Even the T's sandbagged estimates are significantly less than that.Not surprising. Unless we find $20 billion somewhere it's not happening.
Even the T's sandbagged estimates are significantly less than that.Not surprising. Unless we find $20 billion somewhere it's not happening.
It's not just NSRL, it's also full electrification of the whole network. If that doesn't at least mostly happen NSRL isn't either.Even the T's sandbagged estimates are significantly less than that.
I very much disagree. For the initial build out, it should be the Fairmount + Providence Line electrification (cheap) and on the north side the Rockport/Newport line up to Salem. That's it for the initial. After that north and south commuter rail lines can be electrified independently of the NSRL. Trying to do a big bang full electrification of the network is a terrible idea, and will never happen.It's not just NSRL, it's also full electrification of the whole network. If that doesn't at least mostly happen NSRL isn't either.
Yes, I agree with this — I probably would add electrification to Waltham/Weston, as that stretch can absorb higher freqs than the Eastern Route can. Run Fairmount trains at high freq to Waltham, run PVD trains to Lynn/Salem/Peabody at lower frequencies.I very much disagree. For the initial build out, it should be the Fairmount + Providence Line electrification (cheap) and on the north side the Rockport/Newport line up to Salem. That's it for the initial. After that north and south commuter rail lines can be electrified independently of the NSRL. Trying to do a big bang full electrification of the network is a terrible idea, and will never happen.
I wonder how the cost estimates (as well as the GL Reconfiguration one) will change when Red-Blue costs $850 million for a 0.5-mile C&C tunnel.On the topic of broad costs for an NSRL: I outlined in January why I think $10B is good as anything else to toss around as an estimate. (Sorry for the triple post.)
Yeah, I think my initial comment at the time still holds:I wonder how the cost estimates (as well as the GL Reconfiguration one) will change when Red-Blue costs $850 million for a 0.5-mile C&C tunnel.
At the surface, that translates to ~$1.7 billion per mile, which is slightly above your estimated cost in both threads. And we can expect a TBM tunnel to cost even more.
I don't mean to be dismissive of your point. For sure, costs will rise, and, as ever, we can't forget that GLX's cost per mile was far above average, which doesn't bode well for the prospect of future projects keeping their costs to industry standards.Overall, I should clarify that these cost estimates are extremely provisional. If we're thinking in terms of "significant figures", this estimate probably has only one sig fig, meaning the conclusion here is that the cost is 1 x 10^10 -- something akin to "ten billion, give or take ten billion", or, more practically, "between 5 and 20 billion". There's a lot of variability and a lot of uncertainty, and lots to debate (as we'll see below).
Yeah, I think my initial comment at the time still holds:
I don't mean to be dismissive of your point. For sure, costs will rise, and, as ever, we can't forget that GLX's cost per mile was far above average, which doesn't bode well for the prospect of future projects keeping their costs to industry standards.
Everyone always states that a TMB tunnel will, by definition, cost more than a cut-and-cover tunnel on a per mile basis, but that is simply not true.I wonder how the cost estimates (as well as the GL Reconfiguration one) will change when Red-Blue costs $850 million for a 0.5-mile C&C tunnel.
At the surface, that translates to ~$1.7 billion per mile, which is slightly above your estimated cost in both threads. And we can expect a TBM tunnel to cost even more.
While I agree with what you're saying in general, isn't it believed that Cambridge St, which Red-Blue will traverse under, is already largely free of underground utilities due to Urban Renewal efforts?Everyone always states that a TMB tunnel will, by definition, cost more than a cut-and-cover tunnel on a per mile basis, but that is simply not true.
A TBM tunnel through a clean boring right-of-way (like under the O'Neill Tunnel, the most likely route) would likely be cheaper than a cut-and-cover tunnel through an alternate route strewn with utilities and unforeseeable obstructions, on a per mile basis.
And a big cost driver in NSRL is the deep stations at South and North Station (and potentially Central). But those stations are going to be deep under any scenario, because they have to be under all the existing underground infrastructure.
While I agree with what you're saying in general, isn't it believed that Cambridge St, which Red-Blue will traverse under, is already largely free of underground utilities due to Urban Renewal efforts?
I do realize that comparing costs of Red-Blue and NSRL is apples to oranges, but if a C&C without (or with minimal) utility relocation is already above average in cost, it speaks poorly of our ability to keep costs under control.
Cambridge St. isn't free of utilities. Its utilities are better-mapped because it was a late-1930's urban renewal, sparing the anything-goes 19th century spaghetti of, say, the Big Dig. But there's definitely crap under there that the 'sandwich' layer in a C&C tunnel is going to have to accommodate. It's maybe "medium-easy" on the overall difficulty scale because the road's width makes accommodating the 'sandwich' layer easier, but it's not frictionless.While I agree with what you're saying in general, isn't it believed that Cambridge St, which Red-Blue will traverse under, is already largely free of underground utilities due to Urban Renewal efforts?
I do realize that comparing costs of Red-Blue and NSRL is apples to oranges, but if a C&C without (or with minimal) utility relocation is already above average in cost, it speaks poorly of our ability to keep costs under control.
Electrification is not subject to wild runaway cost inflation, unless you manage the project as poorly as Caltrain so thoroughly has. It usually scales at a fixed linear cost. The only places with a chance to sail on their costs are on the outskirts of the network, where 2nd substations will be needed (25 kV subs can cover about 30 miles), where some lines (Newburyport and Rockport out on the branches, for instance) have poorer transmission line coverage and may need some substantial feeder infrastructure, and where some lines (Haverhill mostly) have maxed-out freight clearance issues. But that's the outskirts of the system. Electrifying to Route 128 on all of the mainlines is not a backbreaking production, and that's all you really need to have whole-system functional pair-matching with NSRL on its debut service day.It's not just NSRL, it's also full electrification of the whole network. If that doesn't at least mostly happen NSRL isn't either.
I would argue that the single biggest cost driver is that comparative to Europe, is that the US pays workers obscenely well. Material and equipment cost similar amounts everywhere, but a tunnel worker on NYCMTA's 2nd Ave Subway project can expect to earn around $110/hr, plus overtime at 2-3x. Here in Boston that's currently ~$77/hour, and that's a legally mandated minimum - prevailing wage must be paid on all federally or state funded projects exceeding $1000, but note that that's only for private firms contracted by the government - in house workers can and are paid less.The U.S. has simply given up the ghost on cost control. In any other country excepting maybe the U.K. these projects could've been done with half the cost, but we don't even flinch at estimates that round up to a $B anymore.
Alon Levy, who's dedicated their career to analyzing cost inflation, disagrees. The biggest driver in the U.S., Canada, and U.K. is lack of in-house project management. Having contractors handle every step of the way from study to design to build instead of having substantial professional oversight in the in-house ranks has led to runaway inflation. It's a very top-down problem. Bottom-up labor costs can explain some of the differences between continental European countries, but it doesn't explain the enormity of the disconnect across the Atlantic. Even the sandhogs in NYC don't begin to explain how divorced from reality New York transit construction costs have gone; that fish rots thoroughly from the head down.I would argue that the single biggest cost driver is that comparative to Europe, is that the US pays workers obscenely well. Material and equipment cost similar amounts everywhere, but a tunnel worker on NYCMTA's 2nd Ave Subway project can expect to earn around $110/hr, plus overtime at 2-3x. Here in Boston that's currently ~$77/hour, and that's a legally mandated minimum - prevailing wage must be paid on all federally or state funded projects exceeding $1000, but note that that's only for private firms contracted by the government - in house workers can and are paid less.
View attachment 43689
Compare that to Germany, where a tunnel worker would be well paid at €33/Hour, and overtime is compensated through comp time, not a multiplier. It also doesn't account for the EU rules allowing companies and individuals from comparatively low cost EU countries like say, Romania or Spain, to bid for and work on projects in the Netherlands, and they actually have a unified contracting regime under FIDIC to harmonize terms and conditions.
I should have clarified that I was looking at costs in the construction component only, not including soft costs like project management and owners costs. Certainly, I'd hardly argue with Levy that European soft costs are far better controlled, nor am I going to argue that NYC's severe issues keeping any costs under control is a management driven problem. But I'd also note that our fractured and very locally driven contracting permitting, environmental review and approval process doesn't help at all on the national level.Alon Levy, who's dedicated their career to analyzing cost inflation, disagrees. The biggest driver in the U.S., Canada, and U.K. is lack of in-house project management. Having contractors handle every step of the way from study to design to build instead of having substantial professional oversight in the in-house ranks has led to runaway inflation. It's a very top-down problem. Bottom-up labor costs can explain some of the differences between continental European countries, but it doesn't explain the enormity of the disconnect across the Atlantic. Even the sandhogs in NYC don't begin to explain how divorced from reality New York transit construction costs have gone; that fish rots thoroughly from the head down.
India is in the process of electrifying the whole freaking country - like 40,000 miles of rail. Lots is freight, but they did it in 10 years.Electrification is not subject to wild runaway cost inflation, unless you manage the project as poorly as Caltrain so thoroughly has. It usually scales at a fixed linear cost.
Pretty amazing that a much poorer country than the US can do this, but we can't.India is in the process of electrifying the whole freaking country - like 40,000 miles of rail. Lots is freight, but they did it in 10 years.
Opinion | Indian Railways: Is 100 Percent Electrification A Boon? - News18
Complete electrification of the railway network is unlikely to reduce pollution as long as power generation is predominantly coal-based. It would be strategically risky to make the entire railway electric-dependentwww.news18.com
India solved for the whole soft costs thing by having it managed top-down starting from Federal government fiat, that's why. Some serious manpower was set up internally to manage such sprawling objectives, and they achieved proper efficiency by having the civil-service ranks do most of the study and design work. The scale of it all became self-perpetuating, and made getting to shovel-ready easier and easier through repetition. Then the actual construction, as described earlier, just accrues at linear fixed costs with little other bloat. India wasn't flawless; it took some lumps especially when it was getting started. But once they got going it was pretty efficient.Pretty amazing that a much poorer country than the US can do this, but we can't.