5 ms·

I thought the conclusion of this study was "everything (is a problem)" -- not, "(just or mostly or primarily) consultants". Governing mag said this almost four

I thought the conclusion of this study was "everything (is a problem)" -- not, "(just or mostly or primarily) consultants". Governing mag said this almost four months ago -- Nov 2022: https://www.governing.com/finance/why-are-u-s-transit-projects-so-costly-this-group-is-on-the-case https://www.governing.com/finance/why-are-u-s-transit-projec... This month, the Transit Costs Project is planning to publish an overview of its findings. Among them: The United States is the sixth most expensive country in the world when it comes to building rapid rail projects. The reasons why range from the politicization of project management to the expanding role of consultants, the costs of labor, and efforts to limit disruption to normal traffic flow during construction. Six most expensive countries from most expensive: - New Zealand - Qatar - UK - Hong Kong - Singapore - US Time to build at ground-level or above ground instead of underground, and better -- just allow us to ride bikes -- boot the cars, and/or build us bike tracks, and subject terrorists to terror laws, even if they're American, white, etc. I'm in NJ at the moment -- mostly shore area but also south-central -- Middlesex, Monmouth, and Ocean counties -- no sidewalks -- it's incredible. NJ is home to legendary bike freak, Prof John Pucher ( https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/pucher/ https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/pucher/ ), but also the dreaded 'jersey barrier' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_barrier ).

IIAOPSW 4y ago
Or, here's the real bold one, build underground but use cut and cover rather than deep tunnel boring machines that only a few international consortiums know how to run. 1. cut up street. 2. lay down tracks. 3. cover up with viaduct but pretend its a normal road. This is how NY originally built the subway and it has so many advantages. Can make use of any local unskilled labor. Cheaper by a lot. Stations are close to surface, not a labyrinth of escalators to hell. You won't have street level tracks cutting the town in half. Its the superior option in literally every way, but it requires making people put up with their street being in a constant state of roadwork while its built. No one has the tenacity to tell certain voters to just put up with things for the greater good anymore. Its easier to spend a billion dollars than do that!
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  When NY originally built the subway, labor laws were a lot more lax, and labor was much, much cheaper.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    True, but we have plenty of examples around the world showing that cut and cover us cheaper. We have contractors in NYC who dig holes all the time, cut and cover just a long hole and so easy to estimate.
  - WeylandYutani 4y ago
    Also it was a lot easier to evict people and tear down anything standing in the way.
- HanShotFirst 4y ago
  Cut and cover isn't as simple as it used to be because of the huge amount of underground infrastructure laid down over time, without proper mapping. Digging up any street in NYC is labor intensive, time consuming, and dangerous. Whether it would still be less expensive than the alternative very deep tunnels, that I do not know.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > Stations are close to surface, not a labyrinth of escalators to hell Seattle is building an extension to its light rail system partially above ground partially below ground in many places. It chose to build like this intentionally. Not saying I agree with it but the reasoning: You enter from any side of street and go to unified mezzanine level. From there you can go to both sides of tracks. This enables easier handicap/elevator access to relevant areas since You only need one elevator to street level. Additionally, no signage on street level to navigate to delay anyone. You enter the station (from anywhere) then figure it out inside without worrying about crossing street to find track.
  - twobitshifter 4y ago
    This is the most energy efficient layout. Gravity will slow trains uphill into the station and then give a boost downhill when leaving. It’s not always possible though.
LatteLazy 4y ago
The most interesting thing about the list is that (possibly except NZ) all the places above the US are building tonnes of infrastructure. Even the UK, with our horrendous social, political and economic issues, we've just finished crossrail, we're working on HS2 and Heathrow's third runway might actually happen...
light_hue_1 4y ago
Then you should consider that Governing has an agenda it wants to push. It wants to downplay the role of consultants. Because you can read the study yourself. And this is literally the first paragraph of the conclusion. https://transitcosts.com/wp-content/uploads/TCP_Final_Report.pdf https://transitcosts.com/wp-content/uploads/TCP_Final_Report... Page 375. The conclusion of the study is almost exclusively about consultants. > Costs are soaring throughout the English-speaking world. There is mounting evidence from Seattle, Los Angeles, Toronto, Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong, Melbourne, and the Bay Area that the cost of rapid rail projects in the United States and other English-speaking countries is going to exceed $1 billion per kilometer even outside of New York. The best way to address these soaring costs is to empower experts at transit and capital construction agencies to plan, design, and manage the construction of these projects rather than relying on agency staff to manage contracts, grants, and the interfaces between consultants and agency departments. We argue that by elevating the transit agencies’ authority, and this unequivocally means bringing in experts who have a track record of delivering megaprojects at reasonable costs, this will temper downstream cost drivers. The rule is, don't believe anything in any publication that has an agenda in that area. Like, the Economist is pretty good when writing about other countries, but becomes a political mess when writing about the UK. Same with Governing it seems.

IIAOPSW 4y ago

Or, here's the real bold one, build underground but use cut and cover rather than deep tunnel boring machines that only a few international consortiums know how to run. 1. cut up street. 2. lay down tracks. 3. cover up with viaduct but pretend its a normal road. This is how NY originally built the subway and it has so many advantages. Can make use of any local unskilled labor. Cheaper by a lot. Stations are close to surface, not a labyrinth of escalators to hell. You won't have street level tracks cutting the town in half. Its the superior option in literally every way, but it requires making people put up with their street being in a constant state of roadwork while its built. No one has the tenacity to tell certain voters to just put up with things for the greater good anymore. Its easier to spend a billion dollars than do that!

lotsofpulp 4y ago
When NY originally built the subway, labor laws were a lot more lax, and labor was much, much cheaper.
- bluGill 4y ago
  True, but we have plenty of examples around the world showing that cut and cover us cheaper. We have contractors in NYC who dig holes all the time, cut and cover just a long hole and so easy to estimate.
- WeylandYutani 4y ago
  Also it was a lot easier to evict people and tear down anything standing in the way.
HanShotFirst 4y ago
Cut and cover isn't as simple as it used to be because of the huge amount of underground infrastructure laid down over time, without proper mapping. Digging up any street in NYC is labor intensive, time consuming, and dangerous. Whether it would still be less expensive than the alternative very deep tunnels, that I do not know.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> Stations are close to surface, not a labyrinth of escalators to hell Seattle is building an extension to its light rail system partially above ground partially below ground in many places. It chose to build like this intentionally. Not saying I agree with it but the reasoning: You enter from any side of street and go to unified mezzanine level. From there you can go to both sides of tracks. This enables easier handicap/elevator access to relevant areas since You only need one elevator to street level. Additionally, no signage on street level to navigate to delay anyone. You enter the station (from anywhere) then figure it out inside without worrying about crossing street to find track.
- twobitshifter 4y ago
  This is the most energy efficient layout. Gravity will slow trains uphill into the station and then give a boost downhill when leaving. It’s not always possible though.

LatteLazy 4y ago

The most interesting thing about the list is that (possibly except NZ) all the places above the US are building tonnes of infrastructure. Even the UK, with our horrendous social, political and economic issues, we've just finished crossrail, we're working on HS2 and Heathrow's third runway might actually happen...

light_hue_1 4y ago

Then you should consider that Governing has an agenda it wants to push. It wants to downplay the role of consultants. Because you can read the study yourself. And this is literally the first paragraph of the conclusion. https://transitcosts.com/wp-content/uploads/TCP_Final_Report.pdf https://transitcosts.com/wp-content/uploads/TCP_Final_Report... Page 375. The conclusion of the study is almost exclusively about consultants. > Costs are soaring throughout the English-speaking world. There is mounting evidence from Seattle, Los Angeles, Toronto, Sydney, Singapore, Hong Kong, Melbourne, and the Bay Area that the cost of rapid rail projects in the United States and other English-speaking countries is going to exceed $1 billion per kilometer even outside of New York. The best way to address these soaring costs is to empower experts at transit and capital construction agencies to plan, design, and manage the construction of these projects rather than relying on agency staff to manage contracts, grants, and the interfaces between consultants and agency departments. We argue that by elevating the transit agencies’ authority, and this unequivocally means bringing in experts who have a track record of delivering megaprojects at reasonable costs, this will temper downstream cost drivers. The rule is, don't believe anything in any publication that has an agenda in that area. Like, the Economist is pretty good when writing about other countries, but becomes a political mess when writing about the UK. Same with Governing it seems.