November 4, 201114 yr For those who still wonder why people are so down on government.... In 2008, the state of California sold it's voters on a high-speed rail system from LA to San Francisco. When approved by voters, the project was projected to cost $33 billion, and be complete by 2020. Current projections are now for a total cost of $98 billion, with completion by 2033. For those mathematically challenged, that's a cost increase of roughly 300%. And to make matters worse, the state currently has the money to complete only a short portion of the total run - namely from Fresno to Bakersfield - with no real plan for where the remaining funds will come from. This could potentially leave the Fresno - Bakersfield run as the only segment to ever reach fruition! For those that don't know CA, going from Fresno to Bakersfield is the equivalent of traveling from nowhere to next-to-nowhere. Anyone care to guess what Obamacare will actually cost if left intact?
November 4, 201114 yr For those who still wonder why people are so down on government.... In 2008, the state of California sold it's voters on a high-speed rail system from LA to San Francisco. When approved by voters, the project was projected to cost $33 billion, and be complete by 2020. Current projections are now for a total cost of $98 billion, with completion by 2033. For those mathematically challenged, that's a cost increase of roughly 300%. S Actually it's a 196% increase.
November 4, 201114 yr I'm going to guess that Obamacare will cost 65 billion. My question may be stupid so bear with me..... The rail system will be funded by California, correct? Will the cost of Obamacare make a difference in Caifornia getting the money they need to finish the rail system? How are the costs of these two connected? Isn't one federally funded and the other state funded or are the monies tied together somehow?
November 4, 201114 yr Author I'm going to guess that Obamacare will cost 65 million. My question may be stupid so bear with me..... The rail system will be funded by California, correct? Will the cost of Obamacare make a difference in Caifornia getting the money they need to finish the rail system? How are the costs of these two connected? Isn't one federally funded and the other state funded or are the monies tied together somehow? Sorry, just me being silly. The two things are completely unrelated. Just trying to make the point that gov't projects/programs never end up costing anywhere near the original projections. If a private company worked that way they'd be out of business fast.
November 4, 201114 yr Author Actually it's a 196% increase. You're right. I guess I should have said the final cost will be roughly 300% of original, or roughly 3 times higher than originally projected, or.... my head roughly hurts.
November 4, 201114 yr Sorry, just me being silly. The two things are completely unrelated. Just trying to make the point that gov't projects/programs never end up costing anywhere near the original projections. If a private company worked that way they'd be out of business fast. Gotcha. And very true. Another potential stupid question....the businesses who see these government projects through normally have friends high up in the government which allows them to receive these projects and the money that comes along with it, correct?
November 4, 201114 yr Author Gotcha. And very true. Another potential stupid question....the businesses who see these government projects through normally have friends high up in the government which allows them to receive these projects and the money that comes along with it, correct? Yes indeed. I believe at some point there was talk of keeping the entire project private, but nobody was willing to take it on - but not 100% sure on that. By no means am I against high-speed rail. Just gov't misleading voters with unrealistic cost & timing projections. I'd love to have high-speed rail between here (NKY) and Chicago, Indy, Philly, Boston, etc.
November 4, 201114 yr Okay, isn't CA the most in debt state in our country? How can they afford this?
November 4, 201114 yr For what its worth, an inland rail project is desperately needed in CA and $98 billion would be unbelievably cheap. In fact, the rise in price I would guess comes almost entirely from eminent domain/land acquisition costs alone, and should be paid without asking. This same argument occurred on the time/price projections for BART in the Bay Area years before its completion and BART has undeniably aided that City in transport. In fact, without BART you simply would not be able to navigate the Bay Area. Californians get laughed at regularly by the rest of the country, but they face the problems we face 20 years before we do and they can be very resourceful. Their ideas burn to the ground and then they arise from the ashes like a phoenix and find solutions. More than I can say for our state.
November 4, 201114 yr According Wikipedia, the only site that listed the cost of the system, the system needs $300,000,000 in tax money to stay in business each year. If the area needs the system, the riders should pay fares high enough to pay for the cost of the system. According to the 2005 stats, ridership was 18,564,000 for the year. Each trip would cost an extra $16 per ticket for the system to pay for itself.
November 4, 201114 yr Sorry, just me being silly. The two things are completely unrelated. Just trying to make the point that gov't projects/programs never end up costing anywhere near the original projections. If a private company worked that way they'd be out of business fast. I think that Halliburton is still in business .
November 5, 201114 yr Okay, isn't CA the most in debt state in our country? How can they afford this? They just passed the 'Dream Act'. Jerry Brown doesn't care about cost.
November 5, 201114 yr They just passed the 'Dream Act'. Jerry Brown doesn't care about cost. But he does care about people.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.