

- more pleasant commutes over greater distances

- reduced housing market pressure near major offices

- reduced noise and air pollution compared to motor vehicles (for the same carrying capacity)

But how is it so expensive?

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#17

Post by Traster »

Are there many large infrastructure projects in America that actually turn out to be a waste of time? It seems like any large infrastructure project tends to get a whole load of pushback and political shenanigans (which often are the direct cause of spiralling costs), but in the end once it's built (if it's built) it's a massive benefit. Is the real lesson here just that we should all just shut up and get on with it?

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#18

Post by trhway »

pharmakom wrote: post #16

California (like most places) can clearly benefit from high quality rail infrastructure: - more pleasant commutes over greater distances - reduced housing market pressure near major offices - reduced noise and air pollution compared to motor vehicles (for the same carrying capacity) But how is it so expensive?

>But how is it so expensive?

that is a classic megaproject which will be expanding in cost until there is no more expansion is possible and then a bit more.

Lets imagine some numbers - at 100B cost and say $5B/year expenses, it would need $7B/year of tickets for 50 years ROI, ie. it would need $20M/day, which is 100000 passengers/day at $200/ticket, like a 100 trains/day with 1000 riders each.

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#19

Post by morsch »

pharmakom wrote: post #16

California (like most places) can clearly benefit from high quality rail infrastructure: - more pleasant commutes over greater distances - reduced housing market pressure near major offices - reduced noise and air pollution compared to motor vehicles (for the same carrying capacity) But how is it so expensive?

Meanwhile, over here, we're paying EUR ~10 billion to rebuild a single train station in one of our mid-sized cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21

OTOH, building the HSR between Berlin and Munich (~500 km) was also about EUR 10 billion, which I guess makes it a bargain. These things aren't comparable, though.

Re: Costs of California’s troubled bullet train rise again, by estimated $5B

#20

Post by hef19898 »

morsch wrote: post #19
pharmakom wrote: post #16

California (like most places) can clearly benefit from high quality rail infrastructure: - more pleasant commutes over greater distances - reduced housing market pressure near major offices - reduced noise and air pollution compared to motor vehicles (for the same carrying capacity) But how is it so expensive?

Meanwhile, over here, we're paying EUR ~10 billion to rebuild a single train station in one of our mid-sized cities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuttgart_21 OTOH, building the HSR between Berlin and Munich (~500 km) was also about EUR 10 billion, which I guess makes it a bargain. These things aren't comparable, though.

IMHO Stuttgart 21 is as much a real estate grab as it is about a new rail station. Not sure, but doesn't the cost include all/ parts of the new tunnels and railways that go through the not-so-stable hills east of Stuttgart?

Anyway, Stuttgart 21 is a highly convoluted project, one that was really pushed hard by politicians. The last bit makes me usually skeptical in itself.

Post reply on HN