It does seem like things are vastly more expensive to build these days. We built the interstate system, over 40,000 miles and 55,000 bridges, for roughly $500 billion adjusted for inflation (2015 dollar).
I'm guessing that the cost for labor and the regulation cost in China are VERY Different than the USA.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. This is a comparison of apples and rocks.
Interesting. I'm frankly surprised that my own state (Tennessee) is doing so well considering that we're pretty much completely Republican. Usually one-party states tend to suffer since there's little curb on that party's worst impulses.Yeah, doing great.
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/government/fiscal-stability
#43 of 50
exactly which posters here support north korea? name names, link posts. put up or shut up.
L.A. Times had a good article about this a few days ago.Which I think is high no matter who ends up in office except for a hardcore conservative which probably isn't going to happen. If the project is truncated it will be a SF to Bakersfield system. It will probably cost about $10-15B do the SJ-Cowchilla segment, mostly dependent on the Pacheco tunnel. The geology is unfortunately pretty shit for tunnels but the often suggested alternative of running over the Altamont pass has it's own also expensive (but different) problems.
The LA end of this thing is a wreck unfortunately.
So even with cap-and-trade funds that are earmarked (but not guaranteed AFAIK) for stage 1 and the woefully unrealistic plan of a few years ago, the funding is well short of what's needed to get to San Jose.An official close to the project acknowledged that the increasing costs render essentially impossible the current plan for a $21 billion San Jose to Central Valley starter system. Even before the cost increase, there was a funding shortfall: a plan to borrow $5.2 billion against future greenhouse gas fees fell apart, leaving the agency with a checkbook containing only about $16 billion of the needed $21 billion.
We do have a poster here who supports North Korea. He hasn't posted in this thread yet. I'll have to see if I can recall his name.
L.A. Times had a good article about this a few days ago.
So even with cap-and-trade funds that are earmarked (but not guaranteed AFAIK) for stage 1 and the woefully unrealistic plan of a few years ago, the funding is well short of what's needed to get to San Jose.
source (behind paywall): http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-crisis-20180121-story.html
FWIW if the supposedly easiest and cheapest portion (Fresno to Madera) is now $10.6B, how is SJ to Chowchilla gonna be under $15B?
I hadn't thought about that, though it's pretty obvious. I've seen the system referred to as "moderate speed rail" twice now. Perhaps portions of the system will operate at lower speed?I'm also curious as to how they plan to implement this project. With available land at a premium how will they obtain the resources to construct the tracks? High speed rail also means that there can be no level crossings anywhere along the route so it has to either be in a tunnel or elevated both of which add to the cost.
This is why Amtrak's Acela is confined to the NE corridor and not available nationally. Could you imagine a high speed train striking some idiot stuck on the tracks? What a disaster that would be.
I hadn't thought about that, though it's pretty obvious. I've seen the system referred to as "moderate speed rail" twice now. Perhaps portions of the system will operate at lower speed?
New costs, slower time line. What a winner.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-increase-20180309-story.html
"The price of the California bullet train project jumped sharply Friday when the state rail authority announced that the cost of connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco would be $77.3 billion and could rise as high as $98.1 billion — an uptick of at least $13 billion from estimates two years ago.
The rail authority also said the earliest trains could operate on a partial system between San Francisco and Bakersfield would be 2029 — four years later than the previous projection. The full system would not begin operating until 2033."
In case you wonder how it ever got passed. They lied about it and then Attorney General Brown allowed those lies to stand.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Act_(2008)
I actually never wondered because that's not a state I live in so I am not going to get in a rage about it unless it goes through a Park or something like that.
It'll cost that much for a ride to SF for you.meanwhile we have a 6.1 billion budget surplus.
Among the most challenging is the cost of about 36 miles of tunnels through mountainous Southern California, which could range anywhere from $26 billion to $45 billion, according to the report.
The supporters of Proposition 1A, including then Attorney General Jerry Brown, the California official in charge of honesty in the Propositions. Deliberately lied to the California voters about how much the train would cost, where the train would actually be going, the performance of the train and how long it would take to build it. They lied to get it passed.People hate on California.
Reason #1:. JEALOUSY.
Yes, we’re all jealous of California’s inability to manage an infrastructure project within budgetPeople hate on California.
Reason #1:. JEALOUSY.
It'll cost that much for a ride to SF for you.
Yes, we’re all jealous of California’s inability to manage an infrastructure project within budget
that you choose to frame the converation in terms of jealousy is more an indicator of your insecuritythats not the part you are jealous about.