ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Acitta]

No, I have not lived in a European country. I know that they take their public transit much more seriously than car-centric Canadian cities. However, the only people who complain about better public transit are the car-brained idiots who never use it. The ION is well-used, even if it is not as well-designed as it could have been. Public transit, in general, is well-used in the Region.

I grew up in Europe and have lived there for long stretches since then. And I have spent close to two years in Japan, too. The key underlying factor is that European cities generally are, and generally always have been, much more urban than North American cities. As a result, they are far less car-centric, and far more people walk, cycle and take transit--and the same is true in Japan as well.

You hate that fact that the LRT is above ground, but LRT and tram systems are common in Europe as well. But it is indeed driving both ridership and development, roughly meeting its original goals (COVID-19 impacted it along the way).

I don't see any point in arguing this with you any further as there is no way to have a reasoned debate with you on this topic

I assume that you were replying to ac3r and not me.

[tomh009]

I assume that you were replying to ac3r and not me.

Yes ... my post quoted both of you, and I was supporting your post.

[Momo26]

this is well thought out

https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/s/f23OsA1lDk

[danbrotherston]

Pretty in depth discussion with two interviews about the costs of the Waterloo ION transit project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uttoyAX4ntc

Unfortunately, didn't really touch on the Cambridge extension.

[MidTowner]

Pretty in depth discussion with two interviews about the costs of the Waterloo ION transit project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uttoyAX4ntc

Unfortunately, didn't really touch on the Cambridge extension.

Unfortunately none of the factors they identified as being the reason for the economical cost of Phase I apply to the Cambridge extension.

I'm in favour of the Cambridge extension, but if residents generally think it's too expensive, and we could get support for a much cheaper line from Central Station to the airport, or along University Ave, I'd be in favour of getting that done along the lines of Phase I.

[danbrotherston]

Pretty in depth discussion with two interviews about the costs of the Waterloo ION transit project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uttoyAX4ntc

Unfortunately, didn't really touch on the Cambridge extension.

Unfortunately none of the factors they identified as being the reason for the economical cost of Phase I apply to the Cambridge extension.

I'm in favour of the Cambridge extension, but if residents generally think it's too expensive, and we could get support for a much cheaper line from Central Station to the airport, or along University Ave, I'd be in favour of getting that done along the lines of Phase I.

I think is an aspect driving the cost in Cambridge that was mentioned. Specifically that everyone is on board and pushing in the same direction. I think a lot of the cost is being driven by changes that are made at the behest of people who simply don't want the transit line built. IMO ignoring those people is the right thing to do, pandering to them actually helps them, because it makes it more expensive and thus less likely to be built, without actually getting them on board (because their objection was never "it's here" and instead was "it's everywhere"). And yeah, I realize it's not black and white, that these changes do move the margins of support (a few people in the middle move to supporting, a few opponents move to the middle) but these are always cost trade offs, and when you are spending money to appease these few people on the margins, you're also making the system harder to build because of cost, while not making the system more valuable (or sometimes even less so often).



But that issue only got a passing reference, so I think it's reasonable to have missed it.

That said I'm sure there are many other facts both legitimate (you have to cross the rivers) and illegitimate (the public sector is charging more for risk today) that make the project cost more. It's also a shame that the Cambridge section of the project delivers less value (at least to start) than the Kitchener/Waterloo segment. Politically I don't know how viable it is to skip Cambridge, but from a pure economic value proposition, it probably makes sense to deliver more transit lines in KW than to go to Cambridge right now. Not that I'm saying that's the right decision or even that "economic value" should be a primary indicator in decision making (I mean, plenty accuse me of being a liberal, but I'm not).

[MidTowner]

That was one of the aspects they mentioned that I was referring to, that we knew what we wanted to do with Phase I, and didn't have a lot of changes. Related to the fact that a lot of people were in favour.

Contrast that with Cambridge, we don't know if it's worth the cost, we aren't committed to a route, almost every aspect of the route someone will be pushing to have it changed because it costs too much, or ruins the character of a downtown, or eliminates too much road capacity, or whatever.

I'm not sure if economic value should be the primary motivation, either. But if it's uncertain whether Cambridge as a whole even wants the thing, and the economic value also isn't there, maybe we should have a conversation about whether another cheapo line in KW where people will be on board is the way to go.

[Rainrider22]

Interesting you tube on ION

https://youtu.be/uttoyAX4ntc?si=oRHM1t6DxfmmB0O1

[ZEBuilder]

For what the Cambridge line is going to cost, you could build the Line 5 Sheppard subway in Toronto...three times! And 3 of those would still cost less than what the Cambridge extension is projected to cost. That is also taking into account the inflation changes of 1 billion dollars in 2002 to now.

There is no universe in which it makes any sense to build a full fledged LRT to Cambridge now or any time soon, unless you just really love burning tax payer money. BRT could easily suffice to suit the needs of people who live in Cambridge and allow funds to be reallocated to either another Kitchener-Waterloo line that may go east to west or just...literally anything else. Then say in 10-15+ years when the region is closer to a million people and the landscape - geographical, economic, political etc - changes then maybe they can revisit the idea. What use is an LRT now when you have citizens and politicians that seem to hate the idea of density and growth? If you think Cambridge NIMBYs are bad now when it comes to approving tall or even medium buildings, they'll revolt if they had an LRT and developers started proposing 55+ floor skyscrapers like we now have in Kitchener. Every other project would be cancelled or dragged out at the OLT, taking even more time and money out of everyone's pockets.

Get your facts straight before you go spewing nonsense like you always do.

First the Sheppard Line in Toronto is Line 4 not 5. Secondly it cost 1 billion dollars to build, it opened in 2002, assuming that 1 billion dollars is in 2002 dollars it would be equivalent to 1.6 billion today. The Sheppard Line is a total of 5.5km meaning it is a grand total of 290 million dollars per km.

As has been said on here before the cost estimate for the LRT extension to Cambridge is a total of 3.1 billion in 2025 dollars for 17.5 km. This means that the LRT to Cambridge is only going to cost 170 million dollars per km.

The ION will still be built cheaper than other LRTs that are comparable, which has already been argued on here before (Hamilton, Finch, Hurontario).

Is the cost high, yes, but that doesn't mean Cambridge is any less deserving of an LRT then KW. Sure it may make more economical sense to build an LRT along Ottawa, the Region's preferred phase 3, but even then you have some difficult issues to deal with that will drive the cost up, you have the CN tracks at Mill which need grade separation (if you're going above them you need at least 7m of clearance), 3 roundabouts to cross, how are you connecting to Phase 1, how are crossing the highway (the MTO can be difficult when it comes to their bridges), where are you expropriating land from at Ottawa and Fischer Hallman? There's just as many difficult decisions on other lines as there is on Phase 2.

[ac3r]

I meant to repost that to highlight the difference in inflation between the years, because even taking into account the inflation over 2 decades it still demonstrates how incapable this country is at doing anything. Thanks for doing the work for me 🤓.

[trainspotter139]

Unfortunately none of the factors they identified as being the reason for the economical cost of Phase I apply to the Cambridge extension.

I'm in favour of the Cambridge extension, but if residents generally think it's too expensive, and we could get support for a much cheaper line from Central Station to the airport, or along University Ave, I'd be in favour of getting that done along the lines of Phase I.

I think is an aspect driving the cost in Cambridge that was mentioned. Specifically that everyone is on board and pushing in the same direction. I think a lot of the cost is being driven by changes that are made at the behest of people who simply don't want the transit line built. IMO ignoring those people is the right thing to do, pandering to them actually helps them, because it makes it more expensive and thus less likely to be built, without actually getting them on board (because their objection was never "it's here" and instead was "it's everywhere"). And yeah, I realize it's not black and white, that these changes do move the margins of support (a few people in the middle move to supporting, a few opponents move to the middle) but these are always cost trade offs, and when you are spending money to appease these few people on the margins, you're also making the system harder to build because of cost, while not making the system more valuable (or sometimes even less so often).



But that issue only got a passing reference, so I think it's reasonable to have missed it.

That said I'm sure there are many other facts both legitimate (you have to cross the rivers) and illegitimate (the public sector is charging more for risk today) that make the project cost more. It's also a shame that the Cambridge section of the project delivers less value (at least to start) than the Kitchener/Waterloo segment. Politically I don't know how viable it is to skip Cambridge, but from a pure economic value proposition, it probably makes sense to deliver more transit lines in KW than to go to Cambridge right now. Not that I'm saying that's the right decision or even that "economic value" should be a primary indicator in decision making (I mean, plenty accuse me of being a liberal, but I'm not).

One of the reasons driving the increase in cost is private companies being more risk-averse. After COVID and the absolute BS Metrolinx has been putting many of these companies through with the Finch West, Eglinton Crosstown and Hazel McCallion LRT lines, they're less willing to take on the financial risk without being provided with a larger contingency pool. Interest rates are much higher (back in 2014 the prime rate averaged around 3.25% when these cost estimates were updated prime rate had ballooned to 7.2% ) than they were when the Grandlinq consortium acquired their financing for Stage 1 so the 30-year financing costs for Stage 2 are also going to be much higher.

For example, if the future consortium were to source financing of $1.5 billion for the project:

In July 2019, prime rate was 3.95%: 

30 year total cost of that financing would be $2,562,501,073.80 of which $1,062,501,073.80 would be interest. Monthly payments would be $7,118,058.54. 59% of the total cost is the principal and 41% is the interest.

In July 2023, prime rate was 7.20%:

30 year total cost of that financing would be $3,665,456,331.12 of which $2,165,456,331.12 would be interest. Monthly payments would be $10,181,823.14. 41% of the total cost is the principal and 59% is the interest. 

In all, the cost estimate in 2023 (which is ~$3.11 billion more than in 2019) was probably accounting for about half a billion in total combined inflationary increases (wage pressures from labour shortages, post-pandemic inflation, etc) from 2019 to 2023, half a billion in increased risk management due to the technical requirements of the project, 1.5 billion in contingencies simply because of how geo-technical this stage is going to be, and the rest in increased capital cost (increased cost of acquiring land and vehicles plus the increase in financing costs and estimated inflation during the construction period). 

I'm sure now, since rates have come down, if they were to put this out for tender the real cost would be lower than the estimate, but for now they are sticking with this estimate to be conservative especially since they still haven't secured funding for the project yet and nobody can predict what's going to happen between now and when this project is ready to be put out for tender.

[danbrotherston]

I think is an aspect driving the cost in Cambridge that was mentioned. Specifically that everyone is on board and pushing in the same direction. I think a lot of the cost is being driven by changes that are made at the behest of people who simply don't want the transit line built. IMO ignoring those people is the right thing to do, pandering to them actually helps them, because it makes it more expensive and thus less likely to be built, without actually getting them on board (because their objection was never "it's here" and instead was "it's everywhere"). And yeah, I realize it's not black and white, that these changes do move the margins of support (a few people in the middle move to supporting, a few opponents move to the middle) but these are always cost trade offs, and when you are spending money to appease these few people on the margins, you're also making the system harder to build because of cost, while not making the system more valuable (or sometimes even less so often).



But that issue only got a passing reference, so I think it's reasonable to have missed it.

That said I'm sure there are many other facts both legitimate (you have to cross the rivers) and illegitimate (the public sector is charging more for risk today) that make the project cost more. It's also a shame that the Cambridge section of the project delivers less value (at least to start) than the Kitchener/Waterloo segment. Politically I don't know how viable it is to skip Cambridge, but from a pure economic value proposition, it probably makes sense to deliver more transit lines in KW than to go to Cambridge right now. Not that I'm saying that's the right decision or even that "economic value" should be a primary indicator in decision making (I mean, plenty accuse me of being a liberal, but I'm not).

One of the reasons driving the increase in cost is private companies being more risk-averse. After COVID and the absolute BS Metrolinx has been putting many of these companies through with the Finch West, Eglinton Crosstown and Hazel McCallion LRT lines, they're less willing to take on the financial risk without being provided with a larger contingency pool. Interest rates are much higher (back in 2014 the prime rate averaged around 3.25% when these cost estimates were updated prime rate had ballooned to 7.2% ) than they were when the Grandlinq consortium acquired their financing for Stage 1 so the 30-year financing costs for Stage 2 are also going to be much higher.

For example, if the future consortium were to source financing of $1.5 billion for the project:

In July 2019, prime rate was 3.95%: 

30 year total cost of that financing would be $2,562,501,073.80 of which $1,062,501,073.80 would be interest. Monthly payments would be $7,118,058.54. 59% of the total cost is the principal and 41% is the interest.

In July 2023, prime rate was 7.20%:

30 year total cost of that financing would be $3,665,456,331.12 of which $2,165,456,331.12 would be interest. Monthly payments would be $10,181,823.14. 41% of the total cost is the principal and 59% is the interest. 

In all, the cost estimate in 2023 (which is ~$3.11 billion more than in 2019) was probably accounting for about half a billion in total combined inflationary increases (wage pressures from labour shortages, post-pandemic inflation, etc) from 2019 to 2023, half a billion in increased risk management due to the technical requirements of the project, 1.5 billion in contingencies simply because of how geo-technical this stage is going to be, and the rest in increased capital cost (increased cost of acquiring land and vehicles plus the increase in financing costs and estimated inflation during the construction period). 

I'm sure now, since rates have come down, if they were to put this out for tender the real cost would be lower than the estimate, but for now they are sticking with this estimate to be conservative especially since they still haven't secured funding for the project yet and nobody can predict what's going to happen between now and when this project is ready to be put out for tender.

Boy...do I have a bridge to sell you.

All joking aside (although I'm not joking when I say that the I find the idea that the tender would come in below the estimate is...lets say...naive) the things you say do have some merit. Those are definitely driving cost (and those were also mentioned in the video).

But I don't think they're the only drivers of cost. I mean, we know the changes that were made in an effort to appease the opposition in Cambridge...we know those were not inexpensive changes. These things are not controversial. I think the only controversial thing I am saying is that we should ignore the opposition from those people and do the cheapest/best value instead of trying to appease them and making the project more expensive as a result.

[Momo26]

https://www.reddit.com/r/kitchener/s/aAOBNJGOop

Another one!

[Momo26]

Pretty in depth discussion with two interviews about the costs of the Waterloo ION transit project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uttoyAX4ntc

Unfortunately, didn't really touch on the Cambridge extension.

Just watched this. Wow didn't realize it came in at that much less than other Canadian LRT. Sigh, just makes me think we could have gone longer at that time for those millions/km vs the costs today. 

How does Helsinki do it so much cheaper?

[ac3r]

They have a different culture.