News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Midtown Tunnel Corridor Project (VA) Awarded

Started by Beltway, December 05, 2011, 10:15:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Beltway

$2.1 billion contract awarded for Midtown Tunnel expansion, related Hampton Roads projects

http://www.dailypress.com/news/traffic/dp-nws-tunnel-contract-20111205,0,3557494.story

Motorists who travel between Norfolk and Portsmouth can expect new tolls and construction next year as a major project moves forward to expand and rehabilitate the Midtown Tunnel, Downtown Tunnel and Martin Luther King Freeway.

Gov. Bob McDonnell announced Monday morning the Virginia Department of Transportation entered into a contract with the Elizabeth River Crossings construction consortium to build a new Midtown Tunnel; rehabilitate the existing tunnel, as well as, the Downtown Tunnel; and extend the Martin Luther King Freeway from London Boulevard to Interstate 264 with an interchange at High Street.

See URL for rest.

Two comments ---

Wonder how they ever got the city of Portsmouth to agree to tolling the two tunnels?  Many residents and businesses there see that as a major disincentive to commuting there from Norfolk.  Of course, most of South Hampton Roads will still access Portsmouth without a toll, and VA-164 and I-664 provide a toll-free freeway connection between Portsmouth and the Peninsula.

$1.0 billion for constructing the new tunnel tube ... for mile of 2-lane highway!  Sadly, major bridge and tunnel construction has become fantastically expensive.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)


cpzilliacus

Quote from: Beltway on December 05, 2011, 10:15:53 PM
$1.0 billion for constructing the new tunnel tube ... for mile of 2-lane highway!  Sadly, major bridge and tunnel construction has become fantastically expensive.

Having to pay "prevailing" union-scale (Davis-Bacon Act) wages does drive up the price somewhat.  And Davis-Bacon applies to most construction projects, even in right-to-work states like Virginia.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

J N Winkler

Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 06, 2011, 11:55:28 AMHaving to pay "prevailing" union-scale (Davis-Bacon Act) wages does drive up the price somewhat.  And Davis-Bacon applies to most construction projects, even in right-to-work states like Virginia.

Isn't that a lazy argument?  Davis-Bacon has been around since the 1930's while these high construction prices are recent in origin.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

cpzilliacus

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 06, 2011, 01:04:22 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 06, 2011, 11:55:28 AMHaving to pay "prevailing" union-scale (Davis-Bacon Act) wages does drive up the price somewhat.  And Davis-Bacon applies to most construction projects, even in right-to-work states like Virginia.

Isn't that a lazy argument?  Davis-Bacon has been around since the 1930's while these high construction prices are recent in origin.

It's not the only reason, but it's a major one. 

Obviously the price of "raw" materials for a project like this, including Diesel fuel, asphalt, cement and steel have gone up as well, perhaps more than the cost of labor (even with Davis-Bacon taken into account). 
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 06, 2011, 01:04:22 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 06, 2011, 11:55:28 AMHaving to pay "prevailing" union-scale (Davis-Bacon Act) wages does drive up the price somewhat.  And Davis-Bacon applies to most construction projects, even in right-to-work states like Virginia.

Isn't that a lazy argument?  Davis-Bacon has been around since the 1930's while these high construction prices are recent in origin.

Correct ... the I-664 tunnel is almost the same length, and has 2 two-lane tubes.  It cost $125 million and was completed in 1992.

The cost of the parallel Midtown Tunnel tube far, far, exceeds what can be attributed to inflation in the costs of construction.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Alps

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 06, 2011, 01:04:22 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 06, 2011, 11:55:28 AMHaving to pay "prevailing" union-scale (Davis-Bacon Act) wages does drive up the price somewhat.  And Davis-Bacon applies to most construction projects, even in right-to-work states like Virginia.

Isn't that a lazy argument?  Davis-Bacon has been around since the 1930's while these high construction prices are recent in origin.
High labor prices are fairly recent in origin, a) due to the increase in union power over the years and b) due to the increase in minimum wage, standard of living, and what are considered basic amenities now. (People in the 1930s could get by with a few light bulbs, a radio, and an oven as their only appliances.) All raw materials have risen as well, and it's all interlinked.

J N Winkler

Quote from: Steve on December 06, 2011, 08:33:17 PMHigh labor prices are fairly recent in origin, a) due to the increase in union power over the years and b) due to the increase in minimum wage, standard of living, and what are considered basic amenities now. (People in the 1930s could get by with a few light bulbs, a radio, and an oven as their only appliances.) All raw materials have risen as well, and it's all interlinked.

The timescales are different.  High construction prices are largely a phenomenon of the last ten years, while Davis-Bacon has been around since 1931.  Davis-Bacon isn't really anything to do with the unions, whose overall membership density has been in decline since the 1940's, and would be much lower now if not for the growth in public-sector employee union membership after 1960.  The real purpose of Davis-Bacon is to remove wage costs as a factor in bidding on federally funded public works contracts.  Since the Department of Labor does prevailing-wage determinations for Davis-Bacon on an area-by-area basis, Davis-Bacon wage rates are not the same as imposing "union scale" in an open-shop state.  If labor conditions in a given area favor employers rather than the union, then that will be reflected in the USDOL wage determination for that area.

Minimum wage is a bit of a red herring since the real minimum wage today is actually somewhat lower than it was in 1960, although the nominal wage today is about seven times higher.  This is what 1970's stagflation combined with post-1980 restrained wage growth in the minimum-wage sector will do for you.

Since 1930, mechanization of construction has greatly increased, which diffuses the impact of wage rates on overall project cost.

Taking the example cited ($125 million in 1992 for two two-lane tubes versus $1 billion now for one two-lane tube), here are what I think are the likeliest drivers of the higher headline cost:

*  Are the two costed on an equal basis?  (Does the $1 billion include an element of long-term maintenance which is absent from the earlier $125 million figure?)

*  Much higher material costs, particularly for concrete, steel, and petroleum derivatives such as asphalt

*  Expanded risk provision in regard to uncertain subsurface conditions (particularly if they are going for a bored tunnel instead of an immersed-tube tunnel--one single undocumented borehole intersecting the tunnelling envelope can let in a lot of water and cause major headaches; water leakage through fault breccia is another potential problem)

*  Tighter OSHA requirements in regard to tunnelling work

*  Tighter standards for incident detection, protection, and management in tunnels

*  Higher bonding costs (partly a result of 9/11--this is what scuttled the original attempt to let the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge east span replacement as a single contract)

*  Higher labor costs, relating primarily to health insurance rather than wages

Eh.net HMIT gives multiple ways of inflating $125 million in 1992 to 2010 dollars, ranging from $181 million (GDP deflator) to $286 million (relative share of GDP).  Any way you slice it, the apparent real cost of the new tube is much higher than the real cost of the two tubes opened 19 years ago.  Wage increases likely contribute a certain amount to the higher cost since it takes skilled labor to excavate tunnels (especially subaqueous ones), but I would expect this contribution to be small in relation to the other factors.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Beltway

#7
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 06, 2011, 09:18:19 PM

Taking the example cited ($125 million in 1992 for two two-lane tubes versus $1 billion now for one two-lane tube), here are what I think are the likeliest drivers of the higher headline cost:

I-664 has one tunnel element with 2 tubes.

Quote
*  Are the two costed on an equal basis?  (Does the $1 billion include an element of long-term maintenance which is absent from the earlier $125 million figure?)

It does not include long-term maintenance.

Quote
*  Expanded risk provision in regard to uncertain subsurface conditions (particularly if they are going for a bored tunnel instead of an immersed-tube tunnel--one single undocumented borehole intersecting the tunnelling envelope can let in a lot of water and cause major headaches; water leakage through fault breccia is another potential problem)

Both of them have an immersed-tube design.  The major difference is that I-664 is a steel tubular design, while the new Midtown will have a reinforced concrete box design.  Also, I-664 has plenum ventilation, while the new Midtown will have jet fans along the ceiling.  I would think that the latter design would be cheaper, thus explaining its first use in Virginia and only recent use elsewhere.

The cost index for heavy construction considerably outpaces the general consumer inflation rate, perhaps double the rate or more.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

cpzilliacus

QuoteBoth of them have an immersed-tube design.  The major difference is that I-664 is a steel tubular design, while the new Midtown will have a reinforced concrete box design.  Also, I-664 has plenum ventilation, while the new Midtown will have jet fans along the ceiling.  I would think that the latter design would be cheaper, thus explaining its first use in Virginia and only recent use elsewhere.

I believe that both of the tunnels in Baltimore (I-895/Harbor Tunnel and I-95/Fort McHenry) are immersed-tube concrete. 

First place I saw jet fans was in the  "new" (northbound tube) of Lehigh Tunnel on the Penna. Turnpike N.E. Extension (I-476). 
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2011, 08:27:57 AM
QuoteBoth of them have an immersed-tube design.  The major difference is that I-664 is a steel tubular design, while the new Midtown will have a reinforced concrete box design.  Also, I-664 has plenum ventilation, while the new Midtown will have jet fans along the ceiling.  I would think that the latter design would be cheaper, thus explaining its first use in Virginia and only recent use elsewhere.

I believe that both of the tunnels in Baltimore (I-895/Harbor Tunnel and I-95/Fort McHenry) are immersed-tube concrete. 

First place I saw jet fans was in the  "new" (northbound tube) of Lehigh Tunnel on the Penna. Turnpike N.E. Extension (I-476). 

The Baltimore harbor tunnels are an immersed tube steel tubular design.

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

qguy

Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 07, 2011, 08:27:57 AM
First place I saw jet fans was in the  "new" (northbound tube) of Lehigh Tunnel on the Penna. Turnpike N.E. Extension (I-476).  

The newer tube is actually the southbound one.  ;-)  Carry on...

Beltway

Looks like the city of Portsmouth is upset about this ... big time!

Too bad that the Midtown Tunnel can't be funded as I-164 with 90% federal funds, and the MLK Extension can't be funded as I-764 with 90% federal funds.

Given the massive military presence in the area, that would be justified.

....

Portsmouth leaders, residents rally against toll project
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/12/portsmouth-leaders-residents-rally-against-toll-project
By Dave Forster
Debbie Messina
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 8, 2011

Now that state officials have finalized a deal to build another Midtown Tunnel, the reality of tolls has sparked a protest from Portsmouth residents and second-guessing among some city officials.

Portsmouth Mayor Kenny Wright told a crowd outside City Hall on Wednesday that his city would lead a charge to beat back the size of the tolls. He said every other South Hampton Roads community should join the effort because of the adverse impact that tolls will have on the region economically.  "This thing is far from over," Wright said.

see URL for rest.
.............

Lousy deal for Hampton Roads
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/12/lousy-deal-hampton-roads
The Virginian-Pilot
© December 7, 2011

For the first time in more than a decade, Hampton Roads is about to turn dirt on a major highway project. Construction is on the horizon at the Midtown Tunnel, which connects Norfolk to Portsmouth.

So why are so many in the region so unhappy?

"I'm furious," Portsmouth Mayor Kenny Wright told a reporter from The Pilot. "The price of the tolls is too high, and the governor signed this deal without consulting the mayors of the cities affected. We haven't had a chance to weigh in, and it's not fair."

Wright is precisely right. Sadly, he's also too late.

Starting next year, it will cost a rush-hour traveler $3.68 a day to cross and recross the Elizabeth River at either the Midtown or Downtown tunnel. It will cost a truck $14.72.

See URL for rest.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

Takumi

Those toll rates are oddly specific, especially the ones for rush hour...
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2011, 11:21:41 PM
Looks like the city of Portsmouth is upset about this ... big time!

Too bad that the Midtown Tunnel can't be funded as I-164 with 90% federal funds, and the MLK Extension can't be funded as I-764 with 90% federal funds.

Given the massive military presence in the area, that would be justified.

I don't dispute what you say - and that military presence is a federal presence.

But even if these projects were to be funded under the "old" Interstate match rates of 90 federal cents and 10 state cents for every dollar, I doubt that VDOT could manage even that, given the reality of finances at the agency.   

The citizens (and voters) of Virginia need to "pick their poisons," and decide if they want more toll roads or higher motor fuel tax rates (or a combination of both). 
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Beltway

Quote from: cpzilliacus on December 09, 2011, 10:35:25 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 08, 2011, 11:21:41 PM
Looks like the city of Portsmouth is upset about this ... big time!

Too bad that the Midtown Tunnel can't be funded as I-164 with 90% federal funds, and the MLK Extension can't be funded as I-764 with 90% federal funds.

Given the massive military presence in the area, that would be justified.

I don't dispute what you say - and that military presence is a federal presence.

But even if these projects were to be funded under the "old" Interstate match rates of 90 federal cents and 10 state cents for every dollar, I doubt that VDOT could manage even that, given the reality of finances at the agency.   

The citizens (and voters) of Virginia need to "pick their poisons," and decide if they want more toll roads or higher motor fuel tax rates (or a combination of both). 

Actually they could ... they are putting almost $400 million in state funding into the $2.1 billion project.

The massive civil maritime presence also adds to the nationally strategic nature of the Hampton Roads area.

Plus it is the Navy that insists that these channel crossings be in tunnels, which are fantastically expensive.
http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.