ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit

[Bytor]

Does anybody know how long a TPAP lasts after a minister's approval? The TPAP for Stage 1 started on November 26th, 2011, and construction started less that 3 years later. However, federal and provincial monies had been committed by 2010, about a year before TPAP and I have not heard anything for monies for Stage 2. The wording in video seemed to imply active work from here on which would mean more trams→RFQ→RFP→construction, but that doesn't take 8 years (the "2028 at the earliest" we've been told for the last while).

Has something changed in terms of funding or immediacy of the project? It certainly would fit in well with post-covid economic boost projects, the idea of which has been bandied about lately.

[taylortbb]

Has something changed in terms of funding or immediacy of the project? It certainly would fit in well with post-covid economic boost projects, the idea of which has been bandied about lately.

The project will happen when and if the provincial/federal government decides to fund it, and that's mostly a political decision. For all the talk of ridership, projected timelines, etc, funding of major infrastructure is fundamentally political.

LRT phase one got federal funding because Braid and Woodworth cornered the finance minister in his office and said they weren't leaving til he funded ION, and that ION would be our region's only major ask in that term of government. Phase two will get federal funding when the Cambridge MPs are similarly committed. Same basic process applies provincially.

Post-Covid stimulus certainly provides a good political justification for lobbying for funding, but it's still political. If Cambridge MP/MPPs prioritize GO funding, then that's where the money will go instead.

[tomh009]

It can be done, it's just a stupid solution. It isn't that costly or hard to do a bit of cut and cover work

Cut and cover is about 3x more expensive, costing about $150M/km on average compared to surface rail which costs $45M/k.

to put the thing underground for a few meters.

Except it's not just "a few metres" as you so blithely call it. The elevated approach to the CPR track that crosses Eagle St requires runs of 200m and 230m on each side to get high enough over the track. Since the roadway would need to be above the LRT track at least as much as the LRT track would need to be above the freight line, if not more to allow for the catenaries.

100m for the roundabout itself, for the full cut-and-cover section ($11M incremental), and then maybe 400m total of ramps down/up from the cut-and-cover section. The cut is lower there, and no covering, so it should be less than half the cost on average. If we assume half, that's another $21M incremental, for a total of $32M.

However, there would likely be some savings from signaling/traffic lights/etc as compared to using a level crossing at the roundabout. I have no idea on those costs, but they're not free, either. So, maybe it's an extra $30M in costs, using your numbers?

[danbrotherston]

Cut and cover is about 3x more expensive, costing about $150M/km on average compared to surface rail which costs $45M/k.


Except it's not just "a few metres" as you so blithely call it. The elevated approach to the CPR track that crosses Eagle St requires runs of 200m and 230m on each side to get high enough over the track. Since the roadway would need to be above the LRT track at least as much as the LRT track would need to be above the freight line, if not more to allow for the catenaries.

100m for the roundabout itself, for the full cut-and-cover section ($11M incremental), and then maybe 400m total of ramps down/up from the cut-and-cover section. The cut is lower there, and no covering, so it should be less than half the cost on average. If we assume half, that's another $21M incremental, for a total of $32M.

However, there would likely be some savings from signaling/traffic lights/etc as compared to using a level crossing at the roundabout. I have no idea on those costs, but they're not free, either. So, maybe it's an extra $30M in costs, using your numbers?

And just to be clear, that 30MM is a direct subsidy to cars...it is in no way a transit project, it's a car project.

[trainspotter139]

Does anybody know how long a TPAP lasts after a minister's approval? The TPAP for Stage 1 started on November 26th, 2011, and construction started less that 3 years later. However, federal and provincial monies had been committed by 2010, about a year before TPAP and I have not heard anything for monies for Stage 2. The wording in video seemed to imply active work from here on which would mean more trams→RFQ→RFP→construction, but that doesn't take 8 years (the "2028 at the earliest" we've been told for the last while).

Has something changed in terms of funding or immediacy of the project? It certainly would fit in well with post-covid economic boost projects, the idea of which has been bandied about lately.

120 days between the issuance of a Notice of Commencement and the issuance of a Notice of Completion and a finalized Environmental Project Report(EPR), followed by a 30-day public review of the EPR, then a 35-day Minister's Review of the EPR. The Minister then gives notice to 1) Proceeed, 2) Proceed with conditions or, 3) Must Conduct additional work. If 1 or 2 a Statement of Completion is sent to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change before proceeding with the rest of the project.

[trainspotter139]

Cut and cover is about 3x more expensive, costing about $150M/km on average compared to surface rail which costs $45M/k.


Except it's not just "a few metres" as you so blithely call it. The elevated approach to the CPR track that crosses Eagle St requires runs of 200m and 230m on each side to get high enough over the track. Since the roadway would need to be above the LRT track at least as much as the LRT track would need to be above the freight line, if not more to allow for the catenaries.

100m for the roundabout itself, for the full cut-and-cover section ($11M incremental), and then maybe 400m total of ramps down/up from the cut-and-cover section. The cut is lower there, and no covering, so it should be less than half the cost on average. If we assume half, that's another $21M incremental, for a total of $32M.

However, there would likely be some savings from signaling/traffic lights/etc as compared to using a level crossing at the roundabout. I have no idea on those costs, but they're not free, either. So, maybe it's an extra $30M in costs, using your numbers?

 A cut and cover for that particular location would be impractical and very, very expensive because of it's proximity to the Mill Creek. the ramps alone would put the cut and cover tunnel below the water line of the creek which would then require a large reservoir and pumping station underneath for flood risk mitigation and storm water management. That turns $30million into more like >$100million plus annual operating and maintenance costs.

[Bytor]

Does anybody know how long a TPAP lasts after a minister's approval? The TPAP for Stage 1 started on November 26th, 2011, and construction started less that 3 years later. However, federal and provincial monies had been committed by 2010, about a year before TPAP and I have not heard anything for monies for Stage 2. The wording in video seemed to imply active work from here on which would mean more trams→RFQ→RFP→construction, but that doesn't take 8 years (the "2028 at the earliest" we've been told for the last while).

Has something changed in terms of funding or immediacy of the project? It certainly would fit in well with post-covid economic boost projects, the idea of which has been bandied about lately.

120 days between the issuance of a Notice of Commencement and the issuance of a Notice of Completion and a finalized Environmental Project Report(EPR), followed by a 30-day public review of the EPR, then a 35-day Minister's Review of the EPR. The Minister then gives notice to 1) Proceeed, 2) Proceed with conditions or, 3) Must Conduct additional work. If 1 or 2 a Statement of Completion is sent to the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change before proceeding with the rest of the project.

That's how long the process takes. I was asking about how long it is valid for, once approved.

As in, would it still be valid in 2028, 2030, whatever, or would it need to be redone?

[Bytor]

The project will happen when and if the provincial/federal government decides to fund it, and that's mostly a political decision. For all the talk of ridership, projected timelines, etc, funding of major infrastructure is fundamentally political.

Well, yes, but my point was that by the time they did the TPAP they already had federal and provincial funding. However, now, I do not remember hearing about any funding promises, however vague, from senior levels of government. That's why I asked if something had changed? Why go ahead with the TPAP if there haven't even been vague commitments?

[taylortbb]

The project will happen when and if the provincial/federal government decides to fund it, and that's mostly a political decision. For all the talk of ridership, projected timelines, etc, funding of major infrastructure is fundamentally political.

Well, yes, but my point was that by the time they did the TPAP they already had federal and provincial funding. However, now, I do not remember hearing about any funding promises, however vague, from senior levels of government. That's why I asked if something had changed? Why go ahead with the TPAP if there haven't even been vague commitments?

The region is trying to get it as "shovel ready" as possible, so that when an upper-level government creates a new opportunity for funding they'll be ready. Likely good timing, as there may be interest in the next couple years in post-Covid stimulus spending.

Also, the TPAP is significantly to appease Cambridge. That way the region can be like "look, we've done our part, get funding from the province/feds". You're right that normally upper level governments express some interest in funding before the TPAP. Most likely the study results will sit on the shelf for years.

[kps]

Did you expect this to go around corners like a high-speed tilting train? Don't be ridiculous. Faster turns on rail require more cant, and more cant is uncomfortable for passengers.

Flexities can't cant, beyond a tiny amount that can be absorbed by the suspension; there's no roll between segments.

[jamincan]

Canardiain went into depth on this quite awhile ago. If I recall correctly, most of them can't roll between sections, but I think one of the joints can, so that it's effectively a truck/trailer situation. There was a reason they can't have full degrees of freedom between sections, but I can't remember exactly why anymore.

[ijmorlan]

Canardiain went into depth on this quite awhile ago. If I recall correctly, most of them can't roll between sections, but I think one of the joints can, so that it's effectively a truck/trailer situation. There was a reason they can't have full degrees of freedom between sections, but I can't remember exactly why anymore.

This is my recollection of what he said: as everybody knows, all the joints allow left-right turning (yaw). This can be easily seen whenever a vehicle goes around a corner.

What is less obvious is up-down turning (pitch). This is available only at one joint, so effectively the 5 sections behave as two in the up-down direction, split up as 3+2. Additionally, each set of wheels can rotate up-down slightly with respect to the unit under which it is mounted. If you look carefully you can perceive this when a vehicle enters or leaves a sloped section of the track: you can see that 3 segments are straight in line, then a bend, then 2 more segments (or 2 then 3, depending on which way it is moving).

This design means that the position of every segment is fully determined by the shape of the track on which the vehicle sits. If, for example, there were 2 up-down joints, say 2+1+2, then the middle section could exist in various orientations on the same piece of track and would therefore wobble unpredictably.

As far as I know there is no explicit twisting (roll) joint, although presumably a tiny amount would be taken up by the real-world nature of the structure.

[Bytor]

Oh, yes, plenty of engineering reasons why building the joints to allow for cant would much more complicated. But in the end, why bother designing for something that passengers would see as undesirable? I feel that's more the reason here than the complexity of engineering needed.

[Acitta]

Where will the Cambridge LRT go? Latest studies provide a detailed description of proposed route

[Rainrider22]

Looks like a good plan to me. Although I don't know enough about Cambridge, to me it hits the obvious spots. It will be interesting to see all the elevated portions in Kitchener...