I've been thinking about which states have the most expensive overall networks on a per-mile basis. I'd imagine Plains states would be cheapest, as most construction would be at-grade and require very little terrain modification.
Mountainous states are, of course, going to have expensive networks. I'd imagine Louisiana would also have one, owing to the extensive bridgework throughout the state.
Fort Point Tunnel on I-90 was the most expensive segment per mile in the country when it was built as part of the Big Dig.
Throw in the Hoosac Tunnel (decades of construction) and MA's transportation system was quite costly. :D
Could TX be a contender? There are many roads, and many miles of them, there. Part of the US 75 redo north of downtown Dallas (1989-1999) was said to have one of the most expensive construction sections in the state at that time.
Quote from: txstateends on October 22, 2018, 09:24:51 PM
Could TX be a contender? There are many roads, and many miles of them, there. Part of the US 75 redo north of downtown Dallas (1989-1999) was said to have one of the most expensive construction sections in the state at that time.
Per mile.
I was thinking California. Extremely urban areas and mountainous areas. It's also the most expensive state on the US mainland in general, which drives prices up further.
Based on this link (https://reason.org/policy-study/23rd-annual-highway-report/total-disbursements-per-mile/) the winner is New Jersey by a large margin for 2018. That includes Highway Patrol and other stuffs so it may not be accurate, but there's some good data on the website you can parse through.
I think that link is on to something, HazMatt.
Here in WA, WSDOT is building two freeway extensions. The entire project, which is extremely extensive overall, only adds about 9 miles of new freeway (excluding ramps). The total cost of planning, land acquisition, and construction, is $1.88 billion, or about $208 million/mile. But because that money goes into far more than just new road construction, that's not quite a fair number (since it involves the modification of a lot of existing roadways, etc).
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Gateway/default.htm
Quote from: HazMatt on October 22, 2018, 11:24:27 PM
Based on this link (https://reason.org/policy-study/23rd-annual-highway-report/total-disbursements-per-mile/) the winner is New Jersey by a large margin for 2018. That includes Highway Patrol and other stuffs so it may not be accurate, but there's some good data on the website you can parse through.
Many people believe the report was incorrect. In NJ, it was widely believed that they took all funding sources for state, toll, county and municipality roads, and then just compared it to state road miles, and got their average amount.
Most likely, it was only half that, if that, for NJ. Still pricey compared to other states, but not THAT pricey.
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 12:27:04 AM
I think that link is on to something, HazMatt.
Here in WA, WSDOT is building two freeway extensions. The entire project, which is extremely extensive overall, only adds about 9 miles of new freeway (excluding ramps). The total cost of planning, land acquisition, and construction, is $1.88 billion, or about $208 million/mile. But because that money goes into far more than just new road construction, that's not quite a fair number (since it involves the modification of a lot of existing roadways, etc).
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Gateway/default.htm
Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is Building a four lane, 30 mile tollway for 300 million dollars for comparison.
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/mass-ranks-at-top-of-highway-spending-but-roads-among/article_f389bae6-877b-11e6-a35e-9bfd5b96ab63.html
I remembered this story from a few years back. Mass one, Florida two, NJ third. Mass spends over 4X the national average.
Of course, go to MassDOT's job-openings page and you'll see some of the ridiculous jobs they have posted, and you'll see a part of the problem. That and a thousand other things.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 23, 2018, 01:31:40 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 23, 2018, 12:27:04 AM
I think that link is on to something, HazMatt.
Here in WA, WSDOT is building two freeway extensions. The entire project, which is extremely extensive overall, only adds about 9 miles of new freeway (excluding ramps). The total cost of planning, land acquisition, and construction, is $1.88 billion, or about $208 million/mile. But because that money goes into far more than just new road construction, that's not quite a fair number (since it involves the modification of a lot of existing roadways, etc).
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/Gateway/default.htm
Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is Building a four lane, 30 mile tollway for 300 million dollars for comparison.
Ha I wish. Land prices, constrained work force, extensive environmental mitigation, intensive work during on-season (hard to work in winter), etc...it's not cheap to build up here.
Quote from: 1 on October 22, 2018, 09:29:06 PMI was thinking California. Extremely urban areas and mountainous areas. It's also the most expensive state on the US mainland in general, which drives prices up further.
This is where it would be helpful to have some clarity as to what is actually being asked, such as the standard for cost (replacement cost? First construction cost deflated to present-day dollars? If the latter, are widenings included? If yes, are costs related to traffic control, such as multiphase construction sequencing, included? If a given highway was not originally built by the state, are costs incurred by the building agency included?).
Yes, California has mountains, many highway locations over or adjacent to unstable, landslide-prone terrain, heavy overheads in connection with seismic risk management, and a generally high cost basis. Alpine climate in the Sierras also imposes heavy winter maintenance costs. But, depending on the method chosen for reckoning cost, one could construct a plausible case that initial construction of California's state highway system was fairly cheap on a per-centerline-mile basis, for the following reasons:
* Of the 13,000 miles of state highway, only about 5,000 are freeway, and only a fraction of the freeway mileage (perhaps half) is within urban areas.
* First construction cost of a significant proportion of the urban freeway mileage was in fact fairly low because it preceded building development in or adjacent to the corridor.
* A substantial share of the non-freeway mileage was originally built by the counties and has received fairly minimal improvement under Caltrans ownership.
I don't mean to suggest that it is cheaper to build rural highways in California than in, say, Kansas, even if we limit ourselves to
ceteris paribus comparisons such as flat rural locations presenting no special soil mechanics problems. But there is a lot of complexity underneath the OP's apparently simple question.
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 24, 2018, 01:37:04 PM
Quote from: 1 on October 22, 2018, 09:29:06 PMI was thinking California. Extremely urban areas and mountainous areas. It's also the most expensive state on the US mainland in general, which drives prices up further.
This is where it would be helpful to have some clarity as to what is actually being asked, such as the standard for cost (replacement cost? First construction cost deflated to present-day dollars? If the latter, are widenings included? If yes, are costs related to traffic control, such as multiphase construction sequencing, included? If a given highway was not originally built by the state, are costs incurred by the building agency included?).
Yes, California has mountains, many highway locations over or adjacent to unstable, landslide-prone terrain, heavy overheads in connection with seismic risk management, and a generally high cost basis. Alpine climate in the Sierras also imposes heavy winter maintenance costs. But, depending on the method chosen for reckoning cost, one could construct a plausible case that initial construction of California's state highway system was fairly cheap on a per-centerline-mile basis, for the following reasons:
* Of the 13,000 miles of state highway, only about 5,000 are freeway, and only a fraction of the freeway mileage (perhaps half) is within urban areas.
* First construction cost of a significant proportion of the urban freeway mileage was in fact fairly low because it preceded building development in or adjacent to the corridor.
* A substantial share of the non-freeway mileage was originally built by the counties and has received fairly minimal improvement under Caltrans ownership.
I don't mean to suggest that it is cheaper to build rural highways in California than in, say, Kansas, even if we limit ourselves to ceteris paribus comparisons such as flat rural locations presenting no special soil mechanics problems. But there is a lot of complexity underneath the OP's apparently simple question.
Let's leave out land acquisition costs, along with demolition, and focus solely on state-built-and-maintained highways. The focus is on the actual infrastructure, and not the incidentals.
If we exclude elements of outturn cost such as land acquisition and traffic control costs in connection with multi-stage construction, then the spread in construction cost narrows, with some flat states being disadvantaged not only because of high structure content (as in Louisiana bayou country) but also because of poorly-drained soils with high organic content (a problem through much of the Deep South) and even undermining (an issue in Kansas with the Tri-State Mining District). And in mountainous states like Pennsylvania and West Virginia, acid rock disposal has proven to be a significant cost factor on top of the higher grading and structure costs.