ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

I don't think anyone in this process has any incentive to keep costs down, so there's no option that is cheaper. Even if they somehow came up with bus lanes, it would still somehow cost $1B.

If we can't build this for a normal amount of money, then that means we can't build anything - and it seems like nobody in power gives a fuck. If a contractor says they need $x, then there's no questioning. Why do we even have local engineers if they just read their manual and turn their brains off?

If a 19km light rail comes out to $4.5B, then that means the next lane widening of the 401 is going to also be a 10 digit sum, and the next new school build, and the next hospital after that, and sooner or later a new suburban road is a $20M project.

Light rail existed 100 years ago and we can't do it anymore now! That's real and physical decline and nobody cares!

I was quite serious when I said that I don't think we should build Phase 2 for 4.5 billion. It sets a society ending precedent.

[jeffster]

I don't think anyone in this process has any incentive to keep costs down, so there's no option that is cheaper. Even if they somehow came up with bus lanes, it would still somehow cost $1B.

If we can't build this for a normal amount of money, then that means we can't build anything - and it seems like nobody in power gives a fuck. If a contractor says they need $x, then there's no questioning. Why do we even have local engineers if they just read their manual and turn their brains off?

If a 19km light rail comes out to $4.5B, then that means the next lane widening of the 401 is going to also be a 10 digit sum, and the next new school build, and the next hospital after that, and sooner or later a new suburban road is a $20M project.

Light rail existed 100 years ago and we can't do it anymore now! That's real and physical decline and nobody cares!

I was quite serious when I said that I don't think we should build Phase 2 for 4.5 billion. It sets a society ending precedent.

Something deep is going on if it's going to cost that much. And this seems to be just for the initial build and trains, and not managing it for x# of years.

Someone is getting rich off of this. Likely to the tune of $3B+....I won't speculate on where all this additional money goes though. But something isn't right here.

[panamaniac]

I was quite serious when I said that I don't think we should build Phase 2 for 4.5 billion. It sets a society ending precedent.

Something deep is going on if it's going to cost that much. And this seems to be just for the initial build and trains, and not managing it for x# of years.

Someone is getting rich off of this. Likely to the tune of $3B+....I won't speculate on where all this additional money goes though. But something isn't right here.

Not sure how anybody gets rich from a cost estimate for a project that won't be built in the proposed form.

[plam]

Hey, do we remember "Value Engineering" in Phase 1? Like how it was perhaps corner cutting that made the system cheaper (in a bad way) than it should be? Anyway, clearly the plan for Phase 2 hasn't been value engineered. Though it only feels like it can save like 20% and not 80% anyway.

[bravado]

Hey, do we remember "Value Engineering" in Phase 1? Like how it was perhaps corner cutting that made the system cheaper (in a bad way) than it should be? Anyway, clearly the plan for Phase 2 hasn't been value engineered. Though it only feels like it can save like 20% and not 80% anyway.

I think it’s much deeper than cutting corners. Cutting corners acknowledges the original cost as genuine and a lot of people look at NA transit costs and see the cost estimates as intentionally inflated.

It would take some real leadership to dig down and find out which consultants and regulatory frameworks were useless and only capturing tax money.

The next question: if we can’t afford perfect, or even just good enough, then are we really a first world country?

[dunkalunk]

On the subject of cutting corners, 2 crossings of CP's track and 3km can be removed from the route if instead of diverting to Hespeler Rd, the route stays West of CP's track and runs through Preston. I don't know that the additional cost and time of serving Hespeler Rd is worth it for the sake of development potential.


I understand that we have a group that wants to 'Stop the LRT thru Preston' but if it actually served more of Preston, then property values go up, as well as local residents' retirement savings.

In terms of value engineering, there are a couple of things that this route could accomplish.

• The route doesn't require an expensive rail-rail grade separation in a constrained corridor on Eagle St to serve Hespeler Rd
  
• The route could run on the existing or upgraded Dundas St bridge over the CP yard.
  
• Run in mixed traffic on Queenston Rd with right-in right-out at intersections for private vehicles so that less property acquisition is needed.
  
• Uses the existing median on Coronation Blvd that used to carry the Galt, Preston, and Hespeler street railway.
  

[danbrotherston]

On the subject of cutting corners, 2 crossings of CP's track and 3km can be removed from the route if instead of diverting to Hespeler Rd, the route stays West of CP's track and runs through Preston. I don't know that the additional cost and time of serving Hespeler Rd is worth it for the sake of development potential.


I understand that we have a group that wants to 'Stop the LRT thru Preston' but if it actually served more of Preston, then property values go up, as well as local residents' retirement savings.

In terms of value engineering, there are a couple of things that this route could accomplish.

• The route doesn't require an expensive rail-rail grade separation in a constrained corridor on Eagle St to serve Hespeler Rd
  
• The route could run on the existing or upgraded Dundas St bridge over the CP yard.
  
• Run in mixed traffic on Queenston Rd with right-in right-out at intersections for private vehicles so that less property acquisition is needed.
  
• Uses the existing median on Coronation Blvd that used to carry the Galt, Preston, and Hespeler street railway.
  

I mean, I like the thinking here, and I really really like the way this route sticks it to the Stop LRT through Preston group by diverting it even more through Preston (lets not kid ourselves, a significant number of the opponents do not care how much it benefits them).

And I really wish that our regional planning had this level of flexibility. But we don't. Changing the route to this wouldn't be a minor engineering redesign, this would necessitate a literal complete restart of the project. They'd have to do all the public consultation again, heck, the original business case, provincial approval, environmental assessments. And basically everyone who invested in the previous route (like developers, who you know, are never politically connected ) would fight this tooth and nail.

That being said, I don't think this solves our actual problem...I really really don't think this cost escalation has anything to do with WHAT we are building or WHERE it is being built. Yes, we might choose a cheaper route, but it isn't going to go back to a rational price, it's just going to be insanely overpriced but cheaper than the insanely overpriced expensive route.

[dunkalunk]

We've got 7 years to wait for construction start. We'll see what happens with the 2030-2035 price tag in the business case.

[ijmorlan]

One element of cost escalation was given above: rail-rail grade separation. There is no non-artificial reason why the LRT can’t cross the rail line in the same way as a bus, or with the benefit of a signal interlocking. Either way, access to the diamond is controlled such that the chance of a train and an LRT both trying to occupy it at the same time is reduced to very close to zero. It’s only a form of safety paranoia that makes us unable to build an LRT system with a level crossing of a freight line.

[westwardloo]

Does the 4.5 Billion include the operations costs? I feel like whichever consultant firm got paid to come up with the costs estimate used the last couple years of construction cost escalations and applied it for a decade.  There is no way Phase 2 can cost the same as the Green line in Calgary, even in 5-10 years. As much as I would love for Cambridge to get the ION and finally feel like part of the Region, I don't see it ever happening with this price tag. Unfortunately I think as soon as the region decided to split the line into 2 phases we sealed the fate of cambridge ever seeing rail transit.

[ac3r]

It does not include operational costs. It's 4.5 billion dollars for 45 million dollars worth of concrete bridges to get over the Grand River Valley.

[danbrotherston]

Does the 4.5 Billion include the operations costs? I feel like whichever consultant firm got paid to come up with the costs estimate used the last couple years of construction cost escalations and applied it for a decade.  There is no way Phase 2 can cost the same as the Green line in Calgary, even in 5-10 years. As much as I would love for Cambridge to get the ION and finally feel like part of the Region, I don't see it ever happening with this price tag. Unfortunately I think as soon as the region decided to split the line into 2 phases we sealed the fate of cambridge ever seeing rail transit.

No...4.5 billion is capital costs only.

[Bytor]

On the subject of cutting corners, 2 crossings of CP's track and 3km can be removed from the route if instead of diverting to Hespeler Rd, the route stays West of CP's track and runs through Preston. I don't know that the additional cost and time of serving Hespeler Rd is worth it for the sake of development potential.


I understand that we have a group that wants to 'Stop the LRT thru Preston' but if it actually served more of Preston, then property values go up, as well as local residents' retirement savings.

In terms of value engineering, there are a couple of things that this route could accomplish.

• The route doesn't require an expensive rail-rail grade separation in a constrained corridor on Eagle St to serve Hespeler Rd
  
• The route could run on the existing or upgraded Dundas St bridge over the CP yard.
  
• Run in mixed traffic on Queenston Rd with right-in right-out at intersections for private vehicles so that less property acquisition is needed.
  
• Uses the existing median on Coronation Blvd that used to carry the Galt, Preston, and Hespeler street railway.
  

King St in Preston is not suits for centre running, two track LRT and a vehicle lane on either side like Charles St. in Kitchener was turned into, it's just too narrow.

And Queenston Rd. as you chose for the first bit would require significant expropriations to run two track LRT plus even just a single vehicle lane.

[danbrotherston]

On the subject of cutting corners, 2 crossings of CP's track and 3km can be removed from the route if instead of diverting to Hespeler Rd, the route stays West of CP's track and runs through Preston. I don't know that the additional cost and time of serving Hespeler Rd is worth it for the sake of development potential.


I understand that we have a group that wants to 'Stop the LRT thru Preston' but if it actually served more of Preston, then property values go up, as well as local residents' retirement savings.

In terms of value engineering, there are a couple of things that this route could accomplish.

• The route doesn't require an expensive rail-rail grade separation in a constrained corridor on Eagle St to serve Hespeler Rd
  
• The route could run on the existing or upgraded Dundas St bridge over the CP yard.
  
• Run in mixed traffic on Queenston Rd with right-in right-out at intersections for private vehicles so that less property acquisition is needed.
  
• Uses the existing median on Coronation Blvd that used to carry the Galt, Preston, and Hespeler street railway.
  

King St in Preston is not suits for centre running, two track LRT and a vehicle lane on either side like Charles St. in Kitchener was turned into, it's just too narrow.

And Queenston Rd. as you chose for the first bit would require significant expropriations to run two track LRT plus even just a single vehicle lane.

I'm not sure why you say it's too narrow...it's four lanes the whole way.

And yes, I know Cambridge....-ites....-ers...*googles*...Cantabrigians?! really?!  Okay then. Cantabridgians believe the world will literally end if that road has less than four lanes...but...I mean...they're tiresome...hardly a real objection...this is a fantasy map anyway.

[dunkalunk]

If its constrained, why does it need to be fully separated from traffic? If it needs to be separated from traffic, why not split the route?