Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

Cost issues on Calgary's (grade separated) LRT:

How the freak did Calgary's end up costing so much more, anyway? Surely the distance is shorter than Canada line, and the Calgary line was not mostly underground. Like ....., er, ... what happened?

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

Cost issues on Calgary's (grade separated) LRT:

Good article, thanks for sharing.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by wrenegade

Cost issues on Calgary's (grade separated) LRT:

Interesting. Calgary's new 8.2 km blue line, mostly at-grade with some crossings + some underground/above-ground sections, came in at just under $1.5 billion or ~$195 million/km.

OTOH, Vancouver's 19.2 km Canada Line (mostly subway + some elevated + some ground-level with no crossings) came in at ~$104 million/km.

A few years separate the completion dates of each... but still one would think that Calgary's lrt would be considerably cheaper/km than Vancouver's Canada Line in terms of capital costs... not almost double in the other direction.

[Millennium2002]

Reading the comments, it appears the National Post article is too vague... and doesn't actually answer why it cost so much.

Some comments state that property acquisition wasn't accounted for, and a budget for a new high school and road upgrades were included in the scheme of things... along with a possible change in route type in one section to appease wealthy homeowners?

If anything, it serves to remind us not to get carried away with the extras and to budget accordingly for unexpected issues.

As to how this would impact the Broadway Line, I'd say not much.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Interesting. Calgary's new 8.2 km blue line, mostly at-grade with some crossings + some underground/above-ground sections, came in at just under $1.5 billion or ~$195 million/km.

OTOH, Vancouver's 19.2 km Canada Line (mostly subway + some elevated + some ground-level with no crossings) came in at ~$104 million/km.

...and 2 transit bridges.

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Interesting. Calgary's new 8.2 km blue line, mostly at-grade with some crossings + some underground/above-ground sections, came in at just under $1.5 billion or ~$195 million/km.

OTOH, Vancouver's 19.2 km Canada Line (mostly subway + some elevated + some ground-level with no crossings) came in at ~$104 million/km.

A few years separate the completion dates of each... but still one would think that Calgary's lrt would be considerably cheaper/km than Vancouver's Canada Line in terms of capital costs... not almost double in the other direction.

Here's a breakdown of the costs:
http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2011/11/1...rs-breakdown-of-the-1-46-billion-budget/

If you look at purely the construction costs of the LRT line and new rolling stock, it's about $980 million or $119 million per km. Property acquisition, the new high school, the new Sarcee interchange (which didn't need to be built at the same time but was thrown in anyways), and financing costs make up the rest and aren't really comparable.

Plus it's Calgary, a city in a constant state of construction boom. Also, the West LRT folks are trumpeting that the stations were built to big-city standards with interesting architecture and quality materials. Canada Line - not so much.

[squeezied]

I wonder what our good friend zwei has to say. Undoubtedly he's going to pick up this article and babble up some convoluted justification.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Here's a breakdown of the costs:
http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2011/11/1...rs-breakdown-of-the-1-46-billion-budget/

If you look at purely the construction costs of the LRT line and new rolling stock, it's about $980 million or $119 million per km. Property acquisition, the new high school, the new Sarcee interchange (which didn't need to be built at the same time but was thrown in anyways), and financing costs make up the rest and aren't really comparable.

Plus it's Calgary, a city in a constant state of construction boom. Also, the West LRT folks are trumpeting that the stations were built to big-city standards with interesting architecture and quality materials. Canada Line - not so much.

I'm going to bet he'll call it a mini metro or some other crap. We need a betting pool on this kind of thing.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Jebby

I highly doubt the depth of the station has a noticeable impact on ridership.

It does - but only for those making short trips like within a downtown.

i.e. traversing through the tunnels and down the escalators at Granville to ride to Burrard, or just walk there at street level?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Here's a breakdown of the costs:
http://blogs.calgaryherald.com/2011/11/1...rs-breakdown-of-the-1-46-billion-budget/

If you look at purely the construction costs of the LRT line and new rolling stock, it's about $980 million or $119 million per km. Property acquisition, the new high school, the new Sarcee interchange (which didn't need to be built at the same time but was thrown in anyways), and financing costs make up the rest and aren't really comparable.

I'm not sure about Canada and the potential Broadway line, but cost like these ARE included in the 1.4 billion price tag for Evergreen Line. So they ARE pretty much comparable. Someone in Edmonton asked the project office, and this is the response he received:

To answer your question the 1.4 billion budget includes a lot more than the guideway, tunnel and new stations that will be built by the prime contractor. The budget includes new cars, all the studies (environmental, socio-economic and geotechnical to name a few) that went into the planning stage, preliminary engineering, property acquisition, community relations, consultations with the communities, and numerous “early works” projects.

Early works, which have been underway since last January, are projects that have helped set the stage for the prime contractor to be able to quickly start work on the major infrastructure (guideway, tunnel and stations). Early works projects include:

· North Road widening project. Building an additional lane on this major commuter route to replace the lane that will be lost with guideway running up the centre of North Road. Building the new lane now means the prime contractor will be able to keep traffic moving during guideway construction. This project also moves utilities out from under the guideway right of way including hydro, gas and optic fibre lines.

· Power supply upgrades. There are several places along the project where there was not sufficient existing power capacity needed to power the Evergreen Line. Additional power was needed at Lougheed and Barnet, Como Lake and Clarke, Pinetree Way, Falcon Avenue, Mariner Way, and at the Port Moody tunnel portal additional power was needed both to drive the SkyTrain system but also to power the tunnel boring machine.

· Rail track relocation. There is a short section of track in Port Moody that needs to be shifted slightly to the north (along Clarke Street between Queens and Grant). This will make room for the guideway to be built between the existing rail tracks and Clarke Street. This work also included relocation of several underground utilities.

· Building demolitions / modifications. The construction of the Evergreen line requires several building demolitions and a few building modifications. Much of this work is being done as early works to help expedite the construction schedule for the prime contractor.

In addition to all of the above the 1.4 billion dollar budget includes all the Ministry of Transportation oversight and quality control for the early work and the prime contractor’s work. It also includes a significant community and business relations program to minimize the impacts and maximize predictability for local residents and businesses in the Evergreen Line corridor.

[huenthar]

yeah... I mean people in BC rail on about high infrastructure/construction costs, corruption and cronyism etc. but I think the truth is that we have been getting pretty good value for most of our public works projects - at least in comparison with many other places in NA. The locals just feel waaaaay too entitled about so many things... you'd think it would make people happy, gracious, and generous to live in such a nice place, but nooo...

[CBeats]

You would think the Calgary LRT (especially because a huge portion of the extension is at grade) would be far cheaper per 100km than the Canada line. It made me think of the CoV's presentation on taking down the viaducts: they said that taking care of elevated structures is ~10x as costly (or something) as at grade structures, and they used it as a reason to remove the viaducts. Now, of course, trains and roads have different cost schemes, but it's still relevant. So even if the Calgary LRT has confusingly high capital costs, the maintenance costs will be lower because of all the at grade track. At least it's got something going for it...

[Porfiry]

Originally Posted by nname

I'm not sure about Canada and the potential Broadway line, but cost like these ARE included in the 1.4 billion price tag for Evergreen Line. So they ARE pretty much comparable.

Yes, they're "comparable" in that both projects will have some property acquisition costs and secondary construction costs. What you cannot do is make a blind comparison of the numbers without realizing that there's more variability in those numbers than similarity. Widening a road is different than building a freeway interchange and a brand-new high school. Land in Port Moody is different than land in Calgary (in both amount acquired and value). Nevermind that you're comparing the estimated budget of an unbuilt project with untold risks with one that's finished and paid for.

The purest comparison is to look at the cost of constructing the track, stations, and rolling stock. Show me a cost breakdown for the Evergreen Line (after it's finished, preferably) and we can make a proper comparison.

[Spork]

Speaking of which, CBeats, does anybody know what the expected useful life of the SkyTrain structures are? It scares me to think of replacing any section of the guideway and what a disruption that would create.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Porfiry

Yes, they're "comparable" in that both projects will have some property acquisition costs and secondary construction costs. What you cannot do is make a blind comparison of the numbers without realizing that there's more variability in those numbers than similarity. Widening a road is different than building a freeway interchange and a brand-new high school. Land in Port Moody is different than land in Calgary (in both amount acquired and value). Nevermind that you're comparing the estimated budget of an unbuilt project with untold risks with one that's finished and paid for.

The purest comparison is to look at the cost of constructing the track, stations, and rolling stock. Show me a cost breakdown for the Evergreen Line (after it's finished, preferably) and we can make a proper comparison.

Then, there's no need to even try comparing them. Different technology, alignment, location, and governing body will have a different requirement. Would an elevated track in the middle of the road require less property acquisition? Would the relocation of high school still required? Would Calgary's prime contractor's work include any of the pre-construction items in Evergreen Line? If the cost of LRT grade separation through interchange is excluded, would the cost of elevated structure over a major roadway be excluded too? What about the surplus land from the property acquisition that would be sold years later? And the different cost of living and cost of material between the two cities? So what to include, exclude, or adjust to make a "fair" comparison?

Originally Posted by Spork

Speaking of which, CBeats, does anybody know what the expected useful life of the SkyTrain structures are? It scares me to think of replacing any section of the guideway and what a disruption that would create.

The design life for Millennium and Canada Line are 100 years. Not sure about Expo Line...

[twoNeurons]

Although you can't compare Calgary's new LRT and the Canada Line... you can conclude one thing. LRT isn't automatically transit on the cheap.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Although you can't compare Calgary's new LRT and the Canada Line... you can conclude one thing. LRT isn't automatically transit on the cheap.

Something to ALWAYS keep in mind ... for everybody

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Interesting. Calgary's new 8.2 km blue line, mostly at-grade with some crossings + some underground/above-ground sections, came in at just under $1.5 billion or ~$195 million/km.

OTOH, Vancouver's 19.2 km Canada Line (mostly subway + some elevated + some ground-level with no crossings) came in at ~$104 million/km.

A few years separate the completion dates of each... but still one would think that Calgary's lrt would be considerably cheaper/km than Vancouver's Canada Line in terms of capital costs... not almost double in the other direction.

Well labor costs are not going to be equal and in Calgary they are going to be significantly higher imo, and labor costs should be the #1 expense. Have a look at the costs of building a km of subway in New York...

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Although you can't compare Calgary's new LRT and the Canada Line... you can conclude one thing. LRT isn't automatically transit on the cheap.

This is a important point that needs to be highlighted anytime there is a discussion regarding technologies.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by cornholio

This is a important point that needs to be highlighted anytime there is a discussion regarding technologies.

Indeed! Moreover, you can not build even a street-car down Broadway for the ridiculously tiny sums that some in the Condon-Zweisystem-Johnston axis claim. And if you build it for very cheap, you're going to get something that doesn't even provide the same level of service as the B-line. These people always compare apples with oranges.