 |
Re: Finally a wake up call on PodunkdaleRail
Author: mook
Date: 12-09-2015 - 22:06
> For a given amount of money, let's say a set sum of $25bil, what would you get for the Bako to LAUS segment via Tejon vs. via Tehachapi?
Based on the re-look at the route alternatives a few years ago, a full HSR implementation between Santa Clarita (e.g. the north end of the SFValley) and Bakersfield would be $30-40B. "Base" tunnel (which actually isn't; all the options I've seen surface around Gorman to cross the SAFault so there are significant grades) would cost a tad more or less than the long way, depending on your assumptions and what gets found in the geology once tunneling starts. Basically a wash once you add contingencies. Bob's tunnel scheme for the San Gabriels is good (why aren't they looking at it?) but any money it saves (and it probably would save a few $B compared to the "official" schemes) would be nickels on the margin compared to the overall project cost.
For the urban segments, the only way to keep the neighbors even arguably happy (not actually happy) would be to put the whole thing underground. Period. Not visible or audible. So you're talking 75-100 miles of subway at each end, in difficult conditions, at both ends of the line. They would not be able to use cut-and-cover. I'm guessing something above $100 mil/mile present prices under those conditions - 710/Pasadena-level costs but over a much longer distance. Basic construction cost, plus right of way and add-ons like freeway and other realignments, upgrading Metrolink in spots, and major urban renewal projects to compensate for the construction-period bother. So I'd guess the LA segment done the way it eventually will have to be (all underground) to end up somewhere north of $30B. NOT including whatever monument is built at LAUS. IOW the urban segment cost at each end would be comparable to the mountain segment needed to get there, and major reparations in the urban segment could easily push it beyond.
Yes, if you're doing math in your head, I think the ultimate (inflation-added) cost of the whole line will end up well over $100B, just like one of the early estimates said. Even if the "base" tunnel through the Tehachapis would actually be cheaper than than long way (don't count on it), a few $B is noise in that kind of number.
Amtrak might be using some SJV parts of the line by 2025, but even with happy (really, ludicrous) assumptions about funding you wouldn't get SJ-BUR until 2040 or later with the downtown segments after 2050. And it would be a good buy at the price, just like I-5 was 50ish years ago. Though nobody these days is willing to do something like that for their (great-)grandchildren so frankly I don't expect to see any more track than Madera to Corcoran, or maybe west-rural Bakersfield, in my lifetime. I would be very happy to be surprised by better delivery and a more reasonable price; however, I am a Pessimist™ regarding the ability of any Big Project to come in near the estimated cost and on schedule.
Based on the re-look at the route alternatives a few years ago, a full HSR implementation between Santa Clarita (e.g. the north end of the SFValley) and Bakersfield would be $30-40B. "Base" tunnel (which actually isn't; all the options I've seen surface around Gorman to cross the SAFault so there are significant grades) would cost a tad more or less than the long way, depending on your assumptions and what gets found in the geology once tunneling starts. Basically a wash once you add contingencies. Bob's tunnel scheme for the San Gabriels is good (why aren't they looking at it?) but any money it saves (and it probably would save a few $B compared to the "official" schemes) would be nickels on the margin compared to the overall project cost.
For the urban segments, the only way to keep the neighbors even arguably happy (not actually happy) would be to put the whole thing underground. Period. Not visible or audible. So you're talking 75-100 miles of subway at each end, in difficult conditions, at both ends of the line. They would not be able to use cut-and-cover. I'm guessing something above $100 mil/mile present prices under those conditions - 710/Pasadena-level costs but over a much longer distance. Basic construction cost, plus right of way and add-ons like freeway and other realignments, upgrading Metrolink in spots, and major urban renewal projects to compensate for the construction-period bother. So I'd guess the LA segment done the way it eventually will have to be (all underground) to end up somewhere north of $30B. NOT including whatever monument is built at LAUS. IOW the urban segment cost at each end would be comparable to the mountain segment needed to get there, and major reparations in the urban segment could easily push it beyond.
Yes, if you're doing math in your head, I think the ultimate (inflation-added) cost of the whole line will end up well over $100B, just like one of the early estimates said. Even if the "base" tunnel through the Tehachapis would actually be cheaper than than long way (don't count on it), a few $B is noise in that kind of number.
Amtrak might be using some SJV parts of the line by 2025, but even with happy (really, ludicrous) assumptions about funding you wouldn't get SJ-BUR until 2040 or later with the downtown segments after 2050. And it would be a good buy at the price, just like I-5 was 50ish years ago. Though nobody these days is willing to do something like that for their (great-)grandchildren so frankly I don't expect to see any more track than Madera to Corcoran, or maybe west-rural Bakersfield, in my lifetime. I would be very happy to be surprised by better delivery and a more reasonable price; however, I am a Pessimist™ regarding the ability of any Big Project to come in near the estimated cost and on schedule.
