Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Pretty impressive for a $2 billion budget.

$4.5 billion.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Daveography

Are the feds also forcing Calgary to source it as a P3?

Well, go through a P3 screen, which almost always will say you save money. But sometimes not (Alberta cancelled a round of schools that were to be P3 because analysis said it would cost more).

So, likely, but not always. Calgary's last extension was a P3, with no finance or maintenance provisions. There can be lots of different types of P3s. The only thing that doesn't count on the P3 spectrum would be a project like the Vaughn Subway extension where the City of Toronto is acting as prime contractor iirc.

[Daveography]

^ I ask because the federal contribution toward Edmonton's Valley Line (which is only getting about $400M) was contingent on it being not only built and maintained, but also operated as part of a P3.

I'm mostly curious if Calgary's funding has similar strings attached. Already the amount being contributed seems proportionally much higher for Calgary's line than Edmonton's.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ I ask because the federal contribution toward Edmonton's Valley Line (which is only getting about $400M) was contingent on it being not only built and maintained, but also operated as part of a P3.

I'm mostly curious if Calgary's funding has similar strings attached. Already the amount being contributed seems proportionally much higher for Calgary's line than Edmonton's.

That was from a different fund, P3 Canada. Transit was carved out of that fund after the contribution to Edmonton's LRT was announced, and funded at a much higher level, and the guidelines for the new fund aren't published yet. In remarks the PM has referred to private partners, leveraging funds, etc.

[DarkArconio]

From what I understand about Ottawa's P3 for the Confederation Line, the P3 cost more up front at reduced risk. The city only allowed guaranteed cost and fixed timeline bids, with charges for delays. These generally cost more than bids with the liability for delays and overruns placed in city hands.

I think there are many different ways to structure a P3 though, I suspect the devil is in the details of each particular contract. The P3 to develop Landsdowne (also in Ottawa) had a very different structure, with the city basically giving away retail development land and zoning in exchange for a stadium refurbishment and a new football team agreeing to play there.

[Elmira Guy]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Yeah. At least it will improve on transit times, unlike Waterloo's.

Regardless of this or your opinion on the validity of the project, the Waterloo LRT makes a lot of sense for the region, and has other objectives than simply being a people mover.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by TorontoDrew

Harper buying votes.

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Nice for Calgary but this is typical vote-buying. Especially given that it's in Alberta...

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I think there's a theme here.

Election time approacheth!

Originally Posted by osmo

Harper doing his typical election cash dumps. The reality is most of these projects get spurned into only certian ridings and don't ever make much actual Transit sense.

Originally Posted by O-tacular

It is a plain vote grab.

Just curious, would all of you prefer that the government not fund transit projects at all? You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the government wasn't funding these Harper would be bemoaned for not supporting transit...when Harper funds transit before an election he's clearly doing it for votes. You guys will never be pleased.

Re; SkahHigh, this funding in Calgary comes days following the government announcing it will fund Phase 2 in Ottawa, which isn't necessarily a kind place to Conservative interests in the 2015 election. This doesn't mention funding in Toronto which the Conservatives do appallingly bad in (they only hold GTA seats).

Re; osmo, which ridings are you referring to? Again, increased transit in Calgary, Ottawa, and earlier Toronto seems to make sense. Correct me if i'm wrong.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Just curious, would all of you prefer that the government not fund transit projects at all? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Why should the issue be presented in the form of a dichotomy? I'm not sure I see a valid reason as to why we can't have transit funding without it being used to manipulate the public. Why can't the funding be provided when it's most needed rather than when it best serves political interests?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Why should the issue be presented in the form of a dichotomy? I'm not sure I see a valid reason as to why we can't have transit funding without it being used to manipulate the public. Why can't the funding be provided when it's most needed rather than when it best serves political interests?

Absolutely. Another point is why we build transit when we have a major event even if it is only for a few weeks. Last time I checked, most people commute 48 to 50 weeks per year. Is that not reason enough to build transit?

[Innsertnamehere]

Harper has announced big money in Ottawa, Toronto, and Calgary in the last month now. Ottawa with its Stage 2 LRT, Calgary with its new Green line, and Toronto with Smart Track.

All in time for the election. The last federal budget had increased infrastructure spending, and it appears that he is announcing 10 years of funding in a few weeks before a key election.

Mind you, the Ontario Liberals did the same thing before their election, bringing in a huge infrastructure budget and promising to fund massive projects right before the election, and they managed to win a surprise majority with it.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Why should the issue be presented in the form of a dichotomy? I'm not sure I see a valid reason as to why we can't have transit funding without it being used to manipulate the public. Why can't the funding be provided when it's most needed rather than when it best serves political interests?

The government does it during election season because the electorate has a notoriously short-term memory when it comes to positive things the government has done. In particular, because the media has such an anti-right slant in today's Canada, it's imperative for the current government to do anything they can to have positive news stories as close to the election as possible.

In a democracy, despite the obvious cries, the government's primary concern is staying in office. Is it manipulating the public? Sure; but it's also politics.

I don't seem to recall Wynne being chastised for her transit funding during her election campaign as vote buying. Perhaps my memory is hazy.

[Nouvellecosse]

First of all, the media in Canada doesn't have an "anti-right" slant. There tends to be a myth that in order for the media to behave appropriately that it needs to treat every idea or notion as being equal and that two opposing views should always be considered to equally valid. Some even think that two opposing sides will always be extreme and the truth is always somewhere in between. In the real world, it's not uncommon for one idea to be correct and another incorrect, and if there is more evidence to support one idea than another, treating them as being equal in an effort to appear unbiased is doing the public a dis-service.

Second of all, there's a difference between suddenly offering money on a very localized basis before an election in an effort to buy votes after you've had nearly a decade in office when it has little relevance to your overall policy, as opposed to presenting overall platform to the electorate as major expenditures that would be a keystone of the party's fiscal policy. If Harper - as leader of the federal government - presented a national plan to fund public transit across the country, I don't think anyone would be complaining. At the same time, if Wynne had quietly slipped funding into a small area of a few ridings without it having province-wide significance, then yes, people would complain.

[MalcolmTucker]

If Harper - as leader of the federal government - presented a national plan to fund public transit across the country, I don't think anyone would be complaining.

The public transit fund was announced in this year's federal budget.

[Nouvellecosse]

Then why are we just now finding out that the project has been funded??

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

The green line won't use the existing transit mall. Either mostly elevated, or mostly underground.

I don't see how it can be elevated downtown due to Calgary's large Plus15/30 system of overhead pathways. Tunneling is also problematic in Calgary although certainly not impossible. The city has a very high water table which is one of the reasons it didn't build a downtown subway in the first -place like Edmonton.

The new Green Line really shows how some cities know how to use scarce transit dollars and others don't. Calgary is spending $4.5 billion and will get a huge 50km rapid transit system. Toronto on the other hand is spending $3 billion to replace a functioning transit line of only 6 km.

[1overcosc]

I think the Wynne Liberals victory in 2014 had more to do with the PCs being way too right-wing-rural for the tastes of most of the province's people, than their transit plan. That said, it probably helped.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

Nice for Calgary but this is typical vote-buying. Especially given that it's in Alberta...

It is undoubtedly vote-buying but how often do votes get bought in Alberta? It has been a flyover Province for most parties until a couple of months ago.

[SkahHigh]

Originally Posted by Riise

It is undoubtedly vote-buying but how often do votes get bought in Alberta? It has been a flyover Province for most parties until a couple of months ago.

True, but maybe the fact that Alberta has elected the provincial NDP as government has him worried for the federal elections. I can assure you Harper hasn't promised anything in Montreal...

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I can assure you Harper hasn't promised anything in Montreal...

Ummmm .......

New Champlain Bridge will be built by 2018, Lebel says

(And since the bridge will include LRT you could say Montreal is getting more LRT funding than all other announcements combined.)

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I don't see how it can be elevated downtown due to Calgary's large Plus15/30 system of overhead pathways. Tunneling is also problematic in Calgary although certainly not impossible. The city has a very high water table which is one of the reasons it didn't build a downtown subway in the first -place like Edmonton.

The new Green Line really shows how some cities know how to use scarce transit dollars and others don't. Calgary is spending $4.5 billion and will get a huge 50km rapid transit system. Toronto on the other hand is spending $3 billion to replace a functioning transit line of only 6 km.

Where are we supposed to build surface/elevated lines in Toronto? Do you know how much expropriation costs? Do we really need a hybrid light rail system particularly with the planned expansion of the GO network?

The RT was built mainly to show off the new technology. Few aside from Vancouver ended up purchasing it. No doubt there is political motivation in the form of new real estate development but also to erase the Ontario government's failure in its ICTS venture.

There's always things to overcome when building underground. The bedrock here is under compressive forces. Drilling a hole in it will cause it to expand into the hole. One miscalculation and it could destroy a tunnel or foundation.