California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project: governor

Re:California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project... by jerf on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @04:50PM (#19147925)

"there's probably some multiplying effect in making the central valley more connected"

There is no law of the universe that says a multiplier must be greater than 1.0. It is entirely possible, and indeed, easy to build a piece of infrastructure that will never pay back.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project... by Wowfunhappy on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @05:01PM (#19148033)

Well, it's at least better than a multiplier of "0", which would be the result of "lighting money on fire".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project... by jakebol on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @05:11PM (#19148121)

Even after such infrastructure is built, a > 0 multiplier assumes the economic impact of the project would be greater than the lifetime costs of upkeep and maintenance of the infrastructure (and current and future taxes to support such infrastructure + interest on debt payments used in its initial construction). And excludes the opportunity cost of allocating that future capital to other projects. Ex. NY still throws money into the canal project, even though the canal has long since been economically unviable (but politically it is still viable and so it remains...).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project... by ummonk on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @07:18PM (#19149119)

Lighting $10 on fire is a lot better than spending $100 and getting $50 back. You take a bigger net loss with the latter move.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project... by geezerjay on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @02:17PM (#19155832)

> Lighting $10 on fire is a lot better than spending $100 and getting $50 back.

That's not how the math works with infrastructure projects.

With infrastructure projects there is the upfront cost and immediate returns, but there are also all other externalities and savings from shift in consumer demand and, for example, urban renewal and requalification.

For instance, how much would you save if you cut on the number of cars entering a urban center? This means less pollution, less traffic, less commutting times, etc etc etc

Does that have no value?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project... by jerf on Wednesday February 13, 2019 @09:01AM (#19153106)

There's no guarantee the multiplier has to be positive, either. And that's before you consider opportunity cost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project... by electrograv on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @04:55PM (#19147968)

> There is no law of the universe that says a multiplier must be greater than 1.0. It is entirely possible, and indeed, easy to build a piece of infrastructure that will never pay back.

Just because there’s no law of the universe that prevents you from throwing money down the drain, doesn’t mean you ought to do so.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California will not complete $77B high-speed rail project... by jerf on Tuesday February 12, 2019 @04:55PM (#19147978)

That's a non-sequitor to my post.

[ Parent | on HN ]