Grand River Transit

[ac3r]

We're still taking the $4B number as the gospel around here?

Well, yes, because those are the numbers we have to go by. I'd rather use the officially estimated cost that was calculated by engineers and accountants rather than, uh, Dan, Bytor and others who just decided to declare that 4.5 billion dollar price as made up. Unless they or anyone else here is involved in this project or has experience when it comes to expense management for large public megaprojects and knows for sure it's an inflated amount, I see no reason to not use that number.

[timc]

The longer things are delayed, the higher that number will go.

[neonjoe]

That all in cost estimate is such a wacky way to explain a price up front. When I buy a home I don't express its price up front including the actual purchase price, the cost of financing for the next 20 years, plus all hydro, water, property taxes and repair contingency prices. I'd hate to think how much that would be.

[bravado]

The longer things are delayed, the higher that number will go.

Is it delayed or just making glacial progress, as planned?

[danbrotherston]

Again, as bravado and neonjoe point out, this number is a complete fabrication. It seems designed to kill the project.

But in any case, the real cost of construction will be much lower, but even the real number is too high. RM Transit has a number of good segments on this.

The reason why this number is a problem is that we need more transit, if we spend 4 billion building a small LRT extension...then we will never be able to afford enough transit to make a transit friendly city.

Nor should it cost this much...I don't understand why we're so willing to trust engineers and planners when we ridicule them so much when it comes to planning roads. You realize the same fools who don't believe that it is impossible to drive down a 3 meter wide lane are the same ones swearing up and down the walls that an LRT should cost a quarter billion dollars per km.

[bravado]

Politicians don’t treat transit seriously -> costs get inflated because of no serious oversight -> transit gets treated even less seriously -> repeat

If the LRT to Cambridge actually costs $4B then we should close up shop because that means that a new school is probably $100M and the proposed new hospital will presumably be a cool $10B. Why does nobody care about costs at the top?

[neonjoe]

Perhaps its a change in the way the region is run compared to the Seiling/Galloway era.

[ac3r]

Again, as bravado and neonjoe point out, this number is a complete fabrication. It seems designed to kill the project.

Do you have a source for your nonsense? Serious question. Do you? I'd love to see the proof you have that it's a "fabrication" designed to "kill the project". Come on, Dan, let's hear the details of your conspiracy theory that our planners and engineers are secretly scheming to cancel our second LRT line after already spending millions on plans. Surely you're in possession of some secret information not available to the rest of us if your claim has any truth.

Unless you're just lying for the sake of it, but that would be weird.

[the_conestoga_guy]

I'm struggling to turn up the old costing document, but I believe the skepticism surrounding the $4.5B cost came from some conservative inflation projections at the time. The cost also included a 20% contingency, so it doesn't necessarily reflect the true estimated cost of the project.

Regarding the cost of the project, I understand that the single largest capital expense is the new bridge over the Grand River. While looking through old documents, the 2011 council-endorsed route caught my eye (page 23 in the link). Specifically, the LRT would leave Fairway station and twin King St along the existing rail alignment before diverting away from its present Sportsworld route.

Considering the Freeport Bridge has just been shut down to large vehicles because it is so desperately in need of remediation, it would have been nice if it could have been replaced with a new bridge that included space for rail. The LRT could then just continue down King to Sportsworld and resume the newer alignment.

https://ehq-production-canada.s3.ca-cent...6929c33d1b

[bravado]

Meanwhile, the 2 8-lane bridges across the rivers for the 401 were just widened again and we don’t even know the bill for it but local media reports on every overpriced trash can included in this transit plan.

It’s important to know what we measure and what we choose not to measure. Transit is expensive only because we actually look at it. Everything else in public procurement is expensive, but it doesn’t make a headline.

[timc]

I don't know if replacing the Freeport bridge is desirable. It is a heritage bridge, "widely recognized as the most important bridge in the Region" (https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg...px?id=8068).

[the_conestoga_guy]

I don't know if replacing the Freeport bridge is desirable. It is a heritage bridge, "widely recognized as the most important bridge in the Region" (https://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg...px?id=8068).

That’s really interesting, I didn’t know it was considered a heritage feature. I’ve always just viewed it as a little sketchy since it has been visually deteriorating since I moved to the region myself. It looks like the bridge will be celebrating its 100th birthday next year, too. 

I’m interested to see what the expected lifespan is after they’ve finished rehabilitating it. If/when this bridge does need to be replaced, it’s simple design should be pretty replicable. It would look even nicer with some rail tracks running on it 😎

[KevinL]

Would LRVs put less wear and tear on the heritage bridge than the current road traffic? If so, I say put the Ion on the old bridge and build a new road bridge next to it. Far less engineering needed than the plan to parallel Hwy 8.

[neonjoe]

Would LRVs put less wear and tear on the heritage bridge than the current road traffic? If so, I say put the Ion on the old bridge and build a new road bridge next to it. Far less engineering needed than the plan to parallel Hwy 8.

The LRVs are heavy but far less frequent than trucks and cars. The additional benefit is that they would not have to salt the bridge!

[ac3r]

Putting the tracks on the bridge is a bad idea for many reasons. They've already spent a ton of money on the plans so far, I'd hate to see them ignite even more of our tax dollars. They would have to re-engineer the plans already made. I imagine it would also require expropriating a bunch of property in order to do that. It would result in a lot more work, likely slower speeds and mixing with traffic. The plan they have now - to go above Fairway Road, run parallel to Highway 8, down Preston Heights over the Speed River and onward makes the most sense. It'll be costly - over 4 billion - but it will be one of the fastest parts of the LRT system due to it having its own elevated track and right of way beside the highway (at least until Preston Station where it'll unfortunately have to operate in and as vehicular traffic). Going down King Street and over the bridge would be slow due to the tight turns it'd need to make and then the gradients along the Grand River Valley.

Let's try to not cheap out on it again...