 |
Re: Two articles in this morning's edition of Fairview Fanny
Author: OldPoleBurner
Date: 03-08-2009 - 19:06
Sound transit:
$19 billion for three miles (wow) = 6,300 million per mile (wow again)
BART:
$890 million for eleven miles = 80 million per mile
> I believe BART's Taj Mahal extension to San Jose beats it out costwise.
Now, Mr synonymouse, Where did you get your math degree?
I can't even imagine how anyone could spend 6300 million per mile - even if you made it solid gold - even in Seattle. There must be some media muddling of those numbers. Like you, I also oppose BART's Warm Springs extension. But only because it includes unnecessary subway mileage; a pathetic cave in to California's uber-greedy NIMBY-pandering politicians.
Realize that the two miles or so of subway under the "pristine and proud Lake Elizabeth" (ha - I wouldn't risk my dog in there!), rather than around its eastern edge (easily done), all by itself takes up well more than half the cost of this BART project. If the completely unwarranted subway hadn't been included, we'd be talking about 35 million per mile. Quite a tidy sum when compared to the 4 to 5 million that UP might have spent on mile of double track; but still quite modest by California's usual gov't experience (light rail in particular).
The biggest difference between UP /BNSF and BART?
BART doesn't get to play on a level field. BART, like all California municipalities, are at serious disadvantage, as they must play by stupid supercilious municipal government playbooks (contracting rules), wherein every bum contractor on every street corner see's 'em a comin'. UP and BNSF obviously do not. They get to do whatever is best instead.
To be fair though, some of the difference can be accounted for in costs UP and BNSF would not incur; such as electrification (4-5 mil per mile), fencing because of the third rail (1-2 mil per mile), extra fancy and overcomplicated communication and signal gear (up to a mil per mile), total grade separation (8 - 25 mil per crossing), and of course, the ultimate 10-15 mil each, for over-sized concrete behemoths they call stations. So, with all those extras, maybe 30-40 mil per mile isn't so unreasonable after all. Of course, the 170 mil per mile under an empty rail r.o.w. to the SF Airport was totally outrageous - but again, that was also completely unnecessary subway!
Actually, the Late Great Sen. Dirksen said it all, once, right on the Senate Floor: "After a billion here - and a billion there --- pretty soon you're talkin' really big money!"
> When it comes to pricey you can't top broad gauge.
Are you old enough to know what a broken record is? Your needle must be stuck in one groove - man!
Granted, that changing out one gauge for another would be quite pricey - it would be just another unwarranted expenditure.
But when building on a fresh canvas - completely new stuff that is - there is little difference in cost on account of gauge. If the Warm Springs Line was built in standard gauge, it would still cost BART about the same 80 mil per mile. To their dismay, BART found that out in regards to the proposed E-BART - not a shred of difference in price between broad gauge BART and standard gauge E-BART! There are many gauges in use throughout the world. There is overwhelming empirical evidence: the gauge makes no material cost difference whatsoever.
Now the length and breadth, and weight of the vehicles to be used on a track - now that's a big deal. BART shines there, with its light weight cars, it need only build its bridges and aerials strong enough to support 68,000 lb per car. And the full 10'6" width provides a lot of passenger comfort not seen on most LRVs; while keeping the cars to 70' max length still keeps tunnel clearance requirements down.
Good set of compromises there! But still, there is room for real improvement; such as perm-coupled pairs, or even triple articulation at existing truck centers. These would reduce total weight requirements for onboard equipment; freeing that weight up for use by center-sills and beefier framing. That would then allow BART cars to be locomotive hauled at full speed in outlying areas. New extensions could then be built, at first, without electrification, or even some grade separations, dramatically cutting the costs of quickly extending services. Electrification could be added later as increasing traffic warrants.
But enough already, my dinner is waiting!
OPB
$19 billion for three miles (wow) = 6,300 million per mile (wow again)
BART:
$890 million for eleven miles = 80 million per mile
> I believe BART's Taj Mahal extension to San Jose beats it out costwise.
Now, Mr synonymouse, Where did you get your math degree?
I can't even imagine how anyone could spend 6300 million per mile - even if you made it solid gold - even in Seattle. There must be some media muddling of those numbers. Like you, I also oppose BART's Warm Springs extension. But only because it includes unnecessary subway mileage; a pathetic cave in to California's uber-greedy NIMBY-pandering politicians.
Realize that the two miles or so of subway under the "pristine and proud Lake Elizabeth" (ha - I wouldn't risk my dog in there!), rather than around its eastern edge (easily done), all by itself takes up well more than half the cost of this BART project. If the completely unwarranted subway hadn't been included, we'd be talking about 35 million per mile. Quite a tidy sum when compared to the 4 to 5 million that UP might have spent on mile of double track; but still quite modest by California's usual gov't experience (light rail in particular).
The biggest difference between UP /BNSF and BART?
BART doesn't get to play on a level field. BART, like all California municipalities, are at serious disadvantage, as they must play by stupid supercilious municipal government playbooks (contracting rules), wherein every bum contractor on every street corner see's 'em a comin'. UP and BNSF obviously do not. They get to do whatever is best instead.
To be fair though, some of the difference can be accounted for in costs UP and BNSF would not incur; such as electrification (4-5 mil per mile), fencing because of the third rail (1-2 mil per mile), extra fancy and overcomplicated communication and signal gear (up to a mil per mile), total grade separation (8 - 25 mil per crossing), and of course, the ultimate 10-15 mil each, for over-sized concrete behemoths they call stations. So, with all those extras, maybe 30-40 mil per mile isn't so unreasonable after all. Of course, the 170 mil per mile under an empty rail r.o.w. to the SF Airport was totally outrageous - but again, that was also completely unnecessary subway!
Actually, the Late Great Sen. Dirksen said it all, once, right on the Senate Floor: "After a billion here - and a billion there --- pretty soon you're talkin' really big money!"
> When it comes to pricey you can't top broad gauge.
Are you old enough to know what a broken record is? Your needle must be stuck in one groove - man!
Granted, that changing out one gauge for another would be quite pricey - it would be just another unwarranted expenditure.
But when building on a fresh canvas - completely new stuff that is - there is little difference in cost on account of gauge. If the Warm Springs Line was built in standard gauge, it would still cost BART about the same 80 mil per mile. To their dismay, BART found that out in regards to the proposed E-BART - not a shred of difference in price between broad gauge BART and standard gauge E-BART! There are many gauges in use throughout the world. There is overwhelming empirical evidence: the gauge makes no material cost difference whatsoever.
Now the length and breadth, and weight of the vehicles to be used on a track - now that's a big deal. BART shines there, with its light weight cars, it need only build its bridges and aerials strong enough to support 68,000 lb per car. And the full 10'6" width provides a lot of passenger comfort not seen on most LRVs; while keeping the cars to 70' max length still keeps tunnel clearance requirements down.
Good set of compromises there! But still, there is room for real improvement; such as perm-coupled pairs, or even triple articulation at existing truck centers. These would reduce total weight requirements for onboard equipment; freeing that weight up for use by center-sills and beefier framing. That would then allow BART cars to be locomotive hauled at full speed in outlying areas. New extensions could then be built, at first, without electrification, or even some grade separations, dramatically cutting the costs of quickly extending services. Electrification could be added later as increasing traffic warrants.
But enough already, my dinner is waiting!
OPB
