3 ms·

The tunnel itself (regardless of method) isn't the expensive part. Dense urban environments have a ton of stuff underground that was never accurately mapped. Pe

by mike_d 3y ago

The tunnel itself (regardless of method) isn't the expensive part. Dense urban environments have a ton of stuff underground that was never accurately mapped. People don't like a city block bursting into flames because you hit a 4" gas line or the building they are in collapsing because it has an unmarked piling. Building up is actually a cheaper solution, we just need to get the NIMBYs under control. Imagine how nice it would be with 101 and 280 being double deckers the whole way.

fritzo 3y ago
Let's not forget 1989 Loma Prieta quake that caused the top deck of the bay bridge to collapse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake
- mike_d 3y ago
  Which was actually a lot less dramatic than how people seem to remember it. A 70 foot section disconnected at one end. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bay_Bridge_collapse.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bay_Bridge_collapse.jpg Freeway construction has changed a lot since the 70s and 80s. We now use ductile concrete that can flex without breaking, do extensive soil analysis for footings, and add seismic isolation systems in high risk areas.
  - sbuttgereit 3y ago
    Perhaps, but the Nimitz Freeway probably makes a better example for what the commenter you were responding to was getting at: "The highest number of deaths, 42, occurred in Oakland because of the collapse of the Cypress Street Viaduct on the Nimitz Freeway (Interstate 880), where the upper level of a double-deck portion of the freeway collapsed, crushing the cars on the lower level, and causing crashes on the upper level." (https://web.archive.org/web/20090707140922im_/http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/Cypress_Freeway_1989.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20090707140922im_/http://home.pa...)
gehsty 3y ago
It will be down to policy not actual lack of data on infrastructure. Or is the expensive part the mapping? Or maybe the insurance? Older bigger cities have built huge underground infrastructure recently. Londons power tunnels & crossrail for example.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  It will be down to policy not actual lack of data on infrastructure. It's absolutely about the lack of data about historical infrastructure. LA's Regional Connector line was delayed for years, and the budget ballooned by over a billion dollars, due to the discovery of thousands of undocumented utility lines (still in use) along the route. This necessitated dramatic changes to the project timeline and scope, since the construction authority had to reroute all of those utility lines.
thebigman433 3y ago
Even better than expanding 101 and 280 would be to vastly improve the public transit down the peninsula. There is no reason going from my apartment in SF to San Mateo should take over 90 minutes via public transit. There should be constant rapid busses through SF to every Caltrain stop in the city. Hopefully Caltrains electrification + timing improvements make this all more feasible. The fact that it’s one of the most technical areas in the world and we’re stuck driving between SF and the valley is a disgrace
- fragmede 3y ago
  For that matter, why Caltrain? it should all be Bart.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    The name should not matter. There are sometimes good reasons to have more than one operator in a metro area for various reasons. However there needs to be one fare/transfer system across the entire metro with a price cap. You can have various systems of zones or service levels, but there needs to be a maximum cost it is not possible to exceed to make it easy to budget. People who expect to hit that maximum will not hesitate to use transit or send their kids on it and thus are more likely to decide they don't need the car (even though a car probably costs more most people don't account for the costs of a trip)
    - thebigman433 3y ago
      They are piloting fares carrying over between transit rides, which could be a great solution for the people who think it’s too expensive. In general, taking public transit is already cheaper than driving, but it would be really really good if we could market that better. Some people think east bay -> SF for 5.50 each way is too expensive, when the bridge toll alone is almost the same price.
  - thebigman433 3y ago
    Bart would be great, but Caltrain is already there, and is electrified now. I definitely support bringing it all under one roof, but for now I just think it’s important to actually get Caltrain on a functional schedule. In the future, I’d love if Bart could build an extension past millbrae, but they have some other more important things to do imo
bluGill 3y ago
Places in Italy where there is a lot worse stuff underground - like priceless archeological artifacts many to tunnel a lot cheaper than the US where there isn't such things (in the US there wasn't many materials available that would last in the natives trash piles - if there was there would be interest)
renewiltord 3y ago
Fortunately, younger cities like London and Paris don't have the problem that ancient metropolises like San Francisco have, so they can build subway at a fraction of the cost of $4b/mi that SF needs to ensure that it's built right. There's a lot of history in California. Pretty unique in that regard. To be honest, I like 280 without there being something on top of it, but if that's what's necessary to get a rail line down there I'd gladly accept it. Just the per-mile cost. Well, I'm not looking forward to paying more than half of every marginal dollar to the government so it can give it to its cronies who just happen to be husbands of famous California politicians.
- vinay427 3y ago
  I’m not sure they were at all implying that California was exceptional in that regard, to be fair, but at least that urban tunneling involves many costs besides the physical boring. In any case, I wouldn’t use the UK as an example of tunneling efficiently. Crossrail, for instance, is on the order of more expensive urban US projects and there’s a fairly consistent recent history of either not building or letting existing rail infrastructure decay. This link provides a decently contextualized comparison IMO, although it is slightly out of date now: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-constr...
  - renewiltord 3y ago
    The funny thing is that Crossrail, the most humongously expensive UK rail project, is somehow a third the cost per mile as what SF quotes for its newest subway.
jlhawn 3y ago
Here I was thinking you were talking about elevated rail and putting trains back on the lower deck of the bay bridge... but no, you're talking about freeway expansion in the core Bay Area? Not gonna happen.
- mike_d 3y ago
  > Not gonna happen. I've never heard anyone successfully articulate why building enough roads to meet demand is such a bad idea. People need to get around and Caltrans has demonstrated they are far more competent and capable than BART or MUNI.

by mike_d 3y ago

fritzo 3y ago

Let's not forget 1989 Loma Prieta quake that caused the top deck of the bay bridge to collapse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Loma_Prieta_earthquake

mike_d 3y ago
Which was actually a lot less dramatic than how people seem to remember it. A 70 foot section disconnected at one end. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bay_Bridge_collapse.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bay_Bridge_collapse.jpg Freeway construction has changed a lot since the 70s and 80s. We now use ductile concrete that can flex without breaking, do extensive soil analysis for footings, and add seismic isolation systems in high risk areas.
- sbuttgereit 3y ago
  Perhaps, but the Nimitz Freeway probably makes a better example for what the commenter you were responding to was getting at: "The highest number of deaths, 42, occurred in Oakland because of the collapse of the Cypress Street Viaduct on the Nimitz Freeway (Interstate 880), where the upper level of a double-deck portion of the freeway collapsed, crushing the cars on the lower level, and causing crashes on the upper level." (https://web.archive.org/web/20090707140922im_/http://home.pacbell.net/hywaymn/images/Cypress_Freeway_1989.jpg https://web.archive.org/web/20090707140922im_/http://home.pa...)

gehsty 3y ago

It will be down to policy not actual lack of data on infrastructure. Or is the expensive part the mapping? Or maybe the insurance? Older bigger cities have built huge underground infrastructure recently. Londons power tunnels & crossrail for example.

gamblor956 3y ago
It will be down to policy not actual lack of data on infrastructure. It's absolutely about the lack of data about historical infrastructure. LA's Regional Connector line was delayed for years, and the budget ballooned by over a billion dollars, due to the discovery of thousands of undocumented utility lines (still in use) along the route. This necessitated dramatic changes to the project timeline and scope, since the construction authority had to reroute all of those utility lines.

thebigman433 3y ago

Even better than expanding 101 and 280 would be to vastly improve the public transit down the peninsula. There is no reason going from my apartment in SF to San Mateo should take over 90 minutes via public transit. There should be constant rapid busses through SF to every Caltrain stop in the city. Hopefully Caltrains electrification + timing improvements make this all more feasible. The fact that it’s one of the most technical areas in the world and we’re stuck driving between SF and the valley is a disgrace

fragmede 3y ago
For that matter, why Caltrain? it should all be Bart.
- bluGill 3y ago
  The name should not matter. There are sometimes good reasons to have more than one operator in a metro area for various reasons. However there needs to be one fare/transfer system across the entire metro with a price cap. You can have various systems of zones or service levels, but there needs to be a maximum cost it is not possible to exceed to make it easy to budget. People who expect to hit that maximum will not hesitate to use transit or send their kids on it and thus are more likely to decide they don't need the car (even though a car probably costs more most people don't account for the costs of a trip)
  - thebigman433 3y ago
    They are piloting fares carrying over between transit rides, which could be a great solution for the people who think it’s too expensive. In general, taking public transit is already cheaper than driving, but it would be really really good if we could market that better. Some people think east bay -> SF for 5.50 each way is too expensive, when the bridge toll alone is almost the same price.
- thebigman433 3y ago
  Bart would be great, but Caltrain is already there, and is electrified now. I definitely support bringing it all under one roof, but for now I just think it’s important to actually get Caltrain on a functional schedule. In the future, I’d love if Bart could build an extension past millbrae, but they have some other more important things to do imo

bluGill 3y ago

Places in Italy where there is a lot worse stuff underground - like priceless archeological artifacts many to tunnel a lot cheaper than the US where there isn't such things (in the US there wasn't many materials available that would last in the natives trash piles - if there was there would be interest)

renewiltord 3y ago

Fortunately, younger cities like London and Paris don't have the problem that ancient metropolises like San Francisco have, so they can build subway at a fraction of the cost of $4b/mi that SF needs to ensure that it's built right. There's a lot of history in California. Pretty unique in that regard. To be honest, I like 280 without there being something on top of it, but if that's what's necessary to get a rail line down there I'd gladly accept it. Just the per-mile cost. Well, I'm not looking forward to paying more than half of every marginal dollar to the government so it can give it to its cronies who just happen to be husbands of famous California politicians.

vinay427 3y ago
I’m not sure they were at all implying that California was exceptional in that regard, to be fair, but at least that urban tunneling involves many costs besides the physical boring. In any case, I wouldn’t use the UK as an example of tunneling efficiently. Crossrail, for instance, is on the order of more expensive urban US projects and there’s a fairly consistent recent history of either not building or letting existing rail infrastructure decay. This link provides a decently contextualized comparison IMO, although it is slightly out of date now: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-construction-costs/ https://pedestrianobservations.com/2011/05/16/us-rail-constr...
- renewiltord 3y ago
  The funny thing is that Crossrail, the most humongously expensive UK rail project, is somehow a third the cost per mile as what SF quotes for its newest subway.

jlhawn 3y ago

Here I was thinking you were talking about elevated rail and putting trains back on the lower deck of the bay bridge... but no, you're talking about freeway expansion in the core Bay Area? Not gonna happen.

mike_d 3y ago
> Not gonna happen. I've never heard anyone successfully articulate why building enough roads to meet demand is such a bad idea. People need to get around and Caltrans has demonstrated they are far more competent and capable than BART or MUNI.