4 ms·

European labor is pervasively unionized, though, and typically well-paid on construction projects, but the total cost comes in not just slightly cheaper, but at

European labor is pervasively unionized, though, and typically well-paid on construction projects, but the total cost comes in not just slightly cheaper, but at small fractions of the price. Other things involved: there are fewer overlapping transit and government agencies involved in European projects, approvals are faster, contractor billing/profits seem to be more carefully scrutinized, and there is less scope for anyone to file NIMBY suits over the projects, because the courts aren't involved in those kinds of infrastructure-policy decisions. This article discusses some examples: http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/1-billion-doesnt-buy-much-transit-infrastructure-anymore/456/ http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/1-billion-d... Madrid comes in at $58m/km, Paris and Berlin at $250m/km, and anything in the USA at over $1 billion per kilometer. NYC at $1700m/km. Some of those differences have legitimate explanations, but that's a 30x difference between Madrid and NYC. The Copenhagen metro, with quite expensive Scandinavian unionized labor, also cost a mere $150m/km, and the current expansion seems to be clocking in around $200-250m/km.

cynwoody 14y ago
Interesting. According to the Wikipedia[1], the 1318 km Chinese Jinghu High Speed Railway (350 km/h) came in at about $27m/km. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China
- masklinn 14y ago
  HSR is much cheaper than metro: you don't have to dig and you don't have to deal with all the shit which is already in the ground under the city, or with the structural risks of the dig. The french LGV Est, also rated for 350km/h, cost ~€4b (up from an original 3.125m estimate, excluding trains) for 300km[0], or ~€13m/km -> $~17m/km. Including all costs (trains &al) according to the 2007 SNCF report the line cost €5.5b, €18m/km, ~$24m/km. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Est http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Est
mogrim 14y ago
Madrid is, however, a long way above the sea - which will reduce any tunnelling costs by a huge amount. Cost of living is also considerably lower. (Not arguing with your basic premise that US costs are over-expensive, but a lot of that 30x difference can be explained away).
- masklinn 14y ago
  > (Not arguing with your basic premise that US costs are over-expensive, but a lot of that 30x difference can be explained away). A bit of it can be, the 5x difference between Madrid and Berlin/Copenhagen/Paris seems acceptable by the differences in environment (Copenhagen's lowest point is 1m above sea level) and costs of living or complexity of the city's "cellars". The 6x increase on top of that is harder to justify.

cynwoody 14y ago

Interesting. According to the Wikipedia[1], the 1318 km Chinese Jinghu High Speed Railway (350 km/h) came in at about $27m/km. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China

masklinn 14y ago
HSR is much cheaper than metro: you don't have to dig and you don't have to deal with all the shit which is already in the ground under the city, or with the structural risks of the dig. The french LGV Est, also rated for 350km/h, cost ~€4b (up from an original 3.125m estimate, excluding trains) for 300km[0], or ~€13m/km -> $~17m/km. Including all costs (trains &al) according to the 2007 SNCF report the line cost €5.5b, €18m/km, ~$24m/km. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Est http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Est

mogrim 14y ago

Madrid is, however, a long way above the sea - which will reduce any tunnelling costs by a huge amount. Cost of living is also considerably lower. (Not arguing with your basic premise that US costs are over-expensive, but a lot of that 30x difference can be explained away).

masklinn 14y ago
> (Not arguing with your basic premise that US costs are over-expensive, but a lot of that 30x difference can be explained away). A bit of it can be, the 5x difference between Madrid and Berlin/Copenhagen/Paris seems acceptable by the differences in environment (Copenhagen's lowest point is 1m above sea level) and costs of living or complexity of the city's "cellars". The 6x increase on top of that is harder to justify.