ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit

[Bytor]

Everybody seems to think that $4.5B is the final, absolute, no other answer possible, cost.

I keep pointing out that the number is from a study report that only need to be -25% to 50% accurate but people just ignore this even though $4.5B is far, far larger than any inflation we've seen from the pandemic or pre-pandemic infrastructure inflation, not to mention a ridiculously large contingency component because of that ridiculous inflation estimate.

So if you take that supposed $2.721B for the full Stage 2 as the 150%, you can see that it's really only $1.814B, a number that is far more in line with what StatCan says the inflation rate has been for construction. Add 3% a year for 5 years for a construction start in 2028 (as per the Region's own timeline in that study) and that's $2.1B and a 20% contingency is still only $2.5B.

So all the focus on the upper most, least likely range of teh cost estimate instead of the far more likely middle ground?

[panamaniac]

Given that estimated costs for public projects more often than not seem to be exceeded, it's not hard to understand the reaction.

[ijmorlan]

It's a ridiculous price tag to pay and I sure as hell hope we don't do it. Heh, maybe I need to start voting Conservative.

Just because government is incompetent is not a reason to vote for the most incompetent (major) party.

[taylortbb]

Given that estimated costs for public projects more often than not seem to be exceeded, it's not hard to understand the reaction.

Projects like this will expand to fill available budget, there's simply no incentive for anyone in the process to do otherwise. However, they are on average pretty close to the final budget.

[Bytor]

Given that estimated costs for public projects more often than not seem to be exceeded, it's not hard to understand the reaction.

Based on my professional experience in IT & telecom, private projects go over budget more often than people realise.

[bravado]

Lots of chit chat from Mayor Liggett (bleh) about changing the route of Phase 2. It's a bit odd since her insane plan would cause the LRT to stop right near my house, but it's still a moronic plan to spend 10 figures on a low density suburb. The mayor thinks that spending all this money to support a future neighbourhood (that isn't currently zoned for it, nor are there more than ~5 projects planned) is a better use of money than supporting a downtown that already exists and can start using the LRT instantly - and has dozens of projects in the pipeline that depend on transit.

The Strong Towns approach says that you should stop building infrastructure before the destination exists. You need people to start using and paying for the service, otherwise you're just making new financial boondoggles. It should not need to be said that transit should go where people are, not where they will/might be.

https://archive.is/Q5QPl

https://www.therecord.com/opinion/column...259ca.html

The staff have now offered an alternative option. Instead of having the trains come into downtown Galt with its narrow streets, consider having the train turn off Hespeler Road at Avenue Road, and head southeast along Dundas Street instead, with its terminus at Dundas and Main streets, staff suggest.

Liggett told other regional councillors that this is where the city’s future growth will be — so that’s the better option for growth in transit, whether it is rapid buses or trains.
“The south part of Cambridge is going to be as big as Preston or Hespeler alone. That tells you where the population is going to go that needs a rapid bus transit or an LRT system,” she said.

[danbrotherston]

Lots of chit chat from Mayor Liggett (bleh) about changing the route of Phase 2. It's a bit odd since her insane plan would cause the LRT to stop right near my house, but it's still a moronic plan to spend 10 figures on a low density suburb. The mayor thinks that spending all this money to support a future neighbourhood (that isn't currently zoned for it, nor are there more than ~5 projects planned) is a better use of money than supporting a downtown that already exists and can start using the LRT instantly - and has dozens of projects in the pipeline that depend on transit.

The Strong Towns approach says that you should stop building infrastructure before the destination exists. You need people to start using and paying for the service, otherwise you're just making new financial boondoggles. It should not need to be said that transit should go where people are, not where they will/might be.

https://archive.is/Q5QPl

https://www.therecord.com/opinion/column...259ca.html

The staff have now offered an alternative option. Instead of having the trains come into downtown Galt with its narrow streets, consider having the train turn off Hespeler Road at Avenue Road, and head southeast along Dundas Street instead, with its terminus at Dundas and Main streets, staff suggest.

Liggett told other regional councillors that this is where the city’s future growth will be — so that’s the better option for growth in transit, whether it is rapid buses or trains.
“The south part of Cambridge is going to be as big as Preston or Hespeler alone. That tells you where the population is going to go that needs a rapid bus transit or an LRT system,” she said.

You know, I was going to say, it's possible to serve underserved neighbourhoods and upzone with the proper density to revitalise. It would obviously be presumptuous to put it mildly of the mayor to just declare that, and I have zero faith in actual upzoning, but the concept isn't bad.

But then I looked at the map...that diversion would be grade A idiocy.

That being said, that isn't even the real cost issue, AFAIK it's all the bridging up by the river...(among other bullshit).

Honestly...I have less and less faith in our elected officials every day.

[KevinL]

Back in May, Cambridge Mayor Jan Liggett expressed “grave concerns” with light rail taking up a lane of traffic on busy, congested Hespeler Road — and she suggested using rapid buses instead.

If the road is congested, how will the buses ever be 'rapid' unless you... let them take up a lane of traffic? 

[bravado]

Lots of chit chat from Mayor Liggett (bleh) about changing the route of Phase 2. It's a bit odd since her insane plan would cause the LRT to stop right near my house, but it's still a moronic plan to spend 10 figures on a low density suburb. The mayor thinks that spending all this money to support a future neighbourhood (that isn't currently zoned for it, nor are there more than ~5 projects planned) is a better use of money than supporting a downtown that already exists and can start using the LRT instantly - and has dozens of projects in the pipeline that depend on transit.

The Strong Towns approach says that you should stop building infrastructure before the destination exists. You need people to start using and paying for the service, otherwise you're just making new financial boondoggles. It should not need to be said that transit should go where people are, not where they will/might be.

https://archive.is/Q5QPl

https://www.therecord.com/opinion/column...259ca.html

You know, I was going to say, it's possible to serve underserved neighbourhoods and upzone with the proper density to revitalise. It would obviously be presumptuous to put it mildly of the mayor to just declare that, and I have zero faith in actual upzoning, but the concept isn't bad.

But then I looked at the map...that diversion would be grade A idiocy.

That being said, that isn't even the real cost issue, AFAIK it's all the bridging up by the river...(among other bullshit).

Honestly...I have less and less faith in our elected officials every day.

I'm all for upzoning this neighbourhood especially since I live in it. But I went to the meeting about the nearby commercial area district plan and forcing all new developments to face the street and hide their parking lots doesn't make a medium-density new neighbourhood. Banning new drive-thru businesses doesn't mean that new people are able to live here. It's just so blatantly a distraction to avoid tearing up just 1 road downtown. If these people are so concerned about costs, they wouldn't suggest such stupid distractions that distract and add more costs.

[ac3r]

Back in May, Cambridge Mayor Jan Liggett expressed “grave concerns” with light rail taking up a lane of traffic on busy, congested Hespeler Road — and she suggested using rapid buses instead.

If the road is congested, how will the buses ever be 'rapid' unless you... let them take up a lane of traffic? 

I would like to see her actually get put on the spot and be asked this to see what sort of vomit comes out of her mouth in response because lol.

Politicians are so ridiculously stupid, it's no wonder why people don't care to vote in Canadian democracy when you know you're just going to get some low IQ dimwit in office every single time.

[ijmorlan]

The Strong Towns approach says that you should stop building infrastructure before the destination exists. You need people to start using and paying for the service, otherwise you're just making new financial boondoggles. It should not need to be said that transit should go where people are, not where they will/might be.

Wait a minute. Isn’t the problem that we always build motor vehicle infrastructure as if people are going to use it, but we only build transit infrastructure as a last resort? Seems to me we need to build our new subdivisions to be transit-oriented.

Also it would be weird to build transit only when the destination exists unless the same applies to road construction.

[bravado]

The Strong Towns approach says that you should stop building infrastructure before the destination exists. You need people to start using and paying for the service, otherwise you're just making new financial boondoggles. It should not need to be said that transit should go where people are, not where they will/might be.

Wait a minute. Isn’t the problem that we always build motor vehicle infrastructure as if people are going to use it, but we only build transit infrastructure as a last resort? Seems to me we need to build our new subdivisions to be transit-oriented.

Also it would be weird to build transit only when the destination exists unless the same applies to road construction.

Absolutely - but the destination that you’re building both roads and transit to should be appropriately dense to pay for the infrastructure. No more building 4 lane stroads (or trains) to an empty field and waiting 20 years. There’s no plan in place now to upzone my neighbourhood so the train should not go there until those plans are (at least) started. Financially smart areas should be rewarded and financially insolvent places ‘punished’. We keep planning cities by spending it all up front and then waiting for everything to fill in and wonder why we’re broke and inflexible. Natural cities develop in increments over time, not in huge expensive chunks..

Transit and roads can both be boondoggles… it’s just that we’re more used to roads unfairly getting a pass.

[bravado]

This is only indirectly related, but a useful read for how different infrastructure costs are across the western world...

Britain's infrastructure is too expensive
https://www.samdumitriu.com/p/britains-i...-expensive

Some interesting extracts:
"Madrid built an entire 81 mile subway network at just £68m per mile"

Phase 2 ION is 11.88 miles (18km) and with the latest $2B estimate would be $168M per mile. Such an embarrassment if it works out that way.

"Infamously, Leeds is the largest city in western Europe without a metro system. Over 530,000 people live in the city but have to make do with buses. Another 300,000 or so live in the wider metropolitan area and have to choose between an unreliable local rail network or congested roads."

Imagine living somewhere that thinks a city of 500,000 without a tram system is a joke?

[ac3r]

Yeah, we suck at doing things over here. Some try their hardest to say the 4.5 billion is a gross overestimate but I don't believe it is. If anything, it would run well over 5 billion - if not 6.

[taylortbb]

Yeah, we suck at doing things over here. Some try their hardest to say the 4.5 billion is a gross overestimate but I don't believe it is. If anything, it would run well over 5 billion - if not 6.

Both can be true. Projects like this expand to fill available budget, doesn't mean they couldn't be done for less.