From Marginal Revolution:
More generally, my jaw dropped when I read the denouement:
In this more comprehensive model that takes into account trivialities like regional population growth and a reality-based route, the annual benefits total $840 million compared with construction and maintenance costs of $810 million.
I'm not sure what discount rates he is using but even if we put that problem aside this screams out: don't do it. Given irreversible investment, lock-in effects, and required hurdle rates of return, this still falls into the "no" category. And that's an estimate from an advocate writing a polemic on behalf of the idea. I'm not even considering the likelihood of inflation on the cost side or the public choice problems with getting a good rather than a bad version of the project. How well has the Northeast corridor been run?
Here is the comment I left:
I'm not sure why you say this is a "no" from the quote you extract. If the annual benefits are 840 and the one-time construction costs are 810, the discounted future stream of benefits will be an order of magnitude larger than the costs. Even if the costs double, the simple math says this project is a go. What am I missing?
Update: Funny story. It turns out that the adjective "annual" was left off "costs." Typically, this makes a big difference in the calculations.