Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,323
- Reaction score
- 5,940
Re: North-South Rail Link
How will $21 billion be funded? There is minimal federal money available, and the state has nothing as well. Even if every expressway inside I-95/route 128 were tolled it wouldn't be enough revenue.
The affordable improvements should be given top priority instead of this pipe dream. Build the Blue Line to Charles Station, and some other affordable transit projects.
How will $21 billion be funded? There is minimal federal money available, and the state has nothing as well. Even if every expressway inside I-95/route 128 were tolled it wouldn't be enough revenue.
The affordable improvements should be given top priority instead of this pipe dream. Build the Blue Line to Charles Station, and some other affordable transit projects.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,993
- Reaction score
- 1,710
Re: North-South Rail Link
It's not supposed to be funded. It's a study to kill the idea.
It's not supposed to be funded. It's a study to kill the idea.
DominusNovus
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,065
- Reaction score
- 170
Re: North-South Rail Link
Crazy idea to fund it: flyover tolling on 93.
Crazy only because people would hate it.
Crazy idea to fund it: flyover tolling on 93.
Crazy only because people would hate it.
Last edited:
stellarfun
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,679
- Reaction score
- 1,483
Re: North-South Rail Link
http://budget.digital.mass.gov/bb/cap/fy2017/dnld/fy17capitalplanma.pdf
^^^ In page 10-11 of this document, there is a discussion on debt service. The state policy is debt service should not exceed eight percent of state revenues in any year.
The graph on page 11 shows the cost of servicing current debt obligations through 2032. If state revenues grow at a rate of four percent per year through the period, there might be room to finance some of the cost of NSRL. If state revenue growth mirrored that of the period 2000-2015 (which includes the Great Recession) there would not be enough revenue to finance the bond costs of a NSRL.
Massachusetts had negative revenue growth, in real terms, between 2006 and 2013.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind0
This is an interactive chart. The combined graph for MA, CA, and FL is quite interesting, -- what happens when you have a state full of retirees who are not part of the 'innovation' economy.
If the commonwealth were to change the policy, for example, to increase the bond financing cap to 10 percent of revenue, the state could do that. However, a likely consequence would be a downgrading of Massachusetts debt, meaning the state pays more in interest, and the cost of financing the NSRL goes up.
http://budget.digital.mass.gov/bb/cap/fy2017/dnld/fy17capitalplanma.pdf
^^^ In page 10-11 of this document, there is a discussion on debt service. The state policy is debt service should not exceed eight percent of state revenues in any year.
The graph on page 11 shows the cost of servicing current debt obligations through 2032. If state revenues grow at a rate of four percent per year through the period, there might be room to finance some of the cost of NSRL. If state revenue growth mirrored that of the period 2000-2015 (which includes the Great Recession) there would not be enough revenue to finance the bond costs of a NSRL.
Massachusetts had negative revenue growth, in real terms, between 2006 and 2013.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2014/fiscal-50#ind0
This is an interactive chart. The combined graph for MA, CA, and FL is quite interesting, -- what happens when you have a state full of retirees who are not part of the 'innovation' economy.
If the commonwealth were to change the policy, for example, to increase the bond financing cap to 10 percent of revenue, the state could do that. However, a likely consequence would be a downgrading of Massachusetts debt, meaning the state pays more in interest, and the cost of financing the NSRL goes up.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,250
- Reaction score
- 2,043
Re: North-South Rail Link
The report is in "2028 dollars." They decided to use an absurd inflation rate that we haven't seen in decades. Also, when discussing cost, they never mention the cost in relation to the SSX alternative. So, I'll do a break-down here:
The SSX alternative is $4.7b (in 2028 dollars).
The "Central Artery 2-track alternative" NSRL will cost $7.6b (in 2028 dollars) more than SSX.
This $7.6b is equal to $5.4b in 2018 dollars, using the MBTA's conversion rate from this presentation.
Therefore, what this report is actually showing is that the North-South Rail Link will cost $5.4b more than the SSX alternative in 2018 dollars.
The report states the numbers in a way that purposefully makes it sound more expensive than it is. They could have said "the North-South Rail Link will cost $5.4b more than the SSX alternative" as that IS what they found. The fact that this number was never even close to reported speaks volumes.
What we are talking about here is a regional transformative project that has a real cost of $5.4b over SSX. $5.4b (in 2018 dollars). A tiny fraction of the cost of the California High-Speed Rail project. Just 10% of the cost of "Sound Transit 3," Seattle's latest transit expansion plan. A small percentage of the cost of the Big Dig.
The report is in "2028 dollars." They decided to use an absurd inflation rate that we haven't seen in decades. Also, when discussing cost, they never mention the cost in relation to the SSX alternative. So, I'll do a break-down here:
The SSX alternative is $4.7b (in 2028 dollars).
The "Central Artery 2-track alternative" NSRL will cost $7.6b (in 2028 dollars) more than SSX.
This $7.6b is equal to $5.4b in 2018 dollars, using the MBTA's conversion rate from this presentation.
Therefore, what this report is actually showing is that the North-South Rail Link will cost $5.4b more than the SSX alternative in 2018 dollars.
The report states the numbers in a way that purposefully makes it sound more expensive than it is. They could have said "the North-South Rail Link will cost $5.4b more than the SSX alternative" as that IS what they found. The fact that this number was never even close to reported speaks volumes.
What we are talking about here is a regional transformative project that has a real cost of $5.4b over SSX. $5.4b (in 2018 dollars). A tiny fraction of the cost of the California High-Speed Rail project. Just 10% of the cost of "Sound Transit 3," Seattle's latest transit expansion plan. A small percentage of the cost of the Big Dig.
Re: North-South Rail Link
But it's not going to be built in 2018, it's going to be built in 2028 (or whenever). So the cost in 2028 is what matters.
Don't like that the CA 2-track tunnel is only for the Back Bay stations. Fairmount continues to get the shaft I guess.
But it's not going to be built in 2018, it's going to be built in 2028 (or whenever). So the cost in 2028 is what matters.
Don't like that the CA 2-track tunnel is only for the Back Bay stations. Fairmount continues to get the shaft I guess.
Re: North-South Rail Link
I like the concept of NSRL but I'd be astounded if it didn't start costing close to Big Dig money at the end of the day. The estimates here actually sound fairly honest with the knowledge that there's always unforeseen problems that will push this even higher.
I like the concept of NSRL but I'd be astounded if it didn't start costing close to Big Dig money at the end of the day. The estimates here actually sound fairly honest with the knowledge that there's always unforeseen problems that will push this even higher.
Re: North-South Rail Link
mmm.... the point is that when comparing different options it's essential to use same-year dollars.
i.e. Its not about whether the 2028 or the 2018 cost is the 'right one' - if you have a good estimate of inflation, they should be the same amount of 'real money'.
what its really about is not claiming that one option is more expensive than another because one uses future inflated figures and one uses present figures
mmm.... the point is that when comparing different options it's essential to use same-year dollars.
i.e. Its not about whether the 2028 or the 2018 cost is the 'right one' - if you have a good estimate of inflation, they should be the same amount of 'real money'.
what its really about is not claiming that one option is more expensive than another because one uses future inflated figures and one uses present figures
Re: North-South Rail Link
Exactly.
AND that figure includes:
* $1B for additional vehicles, which the report acknowleges is a BS number because it doesn't account for higher utilization with through running (i.e. less time wasted at terminal stations
* $500M for non-NSRL infrastrucutre (incl. a new downtown tunnel in Salem!)
And doesn't include:
* Additional revenue from a 25% increase in ridership
,,,
Furthermore: if you expanded the project scope to include tolls on I-93 and only a very light renovation of the Woburn cloverleaf (instead of the $2B boondoggle currently planned), you could claim that this thing pays for itself
Exactly.
AND that figure includes:
* $1B for additional vehicles, which the report acknowleges is a BS number because it doesn't account for higher utilization with through running (i.e. less time wasted at terminal stations
* $500M for non-NSRL infrastrucutre (incl. a new downtown tunnel in Salem!)
And doesn't include:
* Additional revenue from a 25% increase in ridership
,,,
Furthermore: if you expanded the project scope to include tolls on I-93 and only a very light renovation of the Woburn cloverleaf (instead of the $2B boondoggle currently planned), you could claim that this thing pays for itself
Re: North-South Rail Link
To me it looks like they are claiming the $4.7B figure is in 2028 dollars. Didn't look at the entire slide deck though.
To me it looks like they are claiming the $4.7B figure is in 2028 dollars. Didn't look at the entire slide deck though.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Re: North-South Rail Link
Well if it is getting decided in 2018, then 2018 dollars are what matters.
Well if it is getting decided in 2018, then 2018 dollars are what matters.
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
Re: North-South Rail Link
The bottom line number really should be the $8.6 Billion number... which isn't all that unreasonable either way. I think if that got closer to $5 Billion it would be a no brainer to do. Even at 8.6 Billion it is arguable, especially if you drop SSX.
Re: North-South Rail Link
Reading the brief, the report is clearly intended to kill support for this project or at least play on peoples fear of the big dig costs. E.g. it would not be appropriate to use cost estimates to tunneling through active fault zones under the center of downtown buildings.
They left out key basic information to support the cost estimate. Call me jaded, but when I see a badly supported cost estimate, red flags go up.
They list a bunch of analogous projects but fail to list any of the cost factors they used why they are appropriate and analogous to the NSRL. It seems they want to say they did the proper work, but its so costly its not even worthy to look further. Just doing the back of the envelop calculation with these projects, Their 4 track option for tunneling costs is 2x too high. http://www.northsouthraillink.org/comp-proj-overview
What is the contingency amount and what confidence level is the estimate for?
They said the model does not assume land use change. That is going to greatly reduce projected ridership, especially for the run through commuters.
Reading the brief, the report is clearly intended to kill support for this project or at least play on peoples fear of the big dig costs. E.g. it would not be appropriate to use cost estimates to tunneling through active fault zones under the center of downtown buildings.
They left out key basic information to support the cost estimate. Call me jaded, but when I see a badly supported cost estimate, red flags go up.
They list a bunch of analogous projects but fail to list any of the cost factors they used why they are appropriate and analogous to the NSRL. It seems they want to say they did the proper work, but its so costly its not even worthy to look further. Just doing the back of the envelop calculation with these projects, Their 4 track option for tunneling costs is 2x too high. http://www.northsouthraillink.org/comp-proj-overview
What is the contingency amount and what confidence level is the estimate for?
They said the model does not assume land use change. That is going to greatly reduce projected ridership, especially for the run through commuters.
fattony
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 2,099
- Reaction score
- 480
Re: North-South Rail Link
You make a good point that there are many ways to compare inflation adjusted numbers, each with a different interpretation. Importantly however, the thing isn't built in any one year, so you HAVE to adjust the costs from various years to a single year.
The primary reason to compare in "today's dollars" is because we know what real value "today's dollars" represents. The 2 quantities "$5.4B in 2018" and "$7.6B in 2028" represent the same amount of value/stuff/wealth/whatever. Factually, they are completely interchangeable, but there is a very important psychological difference.
Since lay people naturally think "in today's dollars," it is quite disingenuous to talk about future dollars. It is a tactic with no purpose other than to deceive ordinary people who aren't accustomed to the mental gymnastics of adjusting for inflation.
You make a good point that there are many ways to compare inflation adjusted numbers, each with a different interpretation. Importantly however, the thing isn't built in any one year, so you HAVE to adjust the costs from various years to a single year.
The primary reason to compare in "today's dollars" is because we know what real value "today's dollars" represents. The 2 quantities "$5.4B in 2018" and "$7.6B in 2028" represent the same amount of value/stuff/wealth/whatever. Factually, they are completely interchangeable, but there is a very important psychological difference.
Since lay people naturally think "in today's dollars," it is quite disingenuous to talk about future dollars. It is a tactic with no purpose other than to deceive ordinary people who aren't accustomed to the mental gymnastics of adjusting for inflation.
bigeman312
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,250
- Reaction score
- 2,043
Re: North-South Rail Link
Yes. This is exactly my point. And that's not to mention that the inflation rate they use is questionable at best, and uncertain to be correct, at least.
We know how much 2018 dollars are worth. We can only guess how much 2028 dollars are worth.
It is worthwhile to calculate the cost in 2028 dollars for budgeting purposes, as they need to make room in the 2028 budget through the use of bonds and whatnot.
But, for reporting on whether it is a worthwhile project to undertake, it's best ot speak in clear terms that are well-defined and known today.
Yes. This is exactly my point. And that's not to mention that the inflation rate they use is questionable at best, and uncertain to be correct, at least.
We know how much 2018 dollars are worth. We can only guess how much 2028 dollars are worth.
It is worthwhile to calculate the cost in 2028 dollars for budgeting purposes, as they need to make room in the 2028 budget through the use of bonds and whatnot.
But, for reporting on whether it is a worthwhile project to undertake, it's best ot speak in clear terms that are well-defined and known today.
Re: North-South Rail Link
Given the costs of the GLX I am extraordinarily skeptical the tunneling, track work, electrification, portals and stations can be built for $8.6bn.
Given the costs of the GLX I am extraordinarily skeptical the tunneling, track work, electrification, portals and stations can be built for $8.6bn.