Hacker News Reader

Comment by WheelsAtLarge | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

It's expensive, but the LA Times article is leaving out a critical piece of information. The costs they're talking about are in year of construction costs, not 2008 or even 2018 dollars.

For instance, if the expected completion date is 2028 and the cost is $70 billion in 2028 dollars, any delay will increase the absolute cost because of inflation, even if the cost in 2028 dollars stays the same.

While $80+ billion in costs by 2033 is a lot of money, it's not actually twice the initial estimate of $40 billion in 2008 dollars (something like $55-70 billion in 2023-2033 dollars, assuming ~3% inflation/year).

> but now it's a vital part of the Los Angeles transportation system

Losing its vitality, though http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-ridership-201...

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.

It’s important to remember that it is much easier to get property to build on in other countries. In China (which you cite) you don’t get a choice at all - your property is sold for whatever amount the appropriate gov agency believes it is worth.

The article says buying land for the track is a significant problem - I will happily bet that they are not paying the pre-rail market value of that land.

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.

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.

I wish there was a way to opt out. I will willingly sign a contract to never use said system (if it ever gets finished), in return for not sponsoring it anymore with my taxes.

I'd prefer those taxes to instead go somewhere useful, like paying teachers better.

It seems like even if you're not literally riding the train, you'll benefit from it if it has a positive impact on the economy, traffic, property values, etc.

But is that a greater benefit than the effects of not taxing away all that money from folks who’d prefer to spend or invest it differently? Those effects are difficult to appreciate because they’re so diffuse but could easily outweigh the more tangible benefits of what’s otherwise a boondoggle.

I mean, we all want our taxes to go to things, but being part of a democratic society means we don't get to dictate to that degree. Sometimes we do things to help people other than ourselves.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com