Blog Post < Previous | Next >
MP
The Real Cost of The Alto Tunnel
Advocates for the re-construction of the Alto Tunnel have already begun a campaign of selective fact-picking by touting some items from the recently posted update to the 2010 Study and ignoring the larger picture.
It’s inaccurate to quote only the $48.6m figure to re-construct the Tunnel itself and ignore the $8.7m budgeted in the 2010 Study (not since updated for inflation) for required physical improvements to the access routes on both sides. The correct number to focus on is $46.8m for the Tunnel only plus $8.7m for the route improvements for a minimum total of $55.5m, plus a cost escalation factor for the $8.7m over the past 7 years.
Applying the Rider/Levett/Bucknall (#1 US cost estimating company) index for construction increases in the US for the last 7 years (27.2%) to the $8.7m figure, that number swells to $11.1. And the SF Bay Area cost index is much higher than the national average.
The real number from the County Study, therefore, is somewhere between $55.5m and $57.9m, plus a factor for higher costs in this region. And even that figure is low when you consider the omissions cited below:
1.There is no modeling for seismic safety. Any agencies willing to pick up the liability for this proposal should want to know how the tunnel would fare in a seismic event, and adjust construction design, and therefore the cost, accordingly.
2. There are no approved working drawings. You can’t have real cost estimates without approved working drawings. The consultants’ estimate is conceptual, an educated guess at best.
3. Major assumptions in the Study are best case: Every time the consultants faced a question they didn’t have data for, they assumed the best case.
4. There is insufficient planning for neighborhood disruption: This would be a massive infrastructure project, requiring the same heavy equipment as a new bore, with major off-haul of debris, requiring a huge staging effort in the middle of two residential neighborhoods. There is no factor for displacement of residents directly above the Tunnel portals, and no recognition of potential damage to neighborhood roadways required for access, etc.
5. There is no contingency for neighborhood opposition: Hundreds of neighbors in the affected neighborhoods are opposed to this proposal, and could create serious roadblocks regarding access, disputed easements, EIR issues, etc.
6. The updated Study does not address Mill Valley’s concerns in its Resolution 00-36: The County has not addressed most of the issues for which the City of Mill Valley has requested information, and presents no budget for addressing them.
7. There is no budget for an EIR: Nowhere in the 2010 Study or the revision is there any budget for an EIR for this massive project, a cost which would push the budget for the whole project over $60m, even using the County’s optimistic numbers. Factor in inflation for the next 5-10 years of EIR preparation and analysis, settlement of easement and ownership issues, production of actual working drawings, real estimates and bid solicitation, contracting, prep, etc., and the budget grows a minimum of another 15% using the County’s own 3% annual escalation figure, which is far below the national, let alone the region’s, average.
If there really is $60-70m available to throw at this toy for mostly recreational cyclists, there are a host of real transportation infrastructure issues which should be addressed first - flooding at the Manzanita interchange, flooding at Highway 37, the miserable access routes to the Richmond Bridge, perennially clogged traffic at the Blithedale/101 overpass, etc., all of which keep working folks from their families, clog secondary streets with traffic, and add untold pollution to the air.
Let’s solve our real transportation problems before spending any more taxpayer dollars on recreational projects like the Alto Tunnel.