The liberals $43 billion train to no where...

[theeedude]

So you'd be willing to pay $1000 a year more in taxes to help pay for the system?

It's under $100/person/year, if you divide out the cost over 20 years and projected CA population. Plus CA taxes are deductible on federal returns, plus federal infrastructure funds going to CA, so effectively around $50/person/year. But that assumes it's entirely taxpayer funded, and no ticket revenue. Also, people making money off construction will pay taxes and not collect unemployment. That is an offset. Additional tax revenue from economic activity, tourism, etc, enabled by this infrastructure. Central Valley cities that don't have airports will now have quick connection to LAX/SJC/SFO.
I would gladly pay more taxes to live in a better state.

I have an idea for a new slogan for Republicans:
Ask not what your country can do for you, tell your country it can't do anything.

 

[Darwin333]

I have a silly question. Why do these big projects cost us so much more to do these days? We built the Federal Interstate System, a project that took 35 years to complete, runs almost 48,000 miles and adjusted to 2006 dollars cost a total of $425B. Just for fun lets round it up and say that in 2015 dollars it cost an even half trillion dollars.

I know that this isn't an apples to apples comparison but it is pretty damn close. I imagine that laying track is roughly equivalent to building a 4 lane highway and the rest of the work is about the same exact work. Obviously the track needs more specific pieces of land because it needs to be straighter but still, 48,000 miles for half a trillion dollars. Now we should be much more efficient today but could you imagine how many trillions it would cost us to do build a single new coast to coast interstate today?

Just to give some reference, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, the longest bridge in the world period as of 2011 and now considered the longest bridge over water (continuous) in the entire world at 23.82 miles cost $57M in 1956 for both 2 lane spans (someone want to adjust that for inflation?). Katrina wiped out the twin spans in New Orleans, which is part of the interstate system I-10, in 2006 we built a pair of 3 lane bridges 5.4 miles long to replace the old fucked up ones, total cost was $831M.

The differences between the two projects are immense. They had to literally invent new ways to build the causeway. They couldn't transport the big ass concrete sections across land to the lake so they built an entirely new facility right on the lake, made the concrete pillars and roadways virtually on site, and barged them straight to where they were needed. It was also one of the first uses of pre-stressed concrete so cutting edge materials of the time were used.

The new Twin Spans didn't require purchasing a huge piece of property on site, construct a brand new plant for the sole purpose of building the components of the bridge and we have vastly more efficient machines that are absurdly more capable than what they had in the 50's.

Tl;Dr

Causeway = 2 bridges * 2 lanes each * 24 miles = 48 miles of bridge at a cost of $57M ($500M adjusted for inflation, thanks Eski) and required a new cutting edge concrete/big ass concrete road section and concrete pile making plant to be built on the lake and is the longest bridge in the damn world.

Twin spans = 2 bridges * 3 lanes each * 5.4 miles = 32.4 miles of bridge at a cost of $831M.

Edit: Mixed up $M and $B because of all the adjusting for inflation, thanks Eski

 

[fskimospy]

I have a silly question. Why do these big projects cost us so much more to do these days? We built the Federal Interstate System, a project that took 35 years to complete, runs almost 48,000 miles and adjusted to 2006 dollars cost a total of $425B. Just for fun lets round it up and say that in 2015 dollars it cost an even half trillion dollars.

I know that this isn't an apples to apples comparison but it is pretty damn close. I imagine that laying track is roughly equivalent to building a 4 lane highway and the rest of the work is about the same exact work. Obviously the track needs more specific pieces of land because it needs to be straighter but still, 48,000 miles for half a trillion dollars. Now we should be much more efficient today but could you imagine how many trillions it would cost us to do build a single new coast to coast interstate today?

Just to give some reference, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, the longest bridge in the world period as of 2011 and now considered the longest bridge over water (continuous) in the entire world at 23.82 miles cost $57M in 1956 for both 2 lane spans (someone want to adjust that for inflation?). Katrina wiped out the twin spans in New Orleans, which is part of the interstate system I-10, in 2006 we built a pair of 3 lane bridges 5.4 miles long to replace the old fucked up ones, total cost was $831M.

The differences between the two projects are immense. They had to literally invent new ways to build the causeway. They couldn't transport the big ass concrete sections across land to the lake so they built an entirely new facility right on the lake, made the concrete pillars and roadways virtually on site, and barged them straight to where they were needed. It was also one of the first uses of pre-stressed concrete so cutting edge materials of the time were used.

The new Twin Spans didn't require purchasing a huge piece of property on site, construct a brand new plant for the sole purpose of building the components of the bridge and we have vastly more efficient machines that are absurdly more capable than what they had in the 50's.

Tl;Dr

Causeway = 2 bridges * 2 lanes each * 24 miles = 48 miles of bridge at a cost of $57M (1956, not adjusted for inflation) and required a new cutting edge concrete/big ass concrete road section and concrete pile making plant to be built on the lake and is the longest bridge in the damn world.

Twin spans = 2 bridges * 3 lanes each * 5.4 miles = 32.4 miles of bridge at a cost of $831M.

What am I missing, how do we build the entire damn Federal Interstate system for cheaper than two side by side 5 1/2 mile long bridges????

You're mixing up millions and billions.

FYI: the bridge in 1956 cost about $500 million in current terms.

 

[Darwin333]

It's under $100/person/year, if you divide out the cost over 20 years and projected CA population. Plus CA taxes are deductible on federal returns, plus federal infrastructure funds going to CA, so effectively around $50/person/year. But that assumes it's entirely taxpayer funded, and no ticket revenue. Also, people making money off construction will pay taxes and not collect unemployment. That is an offset. Additional tax revenue from economic activity, tourism, etc, enabled by this infrastructure. Central Valley cities that don't have airports will now have quick connection to LAX/SJC/SFO.
I would gladly pay more taxes to live in a better state.

I have an idea for a new slogan for Republicans:
Ask not what your country can do for you, tell your country it can't do anything.

Besides, it is an infrastructure project. We didn't put tolls on the Interstate system so it generated absolutely no direct revenue. The economic activity it has generated is immeasurable and worth every dime invested. I have never understood the argument of infrastructure projects needing to directly pay for themselves through user fees. If it was profitable to do some private company would be trying to build, own and profit from it.

 

[Darwin333]

You're mixing up millions and billions.

FYI: the bridge in 1956 cost about $500 million in current terms.

Fixed it and thank you. So $500M to build the longest bridge in the world with cutting edge materials and brand new fabrication methods and 50 years later $831M to build a much shorter bridge with an extra lane and having the luxury of far superior machinery and not needing to build a new plant on site to construct bridge components.

Why?

 

[fskimospy]

Fixed it and thank you. So $500M to build the longest bridge in the world with cutting edge materials and brand new fabrication methods and 50 years later $831M to build a much shorter bridge with an extra lane and having the luxury of far superior machinery and not needing to build a new plant on site to construct bridge components.

Why?

I don't know nearly enough about the particulars of it to say.

I do know that now we do far more environmental and inpact studying and mitigation than we used to. That could certainly have played a part. Pretty much a wild guess though.

 

[Greenman]

It's under $100/person/year, if you divide out the cost over 20 years and projected CA population. Plus CA taxes are deductible on federal returns, plus federal infrastructure funds going to CA, so effectively around $50/person/year. But that assumes it's entirely taxpayer funded, and no ticket revenue. Also, people making money off construction will pay taxes and not collect unemployment. That is an offset. Additional tax revenue from economic activity, tourism, etc, enabled by this infrastructure. Central Valley cities that don't have airports will now have quick connection to LAX/SJC/SFO.
I would gladly pay more taxes to live in a better state.

I have an idea for a new slogan for Republicans:
Ask not what your country can do for you, tell your country it can't do anything.

At a hundred bucks per person per year, I'd be on board. I've never seen that figure floated by anyone. Where are you getting these numbers?
What I have seen is $3000 per household for construction cost, and a perpetual 3 to 1 subsidy for operations. For every buck the completed HSR system brings in, the tax payers have to add three.
I haven't seen any analyses that shows an overall economic impact that offsets the cost. Everything I've seen points to a system that will benefit the middle and upper class at cost to the poor.

Also, could we please avoid the foolish rhetoric, it brings nothing to the discussion, and quite honestly makes you appear childish. I'm interested in real information, not slogans or political disparagements.

 

[Greenman]

Fixed it and thank you. So $500M to build the longest bridge in the world with cutting edge materials and brand new fabrication methods and 50 years later $831M to build a much shorter bridge with an extra lane and having the luxury of far superior machinery and not needing to build a new plant on site to construct bridge components.

Why?

There are a thousand reasons why. Environmental studies add some to the cost. The levels of management behind each guy out there actually working is probably ten times what it was in the fifties, perhaps more. Labor costs are far greater, insurance far more expensive. All of that applies to to everything manufactured off site as well. The net result is that we do less work with more people and it takes a lot longer. It's progress.

 

[werepossum]

At a hundred bucks per person per year, I'd be on board. I've never seen that figure floated by anyone. Where are you getting these numbers?
What I have seen is $3000 per household for construction cost, and a perpetual 3 to 1 subsidy for operations. For every buck the completed HSR system brings in, the tax payers have to add three.
I haven't seen any analyses that shows an overall economic impact that offsets the cost. Everything I've seen points to a system that will benefit the middle and upper class at cost to the poor.

Also, could we please avoid the foolish rhetoric, it brings nothing to the discussion, and quite honestly makes you appear childish. I'm interested in real information, not slogans or political disparagements.

He's figuring it over twenty years, which is insane. It not only means there would be no expansion for twenty years, it assumes there will be no maintenance for twenty years, which clearly isn't the case. We can hope that ticket revenue will offset operating and maintenance costs, but clearly they aren't going to offset capital expenditures which aren't likely to stay away for twenty years. You also have to remember that while it might be $100 per person depending on what one assumes, probably not more than one person in four is paying taxes.

I don't think any honest person is really believing that this will pay for itself. The bigger questions IMO are whether the overall productivity boost is worth the cost and whether this project allows future projects to be implemented at lower cost. Not every venture has to be economically viable on its own. The national interstate system isn't, for example, yet clearly it's a great boon to the nation as a whole.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know nearly enough about the particulars of it to say.

I do know that now we do far more environmental and inpact studying and mitigation than we used to. That could certainly have played a part. Pretty much a wild guess though.

The new twin spans was built right next to the old one so I don't know why a new environmental study would be required but perhaps you are right.

It's just a trend that I see nationwide with new projects. Using the Interstate system as a baseline for what infrastructure should generally cost, new stuff seems to cost WAY more after adjusting for inflation.

Could you honestly envision us building 48,000 miles of interstate, bridges, tunnels, all the exits and turnpikes, ect... for half a trillion dollars today? Especially considering that a single 5.4 mile twin span bridge (albeit one lane bigger than the original) cost 1/500th of that. I imagine it would cost us many multiples of the original inflation adjusted cost.

Environmental studies can't be doubling to quadrupling the cost of building shit and if it is there is something horribly wrong with the system.

 

[Darwin333]

There are a thousand reasons why. Environmental studies add some to the cost. The levels of management behind each guy out there actually working is probably ten times what it was in the fifties, perhaps more. Labor costs are far greater, insurance far more expensive. All of that applies to to everything manufactured off site as well. The net result is that we do less work with more people and it takes a lot longer. It's progress.

So despite everything that shows we have become more efficient and more productive you are saying that we have become less efficient and less productive? Please elaborate because I can't comprehend how given just the advancement in tools and machinery. Using your above statement, shouldn't a PC cost tens of thousands of dollars at least?

There is actually a lot less management behind each guy out there working in the field because of our insane advancements in communications and computers. I'm in construction and in the 80's one project manager usually managed 2, MAYBE 3, projects at once. They had to actually go out to the jobsite to see progress, prints had to be hand drawn, etc. Today I am personally running 6 projects that are all currently in progress with another about to start up AND I still do a ton of bid work/estimating. If there is a problem on the jobsite my guy can snap a picture, email it to me and I email a solution back to him within 10 minutes. That used to require finding a landline, hoping the PM was near a land line, the PM having to drive out to the jobsite to solve the problem and then driving back to the office to get back to work on whatever he was working on.

I don't know what you are looking at but we also get much more productivity today than we did in the 80's. I don't have a reference to the 50's in my field but a crew of 8 guys might get 20 squares a day back in the 80's if they were good. I can and do get 40-50 squares out of an 8 man day today using similar materials. With some of the new systems that didn't exist in the 80's I can get 150 squares out of an 8 man crew given ideal circumstances which was a laughably impossible concept in the 80's.

 

[Darwin333]

I don't think any honest person is really believing that this will pay for itself. The bigger questions IMO are whether the overall productivity boost is worth the cost and whether this project allows future projects to be implemented at lower cost. Not every venture has to be economically viable on its own. The national interstate system isn't, for example, yet clearly it's a great boon to the nation as a whole.

Exactly. There are tons of benefits that are just about impossible to calculate like increase in commerce because it makes it easier or quicker or cheaper to travel within the state.

I absolutely despise toll roads and it isn't because of the few bucks, I could give a shit about that. Its the time and traffic it creates that pisses me off. Raise my sales tax or state income tax or whatever but screw tolls and the nickel and diming bullshit. Have you driven around east (pretty sure its east) Houston lately? I swear I hit 7 tolls driving on the same freeway over the course of maybe 12 miles and one of those tolls was to GET OFF at an exit! I gotta stop and pay to get on the damn road and then stop and pay to get off of it. I would have paid double the combined tolls if I only had to stop and pay for it once.

It probably added a good 15 minutes to my commute, I've never seen anything like that in my life and the per axle rate goes way the fuck up. I guarantee it is cheaper for 18 wheelers to avoid and go around the freeway altogether.

 

[schmuckley]

I don't think one should only look at the cost/benefit ratio alone. A lot of these decisions are made based on other factors. Being CA I'm sure greenhouse gas emissions factors hugely into building this project. I'm not going to say whether I agree or disagree with it, it's just how things work in the decision-making level, or at least how they are supposed to.

And I'm sure there was a lot of fighting when the alignment was selected, between municipalities who want stations in their cities for revenue/jobs. Most if not 100% of the decisions made are not engineering based- it's politics based.

Rail infrastructure does last a long time but you do need to maintain it, and CA has earthquakes...

..and then there's THAT

 

[werepossum]

So despite everything that shows we have become more efficient and more productive you are saying that we have become less efficient and less productive? Please elaborate because I can't comprehend how given just the advancement in tools and machinery. Using your above statement, shouldn't a PC cost tens of thousands of dollars at least?

There is actually a lot less management behind each guy out there working in the field because of our insane advancements in communications and computers. I'm in construction and in the 80's one project manager usually managed 2, MAYBE 3, projects at once. They had to actually go out to the jobsite to see progress, prints had to be hand drawn, etc. Today I am personally running 6 projects that are all currently in progress with another about to start up AND I still do a ton of bid work/estimating. If there is a problem on the jobsite my guy can snap a picture, email it to me and I email a solution back to him within 10 minutes. That used to require finding a landline, hoping the PM was near a land line, the PM having to drive out to the jobsite to solve the problem and then driving back to the office to get back to work on whatever he was working on.

I don't know what you are looking at but we also get much more productivity today than we did in the 80's. I don't have a reference to the 50's in my field but a crew of 8 guys might get 20 squares a day back in the 80's if they were good. I can and do get 40-50 squares out of an 8 man day today using similar materials. With some of the new systems that didn't exist in the 80's I can get 150 squares out of an 8 man crew given ideal circumstances which was a laughably impossible concept in the 80's.

In raw productivity we've certainly increased, but we now have a lot more obstacles. It isn't just environmental concerns, it's also safety and union regs and purely regulatory issues. Road construction has a LOT more people standing around at any one time, waiting on some inspector or some specialized trade to finish one small task. Tennessee DOT regulations for example require the pavers to be on the job site all day any paving day, even though they might actually work only one or two hours at the end of the day. Thus pavers must price eight hours instead of the one or two they'll be working, and even though they can pave more per hour than half a century ago, their cost per unit has still risen considerably. Union regulations require a separate guy to carry a welder's gear or move a truck, and such regulations are usually written into government contracts. OSHA regulations require onerous procedures (and documentation) that are designed to keep even the dimmest bulb safe under any imaginable circumstances, even though the circumstance driving the regulation might be vanishingly rare and the regulations are sometimes counter-productive as you pointed out. All these things add up.

My guess is that the biggest factor is labor, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Go back to when the interstate system was built or the really magnificent infrastructure was built and you'll find dirt cheap labor rates with the vast majority of workers earning a laborer's wages. Today laborers earn far more and we have tons of specialists who earn much, much more. Push that back to, say, 1913 and you'll find the specialists and managers much more rare and earning much less. Push it farther back and you'll find the same effect, so that in the Middle Ages a highly skilled journeyman mason would be earning perhaps 150% to 200% of a laborer's wages, and a laborer was among the poorest of the regularly employed. That labor premium makes everything more expensive. I say that's not necessarily a bad thing because high wages for skilled labor are an important part of a prosperous middle class. One could build an interstate highway much more cheaply in Vietnam or Nigeria than in America, yet we don't see much immigration into those countries.

 

[theeedude]

At a hundred bucks per person per year, I'd be on board. I've never seen that figure floated by anyone. Where are you getting these numbers?
What I have seen is $3000 per household for construction cost, and a perpetual 3 to 1 subsidy for operations. For every buck the completed HSR system brings in, the tax payers have to add three.
I haven't seen any analyses that shows an overall economic impact that offsets the cost. Everything I've seen points to a system that will benefit the middle and upper class at cost to the poor.

Also, could we please avoid the foolish rhetoric, it brings nothing to the discussion, and quite honestly makes you appear childish. I'm interested in real information, not slogans or political disparagements.

$3000/household over the 20 years it's going to be constructed. That's $150/year per household or maybe $50 per person, not $1000.

 

[Greenman]

$3000/household over the 20 years it's going to be constructed. That's $150/year per household or maybe $50 per person, not $1000.

But what about operational costs? The estimates I've seen say 2.5 billion a year of revenue, 8 billion a year cost. The discrepancy is made up by the taxpayers, and it looks to be about $1500 per year per household.

I would like to have some idea of what the rail system is going to do for the state before I commit to that kind of tax hike. A lot of people want this thing because they think it's some kind of status symbol. That sort of investment in vanity is foolish beyond any logic or reason. It's like buying a new BMW when your kids don't have shoes, and your rent is late.
I like the idea of HSR, but I don't like putting a very large tax burden on everyone to make life more convenient for a few.

I can be convinced to support the project, my mind can be changed, but it's going to take facts, not emotion. Right now it looks to me like this is going to be a very expensive method of subsidizing the travel of the upper middle class. Something I don't want to do.

 

[chowderhead]

But what about operational costs? The estimates I've seen say 2.5 billion a year of revenue, 8 billion a year cost. The discrepancy is made up by the taxpayers, and it looks to be about $1500 per year per household.

I would like to have some idea of what the rail system is going to do for the state before I commit to that kind of tax hike. A lot of people want this thing because they think it's some kind of status symbol. That sort of investment in vanity is foolish beyond any logic or reason. It's like buying a new BMW when your kids don't have shoes, and your rent is late.
I like the idea of HSR, but I don't like putting a very large tax burden on everyone to make life more convenient for a few.

I can be convinced to support the project, my mind can be changed, but it's going to take facts, not emotion. Right now it looks to me like this is going to be a very expensive method of subsidizing the travel of the upper middle class. Something I don't want to do.

It does nothing for the vast majority of people who commute up to 1 hour to and from work each day. It probably will take much needed money away from these local transit projects. It is a complete subsidy to business travelers and I seriously doubt it will be ever close to break even. It is a complete boondoogle.

 

[K1052]

But what about operational costs? The estimates I've seen say 2.5 billion a year of revenue, 8 billion a year cost. The discrepancy is made up by the taxpayers, and it looks to be about $1500 per year per household.

I would like to have some idea of what the rail system is going to do for the state before I commit to that kind of tax hike. A lot of people want this thing because they think it's some kind of status symbol. That sort of investment in vanity is foolish beyond any logic or reason. It's like buying a new BMW when your kids don't have shoes, and your rent is late.
I like the idea of HSR, but I don't like putting a very large tax burden on everyone to make life more convenient for a few.

I can be convinced to support the project, my mind can be changed, but it's going to take facts, not emotion. Right now it looks to me like this is going to be a very expensive method of subsidizing the travel of the upper middle class. Something I don't want to do.

Where the hell are you getting $8 billion annually in O&M?

 

[K1052]

It does nothing for the vast majority of people who commute up to 1 hour to and from work each day. It probably will take much needed money away from these local transit projects. It is a complete subsidy to business travelers and I seriously doubt it will be ever close to break even. It is a complete boondoogle.

Caltrain is using HSR money for the blended segment to electrify their system in the next few years. This lets them buy equipment that accelerates faster so they can add trains and boost capacity by almost double what it is today. I don't think many commuters will argue that it isn't needed. Electrification is a $1.5B project that would not have happened otherwise.

 

[Greenman]

Where the hell are you getting $8 billion annually in O&M?

Thats from the HSR website. They don't say eight billion, they say 2.5 to 3.5 billion projected revenue, and that they expect to need $3 in subsidies for every dollar in revenue to cover operating costs.

The numbers are all there, and they ain't pretty. I also discovered that they just settled their first lawsuit as well.

If this turns to another clusterfuck like the Bay Bridge, California will be the first state to declare bankruptcy. There is no way we could cover the absurd cost overruns like we had on the bridge. It ended up at seven times the estimated cost. We should have 28 lanes in each direction for what we paid. What we got was a bridge thats already broken, but it's ok because they think it's only going to cost another hundred million to fix it. Assuming it can be fixed, I have my doubts.

 

[theeedude]

But what about operational costs? The estimates I've seen say 2.5 billion a year of revenue, 8 billion a year cost. The discrepancy is made up by the taxpayers, and it looks to be about $1500 per year per household.

I would like to have some idea of what the rail system is going to do for the state before I commit to that kind of tax hike. A lot of people want this thing because they think it's some kind of status symbol. That sort of investment in vanity is foolish beyond any logic or reason. It's like buying a new BMW when your kids don't have shoes, and your rent is late.
I like the idea of HSR, but I don't like putting a very large tax burden on everyone to make life more convenient for a few.

I can be convinced to support the project, my mind can be changed, but it's going to take facts, not emotion. Right now it looks to me like this is going to be a very expensive method of subsidizing the travel of the upper middle class. Something I don't want to do.

Even if one were to accept your estimates, ($8B-$2.5B)/50M people = $110/year/person, or ~ $330/household. Where did you get $1500/household?

 

[K1052]

Thats from the HSR website. They don't say eight billion, they say 2.5 to 3.5 billion projected revenue, and that they expect to need $3 in subsidies for every dollar in revenue to cover operating costs.

The numbers are all there, and they ain't pretty. I also discovered that they just settled their first lawsuit as well.

If this turns to another clusterfuck like the Bay Bridge, California will be the first state to declare bankruptcy. There is no way we could cover the absurd cost overruns like we had on the bridge. It ended up at seven times the estimated cost. We should have 28 lanes in each direction for what we paid. What we got was a bridge thats already broken, but it's ok because they think it's only going to cost another hundred million to fix it. Assuming it can be fixed, I have my doubts.

I've seen the O&M estimate tables and projected cost is nowhere near what you are claim. IIRC, the high end scenario through Phase 1 blended was about $1.2B annually.

The Bay Bridge was an epic cluster because so many politicians stuck their noses (demanding design and facility changes) in it, Caltrains didn't use design-build to get it done, and bad timing for materials/labor cost. The HSR contracts are design-build which puts the cost responsibility largely on the contractor.

 

[Greenman]

I've seen the O&M estimate tables and projected cost is nowhere near what you are claim. IIRC, the high end scenario through Phase 1 blended was about $1.2B annually.

The Bay Bridge was an epic cluster because so many politicians stuck their noses (demanding design and facility changes) in it, Caltrains didn't use design-build to get it done, and bad timing for materials/labor cost. The HSR contracts are design-build which puts the cost responsibility largely on the contractor.

I'm not claiming anything. I read it at the HSR site. The three to one cost subsidy is there in the cost estimate. I didn't see a line item break down, as there was none attached to that particular report. I assumed the cost estimate was all inclusive, including term capitol expenditures and pensions.

Go look, it's certainly possible I'm misunderstanding the information presented. In fact I hope I am, because the project, as I'm understanding from the information there, will almost certainly be a bottomless money pit.

 

[K1052]

I'm not claiming anything. I read it at the HSR site. The three to one cost subsidy is there in the cost estimate. I didn't see a line item break down, as there was none attached to that particular report. I assumed the cost estimate was all inclusive, including term capitol expenditures and pensions.

Go look, it's certainly possible I'm misunderstanding the information presented. In fact I hope I am, because the project, as I'm understanding from the information there, will almost certainly be a bottomless money pit.

I have never seen the figures you are citing. Feel free to link them here.

 

[Genx87]

I have a silly question. Why do these big projects cost us so much more to do these days? We built the Federal Interstate System, a project that took 35 years to complete, runs almost 48,000 miles and adjusted to 2006 dollars cost a total of $425B. Just for fun lets round it up and say that in 2015 dollars it cost an even half trillion dollars.

I know that this isn't an apples to apples comparison but it is pretty damn close. I imagine that laying track is roughly equivalent to building a 4 lane highway and the rest of the work is about the same exact work. Obviously the track needs more specific pieces of land because it needs to be straighter but still, 48,000 miles for half a trillion dollars. Now we should be much more efficient today but could you imagine how many trillions it would cost us to do build a single new coast to coast interstate today?

Just to give some reference, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway, the longest bridge in the world period as of 2011 and now considered the longest bridge over water (continuous) in the entire world at 23.82 miles cost $57M in 1956 for both 2 lane spans (someone want to adjust that for inflation?). Katrina wiped out the twin spans in New Orleans, which is part of the interstate system I-10, in 2006 we built a pair of 3 lane bridges 5.4 miles long to replace the old fucked up ones, total cost was $831M.

The differences between the two projects are immense. They had to literally invent new ways to build the causeway. They couldn't transport the big ass concrete sections across land to the lake so they built an entirely new facility right on the lake, made the concrete pillars and roadways virtually on site, and barged them straight to where they were needed. It was also one of the first uses of pre-stressed concrete so cutting edge materials of the time were used.

The new Twin Spans didn't require purchasing a huge piece of property on site, construct a brand new plant for the sole purpose of building the components of the bridge and we have vastly more efficient machines that are absurdly more capable than what they had in the 50's.

Tl;Dr

Causeway = 2 bridges * 2 lanes each * 24 miles = 48 miles of bridge at a cost of $57M ($500M adjusted for inflation, thanks Eski) and required a new cutting edge concrete/big ass concrete road section and concrete pile making plant to be built on the lake and is the longest bridge in the damn world.

Twin spans = 2 bridges * 3 lanes each * 5.4 miles = 32.4 miles of bridge at a cost of $831M.

Edit: Mixed up $M and $B because of all the adjusting for inflation, thanks Eski

Dont even need to look that far back. Why did this project go from 34 billion to upwards of 70- 100 billion in just a few year? That is the issue I have with a lot of govt projects. The public is sold on one number. And I have yet to see a project come in under cost or a new revenue stream(tax) exceed expectations.