Slashdot Mirror
California Bullet Train Costs Soar To $77.3 Billion, Will Take 5 Years Longer To Complete
The California High-Speed Rail Authority announced today that the cost of connecting Los Angeles to San Francisco would total $77.3 billion, an increase of $13 billion from estimates two years ago, and could potentially rise as high as $98.1 billion. They also said the earliest trains could operate on a partial system between San Jose and the farming town of Wasco would be 2029, five years later than the previous projection. Los Angeles Times reports: The disclosures are contained in a 114-page business plan that was issued in draft form by the rail authority and will be finalized this summer in a submission to the Legislature. The rail authority has wrestled with a more than $40-billion funding gap, which would increase sharply under the new cost estimates. The biggest immediate driver of the cost increase has been in the Central Valley, where the rail authority is building 119 miles of track between Wasco and Merced. The authority disclosed in early February that the cost of that work would jump to $10.6 billion from an original estimate of about $6 billion. Roy Hill, one of the senior consultants advising the state, told the rail authority board, "The worst-case scenario has happened." In its 2014 business plan, the rail authority optimistically projected that it could begin carrying passengers in just seven years. But the warning signs of uncontrolled cost growth had already started mounting then, even though until this year the rail authority has vehemently denied that it was facing a problem. The project began having trouble buying property for the route almost immediately after it issued its first construction contract in 2013.
This appears to be part of a general trend, transit costs in the US have been massively subject to "cost disease" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease. However, the effect is much more pronounced for mass transit in the US than in Europe or elsewhere http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2541-01?journalCode=trr. While there are some arguments that how the US treats trains has advantages over Europe http://ti.org/antiplanner/?p=11847, the cost difference in new ones is gigantic. In this particular case, it is combining very badly with other issues, including the insanely high prices of land in California.
The official web site of the proposed Texas bullet train, from Houston to Dallas, says that the Texas project will cost "over 12 billion" and start construction in 2019. Like the California project, the Texas project has been plagued by delays and cost increases. I wonder who succeed first, or at all.
$78B? OMG. That is like almost 8% of the cost of the Iraq war.
No way we could ever fund something that big.
I've been to a lot of different countries, and it's always ironic how much better their mass transit is than in the U.S. I have rarely had to rent a car or even take a taxi to get anywhere I want to go - outside of the U.S. And it's very rare for me to have to take a bus in another country. Train go everywhere, except in the country I live in.
Given the insane amounts we spend on airports and aircraft, and roads, there just isn't any justification for not having the good trains they have in other countries. Consider little Switzerland, and its incredible transit systems. Take the train from London to Paris. Nothing you would see in the U.S.
So-called "smart roads" (which aren't going to work except for those leased vehicles with locked-down hoods) and autonomous vehicles might work for urban transit eventually. For inter-city routes they are still molasses-slow and inefficient.
And I am not really sanguine about the hyperloop. The safety issues make my mind boggle, and companies are having trouble even getting a model to go fast in one.
Bruce Perens.
Exactly no one with any brains is surprised. This is government working the way it always does, badly.
Right. The Interstate highway system was such a complete disaster. And who could ever forget the mistake called Hoover dam. The power grid and water system never did do what it was supposed to. Private enterprise and the free market were the only reason we had no air carrier fatalities for 10 years and don't get me started on the U.S. Army. A high-school football team could probably push them over.
Too bad we didn't just leave it all up to AC. What were we thinking.
While the Interstate system is a great success story, it spawned the very hurdles that CAHSR is trying to overcome. Highways were built by:
1. Siezing and demolishing everything they *might* need to use for a RoW
2. Completely ignoring anything resembling environmental impact
The only reason we have our successful system now is that by the time the legal system caught up and mechanisms to stop the "destruction" were put in place, most of it was already built.
Engineering, labor and materials costs have mostly kept up with inflation. At this point that's maybe 20% of the total cost of this project; the rest is in fighting lawsuits.
Righto. What did US private enterprise do to the electric trams that had spread across the US by a century ago? They ganged together (look closely at L.A. for one example) to get them destroyed and replaced with buses, selling engines and tires and ... and getting people to abandon them and proliferate private ownership of vehicles, and sell leaded gas. Then they got the government to foot the bill for the Interstate system (socializing the cost, privatizing the profits).
Fast forward a century and what is replacing the carbon-spewing traffic jams? Electric trams, now known as 'light rail'. NOT being paid for by private interests but by the taxpayers. Was that the best possible solution for modern mass transit? NO, but it was best for all of the private contractors ... in the same way that NASA paid out way more than SpaceX. Follow the money ... always.
'Studies' make the costs go up. 'Inventions' make the costs go down. Your choice, folks.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
...and the victims of "The Big Dig", we feel your pain.
I feel for those who had to suffer through the construction.... but as one of the tens of thousands of beneficiaries of the Big Dig,... It was worth it!!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's just what we tell people like you to keep you from moving to California.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Forget Hyperloop, even traditional tunneling costs are lower than this - let alone the costs Boring Company is looking for. While it's easy to focus on the most expensive, ridiculously priced urban tunnel projects in history, which can be over a billion dollars per mile, most tunnels are far cheaper. The Shanghai River crossing tunnel in China, for example, was $27m/mi. For tunnels in the western world, Westerschelde in the Netherlands was $60m per mile. For 11m diameter twin tunnels.
$10,6B for 119 miles is $89m per mile, primarily in "land acquisition", "relocating utility systems" and "the need for safety barriers" - none of which exist on a per-mile basis for a bored tunnel of sufficient depth. You don't even need improvements in boring technology to make tunnels more economical than this, you just need a reasonable bid on a fixed-price contract at current modern pricing. And if you bore, the number of miles can generally be reduced. It's just crazy that 119 miles from Wasco to Merced costs so much. Look at it on a map; it's just farmland.
"Lock and load, Brides of Christ!"
You could have a school with a capacity of 100,000 where the average student had a BSc/BA by 18 and 15% had PhDs by then, and teachers and researchers were paid a decent salary, and run it for 40 years on the same money. That includes the cost of building it. The benefit to the economy would be infinitely greater than the train system, which should have been built for far, far less. Maybe set the design of its replacement to the kids.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Bingo!! Anyone who commuted into Boston before the Big Dig and then after would say it was well worth it. I had to work in Cambridge last week and while there were backups, they only lasted 15 to 20 minutes. Before the Big Dig you could easily spend upwards of 60 minutes sitting in traffic. People who live directly in Boston may not see the benefits but the 80% of the population that commutes into Boston it's a huge difference.