Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroundtheworld
I try to avoid Canadian cost figures because they suffer from the same cost inflation issues that exist elsewhere in the English-speaking world. Using an Italian cost figure as a basis (adjusted for Canadian purposes to account for 20% higher construction costs), a surface embankment railway should cost anywhere from $2.3 M/km to $10.9 M/km (the latter being a 9 m high embankment). Electrification adds about another $2.5 M/km. So in total, if we're going with a double-tracked 9 m high embankment, we get to that $13 M figure. Perhaps the VIA figure is higher because some of it is happening in remote areas but I think cost inflation is the bigger reason.
In Italy, they typically don't add contingencies or if they do they are much smaller (10%). The reason for this is that if you allow for a contingency, contractors will find ways to eat it up. Instead, they have systems that minimize change orders and contract disputes such as itemized contracts and a person whose sole job is to scrutinize scope changes.
Finally, the Grandview Cut is 47 m wide at Commercial Drive, wide enough to accommodate the Millennium Line, Regional Rail, platforms for both and two freight tracks. This is the section where the space demands for transit are at their greatest. The southern slope will need to re-graded like the northern slope but the overall footprint of the cut does not need to be enlarged.
|
Thanks for the explanations. Making the Cut steeper, but wider at the bottom was what I was trying to articulate as a possible way of squeezing a route through, but that will be quite difficult as the slope isn't going to be particularly stable, so the excavation will be quite slow, and the main track will have to be protected from slides while it's being built. It's not going to be a cheap exercise, as hauling the material away will also be quite an operation - unless we fill some more of False Creek?
I can see why you'd prefer to use lower costs associated with projects that are outside Canada. The problem that I have with that is that we are in Canada, and the European companies that work here, including Spanish and Italian companies building the Broadway tunnels, have found it necessary to charge Canadian costs to build things.
The High Frequency Rail project in the east might give us some clarity on how much electrification at grade will cost here. (It's about to move to Request for Qualifications and Request for Proposals). We know how much SkyTrain costs to build, both as tunneled and elevated designs, and it doesn't seem likely that any electrified high-speed rail corridor that requires elevated or tunneled sections will be hugely cheaper, but if we ever get to the point that there's political buy-in for such a project, it will be interesting to see if it's possible to build for less than projects are costing now.
The problem that I see with identifying much lower costs than are faced by similar construction is that you either have zero credibility (cough, Rail for the Valley, cough) or when you come to tender for the project none of the bids are near your estimate. We've seen that most recently in the rebuilding of Burrard Station - none of the bids came close to the budget (which wasn't unreasonably low) and it's not now going to be rebuilt. Then you don't have a project, and all the effort in trying to get it built is wasted.
It's positive that this idea might be at least within the ballpark of what could be built for a sum close to the higher end of the estimate. It's quite a bit more (for the single line) than the entire Nexus paper budgeted, which is much more ambitious, and therefore far from credible (cost-wise, among other issues). Whether it could get necessary funding over and above the existing TransLink and BC Transit asks is another question. It wouldn't be good to have those delayed while different projects fight for the same limited available funds.
Prev
Linear Mode
