tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post2153773755463014255..comments2019-02-27T06:35:52.280-05:00Comments on The Walking Bostonian: The not-so-great train robbery: South Coast Rail now priced at $2.3 billionMatthewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post-15954863813613936932014-10-08T18:19:17.344-04:002014-10-08T18:19:17.344-04:00Matthew,
So nice to see some sanity expressed on r...Matthew,<br />So nice to see some sanity expressed on rail transit in Mass., or anywhere for that matter. I too am pro rail for appropriate applications, however Fall River and New Bedford are not bedroom communities to Boston, in anyway, shape or form. And, too, there is already excellent limited access highway capacity from those cities to Boston; that includes express lanes from many miles out of the central city. Indeed, the 'big dig' designers dumped the majority of inbound traffic off onto one and two lane connectors, leaving many miles of wide highway for those going to Government Center, and for HOV vehicles. The cost of commuter buses that could go direct (non-stop) from those outlier cities to South Station are so much less than commuter rail cars, that even with the added labor of a driver for each bus, the capital and operating costs over time is less than that of rail. <br />There is a far better alternative for that money which would benefit the South Coast immensely, whereas the SCR project benefits, as you've indicated only a few politicians and the pocketbooks of the government contractor class. I call the Big Dig, the Big Swindle; pretty much all transit projects in the state could be described that way. A Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01754774837180603367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post-65983649278797447402014-07-03T11:19:06.070-04:002014-07-03T11:19:06.070-04:00Yeah, the cited table states "$30m/km" f...Yeah, the cited table states "$30m/km" for "Ground-level" metro projects. Although, that is in year 2000 dollars, so it is a bit out of date. Nonetheless, the point was that South Coast Rail is not a surface metro rail project, it's a reactivation of a freight corridor providing minimal service using extensive single tracking. So it should be significantly cheaper per kilometer: more comparable to Utah Frontrunner commuter rail at $7.3m/km. And yes, it should not be costing anywhere near as much as a greenfield HSR project.<br />Matthewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02027332620204904993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4183605236529560843.post-25163636925592036162014-07-02T17:25:36.777-04:002014-07-02T17:25:36.777-04:00Um, nobody builds subways for $28 million per kilo...Um, nobody builds subways for $28 million per kilometer anymore. Predominantly at-grade projects, sure. But really, urban rail is not a good comparison for a commuter rail project connecting two small cities and a suburb; all of the urban running is on preexisting tracks. And there, the cost range is about normal... for greenfield high-speed rail. That's roughly the cost of California HSR in the Central Valley, once you add back electrification and systems. It's a bit more expensive than French HSR and a bit less expensive than Belgian HSR when there are no tunnels.Alonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17267294744186811858noreply@blogger.com