Hoover Dam was about 5 years. Came in two years early and under budget. Just sayin'.

Lumpmoose: Prices should be better with the down economy and contractors scrambling for work.

My guess is that it's not contracting prices, but land acquisition. Not knowing if they're doing this through eminent domain or not, I'm assuming that owners are holding out for better prices.

ArkAngel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Lumpmoose: Prices should be better with the down economy and contractors scrambling for work.

My guess is that it's not contracting prices, but land acquisition. Not knowing if they're doing this through eminent domain or not, I'm assuming that owners are holding out for better prices.

Prices of materials are up too. Increased demand from China, India, and Brazil

Yeah, a billion here and a billion there and eventually it adds up to real money.

Lumpmoose: That's bullshiat. Prices should be better with the down economy and contractors scrambling for work. California just needs someone to oversee it that cares about costs and isn't corrupt. Unless their first estimate was a complete fantasy.

Remember, this is a state whose legislature requires a simple majority to authorize spending but a two-thirds majority to pay for that same spending.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't care, build it. Lay these tracks between major cities and change how people move around in this country. It won't be easy or cheap. Neither was putting a man on the moon.

Because people are going to pay $75 per person to take a trip that would cost them $25 in gas and less time. Highspeed rail for the sake of highspeed rail is stupid at best. There are a very few routes were it would make sense (NYC to DC comes to mind), but 90% of the routes proposed will be money pits dragging down already taxed state budgets.

I have very little problem with a 130% cost overrun for something that creates infrastructure.

Neither should those on the right. After all, most of them had no problem with a $50 billion war turning into a $3 trillion dollar one.

vernonFL: It just circles San Bernadino Bernardino at 200 mph every night.

Sorry, former resident pet peeve.

If the government says something will cost $x, multiply times 3 for a more accurate projection.
If the government says something will raise $x, divide by 3.

Government always, always gives the rosiest, best case scenarios. Those very, very rarely ever come to pass.

EWreckedSean: Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't care, build it. Lay these tracks between major cities and change how people move around in this country. It won't be easy or cheap. Neither was putting a man on the moon.

Because people are going to pay $75 per person to take a trip that would cost them $25 in gas and less time. Highspeed rail for the sake of highspeed rail is stupid at best. There are a very few routes were it would make sense (NYC to DC comes to mind), but 90% of the routes proposed will be money pits dragging down already taxed state budgets.

$75 per person to go the 400 miles between LA and SF costs you $25 in gas?

Are you driving an electric car?

// the proposed route is twice that - 800 miles according to TFA
// also the SF-LA route is at least as necessary as NY-DC
// I travel DC-NY almost regularly (like 5-10 times/year), and to have high-speed rail that can do it in 90 minutes (as opposed to 4 hours plus traffic just to get to the GW bridge) would be fantastic
// I assume the west coast has need to move people between the two biggest cities there, as well

For 92 billion, they could build out a highly efficient mass transit system in LA that would be much better for the environment.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't care, build it. Lay these tracks between major cities and change how people move around in this country. It won't be easy or cheap. Neither was putting a man on the moon.

Yeah, let's build rail lines no one will use with tax-payer money but call privately built market priced toll roads racist, which makes the French racists since that's how they build almost all of their highways.

The only place HSR might have worked was the Boston-Washington corridor and they screwed it up. The west coast has too many mountains (imagine endless chunnel scale projects), the Great Lakes has too much snow (europe got a light dusting last year and high speed ground to a halt - even Japan has trouble in its snowy regions - imagine what would happen on the Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Chicago-Cleveland-Buffalo line - it would be useless 4 months of the year), and the rest of the country doesn't have the density.

I wonder how many days of Iraq and Afghanistan that translates to, for a permanent investment in the nations infrastructure that will reduce dependence on foreign energy.

ArkAngel:

Prices of materials are up too. Increased demand from China, India, and Brazil

Get used to that, for all commodities.

metztli: I have very little problem with a 130% cost overrun for something that creates infrastructure.

That money comes from somewhere, and a 130% overrun - before breaking ground - is absolutely farking ridiculous. That means it'll go significantly higher as the contractors' fleecing begins.

Put the Bay Area hub in Coyote Valley. Connect Caltrain to hub.
Put the Socal hub in Riverside/San Bernardino. Connect the Metrolink to the hub
Go underground in socal to bypass the mess of shiat down there.

How about we start with Lionel trains and work our way up?

justinguarini4ever: For 92 billion, they could build out a highly efficient mass transit system in LA that would be much better for the environment.

And we're done here.

HSR on the West Coast is an epic waste of federal money we don't have.

metztli: I have very little problem with a 130% cost overrun for something that creates infrastructure.

Neither should those on the right. After all, most of them had no problem with a $50 billion war turning into a $3 trillion dollar one.

The war killed a bunch of brown people with funny-sounding names. The infrastructure could possibly potentially maybe help brown people with funny-sounding names.

The war also helped line the pockets of oil companies. High-speed railroads could potentially reduce the amount of money people spend on gasoline.

The war in Iraq was started by a Republican President. High-speed rail is something favored by the current President, who is a Democrat.


Somehow I don't think the cost is the conservatives' problem with high-speed rail.

I don't see a problem. We piss away more on the other side of the planet killing dirt farmers all the time.

Our taxes are supposed to be helping us, here.

Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't care, build it. Lay these tracks between major cities and change how people move around in this country. It won't be easy or cheap. Neither was putting a man on the moon.

The US needs to make a serious investment in infrastructure with an emphasis on mass transit. Current dependence on oil and the impact on the economy of oil fluctuations is IMO a national security threat. Unfortunately the window for transition going the easy way has long passed. The US is now faced with doing this the hard way or they very hard way. Sadly, given the resistance to mass transit, I think I know which path will be taken.

EWreckedSean: Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't care, build it. Lay these tracks between major cities and change how people move around in this country. It won't be easy or cheap. Neither was putting a man on the moon.

Because people are going to pay $75 per person to take a trip that would cost them $25 in gas and less time. Highspeed rail for the sake of highspeed rail is stupid at best. There are a very few routes were it would make sense (NYC to DC comes to mind), but 90% of the routes proposed will be money pits dragging down already taxed state budgets.

It's cute how you think you will be able to drive anywhere besides the local grocery store for $25 dollars in gas ten years from now.

homeschooled: When the California government is estimating costs, always double triple and that's what it'll be.

You gotta factor in the environmental backlash and sabotage of equipment by Greenpeace.

When the California government is estimating savings, cut in half what they tell us and that's what it will be (on a good day).
laugh.
Duh.

You gotta factor in the indictments for fraud and resulting court litigation.

Hollie Maea: EWreckedSean: Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't care, build it. Lay these tracks between major cities and change how people move around in this country. It won't be easy or cheap. Neither was putting a man on the moon.

Because people are going to pay $75 per person to take a trip that would cost them $25 in gas and less time. Highspeed rail for the sake of highspeed rail is stupid at best. There are a very few routes were it would make sense (NYC to DC comes to mind), but 90% of the routes proposed will be money pits dragging down already taxed state budgets.

It's cute how you think you will be able to drive anywhere besides the local grocery store for $25 dollars in gas ten years from now.

Instead of starting a multi-year project in anticipation of such an event, let's just hold off until $10/gallon gas brings our economy to a screeching halt because we have no alternative methods of transportation. For America and Jesus. And because socialism.

metztli: I have very little problem with a 130% cost overrun for something that creates infrastructure.

Neither should those on the right. After all, most of them had no problem with a $50 billion war turning into a $3 trillion dollar one.

Infrastructure for infrastructures sake? We have tons of crumbling roads and bridges that the $100 billion would be better spent on.

HotWingConspiracy: I don't see a problem. We piss away more on the other side of the planet killing dirt farmers all the time.

Our taxes are supposed to be helping us, here.

I don't care how much it costs either unless there is fraud.

Almost $100B?

For that price California could just buy a Ford class aircraft carrier ($9b flyaway) and use it to shuttle people up and down the coast for the next 50 years.

It made perfect sense at the time.

Big Dig was already taken for a grossly over-budget project.

//what shall we name this one?

High Speed Fail

EWreckedSean: We have tons of crumbling roads and bridges that the $100 billion would be better spent on.

Lumpmoose: That's bullshiat. Prices should be better with the down economy and contractors scrambling for work. California just needs someone to oversee it that cares about costs and isn't corrupt. Unless their first estimate was a complete fantasy.

There is a kind of insurance (I can't remember the name) against going over budget. I think it should be mandatory on government projects, with the premiums included in the bid.

/Gads, what is the name of it? Stupid beer memory!

Dusk-You-n-Me: EWreckedSean: Because people are going to pay $75 per person to take a trip that would cost them $25 in gas and less time. Highspeed rail for the sake of highspeed rail is stupid at best. There are a very few routes were it would make sense (NYC to DC comes to mind), but 90% of the routes proposed will be money pits dragging down already taxed state budgets.

You have a list of ticket prices?

There are routes between major cities that do make sense, which is what I endorsed. I can't speak to your 90% claim. You must have the inside info on ticket prices and proposed routes.

They had a study done here in Florida on rail after 2000 when they temporarily had highspeed rail in our state Constitution, and it was pretty in-depth on comparative costs and travel times, and the numbers for it just didn't make it very appealing. In most cases driving was both faster and cheaper, even for a single traveler. I'll see if I can find it again.

"I said the crowd is unarmed! There are lots of women and children down there! All they want is food for-gods-sake! "

- The Butcher of Bakersfield

Snarfangel: There is a kind of insurance (I can't remember the name) against going over budget.

Termination by default?

Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't care, build it. Lay these tracks between major cities and change how people move around in this country. It won't be easy or cheap. Neither was putting a man on the moon.

Yup. I'm in Taiwan now which has an amazing high-speed rail system - fast, cheap, and a great ride. I can get to Taipei, an hour and a half otherwise, in 30 minutes for $10 US. The HSR has been great for the island - it provides tons of mobility for the labor force since it's cheap enough for daily commutes, is good for the tech industry, is great for the tourist industry, and has a whole host of other benefits. It was originally overcost and overtime to build, but good infrastructure pays for itself.

TeddyBallGame: Hoover Dam was about 5 years. Came in two years early and under budget. Just sayin'.

Of course, back in those days people weren't worried about ecological impacts and didn't have to do studies on potentially endangered species, or any of that other bullshiat.

I'm not saying we should go back to those ways, but there really does need to be a happy medium between the two extremes.

I'd be willing to bet this high-speed rail line isn't even close to complete in 19 years, much less 9.

Dr Dreidel: EWreckedSean: Dusk-You-n-Me: Don't care, build it. Lay these tracks between major cities and change how people move around in this country. It won't be easy or cheap. Neither was putting a man on the moon.

Because people are going to pay $75 per person to take a trip that would cost them $25 in gas and less time. Highspeed rail for the sake of highspeed rail is stupid at best. There are a very few routes were it would make sense (NYC to DC comes to mind), but 90% of the routes proposed will be money pits dragging down already taxed state budgets.

$75 per person to go the 400 miles between LA and SF costs you $25 in gas?

Are you driving an electric car?

// the proposed route is twice that - 800 miles according to TFA
// also the SF-LA route is at least as necessary as NY-DC
// I travel DC-NY almost regularly (like 5-10 times/year), and to have high-speed rail that can do it in 90 minutes (as opposed to 4 hours plus traffic just to get to the GW bridge) would be fantastic
// I assume the west coast has need to move people between the two biggest cities there, as well

1) It's not going to be 90 minutes. They've already said that unless the elevate the train, which would cost exponentially more, the population density will put a top speed on the rail that is no where near the 200mph trains we see other places.

2) If you are doing that route 10 times a year I would hope you would have heard of the Acela Express

3) I was using the $75 versus $25 based on the local rail they wanted to build from Orlando to Tampa That was around the price that was floated for that stretch which is probably about 60 miles or so. Good only knows how much an 800 mile stretch would be, but chances are you could hop a commuter plane cheaper.

4) The US already has a commuter plane system in place to hop between cities like that. basically these trains will decimate a private market for no good reason.

metztli: After all, most of them had no problem with a $50 billion war turning into a $3 trillion dollar one.

I thought Wolfowitz said it would pay for itself.

I'm beginning to wonder whether I should trust those Bush/Cheney Fellas.

The only place I can see it being useful is in Texas (DFW, San Antonio, Houston). Hell, there were plans for it once in the early 90s but Southwest lobbied against it since that is how they made their money serving the large cities.

Dusk-You-n-Me: It's hard to imagine how much better off America would be if we had a similarly efficient and well maintained system in place here.

But we're the greatest country in the history of the world! And we can't afford (tm) basic infrastructure upgrades!