Waterloo Region Transit Developments (ION LRT, new terminal, GRT buses)

[denfromoakvillemilton]

4.4 Billion is too much for an LRT to Cambridge. It feels like they're almost putting it that high to push it off. Costs need to come down. Or a recession is needed.

 

[ericmacm]

These construction cost escalations are getting out of hand.

For Stage 2 option C (full extension from Fairview to Downtown Cambridge), they are estimating an additional $1B for inflationary costs alone between now and a hypothetical start date of 2030. I can understand grade separations making the project more expensive (they do note that there are six new major grade separations for Stage 2, compared to zero for Stage 1), but it is abundantly clear that they are wasting so much money by not being able to move these projects through quickly. They aren't even planning on getting the Preliminary Design Business Case done until 2027 - four years from now. The region should have been more prepared and had Stage 2 teed up and ready for right after Stage 1 opened.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Bear in mind that a history of this kind of foot dragging on Cambridge projects had a lot to do with the difficulty getting buy in from Cambridge in the first place.

 

[Northern Light]

These construction cost escalations are getting out of hand.

For Stage 2 option C (full extension from Fairview to Downtown Cambridge), they are estimating an additional $1B for inflationary costs alone between now and a hypothetical start date of 2030. I can understand grade separations making the project more expensive (they do note that there are six new major grade separations for Stage 2, compared to zero for Stage 1), but it is abundantly clear that they are wasting so much money by not being able to move these projects through quickly. They aren't even planning on getting the Preliminary Design Business Case done until 2027 - four years from now. The region should have been more prepared and had Stage 2 teed up and ready for right after Stage 1 opened.

Of course, we should just cut the business case entirely. We never used to do these for projects; they mysteriously became part of the process right after McGuinty cut back the EA process and essentially added everything back that was cut and then some.

Now, I hear some saying a business case is a sensible idea............sure, in theory, but let's deal with reality, in every case but 1, that I can think of; the business case done for Mx has recommended going ahead with the proposed project; there was one exception, and it went ahead anyway too. LOL

In other words, the choice of whether to build, and the major details of a route are largely political, and secondarily those of professional staff. The consultants hired to do these reports dutifully report out what is expected of them, and in the process waste needless time and money.

We still have a similar issue with E.A.s in that they tend to examine things that absolutely will not be changed, and ToR (terms of reference) and methodology will almost always ensure that. Why are we wasting that time and money then? E.A.s should be limited to examining actual choices and mitigation strategies around environmental impact. (for instance, a crossing of a valley/ravine). Should we bridge or tunnel? If we cut down trees, how do we minimize what we cut and how to we make up for any losses we create?

Wasting time on much of anything else is just money for naught.

I'm all for a business case looking at two equally viable alternatives and determining the better value-for-money, but since we don't really do that, there really isn't much point.

 

[crs1026]

Of course, we should just cut the business case entirely. We never used to do these for projects; they mysteriously became part of the process right after McGuinty cut back the EA process and essentially added everything back that was cut and then some.

Now, I hear some saying a business case is a sensible idea............sure, in theory, but let's deal with reality, in every case but 1, that I can think of; the business case done for Mx has recommended going ahead with the proposed project; there was one exception, and it went ahead anyway too. LOL

In other words, the choice of whether to build, and the major details of a route are largely political, and secondarily those of professional staff. The consultants hired to do these reports dutifully report out what is expected of them, and in the process waste needless time and money.

We still have a similar issue with E.A.s in that they tend to examine things that absolutely will not be changed, and ToR (terms of reference) and methodology will almost always ensure that. Why are we wasting that time and money then? E.A.s should be limited to examining actual choices and mitigation strategies around environmental impact. (for instance, a crossing of a valley/ravine). Should we bridge or tunnel? If we cut down trees, how do we minimize what we cut and how to we make up for any losses we create?

Wasting time on much of anything else is just money for naught.

I'm all for a business case looking at two equally viable alternatives and determining the better value-for-money, but since we don't really do that, there really isn't much point.

I find that “Business Case” is a bit of a misnomer - these documents don’t test financial ROI with any rigour, and especially when the variables in the analysis run to moderately intangible concepts, the math is usually suspect. But I do feel the documents are desirable more as a specification and a service plan description. Again, these may be imprecise (I don’t take a spec of 8 trains per hour to the bank - it may end up being 7, or 5….j but these documents do generally clarify whether we are talking 2WAD versus 5 peak trains weekdays only, diesel versus potential electric, etc. It’s important to get those facts and design assumptions nailed down before the Communications folks at City Hall and QP and Parliament Hill obfuscate them and everybody’s memory and public expectations change over time. I would like to see more granularity about time and major work packages.

I’m a bit more fanatical about what may be considered ”excess” in Ea analysis. The point of an Ea report is partly mitigation planning but equally importantly full disclosure. It’s reputationally important that there is no room for post-hoc discoveries, and even if the project is compelling, the proponents need to be protected from accusations of having wilfully suppressed some adverse impact.

The iterations in this particular proposal seem to be more a matter of struggling to reach a threshold of enthusiasm, as opposed to overthinking or “analysis paralysis”. The weakness has been the reality that many are disinterested unless they get direct benefit, with the result that the planned route meanders all over the place so that every neighbourhood gets included and buys in.

Waterloo Region is still a jumble of discrete centers, and often still has some green space between each of them. An LRT line can’t connect that many dots, it has to join select points and exclude the ones that aren’t in a fairly straight line….. but the local politics refuses to pick winners and losers.

- Paul

 

[jys]

I have a lot of trouble with iOn Phase II because it seems to have played to every business lobby and community along the way - leading to a winding, slow routing that won't actually work that efffectively.

How does it compare to the current 302 ION bus? If it's slower, in what way would an LRT represent an improvement? Is the 302 over-crowded or prone to getting stuck in traffic?

 

[Sunnyside]

How does it compare to the current 302 ION bus? If it's slower, in what way would an LRT represent an improvement? Is the 302 over-crowded or prone to getting stuck in traffic?

Vibes and development- the bus uses a highway right now. And that’s all fine, but let’s be responsible with our development attractors. Maybe ensure it’s at least as functional as the existing iON.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Thinking about it, I feel this is happening because of the cost of materials. But there is also rampant speculation happening, and that needs to be reined in. People need to push the region to justify the inflation here since things really didn't get bad until just the end of covid.

 

[duffo]

It seems like most of the cost drivers are the elevated structures between Kitchener and northern Cambridge. I'm not sure what the OMSF plan was for Phase 2, but to get shovels in the ground earlier I wonder if initially ION Phase 2 should be a totally separate system serving Cambridge? Run it from Preston to Downtown Galt on-street ASAP, connect the two segments of the line later...

 

[robmausser]

Regional Councillor has suggestion for LRT in Cambridge

Wolf said that it would be worth considering building Phase 2 of the ION from the south to the north, instead of vice-versa.

kitchener.citynews.ca

A councilor thinks that just the portion of the LRT on Hespeler Road should be built.

This isn't possible due to the maintenance storage facility being in Kitchener.

However, the line parallels a CP rail branch line.

I wonder if a similar situation could be agreed upon with CP with the branch line like the Waterloo Spur, where freight is relegated to night. The CP line doesn't serve much in itself.

Green is existing ION LRT, Blue is new sections built on Road etc, and Yellow inbetween is the CP rail line.

It wouldnt hit as many points of interest along the way, but it would cost a lot less. The portion it replaces is the most expensive part of the LRT phase 2.

 

[crs1026]

The CP Toyota line is in a whole different category than the CN's Waterloo Spur. (Which, by the way, is owned by the Region). I can't imagine CP agreeing to share it with a LRT - it's used to serve Toyota with auto racks, and the timing of that plus the technical conflicts would be much greater.

But I agree with building the Cambridge portion as a separate discrete line. Delaying the Fairway - Preston portion for a decade or more saves a couple $B which would offset the added cost of a OMSF in the south end..... and servicing the whole line from Northfield seems a bit inefficient in itself anyways.

- Paul

 

[jys]

Vibes and development

Interesting. I can't comment on the vibes (personally think seats on the ION buses are more comfortable than the seats on the ION trams).

I'm a bit skeptical about claims of how LRT generate development (correlation ≠ causation). How much development can be attracted by simply upzoning Hespeler Rd and removed the parking requirements?

the bus uses a highway right now

And that's a huge speed booster (compared to any rail alignment).
Hwy 401 already has bus shoulders, and Hwy 8 is overbuilt between Sportsworld and Hwy 7.
The only problem section I can think of is Hwy 8 between 401 and Sportsworld, and that can be fixed with a bus lane/shoulder.

let’s be responsible with our development attractors. Maybe ensure it’s at least as functional as the existing iON.

Agreed. Anything that costs billions and will be slower than the 302 ION bus is highly questionable imo.

 

[ShonTron]

I’d just build the LRT on the old CN Fergus Sub alignment next to CP between Galt and Preston, and just skip Eagle Street and Hespeler Road. You get a faster, straighter, cheaper alignment.

But it’d never happen given its Cambridge.

 

[crs1026]

I'm a bit skeptical about claims of how LRT generate development (correlation ≠ causation). How much development can be attracted by simply upzoning Hespeler Rd and removed the parking requirements?

I don’t follow Cambridge closely, but my Cambridge friends have been telling me that they are getting midrise development north of Downtown Cambridge for as long as my Kitchener friends have been telling me that they are getting 2WAD GO trains. It may be chicken and egg, but LRT is a reasonable proposition, and Hespeller Road has the surface area for lots of good, walkable, street-building density.

A provincial edict requiring municipalities to meet their growth needs through densification, as opposed to sprawl, would sure make the difference. Oh, wait…..

- Paul

 

[duffo]

The CP Toyota line is in a whole different category than the CN's Waterloo Spur. (Which, by the way, is owned by the Region). I can't imagine CP agreeing to share it with a LRT - it's used to serve Toyota with auto racks, and the timing of that plus the technical conflicts would be much greater.

But I agree with building the Cambridge portion as a separate discrete line. Delaying the Fairway - Preston portion for a decade or more saves a couple $B which would offset the added cost of a OMSF in the south end..... and servicing the whole line from Northfield seems a bit inefficient in itself anyways.

- Paul

Build the Cambridge portion of the line with a small satellite OMSF, and use the CP tracks for transporting Cambridge ION trains to the Northfield OMSF overnight when they need more significant maintenance... Maybe this could be accompanied by an express bus service from Preston Station to downtown Kitchener and infrequent (like half-hourly?) through-running on the CP line.

Considering the significant run-time to get from Downtown Galt to Downtown Kitchener or Waterloo on the planned full ION builtout, this may be an improvement..