Speed

[darrell]

Nov 25, 2009 15:28:02 GMT -8 spokker said:

But The Source said that the tunnels cost $248 million. That seems pretty cheap for tunnels, especially considering Seattle is paying $600 million per mile for their underground light rail extension.

I'm just trying to figure out how much it costs per mile to put light rail underground, and your figures don't show that.

What's not clear is what costs are included in the $248M figure, and what aren't. I'll guess it includes Professional Services (engineering design) related to the tunnels but not the substantial cost of underground station boxes and finishes that the Seattle number may include.

And is it just for the finished tunnel bore, or does it also include the necessary Systems expenses for underground ventilation, fire, emergency exits, etc.?

I'd also note The Source cited a final total cost of $898M, up some from the Final EIS $826.3M cost estimate I cited.

[jeisenbe]

Damien, I would really like to know how much tunnels cost, too. But really, isn't the answer "It depends"? Local topography, the spot price of steel, concrete, labor and engineering, and the number and design of stations all affect the price.

Someone mentioned that the University extention of Seattle's light rail will cost 600 million per mile. According to this official page, the total project costs 1.9 billion for a 3.35 mile bored tunnel extention with 2 subway stations: www.soundtransit.org/x1698.xml

According to the Wikipedia about San Francisco's "Central Subway" light rail project (confirmed by Transbay Blog): "capital cost ($1.58 billion for the 1.7 mile light rail line)", with 1.2 to 1.4 billion for the 1.5 miles of subway. (See transbayblog.com/2007/11/13/a-series-on-the-central-subway/ and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway). This is about 800 billion per mile (not sure if this is today or year of expenditure), with two deep stations per mile (to be fair).

As far as tunnels alone, the alternatives analysis for the Central Subway says that extending the tunnel to North Beach would cost 54 million for 0.4 more miles of dual tunnels without stations, wires or tracks. That's over 130 million per mile for tunnels alone. Clearly, the stations and other features are a very big part of the cost.

Back in 1990, the Seattle Metro Tunnel ("bus tunnel" at the time, now also shared with light rail) cost 430 million for 1.3 miles of tunnel and 5 ADA compliant stations; this is before recent inflation.

Her at home, the Regional Connector is supposed to cost 900 million or so for 1.6 miles and 3 stations, and perhaps 1.1 billion for an extra station and an underground junction with the Gold Line, though I don't believe that new option has been fully engineered yet.

From the sources I have seen, 100 to 200 million per mile for dual tunnels seems to be an possible for hilly terrain. Another big cost appears to be underground stations, which may be 50 to 100 million each, depending on depth and complexity, and the rails, wires, cross-overs and junctions may not be included in that 100 million per mile tunnel cost. Also, some of the projects include buying new trains, which will make the cost look higher, and administrative and design costs, which are unavoidable.

[damiengoodmon]

This conversation is why I (nor anyone else) should ever use "project per mile" figures when discussing comparative cost of at-grade vs. subway on a corridor, and why advocates shouldn't accept them when delivered by the transportation agency.

Construction cost of subway is always going to be greater; that's common sense. The question is: how much? You see construction cost, is not project cost. Construction costs is only one aspect of a rail project budget, which includes many costs which are constant (don't change) regardless of alignment, and (to a lesser extent) regardless of project length.

Let me provide a very simple example for illustrative purposes only, meaning don't assume that these costs are actual or decipher much more from the explanation other than the point that construction cost is only one aspect of the overall project budget. If for the same alignment a 2 mile subway (including site acquisition/easement costs) is $300M and 2 mile at-grade (including right-of-way acquisition/easement costs) is $125M then comparatively the subway appears exponentially greater: 300M is 2.4 times greater than 125M.

However, each project incurs several constant costs - costs that regardless of whether the project is underground or at-grade will remain the same or nearly the same, like the rolling stock. Doesn't matter if the Ansaldobredas are operating in a tunnel or the middle of 3rd Street, they're going to cost the same to buy.

Now say the trains are $100M:

300M + 100M = $400M (subway)
125M + 100M = $225M (at-grade)

As you can see, when that cost was added the cost of that 2 mile subway has gone down from 2.4 times higher than at-grade to 1.8 times more expensive.

There are more constant costs, like the systems. Whereas you're not paying for a ventilation system for at-grade, you're not paying for crossing gates/new traffic signals for subway. Say that cost is $50M, and add it to the budget:

400M + 50M = 450M (subway)
200M + 50M = 275M (at-grade)

Now we're down to 1.6 times.

Then comes a big costs for professional services (something Metro and agencies across the country need to be looking overseas on how to reduce). That's typically 25-33% percentage of the subtotal of all costs associated with the project. So tack that on:

450M + 150M = $600M
275M + 92M = $367M

The level to which this cost reduces the ratio of subway to at-grade or maintains it is highly dependent on the proportion of the construction cost relative to the other aspects of the project.

With the example used above, it maintains it. When the construction cost is a smaller aspect of the overall budget, it typically reduces it.

To even further complicate things, there is economies of scale.

Typically, boring a 5 mile tunnel is significantly less in per mile construction cost than boring a 1 mile tunnel. (The same does not hold true for at-grade rail.) The reason is that bored tunneling has a high start-up cost.

Take for example the purchase of the tunnel boring machines and the mobilization cost (roughly defined as the transport of the machines and assembly), which are constant costs. If, of that $200M subway construction cost, the TBM and mobilization amounted to $30M, then it consumed 15% of the subway construction costs. But that is a constant cost. The machines don't require re-assembly every mile. So of a $600M subway project the TBM and mobilization consumes just 5% of the budget, leaving more dollars to bore a longer tunnel so to speak.

Regarding whether "it depends" is an adequate response to what general subway costs are. Absolutely. Same could be said for at-grade and elevated rail. But that's not to say there's no possible mechanism to check a transit authority's cost projections. Somethings are just general rules.

For example, you can assume that if easement costs are low that a station of similar depth built off-street, which doesn't require temporary street decks, will be significantly lower than one built under the street. You can assume that the subway construction cost will be slightly lower ($10-25M) if the tunnel is launched at a station and removed at a station.

Conversely, hundreds of millions of dollars can be added to the subway construction cost if it is being constructed in an area where real estate is high, and the corridor is congested and lacks convenient staging areas. The 2nd Ave Subway project in NYC is a good example of this, and these factors also likely contribute to the cost of the Central Ave Subway in San Fran. (The Central Ave subway also will have pretty deep tunnel/station depth if my memory serves me correctly???)

Of the $1.8B budget on the 3.2 mile Seattle University Link project, the tunnels cost $153.5M and $309M for $462.5M. I don't know enough about that project to determine whether the stations were included in the contract. But since these are design-bid-build contracts, if they are included it is likely only the construction cost and not the design cost.

Conversely, in the case of the Eastside Extension the ~$300M design-build contract included the design and construction of the stations: $35M and $29M for Mariachi Plaza and Soto station respectively. On the Seattle project, there's also a lot of tunneling under homes, so the easement cost of the project could be substantial, and they're crossing a body of water.

And incidentally, since Darrell brought it up, despite significant discussion on this board where thorough documentation has been supplied questioning MTA's conceptual underground costs for the Crenshaw Line, (Metro says $155M for one underground Crenshaw Line station of which $96M is raw construction cost, in comparison to Eastside Extension subway stations with a raw costs of $29-35M), which with an opening date of 2016-2018 is scheduled to come online around the same time as Seattle's University Link (2016), the Seattle project had it's contract come in 12% and 22% under-budget, respectively, because of the economy. Not only has tunneling technology drastically improved in the past 20 years, but a recession is a good time to be building public works projects, because the public sector is typically the only game in town, a fact stated in the article for the award for the larger contract:

"A slumping economy has caused contractors to reduce prices on a number of public-works jobs, at the same time technology has improved in the tunneling industry."

So no, MTA nor at-grade advocates can hide behind "inflation" as an explanation for the costs of subway station construction ($29M for Eastside Extension vs. $96M for Crenshaw) in just a matter of 6-8 years. FYI, Metro has answered the question regarding these vast discrepancies the way I'd expect them to: "the costs will be refined in the next stage of development and will undergo value engineering."

And regarding comparative cost of all subway on the Eastside Extension corridor vs. what was built, we could try but it would be mostly academic. I typically use these figures to see if Metro is in the right ballpark (in the case of Crenshaw they clearly are not). If they are not and there is no explanation (difficult terrain, oil, etc.) then they should be called to mat to explain. But I digress.

Back to Eastside Extension all subway vs. what was built, take for example the possibility that a total underground alignment may have reduced the construction schedule, which has a level of savings, but increased the acquisition cost. Would those two costs alone off-set one another? What if the other aspects of the project weren't needed, i.e. sidewalk cuts, street resurfacing, I-101 overpass, 1st St bridge widening, school relocation, etc.? (I'm not even sure the 1st St bridge widening, I-101 overpass or school relocation were part of the project budget.) How much savings would that have been?

I hope this all begins to explain why at least when you get to discussing a corridor general "project per mile costs" of at-grade vs. subway aren't very helpful.

[kenalpern]

You've made some very cogent arguments which, by and large, I agree with, Damien. The problem is, however, is whether the powers-that-be either have (or, probably better stated, willing to pay) that higher sum.

I view the last decade (started before, and truly promulgated during, the Bush Administration, which was one of the most viciously anti-transit and anti-transportation administrations in recent history) as one which produced two big projects that had their budgets focused on the quantity of the spending towards the projects and not quality of the final projects:

1) The Orange Line Busway, which could have, and should have, been a LRT project with lots of elevated grade separations; it need not have been a subway, but a LRT with appropriate grade separations would have enjoyed first-rate ridership (legally, however, the Robbins Bill prevented a LRT and ONLY allowed a subway, but ultimately this Busway squeaked through on a low budget and we're DONE with the SFV for now)

2) An Eastside LRT project that was going to be built before any Westside or other project, come hell or high water, because of the political rancor of Roybal-Allard and others when the Red Line Subway failed to reach the Eastside; perhaps TWO subways to serve the different corridors of the Eastside should have been explored, just as two LRT projects now should serve the different corridors of the Eastside, but the Eastside was going to get SOMETHING, dammit, and now we're also done with the Eastside for now

Perhaps the El Monte/Harbor Busway/Congestion pricing project is a third project that should be included, but that's really just a betterment of already-existing projects, and perhaps one of the few easy additions we could get from the federal government over the past decade.

Fortunately, Damien, we now have a totally different attitude, when we DO intend to build a Wilshire Subway and a Downtown Connector without politicians and Metro staffers saying "riiiiiight..."

...but the Orange Line and EGL will probably stand out as examples of when transit projects in the first decade of this century were forced to do things on the megacheap at the cost of being second-rate projects with glaring defects that piss off just about everyone.

I can only hope that labor costs are kept LOW during this glaring recession, and that as we "move on" to other regions of the county that need rail lines we can plan, design and fund them right the first time now that the political powers that be know that the political will for such a paradigm exists among the voters with the passage of Measure R.

(of course, the ability of Metro to overbudget and build cost-ineffectively can make the Crenshaw and Downtown Connector and Wilshire projects so expensive that there can be another backlash among the voters if they lose faith again...)

[metrocenter]

BTW, I drove the length of the route Tuesday, and things are much improved. There aren't nearly the problems that I witnessed just prior to opening. The signals are better coordinated, resulting in shorter wait times and shorter lines of cars. Also, it seems like the locals have gotten used to stopping at the non-standard intersections, with the stop lines set back from the intersection.

My only real complaint now is First Street eastbound leading toward Indiana should be painted with two lanes: one for straight and one for left turn onto Indiana. Right now there is confusion about whether or not people should move to the left for turning, or if it's just one lane.

The trains were very frequent around 6 PM, so given the low demand on the extension, most of the trains were nearly empty. The empty trains give the appearance of an unused line, which is not true. I'd guess that this is normal for an extension of an existing line, since ridership takes some time to build up.

[bluelineshawn]

I rode today for the first time in a couple of months and the speed - or more likely the impression of speed - has improved again. Trains felt faster in the tunnels, lights were timed better, there appeared to be at least some signal preemption, and trains accelerated quicker (similar to the other lines). I don't know that this even adds up to more than 2 minutes, but as has been said in the past, the impression of speed (or slowness) is often more important than actual running time.

[rubbertoe]

The timetable now shows 24 minutes. I seem to remember that it was initially 25, though I don't have the saved PDF from back then. Maybe someone else can confirm.

The other benefit of running the trains faster is that there would be fewer trains required. Although I doubt that shaving 1 minute off buys you much even during rush hour, I could be wrong.

RT

[bluelineshawn]

The OP shows a 25 minute timetable, but they did speed up the 101 flyover after that which literally (combined with timing the light on Temple) shaved 1 minute by itself. I think that it is maybe another minute or two faster although my trip was on a holiday which meant that there was even less street traffic than the normal relatively light street traffic.

[JerardWright]

May 31, 2010 14:07:35 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I rode today for the first time in a couple of months and the speed - or more likely the impression of speed - has improved again. Trains felt faster in the tunnels, lights were timed better, there appeared to be at least some signal preemption, and trains accelerated quicker (similar to the other lines). I don't know that this even adds up to more than 2 minutes, but as has been said in the past, the impression of speed (or slowness) is often more important than actual running time.

Actually there have been a number of trips in which I've ridden in the last 2 months in which I have timed that they have done the line end to end in under 20 minutes with all stops and 30-40 second dwell times at stations. So this is a little tweak that I can see coming as there was way to much slack to the schedule to start. Reliably they could do this line end to end in 20 minutes.

[jdrcrasher]

May 31, 2010 14:07:35 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I rode today for the first time in a couple of months and the speed - or more likely the impression of speed - has improved again. Trains felt faster in the tunnels, lights were timed better, there appeared to be at least some signal preemption, and trains accelerated quicker (similar to the other lines). I don't know that this even adds up to more than 2 minutes, but as has been said in the past, the impression of speed (or slowness) is often more important than actual running time.

Wait you went on the gold line eastside extension on memorial day? I did, too!

[jeisenbe]

Jun 1, 2010 12:31:13 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

Actually there have been a number of trips in which I've ridden in the last 2 months in which I have timed that they have done the line end to end in under 20 minutes.

That's great news, and makes a lot of sense. 20 minutes for 5.9 miles is almost 18 miles per hour, reasonable for light rail, considering the turns and partial street-running. The scheduled 25 minutes is less than 15 mph, no better than many of the Metro Rapid buses, including the nearby routes on Cesar Chavez and Whittier (though these have the advantage of wide stop spacing and straight routing).

If we eliminate the slow section between Union Station and Little Tokyo station from consideration, the straight stretch to the east would look even better, perhaps 20 mph average. With a 4 minute trip on the Regional Connector, you will be able to get from Atlantic and 3rd street in East LA to the financial district and "Metro Center" station in 20 or 21 minutes, in the year 2021, if all goes well.

[bluelineshawn]

Jun 1, 2010 14:44:22 GMT -8 jdrcrasher said:

May 31, 2010 14:07:35 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I rode today for the first time in a couple of months and the speed - or more likely the impression of speed - has improved again. Trains felt faster in the tunnels, lights were timed better, there appeared to be at least some signal preemption, and trains accelerated quicker (similar to the other lines). I don't know that this even adds up to more than 2 minutes, but as has been said in the past, the impression of speed (or slowness) is often more important than actual running time.

Wait you went on the gold line eastside extension on memorial day? I did, too!

Yup. I rode sometime around noon or so. What about you?

[bluelineshawn]

Jun 1, 2010 12:31:13 GMT -8 JerardWright said:

May 31, 2010 14:07:35 GMT -8 bluelineshawn said:

I rode today for the first time in a couple of months and the speed - or more likely the impression of speed - has improved again. Trains felt faster in the tunnels, lights were timed better, there appeared to be at least some signal preemption, and trains accelerated quicker (similar to the other lines). I don't know that this even adds up to more than 2 minutes, but as has been said in the past, the impression of speed (or slowness) is often more important than actual running time.

Actually there have been a number of trips in which I've ridden in the last 2 months in which I have timed that they have done the line end to end in under 20 minutes with all stops and 30-40 second dwell times at stations. So this is a little tweak that I can see coming as there was way to much slack to the schedule to start. Reliably they could do this line end to end in 20 minutes.

That sounds about right. It really did seem 2 or 3 minutes faster, but I didn't want to overstate it as I hadn't timed it or even paid much attention other than noticing that we were going faster.

[bobdavis]

I went to Union Station today to see the new Metrolink cars. Since I was a bit early, I stayed on to 1st & Alameda to see how the 1st St. bridge is coming (answer: very slowly--the westbound side is still under construction). I noticed that the trains had to stop for traffic signals at Temple, 1st and the side street between Alameda and Vignes. Apparently, signal pre-emption is not in effect here; is it planned for the future. Of course this whole area will change when the Downtown Connector construction starts, but in the meantime, this would appear to be a place for improvement.

[crzwdjk]

Does the train still crawl along the bridge over the 101 at 6 mph? Though that may have been a particular driver being extra careful to stay under the 10 mph cab signal speed limit.

[LAofAnaheim]

Dec 11, 2010 1:58:54 GMT -8 Gokhan said:

Of course, now the crossing gates will cost another $75 million or so. So, we can say that the Eastside Extension is $160 million overbudget.

Woah....the Eastside Gold Line is getting crossing gates? Fantastic. Hopefully this will speed up the train, because right now, it kinda puts me off the "light rail agenda". This is the slowest of all light rail lines and extruciating slow especially on the 101 Flyover, Alameda/Temple, 1st/Temple and nearly all of 3rd street. It's bar none ridiculous.

[bobdavis]

I recall reading somewhere that the Breda units (700-series) can do 15 mph on the 101 bridge, but the Siemens units (227-250, 301-302) are restricted to 10 mph.

[Gokhan]

Dec 11, 2010 23:04:30 GMT -8 bobdavis said:

I recall reading somewhere that the Breda units (700-series) can do 15 mph on the 101 bridge, but the Siemens units (227-250, 301-302) are restricted to 10 mph.

This reminds me the "strictly class 3" S Curve elevated track with 15 MPH speed limit in the fictitious Pennsylvania town Stanton in the movie Unstoppable, where the unmanned freight train was headed 75 MPH and bound to derail if it couldn't be slowed down.



The movie was really good by the way.

[crzwdjk]

From what I heard, the 10 vs. 15 mph issue has to do with the cab signal system, and the fact that it uses coded track circuits with two carrier frequencies. Apparently some trains can only pick up one of them, and the difference between the 10 mph and 15 mph codes is only in the presence of some code on the other frequency. I'm not sure how this works in terms of Breda vs. Siemens trains, but I'm pretty sure I was riding on a Breda and the in-cab display showed the speed limit as "10" and the current speed as somewhere around "6" when we were going over the viaduct.

[Gokhan]

This bridge was designed awfully. There was no reason for the curves to be this sharp.

[jeisenbe]

The Source reports that Metro will be simulating quad gates (by having lights turn red for trains): thesource.metro.net/2011/05/06/tests-simulating-crossing-gates-on-the-eastside-extension-of-gold-line-set-to-begin-next-week/#respond

If quad gates are installed along the street-running portion of the Eastside extension, could the trains travel more quickly thru this section?

If this could raise average speeds (from the current 15 mph), I would definitely support adding quad gates. They are pretty cheap, would definitely reduce of cars getting hit by the trains (if drivers run the red light), and would make the trains more reliable even if they speed doesn't increase.

[LAofAnaheim]

May 6, 2011 13:34:50 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

The Source reports that Metro will be simulating quad gates (by having lights turn red for trains): thesource.metro.net/2011/05/06/tests-simulating-crossing-gates-on-the-eastside-extension-of-gold-line-set-to-begin-next-week/#respond

If quad gates are installed along the street-running portion of the Eastside extension, could the trains travel more quickly thru this section?

If this could raise average speeds (from the current 15 mph), I would definitely support adding quad gates. They are pretty cheap, would definitely reduce of cars getting hit by the trains (if drivers run the red light), and would make the trains more reliable even if they speed doesn't increase.

If you read the article, it sounds like "drivers are to expect delays". I think this is a good thing. Give some darn priority to Metro rail and stop catering to the private automobile! Love it..now we can see the train speed through intersections with less concern for cross traffic.

[spokker]

They would travel more quickly not by increasing the top speed, but keeping the train from stopping at red lights.

At least that's how I read it.

[elray]

May 6, 2011 14:03:18 GMT -8 LAofAnaheim said:

May 6, 2011 13:34:50 GMT -8 jeisenbe said:

The Source reports that Metro will be simulating quad gates (by having lights turn red for trains): thesource.metro.net/2011/05/06/tests-simulating-crossing-gates-on-the-eastside-extension-of-gold-line-set-to-begin-next-week/#respond

If quad gates are installed along the street-running portion of the Eastside extension, could the trains travel more quickly thru this section?

If this could raise average speeds (from the current 15 mph), I would definitely support adding quad gates. They are pretty cheap, would definitely reduce of cars getting hit by the trains (if drivers run the red light), and would make the trains more reliable even if they speed doesn't increase.

If you read the article, it sounds like "drivers are to expect delays". I think this is a good thing. Give some darn priority to Metro rail and stop catering to the private automobile! Love it..now we can see the train speed through intersections with less concern for cross traffic.

"Expect delays" is more an admission of guilt - of ineptness and incompetence in managing traffic, than any endorsement of LRT or change in priority. Its a disclaimer - so when there are no city employees on duty, but lanes are closed and signals don't work for weeks, they can shrug and state "We advised you."

Celebrating new congestion and gridlock intentionally or incompetently foisted upon the private automobile driver doesn't sit well with me. All this exercise will do is generate public contempt for transit and once again prove why at-grade crossings and street running should be avoided.

[thanks4goingmetro]

It's hard to imagine why the Gold Line doesn't sail through lights like the Blue Line does on Washington St. I ride the Eastside Extension a lot in the middle of the day (more people ride nowadays and there's a short line now: East LA-Union Station) and it goes by pretty quickly but it is really annoying when it stops and sits through a full cycle of automobile traffic complete with protected left turns.

I'll make an effort to time it when I ride tomorrow