In 2008, Prop 1A offered high speed rail to Californians. It sold a vision of 220 mph trains connecting SF and LA by 2020, with extensions to San Diego and Sacramento, all without raising taxes. A slim majority of Californian voters believed in this vision, and voted yes.<p>15 years later, the project is more than 15 years behind schedule, give or take. Instead of taking 12 years to connect SF and LA, it's now taking 22-25 years to connect Merced and Bakersfield (the easy middle third), with no timeline at all for connecting San Jose and Anaheim.<p>The estimated cost of the project has ballooned from $33B (~$1,000 per Californian) to $88B-$128B (~$3,000 per Californian), a figure that almost seems certain to be an underestimate given the monotonic climb of past estimates.<p>And remember, the cost of $3,000 per Californian is not the cost of getting to ride the train between SF and LA. It's the cost of getting the OPTION to buy tickets for a train that's slower than planes, more expensive than planes, and projected to operate at a loss and need further taxpayer subsidy.<p>When I read the project's current marketing materials, I feel saddened.<p>The project managers brag that the project has <i>generated</i> ~$14B in <i>economic output</i>.<p>But their accounting is reversed. Until the first passenger takes a trip, the project has <i>CONSUMED</i> ~$14B in economic <i>INPUTS</i>.<p>There is no economic output of a half-built train that doesn't run. At that point, you might as well have been paying people to dig holes in the desert or construct pyramids. The value of labor is not when a bank computer subtracts a number from an employer's account and adds it to an employee's account. The value of labor is the utility that that labor produces.<p>Similarly, the project managers brag about the environmental benefits of the project.<p>But again, until the first point at which a flight is replaced by a train trip, the environmental impact of rail construction is entirely negative. If you pour concrete, mine iron, smelt steel, and rip up habitats, those are all environmental costs. Benefits don't accrue until the first airline defers a flight due to diminished demand.<p>Ultimately, the goal of transit programs should be to transport people.<p>If you run transit programs with the goals of (a) creating jobs or (b) signalling your commitment to transit, then you can very easily run into trouble, as cost overruns start to look like good things. Spending more money just mean you’ve created more jobs, and that you're signalling even stronger commitment to transit.<p>Put simply: If you run a project with the goal of paying contractors, it's very easy to get ripped off by contractors. You both have the same goal.