[Sunnyside]

I wonder if part of the problem is simply risk aversiveness by the bureaucracy..... these days nobody wants to put forward numbers that prove too low, so the cushions are added.

The unintended result I see is that if the numbers are proposed more conservatively, the political sticker shock may incent politicians to shelve projects we actually really need.

The other problem is, the padded numbers become the target, and while there may be incentive to the contractor to come in under budget (and pocket the contingency), the offsetting potential is to do the project less efficiently and still make a decent return. The politicians declare victory, but actually a lot of money gets wasted - they buy their victory at a premium, where the target and end prices could have been a bit lower if people overlooked the odd bit of overrun.

I worked with one very senior project executive who had built some pretty large infrastructure - their strategy was to hold all the contingency at the top and be ruthless in not handing it out without breaking somebody's spirit. It wasn't pretty, but it sure worked. Maybe we should not bake so much contingency into the contract.

I have a lot of trouble with iOn Phase II because it seems to have played to every business lobby and community along the way - leading to a winding, slow routing that won't actually work that efffectively. I can really get behind a higher order transit link between downtown Cambridge and Kitchener - but this doesn't feel like that higher an order. I can even get behind a Cambridge LRT - if you look at the incremental cost of the Ainslie-Delta and Delta-Pinebush segments, these are not out of line for an LRT. With the right develeopment strategy and LRT, Hespeler Road could become the next Hurontario. It's the link to Fairway (and the winding route north of there) that seems like throwing away money.

- Paul

The worst part is the iON today isn’t even faster than a bus. Forget Phase II with its winding route.

 

[tmlittle]

I wonder if part of the problem is simply risk aversiveness by the bureaucracy..... these days nobody wants to put forward numbers that prove too low, so the cushions are added.

The unintended result I see is that if the numbers are proposed more conservatively, the political sticker shock may incent politicians to shelve projects we actually really need.

The other problem is, the padded numbers become the target, and while there may be incentive to the contractor to come in under budget (and pocket the contingency), the offsetting potential is to do the project less efficiently and still make a decent return. The politicians declare victory, but actually a lot of money gets wasted - they buy their victory at a premium, where the target and end prices could have been a bit lower if people overlooked the odd bit of overrun.

I worked with one very senior project executive who had built some pretty large infrastructure - their strategy was to hold all the contingency at the top and be ruthless in not handing it out without breaking somebody's spirit. It wasn't pretty, but it sure worked. Maybe we should not bake so much contingency into the contract.

I have a lot of trouble with iOn Phase II because it seems to have played to every business lobby and community along the way - leading to a winding, slow routing that won't actually work that efffectively. I can really get behind a higher order transit link between downtown Cambridge and Kitchener - but this doesn't feel like that higher an order. I can even get behind a Cambridge LRT - if you look at the incremental cost of the Ainslie-Delta and Delta-Pinebush segments, these are not out of line for an LRT. With the right develeopment strategy and LRT, Hespeler Road could become the next Hurontario. It's the link to Fairway (and the winding route north of there) that seems like throwing away money.

- Paul

Right on the money here. I am a local resident who has been riding ION regularly through the whole pandemic and since launch. I've seen all the ups and downs (the crashes, crowding already starting to appear in the central uptown-downtown section, empty trains in the suburban sections, mysterious and unjustifiable-seeming outages on perfectly normal days) though obviously it is not on the level of Ottawa. The Ion feels like a great system and is comfortable to ride, easy to get on and off, feels integrated into the urban landscape especially in areas where redevelopment has matured/slowed down and there's a lot of pedestrian activity. At Frederick station for example you'll see a ton of Conestoga College students or people going to places in the south end of downtown using it. However the directional running and constant twisting through streets are its Achilles heel.

I find myself getting more and more critical of the Cambridge extension because it even looks like a boondoggle on the map. It feels as if the whole time, the potential of the Ion system has been held back by the "flinch" toward serving suburban bus terminals and transfer points over going straight through downtown areas and using higher-speed dedicated rail corridors to actually cover distance (e.g. terminating at Conestoga Mall). It's these suburban areas where a lot of the problems are. But the biggest problem of all feels like the attempt to have one single line perform every function (the Jack of all trades) and noodle its way everywhere rather than having a branching system, or just more-effectively utilizing bus transfers. If you look at the historical systems in Cambridge, there was a separate Hespeler branch and the Kitchener-Galt tracks via Preston were extremely direct if not an exact straight line. In theory geometrically you would want transit corridors to be a Galt-Preston-Hespeler triangle. The way things have been structured, reaching Pinebush and the 401 is treated as a do-or-die priority, which feels reminiscent of McGuinty-era transit planning mentality-wise. Coming down through Cambridge Centre, that's a pretty suburban corridor that's going to be heavily reliant on bus transfers. The Region has continually promised to build up better bus service in Cambridge but you'll come across endless excuses and strange apologism (e.g. blaming historical underfunding under the municipality as an excuse for why that historical underfunding has been continued under the Region), or just handwaving it as suburbia problems and that Cambridge is difficult to serve. Yet if they are serious about planning for higher-order transit like LRT, that bus ridership needs to be boosted over the new few years one way or another, or else Stage 2 will be low-ridership on top of all its other problems.

I think LRT development in the region has ultimately been positive (cost-effectiveness aside) and has had a corrective influence on development to help compensate for decades of thoughtless suburbanization and de-densification, but it would have been much more helpful if there had been a less conservative conceptualization of it as more or less just a single-line system running sinuously through the tri-cities, and more as an actual system with branching/intersecting lines similar to what's been explored in Ottawa. It feels however (like what you alluded to with the Fairway connection across the river being difficult) like what's always taken the front seat is the vision of the LRT as a "regionalizing" project that the regional government has used to actualize itself. Kitchener and Waterloo have obviously always been linked and are very close together, but Cambridge is a different beast and you have to wonder if something more creative might have delivered superior value -- building a depot somewhere in Cambridge, having one or more small lines within Cambridge itself to connect the former town centres better and provide an upgrade from the existing iXpress service, and then keeping the existing 302 as a bus bridge via the highway between Fairway and Pinebush or some other northwesterly station in Cambridge? I've taken the 302 numerous times and it's a great way to get to Sportsworld or Pinebush. I find it's often quite crowded but it could definitely have better frequency and schedule harmonization with the 206 iXpress (which partially duplicates its route). Forcing people to transfer multiple times isn't fantastic but if it saves a billion dollars that could theoretically be poured into feeder bus routes for the system in Cambridge? Then I think we'd be cooking with gas. But that's the kind of creative possibility that's seemingly never come up because the LRT was conceived overwhelmingly as a Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge link, with the actual service within Cambridge as an afterthought (not a good sign).

This is just my feelings on it, I'm not an expert or anything but watching the lack of progress or concrete goals is frustrating and I'm concerned stage 2 will not end up being what Cambridge needs.

 

[Reecemartin]

I agree the numbers are high; though really Spain is not a fair comparison......

Their median income is something like 1/4 less than ours, their construction sector pays a lot less, in relative terms.

There are, of course, other issues at play. But we do need to be mindful when making comparisons in costs things like relative income and land cost.



I don't remember it being proposed for any earlier than 2028.

Disappointed to see it pushed back; but not surprised.

It's easy to dismiss the Spanish cost because of cost of living, etc, but the Transit Cost project (which you cited) already adjusts based on PPP, so it really is just super bad.

They also mentioned land costs in the report and they were a pretty low number relative to the overall cost. At the same time as tends to happen, they are cross comparing their own costs with other Ontario projects (though seemingly not the much less expensive original segment) which all have very high costs by international standards and even based on our own historic standards.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

4.4 Billion is too much for an LRT to Cambridge. It feels like they're almost putting it that high to push it off. Costs need to come down. Or a recession is needed.

 

[ericmacm]

These construction cost escalations are getting out of hand.

For Stage 2 option C (full extension from Fairview to Downtown Cambridge), they are estimating an additional $1B for inflationary costs alone between now and a hypothetical start date of 2030. I can understand grade separations making the project more expensive (they do note that there are six new major grade separations for Stage 2, compared to zero for Stage 1), but it is abundantly clear that they are wasting so much money by not being able to move these projects through quickly. They aren't even planning on getting the Preliminary Design Business Case done until 2027 - four years from now. The region should have been more prepared and had Stage 2 teed up and ready for right after Stage 1 opened.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Bear in mind that a history of this kind of foot dragging on Cambridge projects had a lot to do with the difficulty getting buy in from Cambridge in the first place.

 

[Northern Light]

These construction cost escalations are getting out of hand.

For Stage 2 option C (full extension from Fairview to Downtown Cambridge), they are estimating an additional $1B for inflationary costs alone between now and a hypothetical start date of 2030. I can understand grade separations making the project more expensive (they do note that there are six new major grade separations for Stage 2, compared to zero for Stage 1), but it is abundantly clear that they are wasting so much money by not being able to move these projects through quickly. They aren't even planning on getting the Preliminary Design Business Case done until 2027 - four years from now. The region should have been more prepared and had Stage 2 teed up and ready for right after Stage 1 opened.

Of course, we should just cut the business case entirely. We never used to do these for projects; they mysteriously became part of the process right after McGuinty cut back the EA process and essentially added everything back that was cut and then some.

Now, I hear some saying a business case is a sensible idea............sure, in theory, but let's deal with reality, in every case but 1, that I can think of; the business case done for Mx has recommended going ahead with the proposed project; there was one exception, and it went ahead anyway too. LOL

In other words, the choice of whether to build, and the major details of a route are largely political, and secondarily those of professional staff. The consultants hired to do these reports dutifully report out what is expected of them, and in the process waste needless time and money.

We still have a similar issue with E.A.s in that they tend to examine things that absolutely will not be changed, and ToR (terms of reference) and methodology will almost always ensure that. Why are we wasting that time and money then? E.A.s should be limited to examining actual choices and mitigation strategies around environmental impact. (for instance, a crossing of a valley/ravine). Should we bridge or tunnel? If we cut down trees, how do we minimize what we cut and how to we make up for any losses we create?

Wasting time on much of anything else is just money for naught.

I'm all for a business case looking at two equally viable alternatives and determining the better value-for-money, but since we don't really do that, there really isn't much point.

 

[crs1026]

Of course, we should just cut the business case entirely. We never used to do these for projects; they mysteriously became part of the process right after McGuinty cut back the EA process and essentially added everything back that was cut and then some.

Now, I hear some saying a business case is a sensible idea............sure, in theory, but let's deal with reality, in every case but 1, that I can think of; the business case done for Mx has recommended going ahead with the proposed project; there was one exception, and it went ahead anyway too. LOL

In other words, the choice of whether to build, and the major details of a route are largely political, and secondarily those of professional staff. The consultants hired to do these reports dutifully report out what is expected of them, and in the process waste needless time and money.

We still have a similar issue with E.A.s in that they tend to examine things that absolutely will not be changed, and ToR (terms of reference) and methodology will almost always ensure that. Why are we wasting that time and money then? E.A.s should be limited to examining actual choices and mitigation strategies around environmental impact. (for instance, a crossing of a valley/ravine). Should we bridge or tunnel? If we cut down trees, how do we minimize what we cut and how to we make up for any losses we create?

Wasting time on much of anything else is just money for naught.

I'm all for a business case looking at two equally viable alternatives and determining the better value-for-money, but since we don't really do that, there really isn't much point.

I find that “Business Case” is a bit of a misnomer - these documents don’t test financial ROI with any rigour, and especially when the variables in the analysis run to moderately intangible concepts, the math is usually suspect. But I do feel the documents are desirable more as a specification and a service plan description. Again, these may be imprecise (I don’t take a spec of 8 trains per hour to the bank - it may end up being 7, or 5….j but these documents do generally clarify whether we are talking 2WAD versus 5 peak trains weekdays only, diesel versus potential electric, etc. It’s important to get those facts and design assumptions nailed down before the Communications folks at City Hall and QP and Parliament Hill obfuscate them and everybody’s memory and public expectations change over time. I would like to see more granularity about time and major work packages.

I’m a bit more fanatical about what may be considered ”excess” in Ea analysis. The point of an Ea report is partly mitigation planning but equally importantly full disclosure. It’s reputationally important that there is no room for post-hoc discoveries, and even if the project is compelling, the proponents need to be protected from accusations of having wilfully suppressed some adverse impact.

The iterations in this particular proposal seem to be more a matter of struggling to reach a threshold of enthusiasm, as opposed to overthinking or “analysis paralysis”. The weakness has been the reality that many are disinterested unless they get direct benefit, with the result that the planned route meanders all over the place so that every neighbourhood gets included and buys in.

Waterloo Region is still a jumble of discrete centers, and often still has some green space between each of them. An LRT line can’t connect that many dots, it has to join select points and exclude the ones that aren’t in a fairly straight line….. but the local politics refuses to pick winners and losers.

- Paul

 

[jys]

I have a lot of trouble with iOn Phase II because it seems to have played to every business lobby and community along the way - leading to a winding, slow routing that won't actually work that efffectively.

How does it compare to the current 302 ION bus? If it's slower, in what way would an LRT represent an improvement? Is the 302 over-crowded or prone to getting stuck in traffic?

 

[Sunnyside]

How does it compare to the current 302 ION bus? If it's slower, in what way would an LRT represent an improvement? Is the 302 over-crowded or prone to getting stuck in traffic?

Vibes and development- the bus uses a highway right now. And that’s all fine, but let’s be responsible with our development attractors. Maybe ensure it’s at least as functional as the existing iON.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Thinking about it, I feel this is happening because of the cost of materials. But there is also rampant speculation happening, and that needs to be reined in. People need to push the region to justify the inflation here since things really didn't get bad until just the end of covid.

 

[duffo]

It seems like most of the cost drivers are the elevated structures between Kitchener and northern Cambridge. I'm not sure what the OMSF plan was for Phase 2, but to get shovels in the ground earlier I wonder if initially ION Phase 2 should be a totally separate system serving Cambridge? Run it from Preston to Downtown Galt on-street ASAP, connect the two segments of the line later...

 

[robmausser]

Regional Councillor has suggestion for LRT in Cambridge

Wolf said that it would be worth considering building Phase 2 of the ION from the south to the north, instead of vice-versa.

kitchener.citynews.ca

A councilor thinks that just the portion of the LRT on Hespeler Road should be built.

This isn't possible due to the maintenance storage facility being in Kitchener.

However, the line parallels a CP rail branch line.

I wonder if a similar situation could be agreed upon with CP with the branch line like the Waterloo Spur, where freight is relegated to night. The CP line doesn't serve much in itself.

Green is existing ION LRT, Blue is new sections built on Road etc, and Yellow inbetween is the CP rail line.

It wouldnt hit as many points of interest along the way, but it would cost a lot less. The portion it replaces is the most expensive part of the LRT phase 2.

 

[crs1026]

The CP Toyota line is in a whole different category than the CN's Waterloo Spur. (Which, by the way, is owned by the Region). I can't imagine CP agreeing to share it with a LRT - it's used to serve Toyota with auto racks, and the timing of that plus the technical conflicts would be much greater.

But I agree with building the Cambridge portion as a separate discrete line. Delaying the Fairway - Preston portion for a decade or more saves a couple $B which would offset the added cost of a OMSF in the south end..... and servicing the whole line from Northfield seems a bit inefficient in itself anyways.

- Paul

 

[jys]

Vibes and development

Interesting. I can't comment on the vibes (personally think seats on the ION buses are more comfortable than the seats on the ION trams).

I'm a bit skeptical about claims of how LRT generate development (correlation ≠ causation). How much development can be attracted by simply upzoning Hespeler Rd and removed the parking requirements?

the bus uses a highway right now

And that's a huge speed booster (compared to any rail alignment).
Hwy 401 already has bus shoulders, and Hwy 8 is overbuilt between Sportsworld and Hwy 7.
The only problem section I can think of is Hwy 8 between 401 and Sportsworld, and that can be fixed with a bus lane/shoulder.

let’s be responsible with our development attractors. Maybe ensure it’s at least as functional as the existing iON.

Agreed. Anything that costs billions and will be slower than the 302 ION bus is highly questionable imo.