(05-24-2023, 05:45 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(05-24-2023, 05:19 PM)westwardloo Wrote: So they assumed a construction inflation rate of 3.6% per year. That is not out of the realm of possibility, but is probably on the higher end of what is likely to happen. The last 2 years were crazy for predicting costs. I don't know what the historic rate of inflation for the construction industry is, but I imagine it is closer to 2 - 2.5%. 

Unfortunately construction inflation has been much higher than that. During the 2010s, when the original ION construction happened, construction inflation averaged 6% annually. Covid spiked that into the double digits. If they're assuming "only" 3.6% annual construction inflation, they're likely severely underestimating the costs of stage 2.

If we can't figure out, as a society, how to get construction inflation under control we're getting very close to not being able to build anything. Nevermind transit, we won't even be able to build housing for our population.

At 6% annual construction inflation we'd be looking at:
- $2.72B capital cost (2022$)
- $2.44B construction inflation (2033$)
- $1.03B contingency (2033$)
Which would give a $6.2B total cost (2033$).

It is important to adjust for "regular" inflation when talking about 2033$, as we can expect wages, etc (and therefore the tax base) to approximately track general inflation. Assuming 2% annual inflation then $6.2B (2033$) is about $5B (2022$), or the official estimate (3.6% annual construction inflation) would be about $3.6B (2022$). $3.6B in present-ish-day dollars is still far too much to be spending on the Cambridge extension though.

(05-27-2023, 05:26 PM)Bytor 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.

That's not something that you can say with certainty.

First, something that came out of the Council discussoons on Stage 2 ION on Wednesday was that Stage 1 had an initial budget of $818M and $12M or 1.5% was contingency., so $806M. The Problems with Bombardier and disagreements with GrandLinq on some things added $50M to the budget, bring it up to $868M, or $806M + $62M contingency. That's 7.7% contingency or over budget, whichever way you want to put it.

Second, what also came out of that Wednesday meeting was that the cost estimation was done with only an accuracy of -25% to +50%, a very wide range, and that the numbers publicised re cost were that maximum +50% number. The further you get from the centre of that estimate the less likely the estimate is.

That means the real likely cost is not $2.72B in 2022$, but rather $272B / 150% = $1.81B, far closer to and much more in line with the previous estimates of $1.4B to $1.6B from a handful of years ago.

Further, that means that the $1B of estimated inflation to 2033, which was assumed to be ~3.2%, is really only $670M for a total of $2.48B.

In turn, that means the 20% contingency is not $744M, but really only $496M, bring it to $2.98B in 2033$, not $4.76B.

But, since we now know what do to, what not to do, and how to do it, lesson learned and all that, and we need less than 8% contingency last time, do we really need and would we even use a 20% contingency? 10% woudl bring it down to $2.72B in 2033 dollars.

So why is the Council only harping that top unlikely cost of $4.76B? It's almost like they are deliberately trying to kill the project by doing that.

(05-27-2023, 05:26 PM)Bytor 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.

That's not something that you can say with certainty.

First, something that came out of the Council discussoons on Stage 2 ION on Wednesday was that Stage 1 had an initial budget of $818M and $12M or 1.5% was contingency., so $806M. The Problems with Bombardier and disagreements with GrandLinq on some things added $50M to the budget, bring it up to $868M, or $806M + $62M contingency. That's 7.7% contingency or over budget, whichever way you want to put it.

Second, what also came out of that Wednesday meeting was that the cost estimation was done with only an accuracy of -25% to +50%, a very wide range, and that the numbers publicised re cost were that maximum +50% number. The further you get from the centre of that estimate the less likely the estimate is.

That means the real likely cost is not $2.72B in 2022$, but rather $272B / 150% = $1.81B, far closer to and much more in line with the previous estimates of $1.4B to $1.6B from a handful of years ago.

Further, that means that the $1B of estimated inflation to 2033, which was assumed to be ~3.2%, is really only $670M for a total of $2.48B.

In turn, that means the 20% contingency is not $744M, but really only $496M, bring it to $2.98B in 2033$, not $4.76B.

But, since we now know what do to, what not to do, and how to do it, lesson learned and all that, and we need less than 8% contingency last time, do we really need and would we even use a 20% contingency? 10% woudl bring it down to $2.72B in 2033 dollars.

So why is the Council only harping that top unlikely cost of $4.76B? It's almost like they are deliberately trying to kill the project by doing that.

(05-27-2023, 06:12 PM)ac3r Wrote:

(05-27-2023, 05:26 PM)Bytor Wrote: That's not something that you can say with certainty.

First, something that came out of the Council discussoons on Stage 2 ION on Wednesday was that Stage 1 had an initial budget of $818M and $12M or 1.5% was contingency., so $806M. The Problems with Bombardier and disagreements with GrandLinq on some things added $50M to the budget, bring it up to $868M, or $806M + $62M contingency. That's 7.7% contingency or over budget, whichever way you want to put it.

Second, what also came out of that Wednesday meeting was that the cost estimation was done with only an accuracy of -25% to +50%, a very wide range, and that the numbers publicised re cost were that maximum +50% number. The further you get from the centre of that estimate the less likely the estimate is.

That means the real likely cost is not $2.72B in 2022$, but rather $272B / 150% = $1.81B, far closer to and much more in line with the previous estimates of $1.4B to $1.6B from a handful of years ago.

Further, that means that the $1B of estimated inflation to 2033, which was assumed to be ~3.2%, is really only $670M for a total of $2.48B.

In turn, that means the 20% contingency is not $744M, but really only $496M, bring it to $2.98B in 2033$, not $4.76B.

But, since we now know what do to, what not to do, and how to do it, lesson learned and all that, and we need less than 8% contingency last time, do we really need and would we even use a 20% contingency? 10% woudl bring it down to $2.72B in 2033 dollars.

So why is the Council only harping that top unlikely cost of $4.76B? It's almost like they are deliberately trying to kill the project by doing that.

This is absolute nonsense. The Region of Waterloo did not just inflate numbers to "kill the project". Do you really think this is how things work? Lol.

I don't know what kind of education or career background you have in regards to massive building and infrastructure projects (if any), but I can tell you're just making stuff up here for some reason.

This price could potentially be reduced but it isn't going to be (not by much, anyway). This project may or may not go ahead (hopefully not) but if it does indeed, the invoice is going to be about what they're already asking for.

(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

(06-12-2023, 07:14 PM)jeffster Wrote: $4.5B for this project through Cambridge isn't doable. Something like this would add at least $50/month to your property tax bill (assuming we pay it over 30 years).

(06-12-2023, 07:14 PM)jeffster Wrote: That's a huge cost for something that is useless for 90% of the population.

(06-12-2023, 07:14 PM)jeffster Wrote: Even if we got a cost sharing agreement with the feds and province, this is still 5x the cost of Phase 1. Insane.

(07-10-2023, 01:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Politicians don't care much about stuff beyond ribbon cuttings.

And Redman is nothing if not a politician.

She wants it built because it will give her a ribbon cutting...she doesn't care about anything beyond that.

(07-10-2023, 05:43 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(07-10-2023, 01:53 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Politicians don't care much about stuff beyond ribbon cuttings.

And Redman is nothing if not a politician.

She wants it built because it will give her a ribbon cutting...she doesn't care about anything beyond that.

If that gets it built, I will give them all the ribbon cuttings they want.

Better that than ones like Ford to who actively try to cancel projects.