It's probably going to be more than the US contribution of $50 billion in 1994 ($85 billion in 2018 dollars), but I think it would have to exceed $200 billion in real dollars to match the total real cost of the ISS.
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.
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.
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.
After looking at it some more, there's a relatively simple explanation. The initial cost estimate was $40 billion in 2008 (voters approved $9.95 billion in bonds).
The thing the LA Times and others are leaving out is that the CA high speed rail authority estimates are in year of expenditure dollars, not 2008 dollars or current dollars.
So what they're estimating is that by the time the line between socal and norcal is complete, around 2033, we'll have spent $77+ billion (up to $98 billion).
That's not $77-$98+ billion in 2008 dollars, it's $77-$98 billion in 2008 through 2033 dollars, depending on when those dollars are spent.
For instance, if we spend most of the money near the end of the project, and the total cost is ~$80 billion, that corresponds to $50+ billion in 2008 dollars. It's still higher than the initial estimate, but it's not nearly as high as going from $40 billion in 2008 dollars to $77+ billion in 2008 dollars.
It's both estimates and costs. Mostly estimates at this point from what I understand, unless they already finished the line through the central valley (scheduled for 2025) and haven't told anyone yet.
Comments
It's probably going to be more than the US contribution of $50 billion in 1994 ($85 billion in 2018 dollars), but I think it would have to exceed $200 billion in real dollars to match the total real cost of the ISS.
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.
After looking at it some more, there's a relatively simple explanation. The initial cost estimate was $40 billion in 2008 (voters approved $9.95 billion in bonds).
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Spee...
The thing the LA Times and others are leaving out is that the CA high speed rail authority estimates are in year of expenditure dollars, not 2008 dollars or current dollars.
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/business_plans/DRAFT_2016_B...
So what they're estimating is that by the time the line between socal and norcal is complete, around 2033, we'll have spent $77+ billion (up to $98 billion).
That's not $77-$98+ billion in 2008 dollars, it's $77-$98 billion in 2008 through 2033 dollars, depending on when those dollars are spent.
For instance, if we spend most of the money near the end of the project, and the total cost is ~$80 billion, that corresponds to $50+ billion in 2008 dollars. It's still higher than the initial estimate, but it's not nearly as high as going from $40 billion in 2008 dollars to $77+ billion in 2008 dollars.
Its not estimates that are high, its actualy costs that are high.
It's both estimates and costs. Mostly estimates at this point from what I understand, unless they already finished the line through the central valley (scheduled for 2025) and haven't told anyone yet.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/worst-case-scenario-h...