3 ms·
Except in a subway systems, the cost of the stations dominates the cost of the tunnels. So a small saving on the tunnelling itself doesn't make much difference.
by twic 2y ago
Except in a subway systems, the cost of the stations dominates the cost of the tunnels. So a small saving on the tunnelling itself doesn't make much difference.
Check out the December 2018 forecast costs for Crossrail [1]. 3676 million for seven stations, plus "station tunnels east", the construction of the station tunnels at Liverpool Street and Moorgate. 1708 million for running tunnels. 439 million for portals and shafts. 956 for tracks and electrics.
[1] https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/crossrail-huge-cost-hikes-on-stations-and-tunnels-revealed https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/crossrail-huge-cost...
- wahern 2y agoWithout a doubt there's been tremendous inflation for the cost of stations, even ignoring the marginal cost of in-fill stations in dense urban areas. Planners and especially politicians demand ever fancier and larger stations. That just speaks to the amount of cost inflation all around. Notice how the review article mentions how "cheap" the Vegas Loop feels. Would they say the same about old stations in places like Boston, or do they apply a different metric because of different expectations? (And to be honest, I know my expectations are different, because we're accustomed to newer things being prettier, at least superficially, especially in the age of disposal products. It's an understandable characterization they made, but it's not very reasonable.) Learning how to build more affordable, utilitarian stations, just like tunneling, is a lost skill. Like any skill, developing it requires iteration and repetition, and over time the output will become more refined. But to achieve frequent iteration will require dramatic reductions in costs.