Calgary Stoney Trail [Ring Road]

[sim]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Who cares about cross Canada numbers. We have Alberta numbers, and this is an Alberta road.

Motor vehicle licenses more than cover any difference at $525m, then there is the 4% sales tax on auto insurance.

Would you dismiss a future toll as "something that hasn't happened yet. It's a bit bold to fix an assertion around something that hasn't happened yet and backward project it."?

The government is pretty good at projecting tax revenues, you might say it is one of their core functions. Plus the tax has been at that level for 7 months now, if you want to see the revenue flows from it go into the first quarterly report issued at the end of August.

The PCs decided (partly because this project is so expensive!) to line up spending with revenue. The NDs are continuing this.

How is it so hard to support good policy? You can argue against building this project without using a factually incorrect subsidy argument.

Unsubstantiated road building isn't necessarily good policy even if it can be directly paid for. That hasn't yet shown a cost benefit of greater than 1, especially, again, accounting for externalities. Or opportunity cost of better projects, or none...

I do agree that gas taxes should be raised so I'm happy about that ND policy and it's great that their revenue projections are on target. That doesn't mean it should then be used to fund this project.

You have shown no convincing accounting that this is being fully paid for directly through user fees. Is the P3 nature hiding upfront costs.. as they usually do? The capital plan conveniently left out debt servicing with regards to transportation.

I did a quick relatively random selection of two Alberta county capital plans. Seeing as how your link only covered the Provincial Highway network it conveniently leaves out the cost of roads under county responsibility. Seems at least those two counties pretty explicitly state that they use property tax to pay for their roadway maintenance. Here is one of them.

If you can show me a full life-cycle accounting of how the SWRR is being financed without neglecting current responsibilities/assets/liabilities then I'll be convinced. Moving numbers around doesn't quite do it. Being able to say a given project is being fully user financed while disregarding the ones and their maintenance that aren't doesn't mean it isn't being subsidized. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, no? A second look at the fiscal tables also brings to light that the total spending on transportation seems to be considerably more than 1.3 billion... amortization, operations and capital spending.. but I admit to accounting not being a forte of mine, and find it a tad confusing, because I'm seeing at least one number at 2.1 billion for Capital alone..

Because the accounting can hide these things, I will continue to care about Canada, because the clearest fact is that roads are subsidized.. Did not the feds commit money toward it too.... they are Canada no?

[sim]

To put this to bed:

However for Alberta, 2013-14 fuel taxes of $900 million per year and motor-vehicle license revenues of $470 million are well below the average $1.9 billion provincial operating and capital cost incurred to operate provincial highways and roads, let alone municipal transportation.

From everyone's recent favourite school of Public Policy..

So I get that the recent budget is trying to close this gap, and this is great. Even if it succeeds, which is dubious in and of itself, they are doing so at the Provincial level - remember the bolded.

I honestly don't even know why we are debating this. It's rather well-known by most urban scholars, planners and economists (most who support congestion charges) that roads, and more specifically driving is subsidized. We keep not talking about vehicle trip ends and what a vehicle does there. A car driver/vehicle can't use a road if it doesn't have somewhere park at either end.. yet. Let's not try saying parking isn't subsidized.

[craner]

Originally Posted by fusili

One thing that is barely mentioned is that with the construction of the SWRR, it basically forces the City to upgrade Anderson to free flow.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

5 Seconds - thanks for the report back from the SWCRR open house.

[MalcolmTucker]

Is the P3 nature hiding upfront costs.. as they usually do? The capital plan conveniently left out debt servicing with regards to transportation.

P3s only shift costs and hide them using cash accounting. Using accrual accounting which the province does avoids that problem. Accruals records transactions when they should happen, not when the cash changes hand. You buy the asset (reduce liquid assets or issue debt), book the asset then write down its value over its useful life. You only 'pay' for the asset as you use it.

To my knowledge the province has never ran a pure design-build-operate-finance-transfer P3 mostly because the province can issue debt at lower rates than private companies, and any P3 deal has to beat a public sector comparator for cost. (the province rejected a school bid due to it not beating the comparison a year or so ago)

[Mazrim]

From the grapevine:

- Sounds like currently there is only a portion of the road that will change names from Stoney Trail, maybe Glenmore to 130th adjacent to the nation? It also sounds like that is not set in stone. Not sure if that's worse than changing the entire section but who knows.
- In terms of the usual "fixing a loophole from the previous P3 projects", we won't have to worry about seeing anything this bad next time:

[lubicon]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

In addition to the existing downstream mitigation measures that have already been approved, The City's transportation department is going to be recommending that a Sarcee Trail/Richmond Road interchange be built, as it is seen as being needed regardless of whether the West Ring Road is built in the short term or not. The interchange is pegged at $60-$70 million.

If the West Ring Road is built in conjunction with the SWRR, Sarcee Trail will see reductions of about 30%. If the west leg remains delayed, they are stating that Sarcee will see a 10-25% increase in traffic, and will need to be widened between Richmond Road and Bow Trail, will need an interchange at Bow, and the interchange with the Transcanada may need improvements. It's recommended that the City request funding from the Province if that happens.

There is also talk of a lane reversal on Bow Trail between Sarcee Trail and 37th street in the morning rush hour.

So either way the Province may be shelling out a pretty significant chunk of change. It makes little sense to upgrade Sarcee in this manner only to build the West Ring Road in a few years and have traffic levels potentially drop. That is why it has always made sense (to me) to do the entire SWRR at once, and that is not just for selfish personal reasons.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

In addition to the existing downstream mitigation measures that have already been approved, The City's transportation department is going to be recommending that a Sarcee Trail/Richmond Road interchange be built, as it is seen as being needed regardless of whether the West Ring Road is built in the short term or not. The interchange is pegged at $60-$70 million.

I hate how black-box decisions like this are. Transportation Department suggests road needs upgrade. Why? What metrics are being used? are they valid or just blindly applied?

I drive that area frequently. There is traffic, sure, but a grade-separated upgrade for $60mm? If the congestion I experience qualifies for an upgrade so does 3/4 intersections in the city. Interchanges for everyone!

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

The recommendations are meant to provide the most relief for Sarcee Trail and Richmond Road for the money. There were a number of scenarios that were looked at, from a full $250m upgrade of the Sarcee corridor, to just a $10m lane reversal on Bow trail, and the Richmond interchange plus the lane reversal was the scenario that provided the most relief for the money, specifically to Richmond Road.

Mitigation is stated to mean improvement to Volume, Congestion and Travel Delay over doing nothing once the SW Ring Road opens. That interchange is also meant to help the transition between the ring road and what would otherwise be a grade intersection, which apparently is not ideal given the space?

Some information about the decision is here: http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/...f1emwyphu44t/38155011162015023009686.PDF

That's fascinating. According to the report, the interchange costs $75 million dollars, and produces $1.2 million a year in travel time savings before the ring road and $700K a year after. Assuming it takes 10 years for the ring road, the break even point is 100 years from now, assuming no time value of money (if you discount future payments 0.5% per year, the break even is in year 140 and if you discount them at 1%, the project never breaks even). I'd sure like to see in more detail how they tweaked the numbers to claim a benefit from this project.

[lubicon]

So I see three options listed (Options 1, 3, and 5). Maybe there were more studied and just not listed but in my experience putting the interchange at Bow/Sarcee would do more good than at Richmond/Sarcee and I don't see an option listing an interchange a Bow/Sarcee only. I drive Sarcee every workday, AM and PM and by far the biggest traffic backlog is at Bow Trail rather than Richmond Road. There may be a single light wait at Richmond Road which many days there is a 5-7 light wait at Bow trail to get through that intersection.

[MasterG]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

The recommendations are meant to provide the most relief for Sarcee Trail and Richmond Road for the money. There were a number of scenarios that were looked at, from a full $250m upgrade of the Sarcee corridor, to just a $10m lane reversal on Bow trail, and the Richmond interchange plus the lane reversal was the scenario that provided the most relief for the money, specifically to Richmond Road.

Mitigation is stated to mean improvement to Volume, Congestion and Travel Delay over doing nothing once the SW Ring Road opens. That interchange is also meant to help the transition between the ring road and what would otherwise be a grade intersection, which apparently is not ideal given the space?

Some information about the decision is here: http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/...f1emwyphu44t/38155011162015023009686.PDF

EDIT: New link? http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=381550

Thanks for posting this, I haven't seen a cost-benefit published like this before.

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

That's fascinating. According to the report, the interchange costs $75 million dollars, and produces $1.2 million a year in travel time savings before the ring road and $700K a year after. Assuming it takes 10 years for the ring road, the break even point is 100 years from now, assuming no time value of money (if you discount future payments 0.5% per year, the break even is in year 140 and if you discount them at 1%, the project never breaks even). I'd sure like to see in more detail how they tweaked the numbers to claim a benefit from this project.

I agree, there seems to be something missing in this math - or road projects with a 100+ year payout are considered a good idea. Calgary to Edmonton passenger rail could benefit from a similar lax standard to payout.

Cost-benefit reports look excellent when you draw your project scope around one road and ignore other factors. The exclusion of a time-value of money is fairly concerning, no forward-looking calculations can be made without it.

• Perhaps more cars will take this route now that it is "decongested". What happens to the travel time savings when ever more cars are encouraged? Is there no travel delays in other areas now that this route is free-flow and more volume is able to access those other areas?
  
• CO2 emission reduction benefits are laughable. The only reason CO2 emissions dropped was the construction of a 8 lane freeway somewhere else with even more traffic. If the person who wrote this doesn't get what this whole CO2 emission / climate change thing is about - and why it's even a metric to consider - they shouldn't bother mentioning it in the report.
  

Pretty weak-sauce in an official city report to a committee. If you are going to do a sloppy cost-benefit to get a $80mm interchange at least disguise it a little better.

[eggbert]

Originally Posted by lubicon

So I see three options listed (Options 1, 3, and 5). Maybe there were more studied and just not listed but in my experience putting the interchange at Bow/Sarcee would do more good than at Richmond/Sarcee and I don't see an option listing an interchange a Bow/Sarcee only. I drive Sarcee every workday, AM and PM and by far the biggest traffic backlog is at Bow Trail rather than Richmond Road. There may be a single light wait at Richmond Road which many days there is a 5-7 light wait at Bow trail to get through that intersection.

I totally agree, the Richmond light is usually not that bad. The Bow Trail light is terrible and usually backed up at least half way to 17th. If you put in an interchange at Bow, I bet you could leave Sarcee at 2 lanes and see a dramatic improvement in traffic on that road.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by eggbert

I totally agree, the Richmond light is usually not that bad. The Bow Trail light is terrible and usually backed up at least half way to 17th. If you put in an interchange at Bow, I bet you could leave Sarcee at 2 lanes and see a dramatic improvement in traffic on that road.

Richmond Road is often frustrating, as the light timings are often so that you have to wait two whole cycles to get through, even when traffic is light.

[eggbert]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

Richmond Road is often frustrating, as the light timings are often so that you have to wait two whole cycles to get through, even when traffic is light.

I totally agree that's a screwed up intersection with the heavy mall traffic. I was merely talking about northbound Sarcee traffic at Richmond vs Bow. It's not even a contest on what's busier.

[Wentworth]

I am somewhat baffled that an upgrade of the Bow-Sarcee interchange is not planned, regardless, considering that the city is considering radically increasing the density of the remaining large undeveloped parcels of lands in West Springs. (e.g. West Springs ASP.) That ASP change is going to end up costing the city a lot of money.

[MalcolmTucker]

Bow and Sarcee was originally part of the west Lrt project but the local alderman had it removed so both 17th and Bow wouldn't be under construction at the same time.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

The Metro is reporting that the Province is indicating that the west leg of the ring road will continue to be delayed

http://www.metronews.ca/news/calgary/201...delay-on-final-section-of-ring-road.html

I am just baffled that somehow the SW was seen as more essential than the west.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by 5seconds

It's the agreement with the Nation. The Province has 6.5 years to construct and open the SW portion through the reserve or the land reverts back to the Nation, while the West leg has no constraints on time.

Also, from what I understand, the west leg isn't needed at the scale that is being proposed if the SW leg isn't up and running first. There wouldn't be the traffic that would justify the west leg as designed without handling cars from the south.

Pootmans has been talking a lot about how he believes that the Province may re-prioritize the west leg once the final bids are back from the SW leg, so that they can have a better sense of the cost of the west leg. I could see that happening.

Ah, that makes sense.

[craner]

^ Man - almost everybody wore headgear of some type.
Cool coincidence on the dates (ie. 60 years to the day).

[craner]

So will there be shovels in the ground on the SWRR this spring/summer ?

[craner]

Nice to know - thanks.