 |
Re: Astonishing cost to build new Light Rail vs Interstate Hwy Lane Really? Or, just more "fake news"?
Author: BOB2
Date: 12-17-2019 - 15:15
So who's butthole was that $10 million per mile number for a mile of urban freeway lane plucked from? Was it Ken's butt, or was it John's butt?
The 1990's cost per lane mile on the Harbor Freeway HOV (now "HOT") lane came at over $50 million per lane mile, with lower end costs of about $20 million per lane mile on the segment south of the elevated portion, and I seem to recall that over 2/3rd's of projects total nearly billion dollar cost, was the cost of the 4 lane 5 mile elevated portion, from north of the 105, past USC, into downtown. And, all of the station costs and HOV connectors for the I-105, were hidden under the $3.5 billion dollars costs for just the highway portion of the 105 project.
And, didn't we just spend well over a billion dollars, to add one additional HOV lane over Sepulveda Pass, around 8 or 9 miles from the I-10 to the 101? What with the need to rebuild the bridges, off ramps, to provide for adequate ROW...
The "none" widening, no bridge work, no utility relocation, nor ROW acquisition, nor bridge replacement, nor on-ramp reconstruction to add the lane, only repaved with concrete to allow for buses and a much longer life, HOV freeway lane addition in the median of the I-210, that back in 1993 cost $5 million per lane mile.
Having done much of the HOV lane network cost benefit analysis for LA's HOV lane system, back in the late 80's and early 90's, I only wish I could add a lane of urban freeway for $10 million a mile... I don't even think you could build a lane of rural interstate these days, for anything close to that amount.
What are they spending per lane mile on the Cajon widening of I-15, or to add capacity to the 91 though Corona? I'll take the bet that it's not anywhere close to ten million a per additional lane mile added....
And, since this number for an urban freeway mile is complete bull$hit, what was their purported source of the $300 million per mile light rail cost...?
I suspect this is something you heard on your typical "talk radio" format?
You can run costs up quite a bit, and through incompetence and sheer waste, like is on display at the CAHSRA "runaway money train" fiasco. And, I've been impressed by how much work costs have gone up, with supposedly no "inflation", and added "perks", over design, and ludicrous performance requirements, or contractor and political malfeasance can, and often do drive up these costs.
And. you can have real costly things, like tunnels which can come in at $100-$500 million per mile, depending on construction method, terrain, stations, utilities, and the like, that cost the same, regardless of being built for "heavy" or "light" rail systems.
Building an LRT line in an urban environment ain't cheap either, The total cost of the East LA portion of the Gold Line, came in at just under $900 million, for about 9 miles, including approximately two miles of bored tunnels, and two subterranean stations, the work on the on the First Street Bridge, and the flyover into LAUPT from the south.
The full thirteen original miles of the Gold Line, including the elevated structure into LA UPT, new bridge over the LA River, and cut and cover underground segment through Old Pasadena, came in just under $900 million, as well.
So ELA is what, with all that subway, around $100 million a mile...
Of course, if you want to compare the investments, you have to ask how many cars, carrying how many people, can flow through a mile of additional freeway lane per hour? Hint, at optimal flow rates we find a range of 1,600 to 2,000 vehicle per hour, with about 1.2 persons per vehicle in Sou Cal. So an additional mile of freeway lane capacity, would carry, at "optimal" flow rate, an added capacity for around 2,500 person trips per hour.
Unfortunately, if your lane is flowing at a "less" than optimal flow rate, you can cut that number to around 1,000 to 1,300 vehicles per lane per hour, because as congestion increases, the flow rate becomes unstable and falls. And. in some rare case like the 101/110 interchange, with all of those ramps overloading the lanes, we've seen the flow rate fall to a low as 800 vehicles per hour, at peak. Ironically, a large part of "rush hour" congestion we see is not from a lack of capacity, but from a "loss" of flow rate, from overloading the system.
So what is the hourly passenger carrying capacity on the LRT? It depends on how often and how long your trains come, and how many trips that attracts. But, from a capacity standpoint, at a reasonably comfortable non "crush load" of only 100 persons per car, a three car LRT train, running 8 times an hour, would carry around 2,400 person trips per hour. At twice that headway, it would be 4,800 per hour... So, any comparison of costs needs to be measured against the benefits...
Does that help explain why whatever this freeway lane cost you heard on the "radio" is most likely pure spin, and complete bull$hit?
And, it's also a meaningless comparison, unless you know what you're really getting, in quantifiable transportation benefits, for your money?
The 1990's cost per lane mile on the Harbor Freeway HOV (now "HOT") lane came at over $50 million per lane mile, with lower end costs of about $20 million per lane mile on the segment south of the elevated portion, and I seem to recall that over 2/3rd's of projects total nearly billion dollar cost, was the cost of the 4 lane 5 mile elevated portion, from north of the 105, past USC, into downtown. And, all of the station costs and HOV connectors for the I-105, were hidden under the $3.5 billion dollars costs for just the highway portion of the 105 project.
And, didn't we just spend well over a billion dollars, to add one additional HOV lane over Sepulveda Pass, around 8 or 9 miles from the I-10 to the 101? What with the need to rebuild the bridges, off ramps, to provide for adequate ROW...
The "none" widening, no bridge work, no utility relocation, nor ROW acquisition, nor bridge replacement, nor on-ramp reconstruction to add the lane, only repaved with concrete to allow for buses and a much longer life, HOV freeway lane addition in the median of the I-210, that back in 1993 cost $5 million per lane mile.
Having done much of the HOV lane network cost benefit analysis for LA's HOV lane system, back in the late 80's and early 90's, I only wish I could add a lane of urban freeway for $10 million a mile... I don't even think you could build a lane of rural interstate these days, for anything close to that amount.
What are they spending per lane mile on the Cajon widening of I-15, or to add capacity to the 91 though Corona? I'll take the bet that it's not anywhere close to ten million a per additional lane mile added....
And, since this number for an urban freeway mile is complete bull$hit, what was their purported source of the $300 million per mile light rail cost...?
I suspect this is something you heard on your typical "talk radio" format?
You can run costs up quite a bit, and through incompetence and sheer waste, like is on display at the CAHSRA "runaway money train" fiasco. And, I've been impressed by how much work costs have gone up, with supposedly no "inflation", and added "perks", over design, and ludicrous performance requirements, or contractor and political malfeasance can, and often do drive up these costs.
And. you can have real costly things, like tunnels which can come in at $100-$500 million per mile, depending on construction method, terrain, stations, utilities, and the like, that cost the same, regardless of being built for "heavy" or "light" rail systems.
Building an LRT line in an urban environment ain't cheap either, The total cost of the East LA portion of the Gold Line, came in at just under $900 million, for about 9 miles, including approximately two miles of bored tunnels, and two subterranean stations, the work on the on the First Street Bridge, and the flyover into LAUPT from the south.
The full thirteen original miles of the Gold Line, including the elevated structure into LA UPT, new bridge over the LA River, and cut and cover underground segment through Old Pasadena, came in just under $900 million, as well.
So ELA is what, with all that subway, around $100 million a mile...
Of course, if you want to compare the investments, you have to ask how many cars, carrying how many people, can flow through a mile of additional freeway lane per hour? Hint, at optimal flow rates we find a range of 1,600 to 2,000 vehicle per hour, with about 1.2 persons per vehicle in Sou Cal. So an additional mile of freeway lane capacity, would carry, at "optimal" flow rate, an added capacity for around 2,500 person trips per hour.
Unfortunately, if your lane is flowing at a "less" than optimal flow rate, you can cut that number to around 1,000 to 1,300 vehicles per lane per hour, because as congestion increases, the flow rate becomes unstable and falls. And. in some rare case like the 101/110 interchange, with all of those ramps overloading the lanes, we've seen the flow rate fall to a low as 800 vehicles per hour, at peak. Ironically, a large part of "rush hour" congestion we see is not from a lack of capacity, but from a "loss" of flow rate, from overloading the system.
So what is the hourly passenger carrying capacity on the LRT? It depends on how often and how long your trains come, and how many trips that attracts. But, from a capacity standpoint, at a reasonably comfortable non "crush load" of only 100 persons per car, a three car LRT train, running 8 times an hour, would carry around 2,400 person trips per hour. At twice that headway, it would be 4,800 per hour... So, any comparison of costs needs to be measured against the benefits...
Does that help explain why whatever this freeway lane cost you heard on the "radio" is most likely pure spin, and complete bull$hit?
And, it's also a meaningless comparison, unless you know what you're really getting, in quantifiable transportation benefits, for your money?
