California bullet train cost surges by $2.8 billion: 'Worst-case scenario has happened'

[Genx87]

I look around me and I see roads, bridges, trains, subways, etc. All over America. We couldn't have been that bad at it or we'd still be in the stone age.

If NYC is incompetent at building infrastructure in 2019, then NYC is incompetent at building infrastructure in 2019. Similarly, if one big project in CA has big cost overruns, then one big project in CA has big cost overruns. These are likely issues related to the particulars of these places as well as these particular projects.

I agree that NIMBYISM is a problem not only for building infrastructure, but housing as well. If the problem continues to get worse and we are facing decaying infrastructure, we may have to alter our laws to shift the balance we currently strike between property rights and the public's interest in having more housing and infrastructure.

Either way, someonesmind is exaggerating here. If our government screwed up everything it did, we'd all be living in huts, eating rocks and twigs, not being the most powerful and successful country in the history of the earth.

I think it was K1052 who explained how these contracts are negotiated. A lot of times or maybe all the time a contractor lowballs the bid, gets the bid, then as the the process moves along the trues costs of the project come through. And the contracts lack a cost sharing provision. So if some contractor wins the bid at 8 bucks, but the true cost will be 18 bucks. The tax payers typically pick up the 10 bucks in difference. Where the reality is the govt should be negotiating a cost sharing. So the contractor eats 5 bucks in cost for the 10 dollar override. It seems to be universal any govt contract is going to have cost overruns. A lot of them criminal imo.

Forgive me if I got the wrong person who explained that to me about a year go @K1052

 

[K1052]

I think it was K1052 who explained how these contracts are negotiated. A lot of times or maybe all the time a contractor lowballs the bid, gets the bid, then as the the process moves along the trues costs of the project come through. And the contracts lack a cost sharing provision. So if some contractor wins the bid at 8 bucks, but the true cost will be 18 bucks. The tax payers typically pick up the 10 bucks in difference. Where the reality is the govt should be negotiating a cost sharing. So the contractor eats 5 bucks in cost for the 10 dollar override. It seems to be universal any govt contract is going to have cost overruns. A lot of them criminal imo.

Forgive me if I got the wrong person who explained that to me about a year go @K1052

It sounds like something I'd write but I don't recall. It's true enough and a prime reason why the lowest bid should NEVER be accepted. Unrealistically low bids are cancer for any major project and should be tossed if they don't reflect reality. Unless the consequences of a major underbid are the contractor literally going out of business you can rest assured they are making it up.

From the client side scope creep and change orders also wreak havoc with budgets and there is so little concern about cost containment. We probably shouldn't be doing anything that isn't design-build with super rigid cost controls.

 

[glenn1]

It sounds like something I'd write but I don't recall. It's true enough and a prime reason why the lowest bid should NEVER be accepted. Unrealistically low bids are cancer for any major project and should be tossed if they don't reflect reality. Unless the consequences of a major underbid are the contractor literally going out of business you can rest assured they are making it up.

From the client side scope creep and change orders also wreak havoc with budgets and there is so little concern about cost containment. We probably shouldn't be doing anything that isn't design-build with super rigid cost controls.

It's not all on the bidders (or I'm guessing likely even mostly on them). Large entities (especially but not only governments) are generally pretty poor about actually taking the time to figure out what they want before they go buying it or selecting a contractor to build it. Basically if they write a $5MM contract they use the first $3MM as an exercise in market research and actually figuring out their requirements and then the contract winds up costing $8MM. or $10MM. Or they spend $10MM and never get it built period and just scrap the entire thing.

 

[K1052]

It's not all on the bidders (or I'm guessing likely even mostly on them). Large entities (especially but not only governments) are generally pretty poor about actually taking the time to figure out what they want before they go buying it or selecting a contractor to build it. Basically if they write a $5MM contract they use the first $3MM as an exercise in market research and actually figuring out their requirements and then the contract winds up costing $8MM. or $10MM. Or they spend $10MM and never get it built period and just scrap the entire thing.

Most infrastructure is design-bid-build so the client has a pretty firm idea of what they want done. There is a revolving door of people between the large infra contractors and the agencies soliciting the bids so it's well understood where the holes in the process are that will let the contractor bid low and build high while wildly increasing their profits. Complicating the issue is that few companies are qualified to conduct this kind of work (or production if you're doing something like buying trains) because the opportunities for work are relatively few and far between even if the jobs themselves are high dollar.

 

[Greenman]

Uhmm, California's population is increasing, not decreasing.



There are literally studies that do exactly this already there about this project?

Everything I've read claims otherwise. I haven't personally kept count, so I can't verify the information.

 

[fskimospy]

Everything I've read claims otherwise. I haven't personally kept count, so I can't verify the information.

I'm not aware of any information that says California's population is declining. More residents are leaving California than are moving in to it from other states, but the overall population is still increasing due to births, etc.

Here's up through 2017, the most recent data I think is available.

 

[realibrad]

Uhmm, California's population is increasing, not decreasing.



There are literally studies that do exactly this already there about this project?

Is that increase due to People from other states moving into CA, or, population growth from foreign immigration and natives having kids?

Does not change that he was wrong, but, I was wondering.

 

[Viper1j]

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-bullet-train-cost-overrun-20180116-story.html

When it comes to large infrastructure investments, it is not unusual for public authorities trying to justify their effort to understate the costs and overstate the benefits,” said James Moore, director of the transportation engineering program at USC. “It is in my opinion overly deceptive. We have seen on transportation projects this militant defense that is meant to cause the public to remain calm.”

Moore said the surge in costs is likely to foreshadow even greater future increases. On the horizon are more difficult segments, such as the long underground passage through the Tehachapi and San Gabriel Mountains and the route into the urban San Francisco Bay Area.



I hate this because we need more public transportation in this country and yet we seem incapable of following through. As a country we need density, less cars, more public transportation, etc. The rest of the world far surpasses us in rail tech, it’s time we try and catch up.

They can always say.. "But what about Donny's magical wall?"

 

[fskimospy]

Is that increase due to People from other states moving into CA, or, population growth from foreign immigration and natives having kids?

Does not change that he was wrong, but, I was wondering.

#2 and #3. #1 is a net loss to California. (primarily due to housing costs!)

 

[realibrad]

#2 and #3. #1 is a net loss to California. (primarily due to housing costs!)

Globally, developed countries are having big population shortages, and immigration is the only thing that is driving growth for almost all the developed countries. Korea, Germany, US. Hell, even China is facing a massive population decline soon.

 

[Genx87]

Globally, developed countries are having big population shortages, and immigration is the only thing that is driving growth for almost all the developed countries. Korea, Germany, US. Hell, even China is facing a massive population decline soon.

It is kind of amazing the list you put up. Korea, Germany, most of Western Europe and the US\Canada are all seeing declines in births from their native population due to capitalism imo. China is the opposite. They will see a giant decline in population due to state policy of 1 child from a totalitarian communist party. It is the same end result from polar opposite ideologies.

I have heard China is set to lose about 300 million total over the next 3 decades.

 

[Greenman]

I'm not aware of any information that says California's population is declining. More residents are leaving California than are moving in to it from other states, but the overall population is still increasing due to births, etc.

Here's up through 2017, the most recent data I think is available.

Interesting. I'm going to have to go find the article I was reading. Either it misrepresented the information, or I misunderstood it. Probably my error.

 

[realibrad]

It is kind of amazing the list you put up. Korea, Germany, most of Western Europe and the US\Canada are all seeing declines in births from their native population due to capitalism imo. China is the opposite. They will see a giant decline in population due to state policy of 1 child from a totalitarian communist party. It is the same end result from polar opposite ideologies.

I have heard China is set to lose about 300 million total over the next 3 decades.

I would say it's more to people moving out of poverty than capitalism.

But yeah, population growth from immigration is very important.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

It's this:

Versus this:

That pic tells me we should be investing heavily in Amtrak to upgrade every existing line east of Chicago. The two routes between Chicago and NYC, the Lake Shore Limited and Cardinal, run once a day each direction and are slow as shit. If you're in one of the cities along either route you probably have service in the middle of the night (once going each direction). Completely worthless. And the solution isn't to eliminate the routes, but instead increase frequency and improve the lines to make them faster.

 

[chowderhead]

The MTA does not have any HSR service, it's an (incredibly poorly run) umbrella agency for local and commuter transit. Amtrak NEC operations (especially Acela) are very profitable. These are the facts

the MTA is not comparable to HSR or the Acela. Most people commute less than 1 hour to and from work each day. The billions flushed down the drain should have been spent upgrading local transit and making local commute better. This HSR boondoggle was sold on misinformation, pie in the sky projections and outright lies that the backers knew full well they could not deliver. The same people behind the Big Dig in Boston was also behind this project.

 

[zinfamous]

Interesting. I'm going to have to go find the article I was reading. Either it misrepresented the information, or I misunderstood it. Probably my error.

that chart shows that the annual pop growth rate is declining, while the total population is steadily increasing. You probably read the former as an indicator of overall population, or it was presented as such.

 

[manly]

Can you explain why trains are utilized so much on the east coast and in the rest of the world but you think won’t be utilized on the west coast?

I explained exactly why in my post that you quoted: economics. Projections on what the cost of a bullet train ticket from L.A. to SF appear to be significantly higher than the common cost of air travel. The short haul routes from SoCal to SF Bay are highly competitive and as long as you plan ahead, flights tend to be dirt cheap.

Mind you that the CA HSR authority mostly fudged its numbers to make the project appear more feasible than experts contend it will be. IIRC they originally said the full system cost is around $60B when the bond measure was approved. Later, an independent estimate spiked to nearly $100B before the rail authority went back and somehow magically released an updated plan for just under $70B. Nobody actually believes you can build the full system for anywhere around $70B. Even $100B might be optimistic.

My point is two-fold. The estimated fare costs from the CA HSR authority are probably highly optimistic. Generally speaking, consumers will choose the lowest cost option. They aren't going to care about the externalities of carbon emissions where HSR would significantly improve over jet travel. If HSR is double the cost of the plane ticket, they're going to fly each and every time.

Secondly, I'm fully in favor of HSR in concept but I voted against the bond measure because I didn't believe my state govt could execute it at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. My opinion hasn't changed a bit; in fact the way the project has been planned and executed has probably been worse than I had imagined. Lastly, while the Trump admin is clearly fucking with CA state by revoking funding and even trying to claw back billions $, I wonder if there's a silver lining to be seen after all. Despite Gov. Newsom's protests, the current project is clearly a "train to nowhere" and if the feds help kill the program sooner rather than later, that might be a net win for the residents of CA.

 

[DCal430]

I see a lot of comparison to Europe, but the high speed rail being built in California is considerably more advanced than anything in Europe. California HSR must have an average speed of over 200 MPH, far higher than anything in Europe. Their is no high speed rail system that currently meets the requirements that California has.

 

[fskimospy]

I explained exactly why in my post that you quoted: economics. Projections on what the cost of a bullet train ticket from L.A. to SF appear to be significantly higher than the common cost of air travel. The short haul routes from SoCal to SF Bay are highly competitive and as long as you plan ahead, flights tend to be dirt cheap.

Mind you that the CA HSR authority mostly fudged its numbers to make the project appear more feasible than experts contend it will be. IIRC they originally said the full system cost is around $60B when the bond measure was approved. Later, an independent estimate spiked to nearly $100B before the rail authority went back and somehow magically released an updated plan for just under $70B. Nobody actually believes you can build the full system for anywhere around $70B. Even $100B might be optimistic.

My point is two-fold. The estimated fare costs from the CA HSR authority are probably highly optimistic. Generally speaking, consumers will choose the lowest cost option. They aren't going to care about the externalities of carbon emissions where HSR would significantly improve over jet travel. If HSR is double the cost of the plane ticket, they're going to fly each and every time.

What is your basis for saying the tickets will be much more expensive? Is it based on anything or is simply that because construction costs were higher that operating costs would be higher?

As far as people electing to fly, I’m not so sure. Train tickets in the northeast are often similarly priced to airplane tickets but the train is heavily used because it is more convenient and more comfortable. In addition we should probably be implementing significant carbon taxes somewhere in the air pipeline in order to cover their true cost of operation.

I mean the economics case might not be there but every analysis I’ve seen from nonpartisan sources suggests otherwise.

Secondly, I'm fully in favor of HSR in concept but I voted against the bond measure because I didn't believe my state govt could execute it at a reasonable cost to taxpayers. My opinion hasn't changed a bit; in fact the way the project has been planned and executed has probably been worse than I had imagined. Lastly, while the Trump admin is clearly fucking with CA state by revoking funding and even trying to claw back billions $, I wonder if there's a silver lining to be seen after all. Despite Gov. Newsom's protests, the current project is clearly a "train to nowhere" and if the feds help kill the program sooner rather than later, that might be a net win for the residents of CA.

Why do you think the United States is incapable of building the same things that the rest of the world has little trouble with? What policies should we change to make this easier?

 

[manly]

What is your basis for saying the tickets will be much more expensive? Is it based on anything or is simply that because construction costs were higher that operating costs would be higher?

As far as people electing to fly, I’m not so sure. Train tickets in the northeast are often similarly priced to airplane tickets but the train is heavily used because it is more convenient and more comfortable. In addition we should probably be implementing significant carbon taxes somewhere in the air pipeline in order to cover their true cost of operation.

I mean the economics case might not be there but every analysis I’ve seen from nonpartisan sources suggests otherwise.

The HSR agency had estimated one-way fares a few years back (presumably when cost projections were rosier than they are now):
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/fare-cost-ride-california-bullet-train

I guess I remembered wrong, $86 one way is a competitive fare compared to air travel. Nevertheless I regularly fly this highly competitive route for $60 one way (sometimes more, sometimes even less) when I book ahead. So while $86 (IF it happens) is palatable, it's not blowing air travel out of the water.

Obviously at this point, we can't trust much of what the state HSR agency has (mis)planned, so it's impossible to say when the L.A. to SF system might be operational, and what fares will cost. And that's even before Gov. Newsom torpedoed the project when he admitted that the money isn't there (before claiming that he had been misrepresented, that his intention was not to cut out the legs from under the project).

Why do you think the United States is incapable of building the same things that the rest of the world has little trouble with? What policies should we change to make this easier?

There are many factors, some unavoidable such as regulatory framework. We aren't China, and we can't expect to build infrastructure as China does. As someone else stated earlier in this thread, we should just hire the Germans to do it.

But for starters, politics plays an outsized role in making big projects much more expensive than they should be. There is a little logic to routing HSR through the Central Valley but this was done just to get inland counties onboard politically. There were numerous flawed decisions, often with some political basis.

I wouldn't be surprised if the only part of the system that's ever built is from Fresno to Madera.

 

[realibrad]

The HSR agency had estimated one-way fares a few years back (presumably when cost projections were rosier than they are now):
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/fare-cost-ride-california-bullet-train

I guess I remembered wrong, $86 one way is a competitive fare compared to air travel. Nevertheless I regularly fly this highly competitive route for $60 one way (sometimes more, sometimes even less) when I book ahead. So while $86 (IF it happens) is palatable, it's not blowing air travel out of the water.

Obviously at this point, we can't trust much of what the state HSR agency has (mis)planned, so it's impossible to say when the L.A. to SF system might be operational, and what fares will cost. And that's even before Gov. Newsom torpedoed the project when he admitted that the money isn't there (before claiming that he had been misrepresented, that his intention was not to cut out the legs from under the project).

There are many factors, some unavoidable such as regulatory framework. We aren't China, and we can't expect to build infrastructure as China does. As someone else stated earlier in this thread, we should just hire the Germans to do it.

But for starters, politics plays an outsized role in making big projects much more expensive than they should be. There is a little logic to routing HSR through the Central Valley but this was done just to get inland counties onboard politically. There were numerous flawed decisions, often with some political basis.

I wouldn't be surprised if the only part of the system that's ever built is from Fresno to Madera.

If they could have built something from Tracy Manteca area into the Bay Area, I think that could have worked and been quite useful.

If the only thing is Madera to Fresno, then I imagine its going to have to shut down at some point. I can't imagine a lot of people going from Madera to Fresno.

 

[K1052]

If they could have built something from Tracy Manteca area into the Bay Area, I think that could have worked and been quite useful.

If the only thing is Madera to Fresno, then I imagine its going to have to shut down at some point. I can't imagine a lot of people going from Madera to Fresno.

The problem remains that there is no transbay capacity to move standard gauge trains from East Bay to SF. There is recent talk of a new transbay tube that would have 2 tracks for standard rail and 2 BART track. Assuming that was done I'd consider converting the BART right of way from Castro Valley to Dublin to standard gauge that Caltrain and HSR could use. From there getting over Altamont is pretty straight forward and doesn't require tunneling.

 

[zinfamous]

The HSR agency had estimated one-way fares a few years back (presumably when cost projections were rosier than they are now):
https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/fare-cost-ride-california-bullet-train

I guess I remembered wrong, $86 one way is a competitive fare compared to air travel. Nevertheless I regularly fly this highly competitive route for $60 one way (sometimes more, sometimes even less) when I book ahead. So while $86 (IF it happens) is palatable, it's not blowing air travel out of the water.

Obviously at this point, we can't trust much of what the state HSR agency has (mis)planned, so it's impossible to say when the L.A. to SF system might be operational, and what fares will cost. And that's even before Gov. Newsom torpedoed the project when he admitted that the money isn't there (before claiming that he had been misrepresented, that his intention was not to cut out the legs from under the project).

There are many factors, some unavoidable such as regulatory framework. We aren't China, and we can't expect to build infrastructure as China does. As someone else stated earlier in this thread, we should just hire the Germans to do it.

But for starters, politics plays an outsized role in making big projects much more expensive than they should be. There is a little logic to routing HSR through the Central Valley but this was done just to get inland counties onboard politically. There were numerous flawed decisions, often with some political basis.

I wouldn't be surprised if the only part of the system that's ever built is from Fresno to Madera.

What's the average travel time for you from your gate at LAX to downtown/wherever you tend to go when traveling to LA (or when returning). I think people that are unfamiliar with train travel tend to neglect the huge time sink, especially post 9-11, involved in actually negotiating airports. IME, it's at least +3+ hours, departing and arriving, for every trip.

Most trains, especially commuter trains, are centrally-located and essentially operate on walk-up schedules for passengers.

 

[glenn1]

What is your basis for saying the tickets will be much more expensive? Is it based on anything or is simply that because construction costs were higher that operating costs would be higher?

Nice attempt to flip the burden for proving estimates of future ticket cost to those who question the value of the train from those who want it built. And yes a business case generally accounts for the up-front capital costs when calculating the future operating costs because train tracks and rolling stock doesn't magically materialize out of thin air and is part of the TCO to compare HSR versus alternatives and opportunity costs. If you want to take the position that ticket cost doesn't matter to would-be customers because HSR is such a great thing and the government should subsidize HSR to whatever extent is needed (to fight climate change or whatever) when it inevitably runs at huge operating losses then do that, but setting down an imaginary marker like "you can't prove the tickets will be more expensive" is exactly why the Governor shitcanned the train.

 

[fskimospy]

Nice attempt to flip the burden for proving estimates of future ticket cost to those who question the value of the train from those who want it built. And yes a business case generally accounts for the up-front capital costs when calculating the future operating costs because train tracks and rolling stock doesn't magically materialize out of thin air and is part of the TCO to compare HSR versus alternatives and opportunity costs. If you want to take the position that ticket cost doesn't matter to would-be customers because HSR is such a great thing and the government should subsidize HSR to whatever extent is needed (to fight climate change or whatever) when it inevitably runs at huge operating losses then do that, but setting down an imaginary marker like "you can't prove the tickets will be more expensive" is exactly why the Governor shitcanned the train.

I honestly have no idea what you're ranting about.