31–40 of 67 posts
What a joke. There is no incentive for them to reduce costs. Any time some change or obstacle comes up - well, let's spend another $500M, that will take care of it. And people still think we should place more of the economy under the control of the government?
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?
> in the end once it's built (if it's built) it's a massive benefit Like what?
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?
Every step in a project needs to go through long approval/permitting processes that cost a lot of time and money. This ignores the high cost of labor/materials in California. The only reason why the NYC subway, and the Chicago L are there today is because they were built before all of these processes existed. You could not build anything like them in modern day.
You can not build it in the USA. London is about to open the newly built Elizabeth line, which cuts through the city with 60 miles of tunnels. Modern Metro/Subway infrastructure can be built in densely populated areas like Chicago and NYC. It's a political issue, not an engineering one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every step in a project needs to go through long approval/permitting processes that cost a lot of time and money. This ignores the high cost of labor/materials in California. The only reason why the NYC subway, and the Chicago L are there today is because they were built before all of these processes existed. You could not build anything like them in modern day.
> You could not build anything like them in modern day. You can not build it in the USA. London is about to open the newly built Elizabeth line, which cuts through the city with 60 miles of tunnels. Modern Metro/Subway infrastructure can be built in densely populated areas like Chicago and NYC. It's a political issue, not an engineering one.
Precisely. Asia is on a roll in this regard.
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.
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.
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.
What a joke. There is no incentive for them to reduce costs. Any time some change or obstacle comes up - well, let's spend another $500M, that will take care of it. And people still think we should place more of the economy under the control of the government?
Yes, the government is quite inefficient, but infrastructure is a natural Monopoly. Privatization doesn't work here either. Germany tried and failed that. Natural monopolies only lead to rent seeking when in private hands. You'll pay even more than for inefficient government action. There's no incentive for them to lower their prices either. Privatization only works when you consider negative externalities and have a…
What a joke. There is no incentive for them to reduce costs. Any time some change or obstacle comes up - well, let's spend another $500M, that will take care of it. And people still think we should place more of the economy under the control of the government?
Yes, the government is quite inefficient, but infrastructure is a natural Monopoly. Privatization doesn't work here either. Germany tried and failed that. Natural monopolies only lead to rent seeking when in private hands. You'll pay even more than for inefficient government action. There's no incentive for them to lower their prices either. Privatization only works when you consider negative externalities and have a…
But I agree. Major infrastructure -roads, trains, electricity/energy, water, high-speed communication- should not be privatized, because they should simply work. And be maintained. And get upgraded on time. And they all involve planning time frames that span tens of years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Large infrastructure projects like this are paying it forward. They are a gift to future generations who will reap the benefit without having to pay for it, just as we have benefited from inherited infrastructure of our cities.
Thanks to deficit spending they will be paying for it.
The only people getting a gift here are the ones fleecing the government to run up the costs. They get their money now and all our kids and grandkids get the bill.