(05-22-2023, 06:24 PM)bravado Wrote:

(05-22-2023, 01:08 PM)Acitta Wrote: Small Cities, Big Transit by Taras Grescoe
Turns Out You Don't Have to Be Chicago-Sized to Have Rail Rapid Transit

But you do need to be anywhere other than North America - and when the bill comes out as too much money, you have to just give up!

(05-23-2023, 01:25 PM)ac3r Wrote:

(05-22-2023, 06:24 PM)bravado Wrote: But you do need to be anywhere other than North America - and when the bill comes out as too much money, you have to just give up!

It sucks, but I think you need to keep in mind just how much 4'500'000'000 is...and it would no doubt go well over that. You have to put it into context with other projects with this price tag. Now I think a lot of these are in USD but the difference isn't all that great considering inevitable cost overruns. There are a couple dozen countries on this planet that don't have a GDP that high. Line 4 of the TTC and the recent expansion of Line 1 of the TTC cost less - combined. The Thessaloniki Metro in Greece with 35 stations cost half that. Line 6 of the Dhaka Metro in Bangladesh - with 16 elevated heavy rail stations running through one of the densest cities on the planet - cost only 2.8 billion. Indonesia is building an entire high speed rail line across the extremely mountainous island of Java for only 0.5 billion more. The Manila Bay Bridge which crosses over 32 kilometers of the Indian Ocean is cheaper. NASA/SpaceX would be able to launch a few missions to space with the Falcon Heavy reusable spacecraft and not even make a dent in a 4.5 billion dollar budget (it costs less than 100 million per mission when using a reusable rocket).

4.5+ billion is an insane price tag and it just does not make any sense. It makes no sense as to why it costs that much and it makes no sense to spend that much for what we would get. It would become one of the single most expensive megaprojects ever undertaken in Canada. And...it isn't even really a megaproject. It's just a 2 track, partially elevated LRT that would end up being extremely mediocre, just like the first line between Kitchener and Waterloo is.

So how can we even justify spending that much of our money on this? In a city that doesn't really need it? Or who doesn't even want it? I don't think it's really fair to Cambridge yet it's hard to justify spending that amount of money - especially since we'd be getting likely no federal or provincial funding. If planning for the future is what we are trying to do, then we should be spending that money more wisely. Cambridge could be connected with improved BRT or something for less money and it would be sufficient for now. Since they do not have the same level of higher education facilities, the same amount of new development, the same population growth etc it doesn't seem worth the money at the moment. Planning for our future requires fiscal responsibility and I cannot see how we can justify the cost of this for what we'd be getting and what it would be used for.

(05-23-2023, 02:54 PM)westwardloo Wrote:

(05-23-2023, 01:25 PM)ac3r Wrote: It sucks, but I think you need to keep in mind just how much 4'500'000'000 is...and it would no doubt go well over that. You have to put it into context with other projects with this price tag. Now I think a lot of these are in USD but the difference isn't all that great considering inevitable cost overruns. There are a couple dozen countries on this planet that don't have a GDP that high. Line 4 of the TTC and the recent expansion of Line 1 of the TTC cost less - combined. The Thessaloniki Metro in Greece with 35 stations cost half that. Line 6 of the Dhaka Metro in Bangladesh - with 16 elevated heavy rail stations running through one of the densest cities on the planet - cost only 2.8 billion. Indonesia is building an entire high speed rail line across the extremely mountainous island of Java for only 0.5 billion more. The Manila Bay Bridge which crosses over 32 kilometers of the Indian Ocean is cheaper. NASA/SpaceX would be able to launch a few missions to space with the Falcon Heavy reusable spacecraft and not even make a dent in a 4.5 billion dollar budget (it costs less than 100 million per mission when using a reusable rocket).

4.5+ billion is an insane price tag and it just does not make any sense. It makes no sense as to why it costs that much and it makes no sense to spend that much for what we would get. It would become one of the single most expensive megaprojects ever undertaken in Canada. And...it isn't even really a megaproject. It's just a 2 track, partially elevated LRT that would end up being extremely mediocre, just like the first line between Kitchener and Waterloo is.

So how can we even justify spending that much of our money on this? In a city that doesn't really need it? Or who doesn't even want it? I don't think it's really fair to Cambridge yet it's hard to justify spending that amount of money - especially since we'd be getting likely no federal or provincial funding. If planning for the future is what we are trying to do, then we should be spending that money more wisely. Cambridge could be connected with improved BRT or something for less money and it would be sufficient for now. Since they do not have the same level of higher education facilities, the same amount of new development, the same population growth etc it doesn't seem worth the money at the moment. Planning for our future requires fiscal responsibility and I cannot see how we can justify the cost of this for what we'd be getting and what it would be used for.

Maybe this has already been answered, but do we have a source for where this 4.5B number is coming from. Is this a class "B" project estimate from a reputable consultant hired by the region? or is this a number that the "Fraser Institute" or some consultant paid by Anti-LRT crowd came up with to scare tax-payers away from building rapid transit? I am just having a hard time figuring out how this project could cost 4.5B. I know it will consist of a few more bridges/ overhead rails than Phase 1 and there has been a significant increase in construction cost in the last 2 years, but 4.5x the cost of phase 1 seems like a made up number that was leaked to the press and used to scare the Region from pursuing Phase 2. The entire 47 KM 26 station grade separated REM Line in Montreal is costing 6.5B. There is just something extremely fishy about this 4.5B number.

(05-23-2023, 02:54 PM)westwardloo Wrote: Maybe this has already been answered, but do we have a source for where this 4.5B number is coming from. Is this a class "B" project estimate from a reputable consultant hired by the region? or is this a number that the "Fraser Institute" or some consultant paid by Anti-LRT crowd came up with to scare tax-payers away from building rapid transit? I am just having a hard time figuring out how this project could cost 4.5B. I know it will consist of a few more bridges/ overhead rails than Phase 1 and there has been a significant increase in construction cost in the last 2 years, but 4.5x the cost of phase 1 seems like a made up number that was leaked to the press and used to scare the Region from pursuing Phase 2. The entire 47 KM 26 station grade separated REM Line in Montreal is costing 6.5B. There is just something extremely fishy about this 4.5B number.

(05-23-2023, 03:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-23-2023, 02:54 PM)westwardloo Wrote: Maybe this has already been answered, but do we have a source for where this 4.5B number is coming from. Is this a class "B" project estimate from a reputable consultant hired by the region? or is this a number that the "Fraser Institute" or some consultant paid by Anti-LRT crowd came up with to scare tax-payers away from building rapid transit? I am just having a hard time figuring out how this project could cost 4.5B. I know it will consist of a few more bridges/ overhead rails than Phase 1 and there has been a significant increase in construction cost in the last 2 years, but 4.5x the cost of phase 1 seems like a made up number that was leaked to the press and used to scare the Region from pursuing Phase 2. The entire 47 KM 26 station grade separated REM Line in Montreal is costing 6.5B. There is just something extremely fishy about this 4.5B number.

I don't know what the process by which the number was arrived at, but the source itself is a regional staff report...it's definitely not an anti-LRT or otherwise biased third party, but it is presumably an estimate either in house or by a contracted engineering firm.

(05-23-2023, 01:25 PM)ac3r Wrote:

(05-22-2023, 06:24 PM)bravado Wrote: But you do need to be anywhere other than North America - and when the bill comes out as too much money, you have to just give up!

It sucks, but I think you need to keep in mind just how much 4'500'000'000 is...

(05-23-2023, 07:50 PM)ac3r Wrote: There are deep flaws with our economic systems yet there don't seem to be any answers as to how to fix this.

(05-23-2023, 09:54 PM)nms Wrote:

(05-23-2023, 07:50 PM)ac3r Wrote: There are deep flaws with our economic systems yet there don't seem to be any answers as to how to fix this.

Too bad the old ways of doing things aren't palatable anymore to turn things around (with tongue firmly in cheek):
1. Imperial expansion (see, Roman Empire etc)

(05-23-2023, 04:05 PM)westwardloo Wrote:

(05-23-2023, 03:37 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I don't know what the process by which the number was arrived at, but the source itself is a regional staff report...it's definitely not an anti-LRT or otherwise biased third party, but it is presumably an estimate either in house or by a contracted engineering firm.

Thanks! I would very much like to see that staff report to see how the number was produced. I think they must assume similar construction cost escalation for the next decade. Ottawa is building 44 Km of Grade separated LRT for 4.6B.  Either way sounds like the Region is getting fleeced the by someone. Imagine what we could have built for 5.5B in 2014. Probably could have done the whole network with elevated rail, elevators and covered platforms.  At this point there is no way Cambridge is getting LRT unfortunately.   I wonder if in 20 years we will be talking about how we could have built it for as little as 4.5B. 

I do wish we could somehow fund/ coordinate/ schedule the construction of these large scale infrastructure projects continuously over period of time like 50-100 years. Like have a goal laying 2-5KM of track per year with 1-2 stations coming online per year.  Just a constant expansion of Rapid Transit, instead of coming up with a grand plan every 10-20 years to spend billions of dollars only to have politician cancel or change the plans.

(05-24-2023, 07:00 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-23-2023, 04:05 PM)westwardloo Wrote: Thanks! I would very much like to see that staff report to see how the number was produced. I think they must assume similar construction cost escalation for the next decade. Ottawa is building 44 Km of Grade separated LRT for 4.6B.  Either way sounds like the Region is getting fleeced the by someone. Imagine what we could have built for 5.5B in 2014. Probably could have done the whole network with elevated rail, elevators and covered platforms.  At this point there is no way Cambridge is getting LRT unfortunately.   I wonder if in 20 years we will be talking about how we could have built it for as little as 4.5B. 

I do wish we could somehow fund/ coordinate/ schedule the construction of these large scale infrastructure projects continuously over period of time like 50-100 years. Like have a goal laying 2-5KM of track per year with 1-2 stations coming online per year.  Just a constant expansion of Rapid Transit, instead of coming up with a grand plan every 10-20 years to spend billions of dollars only to have politician cancel or change the plans.

We aren't getting "fleeced" by anyone right now, because we are not paying this cost. It is more believable that this is a false or bad cost estimate designed to achieve some political end regarding the LRT project.