Posted Jan 24, 2018, 9:52 PM
|
 |
Show me the blueprints
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: on the artistic spectrum
Posts: 10,376
|
|
This was posted by someone named aquaticko over on SSC. I thought I would post it here because I couldn't have said it any better:
Quote:
To put these numbers in perspective, the entirety of the first phase of the project could double in cost--go from $64B to $128B--and still cost less than 5% of one year of California's GDP (~2.7 trillion in 2017). Considering that construction is projected to take about 13 years, and 13x2717=35,321, and 128/35,321=.0036, and therefore the annual cost of the project over the duration of construction will cost less than one-half of 1% of California's GDP, the state can easily afford this.
And this is only really a "cost" if one assumes that the alternative is to not spend anything on California's transportation infrastructure over the next 13 years--which is not actually an option.
I'm politically biased, but not geographically biased (I'm from faraway NH), and I can't help but think, over and over again, that opposition to this project is based far more on ideology than practicality.
|
__________________
Everything new is old again
There is no goodness in him, and his power to convince people otherwise is beyond understanding
|