21 Million a Mile ..For Rural Freeway

[3467]

http://www.whig.com/story/22833270/macomb-bypass-grading-project-ready-to-begin


I posted this in Chicago/KC under Midwest for the specific project but then I did the math . In 1983 the cost on Illinois for rural freeway was 4.4 million a mile so this looks like a price increase along the lines of college and health care.
Rural 4 lane expressway seems to be running 8-12 and a rural 2 lane resurfacing is half a million.

What are costs running in other places?

[CNGL-Leudimin]

Here in Spain they were building expressways for €2 million a kilometer, or (with current exchange rates) $4.25 million a mile. But financial crisis has hit so hard there is nothing U/C now.

I assume costs won't vary much between states. Or at least not as much as here in Europe, in the Netherlands a mile of expressway is way more expensive than in Spain. Chris could say more abouth this.

[3467]

Were they built as toll roads before the Financial crisis ? Were they funded by the banks or bonds?
This austerity seems more ridiculous because this is the time to build infrstructure

[J N Winkler]

Were they built as toll roads before the Financial crisis?

Only a minority of the mileage in the pre-2008 period was built as toll roads.  Most of it was built as (free) autovías (in theory, an autovía can have a marginally inferior type of access control compared to autopistas, but in recent construction autovías have been effectively indistinguishable from autopistas).

Were they funded by the banks or bonds?

The majority of the work was funded directly by Spanish central government out of tax revenue.  However, both Spanish central government and the autonomous communities set up publicly owned corporations to borrow money to build a share of the planned roads.  In the case of central government, this company is called SEITT (Sociedad Estatal de Infraestructuras del Transporte Terrestre), and in theory is at an arm's length from the government, but in practice is effectively indistinguishable from it:  website has the Plus Ultra logo and looks like a government website, contract advertisements and award announcements are carried in the Boletín Oficial del Estado (though in a separate section), projects follow the same numbering scheme as ones handled directly by government, etc.  I don't know how SEITT handles its borrowing or retires its debt (my guess is bonds issued on its own account, retired through shadow tolling payments from Spanish central government), but the motivation for setting up both it and its sister entities is to keep their debt off the public-sector balance sheet.

This does not seem to have fooled investors, however.  Contract advertisements from both SEITT and its parent ministry (the Ministerio de Fomento) collapsed in 2009.  In the four years since then there have been only a handful of new advertisements, of which by far the largest (for the A-66 Benavente-Zamora, at over €1 billion) was advertised by Fomento as a PPP deal (shadow tolling, I think).

This austerity seems more ridiculous because this is the time to build infrastructure

Oh, I agree, but the Spanish really have their backs to the wall.  It is not just a question of not advertising as many contracts as in the past.  Brand-new airports and urban tram systems have been mothballed because there just isn't enough cash to cover the operating expenses.  I see signs Fomento is trying to manage cashflow problems on current contracts by pulling the plug at the first hint of site difficulties (several of the recent advertisements have been for completion of jobs that were previously abandoned because of geotechnical problems) and, I suspect, also by urging contractors to work more slowly.  A quick check of Spanish Wikipedia for tramos currently under construction shows several with advertising dates in 2007 and estimated completion dates in 2013 or 2014, versus the 36-month to 48-month completion time typically specified in contract advertisements.

[cpzilliacus]

What are costs running in other places?

Maryland's Intercounty Connector (Route 200) in a suburban environment about $2.5 billion ($143 million per mile), mostly  6 lanes divided (one at-grade intersection at U.S. 1 at the eastern terminus, and the easternmost mile is only 4 lanes).

Six full interchanges, two half interchanges, all-electronic tolls and new collector-distributor lanes and widening along about 5 miles of I-95 and a new I-95 interchange are included in the price.  Also included were extra-long bridges (where culverts might have been acceptable in the past) and a very extensive set of environmental mitigation and stewardship.

[froggie]

The I-95 widening was only from MD 212 to MD 198...more like 3 miles.

Another suburban example:  the latest segment of MN 610 came in at about $43 million/mile.  This did not include ROW (since ROW was already preserved) or either the utility location or CSAH 81 relocation, both of which had been done previously.

The last new-location rural freeway MnDOT built, US 14 between Waseca and Owatonna, had a cost estimate of about $150 million in 2007 dollars for 19.5 miles (or $7.7 million/mile).  I do not know what the final bill came out to, but I suspect it was somewhat higher.

[cpzilliacus]

The I-95 widening was only from MD 212 to MD 198...more like 3 miles.

Widening northbound (which used some of the existing ramps and C-D roads in the I-95/Md. 212 (Powder Mill Road) and I-95/Md. 198 (Sandy Spring Road) interchanges) is about 4.16 miles (according to the SHA Highway Location Reference (2011)).

The bridge carrying Old Gunpowder Road over I-95 had to be demolished and rebuilt.  The bridge carrying Van Dusen Road over I-95 was just recently replaced by a new structure carrying Contee Road over I-95, and the Van Dusen structure is being demolished as we speak.   

Widening southbound had to start well north of Md. 198 at about Brooklyn Bridge Road.  The distance from Brooklyn Bridge Road south to Md. 212 is 5.23 miles (again, according to the SHA HLR).

[Rick Powell]

I-6

http://www.whig.com/story/22833270/macomb-bypass-grading-project-ready-to-begin


I posted this in Chicago/KC under Midwest for the specific project but then I did the math . In 1983 the cost on Illinois for rural freeway was 4.4 million a mile so this looks like a price increase along the lines of college and health care.
Rural 4 lane expressway seems to be running 8-12 and a rural 2 lane resurfacing is half a million.

What are costs running in other places?

I-69 in southern Indiana was well below $10 million/mile in raw construction costs for the portion between I-64 and Crane, opened in late 2012.  It seems to take the prize for "how cheap can you build it" in recent rural freeway construction.

[cu2010]

I-781, which opened last December, cost about $58M total for five miles of highway; about $11.6M per mile.

[Brandon]

This being Illinois, I strongly suspect that some of that $21 million a mile is grease money.  Grease for the politicians, grease for the unions, grease for the whomever else.

[Chris]

Maryland's Intercounty Connector (Route 200) in a suburban environment about $2.5 billion ($143 million per mile)

I'm not sure if you can compare that directly with tax-funded roads. Toll roads are much more expensive because part of the cost is financing cost, which is otherwise part of the government budget. These hidden costs are usually not quoted with tax-funded projects. Sometimes it doesn't even include planning and right-of-way acquisition cost.