
Cost of California bullet train system rises to $77.3B, take 5 years more - slapshot
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-increase-20180309-story.html
======
WheelsAtLarge
I know this project is costing a fortune but I'm a proponent of it. The
connection of so many cities will eventually be a boon for California.

The red line in Los Angeles had a similar history with cost overruns and
extreme costs but now it's a vital part of the Los Angeles transportation
system. I see the same happening to this system.

We marvel at the Roman aqueducts not because of their costs but at the fact
that they were built in the first place. Similarly, we will say the same thing
about the bullet train.

~~~
ImSkeptical
I don't think anyone is opposed to having a high-speed rail line. What people
are opposed to is the insane cost, the schedule delays, and the poor output.
If you compared this to high speed rail in Japan or China - it would come out
looking horrible for California on every meaningful metric.

Regarding your point about Rome - I'm not an expert, but I'd bet the aqueducts
provide a valuable service. What are your estimates for how many passengers
would need to ride the rail in order to make it worthwhile, and your estimates
for how long it would take to serve that many passengers?

Think about the huge amounts of money and the value of the rail (delayed by
when you could get that value) and then compare that to other ways you could
use that money - for example by leaving it in the hands of the taxpayers.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Actually, it’s not as bad as you think. The Shanghai-Beijing line had a final
budget of around $35bn for an 810-mile service. California is looking to spend
$78bn for a 520-mile service. That means a cost-per-mile of $150m for
California vs. $43m for China - in other words, California’s system is around
3.5 times as expensive as China’s.

Honestly, given the difference in land values and regulation, that doesn’t
seem entirely unreasonable.

~~~
omgwtfbyobbq
It's actually better than that. The Shanghai-Beijing line cost ~$40 billion in
2018 dollars. The cost estimates for the California line are in year of
expenditure dollars, which means the $78+ billion is amounts that are spent
from 2008 until completion in 2033.

The dollars spent early in the project cost more because of inflation, and
along the same lines, the dollars spent later in the project cost less because
of inflation.

For instance, if we spend half of the $80 billion in the last 5 years of the
project, that's something like $30 billion in 2018 dollars even though it's
$40 billion in 2028 to 2033 dollars.

------
mattbillenstein
Man this must be a hey-day for property lawyers in the valley.

You could just sorta guarantee this would happen -- the nimbyism in California
is like full-tilt. I'd suspect the costs will go up even more from here and
the time to completion will be even longer than this

It's a shame we can't have nice things here.

------
blackrock
That's almost the cost of the $100 billion international space station.

And it's not even a maglev. A maglev would've been way cooler.

~~~
omgwtfbyobbq
It's probably going to be more than the US contribution of $50 billion in 1994
($85 billion in 2018 dollars), but I think it would have to exceed $200
billion in real dollars to match the total real cost of the ISS.

[https://www.space.com/9435-international-space-station-
worth...](https://www.space.com/9435-international-space-station-
worth-100-billion.html)

Still, at > 2 times the real original estimated cost, it's a good example of
why we should go high instead of low when it comes to estimates.

I'm also curious how much it would cost to build out the same capacity via
airport construction/expansion. If we're at more than double the cost running
rail lines through the central valley, imagine how much building another LAX,
SFO, SAN, etc... would be.

~~~
cosmie
> Still, at > 2 times the real original estimated cost, it's a good example of
> why we should go high instead of low when it comes to estimates.

It's also a good example of why no one goes high when it comes to estimates.

The realized cost is now to a point where it'd be politically unpalatable to
approve the project. But since it's already in process, approving the
incremental funds is essentially inevitable and won't cause much political
backlash.

These estimates aren't low by accident. They're generally as optimistic as
possible while still being in the realm of marginally plausible (even if
wildly improbable). Once the ball gets approved and rolling, the momentum
alone is usually enough to hurdle past objections as estimates meet reality,
while diffusing responsibility (and therefore repercussions) along the way.

~~~
omgwtfbyobbq
After looking at it some more, there's a relatively simple explanation. The
initial cost estimate was $40 billion in 2008 (voters approved $9.95 billion
in bonds).

[https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-
Spee...](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-
Speed_Rail_Act_\(2008\))

The thing the LA Times and others are leaving out is that the CA high speed
rail authority estimates are in year of expenditure dollars, not 2008 dollars
or current dollars.

[http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/DRAFT_2016_B...](http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/DRAFT_2016_Business_Plan_0201816.pdf)

So what they're estimating is that by the time the line between socal and
norcal is complete, around 2033, we'll have spent $77+ billion (up to $98
billion).

That's not $77-$98+ billion in 2008 dollars, it's $77-$98 billion in 2008
through 2033 dollars, depending on when those dollars are spent.

For instance, if we spend most of the money near the end of the project, and
the total cost is ~$80 billion, that corresponds to $50+ billion in 2008
dollars. It's still higher than the initial estimate, but it's not nearly as
high as going from $40 billion in 2008 dollars to $77+ billion in 2008
dollars.

------
crobertsbmw
Honestly, how long will it take for this to be a good investment? My guess is
more than 50 years. Will we need a bullet train in 50 years? Probably not.
Anyone that wants to go anywhere will be able to step inside a pod, take a
nap, and wake up wherever they want to be. Such a waste of resources...

------
melling
In other news, China will have about 28,000 miles of high-speed rail by 2030.

------
pjdemers
When I was in kindergarten, there was a proposed (Washington) metro station
down the street. Metro put up a sign, "Coming soon...". Twenty years later the
sign fell down. The station was eventually built. The first time I used it, I
took my daughter, who was just about to start kindergarten. Now, I live in
northern CA, just a mile from where the proposed bullet train will run. When
people talk about the impact, I tell them, that's our children's problem, and
reference the above story.

------
unquietcode
I'm all for this train, but if it costs this much to build and even more to
maintain, and it's not even the newest train technologies, then it's probably
just doomed to fail.

------
yadongwen
Just did some quick calculations, for the bullet train connecting beijing and
shanghai which is about twice the length of the cal bullet train system, the
chinese spent about $30B

~~~
lttlrck
Oddly that makes it sound not so bad; given the property and environmental
issues and the high cost of labor I’d have expected a larger multiplier.

------
walrus01
This reminds me of the aerospace industry adage (F-22 / F-35 related), that if
you extrapolate the continuing growth curve of fifth generation air
superiority aircraft acquisition costs, in 75 years from now the USAF will be
able to afford to purchase a single fighter and it will cost $9.5 billion.

------
joejerryronnie
I would consider this project a success if they can build a functioning high-
speed rail line from Fresno to San Jose. Connecting the Central Valley to
Silicon Valley - or the fifth largest city to the third largest city in CA -
would bring tremendous benefits. If this portion of the project can be proved
out, building out to SF and even Sacramento is feasible. I'm not sure it's
ever going to be economically feasible to tunnel through the mountains to
SoCal.

------
parent5446
tl;dr - Since in California all construction requires an absurd amount of
licenses, approvals, environmental studies, etc., and because local residents
can sue for almost anything, the cost has skyrocketed.

Isn't this what eminent domain was created for? Shouldn't California state
have the ability to make things happen for its own rail projects?

~~~
dmitrygr
You'd feel differently if it was _YOUR_ land being seized.

~~~
atonse
Seized but you are paid market value for it. That’s fair.

------
8bitsrule
I'm left wondering: how much would a hyperloop cost to span the same distance?
At 2 or 3 times the speed?

They've already started it? Never too late to stop a disaster. It'll be $150B
by the time it's finished.

~~~
wbl
Is there hyperloop? No.

