Quote:
Originally Posted by haljackey
This vid shows what Waterloo Region did right, and as a result what London has done wrong
|
The video has some very good and valid points, mostly on the project management side of things such as the Waterloo project having tight specs and scope from the start. The video has a few important errors, and the title of the video is a bit misleading: a capital cost of a billion dollars (in today's dollars) for a community of half a million is an awful lot of money - in fact by far and away the most expensive single thing to ever happen in that area. It was not built "for cheap" as the video is titled, it just wasn't obscenely costly as similar projects in other jurisdictions. The other element the he glossed over and is often a huge cost driver in such projects is the cost of relocating utilities. He correctly mentioned that the Waterloo Region system has about a third of it on old railroad right-of-ways nearly devoid of utilities, and a lot of money was saved - but he didn't stress that lot of other municipalities don't ever have such a luxury. Once older roads get opened up, many costly surprises can await.
Outside of the uninspired choice of mode (BRT vs LRT), what has London done wrong? The Waterloo LRT system is 19 km. in length at a cost of about a billion dollars, the current London BRT system will be about 15km and 45% of the cost of Waterloo LRT, in spite of general civil construction costs doubling from those of 10 years ago.