On: California bullet train cost surges by $2.8B

[timr]

Or in other words...about 80% of what California spent on prisons, or about what they spent on roads in a single year [1].

It's irritating that these kinds of stories don't put the numbers in context, so that it's possible to do a cost/benefit analysis.

(These are statements of fact! If you want to express a value judgement, do it in a comment. Don't just downvote because you don't like facts.)

[1] http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/2016-17/pdf/Enacted/BudgetSummary/...

[peterhunt → timr]

Now divide by the # of people who will benefit from each of those programs and see how they look.

[timr → peterhunt]

Now divide by the amount of GDP growth you'll see from massively simplifying transit between two of the largest cities in the US, and see how they look.

I doubt most state roads would fare well in that kind of analysis, frankly, but we still fund those...

[adventured → timr]

Japan spent trillions of dollars on constantly building, improving, maintaining vast infrastructure. It gave them among the best infrastructure in the world.

It netted them ZERO economic growth over a quarter century, and ZERO improvement in their standard of living (which went backwards considerably between the late 1980s and today due to the debt they took on, which led to considerable destruction in their currency and savings rate).

Spending hundreds of billions on rail will not necessarily generate significant economic growth for the US. The US has a very efficient and productive economy, with among the world's highest GDP per capita. There's a high likelihood, in my opinion, that spending large sums on consumer rail will do absolutely nothing to boost GDP, and may harm the economy by drowning states like California in debt they can't afford.

Is it better for transportation purposes and the environment? Yes.

[timr → adventured]

"It netted them ZERO economic growth over a quarter century, and ZERO improvement in their standard of living"

That's just total nonsense. Regardless of the performance of the broader economy (which depends on other factors) during the last few decades, it's obvious to anyone who looks that Japan's investment in the Shinkansen has played a huge positive role in the dramatic growth of their post-war economy.

You can certainly argue that the situation has changed, but arguing that high-speed rail never benefitted them is the economic equivalent of arguing that it snowed last week, therefore global warming is a hoax.

[happyopossum → timr]

The 6-10B increase is to connect Madera to Fresno - not exactly bustling hives of population... you can’t compare costs for 10% of a project to something then handwave the rest away.

[sounds → timr]

GDP is an interesting metric.

It's not like all that reported "production" is distributed evenly. The costs surely will be, though.

So yeah, let's divide by the number of people who actually benefit.

[baud147258 → timr]

> about what they spent on roads in a single year

Which figures did you used for roads? I'm not familiar with gov-speak.