Houston Underground Flood Tunnels (to buy, calculation, live)

[Mr. Clutch]

This is a seemingly rather new, very ambitious idea. I personally don't know the pros/cons of doing something like this compared to the ideas currently floating around to control flooding here. Thoughts?

https://www.chron.com/news/politics/...d-12776323.php

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

This is a seemingly rather new, very ambitious idea. I personally don't know the pros/cons of doing something like this compared to the ideas currently floating around to control flooding here. Thoughts?

https://www.chron.com/news/politics/...d-12776323.php

6 billion total cost for one that drains Addicks/Barker to the Ship Channel. Seems like improving those reservoirs and adding a third res. would be a better option.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

6 billion total cost for one that drains Addicks/Barker to the Ship Channel. Seems like improving those reservoirs and adding a third res. would be a better option.

I'm with this. If we're going to spend this kind of money tunneling under the city, we might as well build a subway in it.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

6 billion total cost for one that drains Addicks/Barker to the Ship Channel. Seems like improving those reservoirs and adding a third res. would be a better option.

Damn six billion? I must have missed that in the article. But if that's the cost then yeah I agree, this would seem to be a non-starter compared with the alternatives. Wow.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Damn six billion? I must have missed that in the article. But if that's the cost then yeah I agree, this would seem to be a non-starter compared with the alternatives. Wow.

This is on the front page of todays Chronicle..

By the numbers

$400,000 Estimated cost of feasibility study for tunnel project

$100M Possible cost per mile to build tunnel system

$6B Estimated cost for tunnel from Addicks and Barker reservoirs to Port Houston

3 500-year floods in Houston in past three years

http://digital.olivesoftware.com/Oli...e/Default.aspx

[SugLandDAd]

Turns out, its an old idea that was shot down in the 90s.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/harv...sands-flooding

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by SugLandDAd

Turns out, its an old idea that was shot down in the 90s.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/harv...sands-flooding

Interesting that the cost of the tunnels was pegged at $400 million in 1996 and is now $6 billion. I wonder what changed to cause a 15X cost increase for a similar project in 20 or so years? At less than a billion dollars this idea is much more palatable.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

Interesting that the cost of the tunnels was pegged at $400 million in 1996 and is now $6 billion. I wonder what changed to cause a 15X cost increase for a similar project in 20 or so years? At less than a billion dollars this idea is much more palatable.

6 billion does seem a bit inflated doesn't it

What cost $400,000,000 in 1996 would cost $635,916,637.15 in 2017.

Also, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2017 and 1996,
they would cost you $400,000,000 and $249,651,089.91 respectively. Do you want to do another calculation?

https://westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi

[jfre81]

There's a lot more water that needs to be rerouted in a major flood event now than in 1996. Lots of development, lots of paved-over land since then.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by jfre81

There's a lot more water that needs to be rerouted in a major flood event now than in 1996. Lots of development, lots of paved-over land since then.

I'm not sure this makes sense as far as to why this would now cost 15X more though. Had this project been actually built in 1996, would we have had to invest another $5.6 billion over the past 20 years (in 2018 dollars) to bring it up to the standards they're considering today? I doubt it. There's got to be another factor here.