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.
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).
Losing its vitality, though http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-metro-ridership-201...
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.
Honestly, given the difference in land values and regulation, that doesn’t seem entirely unreasonable.
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.
I'd prefer those taxes to instead go somewhere useful, like paying teachers better.
Isn't this what eminent domain was created for? Shouldn't California state have the ability to make things happen for its own rail projects?
And it's not even a maglev. A maglev would've been way cooler.
https://www.space.com/9435-international-space-station-worth...
Still, at > 2 times the real original estimated cost, it's a good example of why we should go high instead of low when it comes to estimates.
I'm also curious how much it would cost to build out the same capacity via airport construction/expansion. If we're at more than double the cost running rail lines through the central valley, imagine how much building another LAX, SFO, SAN, etc... would be.
It's also a good example of why no one goes high when it comes to estimates.
The realized cost is now to a point where it'd be politically unpalatable to approve the project. But since it's already in process, approving the incremental funds is essentially inevitable and won't cause much political backlash.
These estimates aren't low by accident. They're generally as optimistic as possible while still being in the realm of marginally plausible (even if wildly improbable). Once the ball gets approved and rolling, the momentum alone is usually enough to hurdle past objections as estimates meet reality, while diffusing responsibility (and therefore repercussions) along the way.
They've already started it? Never too late to stop a disaster. It'll be $150B by the time it's finished.
You could just sorta guarantee this would happen -- the nimbyism in California is like full-tilt. I'd suspect the costs will go up even more from here and the time to completion will be even longer than this
It's a shame we can't have nice things here.
