4 ms·

> 4) ... When you can build tunnels for one or two orders of magnitude cheaper than today, cheaper than an urban surface lane ... Didn’t Las Vegas 1.5 mi tunne

> 4) ... When you can build tunnels for one or two orders of magnitude cheaper than today, cheaper than an urban surface lane ... Didn’t Las Vegas 1.5 mi tunnel cost ~$50MM ? I don’t think 1.5mi of surface road (not considering right-of-way costs) costs that much.

hinkley 6y ago
Roads cost a ridiculous amount of money. They start at a million per mile and go up from there. Think about how many miles of road their are just in your neighborhood. The people who complain about how much of our cities are paved have a substantial point.
- coolspot 6y ago
  But this LV tunnel is one-lane, so it should be compared to one-lane surface road, which is, like you said, is ~$1MM a mile.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    No, not in urban areas.
Robotbeat 6y ago
Why wouldn't you consider right-of-way costs?
Robotbeat 6y ago
It was about 1.7 miles two-way, or about $3.4 million, or ~$15 million per mile including the stations and “rolling stock.” The tunnel in Hawthorne is about $10 million for a mile. The advantage, of course, is in the very thing you’re not considering: right of way costs. Of course it’s cheaper to not have to tunnel at all, but there are buildings and people on the surface. And NIMBYs. So including the right of way costs, tunneling is cheaper than an urban road per lane-mile. Tunneling projects (for larger tunnels) are about $900 million per mile in the US (can be even greater). $300 million per mile overseas. So about $10-15 million per mile is indeed about one or two orders of magnitude cheaper. Making do with smaller tunnels is a big advantage, one that I think other companies and transit agencies in the US should strongly consider as a method to address the insane infrastructure costs we have. If we have to use smaller subway trains like the London Underground uses, so what? At least we could actually get them built. We’re unlikely to saturate their capacity anyway, and I’d much rather have 4 times the routes than twice the subway train diameter.

hinkley 6y ago

Roads cost a ridiculous amount of money. They start at a million per mile and go up from there. Think about how many miles of road their are just in your neighborhood. The people who complain about how much of our cities are paved have a substantial point.

coolspot 6y ago
But this LV tunnel is one-lane, so it should be compared to one-lane surface road, which is, like you said, is ~$1MM a mile.
- Robotbeat 6y ago
  No, not in urban areas.

Robotbeat 6y ago

Why wouldn't you consider right-of-way costs?

Robotbeat 6y ago

It was about 1.7 miles two-way, or about $3.4 million, or ~$15 million per mile including the stations and “rolling stock.” The tunnel in Hawthorne is about $10 million for a mile. The advantage, of course, is in the very thing you’re not considering: right of way costs. Of course it’s cheaper to not have to tunnel at all, but there are buildings and people on the surface. And NIMBYs. So including the right of way costs, tunneling is cheaper than an urban road per lane-mile. Tunneling projects (for larger tunnels) are about $900 million per mile in the US (can be even greater). $300 million per mile overseas. So about $10-15 million per mile is indeed about one or two orders of magnitude cheaper. Making do with smaller tunnels is a big advantage, one that I think other companies and transit agencies in the US should strongly consider as a method to address the insane infrastructure costs we have. If we have to use smaller subway trains like the London Underground uses, so what? At least we could actually get them built. We’re unlikely to saturate their capacity anyway, and I’d much rather have 4 times the routes than twice the subway train diameter.