ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[cherrypark]

At this point just do the BRT for less, hope that GO to Cambridge gets approved, and live to fight for whatever Phase 3 would have been within KW.

If the policy of some is "let's cheap out on Cambridge so we can do the nice thing in KW later", then this Region is cooked politically. City-building for me, but not for thee. I can't adequately explain how insulting this is - as if a few bridges over flat, seismically-stable land is akin to building a new Ancient Wonder of the World. But I get it, wealthy tech and university people need their train and the more modest working people on Hespeler Road should just settle for a bus because they don't deserve the same as us. If only they took the effort to go to public meetings at 2PM on a tuesday like us! They don't deserve the same clean train as others because they made the mistake of trying to start their life and buy a house in the wrong year and in the wrong city.

All of North America can't do public procurement anymore. If Phase 2 is twice as expensive as it should be, then Phase 3 will be too. As will the next hospital, and school, and highway widening - but the bill for those doesn't really get local headlines so nobody talks about it - only transit. Fuck, they're keeping the bill for Highway 413 secret so we can keep fighting for the scraps in the transit world while the suburbanites get blank cheques for whatever they like.

To be clear - I would absolutely rather and advocate for getting a Phase 2 built and don't think Cambridge isn't deserving. I just don't see what the political path is when Cambridge council seems disinterested or even opposed and whatever costing is being used is making it seem like constructing a modern wonder. The skip this to get KW service later is more a worry that Phase 2 is becoming/will be such an albatross that the political will to do more beyond that will be toast for good. Would much prefer to be wrong.

[tomh009]

A big part of the reason for the high phase 2 costs stems from having to cross the river and the 401. That would have been expensive even if built at the same time as phase 2.

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

[bravado]

A big part of the reason for the high phase 2 costs stems from having to cross the river and the 401. That would have been expensive even if built at the same time as phase 2.

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

But even that statement is accepting that the cost estimates are normal. We're getting fullytunneled underground metro costs per km for an above-ground, normal concrete light rail system. The Speed River isn't the grand canyon, but the price seems to imply that it is.

$210M per km is a wild cost estimate for completely above-ground light rail on flat land and I don't want anyone to treat it like that's "just the cost of doing business".

[Kodra24]

A big part of the reason for the high phase 2 costs stems from having to cross the river and the 401. That would have been expensive even if built at the same time as phase 2.

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

But even that statement is accepting that the cost estimates are normal. We're getting fullytunneled underground metro costs per km for an above-ground, normal concrete light rail system. The Speed River isn't the grand canyon, but the price seems to imply that it is.

$210M per km is a wild cost estimate for completely above-ground light rail on flat land and I don't want anyone to treat it like that's "just the cost of doing business".

It's the cost of doing business "in Canada"

[tomh009]

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

But even that statement is accepting that the cost estimates are normal. We're getting fullytunneled underground metro costs per km for an above-ground, normal concrete light rail system. The Speed River isn't the grand canyon, but the price seems to imply that it is.

There is Speed River and Grand River. Also elevated across the Fairview Mall parking lot, Fairway Road and the CP Rail line. Elevated crossing over the Hwy 8 exit ramp. Elevated on Shantz Hill Road. Elevated again over the CP Rail crossing first and then CN Rail.

So, while not tunnelled, the amount of bridges and elevated sections is quite significant, compared to essentially zero in phase 1. I'm not qualified to assess how much of the cost impact is due to these bridges and elevated segments, though, how much to construction cost inflation, and how much to something else.

[tomh009]

$210M per km is a wild cost estimate for completely above-ground light rail on flat land and I don't want anyone to treat it like that's "just the cost of doing business".

It's the cost of doing business "in Canada"

Phase 1 was built "in Canada", too, at a very comparable cost to a similar European project.

[KevinL]

compared to essentially zero in phase 1.

Phase 1 had a major component - the King Street underpass of the rail line. But very little otherwise, certainly.

[ijmorlan]

compared to essentially zero in phase 1.

Phase 1 had a major component - the King Street underpass of the rail line. But very little otherwise, certainly.

And even that is properly charged mostly to the road network. The LRT tracks only add a couple of lanes to the length of the bridge / width of the underpass.

[ZEBuilder]

A big part of the reason for the high phase 2 costs stems from having to cross the river and the 401. That would have been expensive even if built at the same time as phase 2.

That makes me think that "proper" BRT (with protected lanes) would be far less expensive, as it could potentially leverage existing bridges or underpasses. It's still much faster than buses in transit, and semi-permanent (routes not easily changed). Not as "nice" as LRT, but would that make sense as a compromise? Maybe a better routing could even be achieved?

But even that statement is accepting that the cost estimates are normal. We're getting fullytunneled underground metro costs per km for an above-ground, normal concrete light rail system. The Speed River isn't the grand canyon, but the price seems to imply that it is.

$210M per km is a wild cost estimate for completely above-ground light rail on flat land and I don't want anyone to treat it like that's "just the cost of doing business".

Go look at the post I made last week but the cost we have per km is one of the more sane cost estimates of LRTs in Ontario, at least for ones that are comparable. Phase 2 is arguably even more complicated then some of those and still comes in cheaper so it is arguably the cost of doing business. 

210M is no where near fully tunneled metro fyi. The line 2 extension is about 1 billion dollars per km. Line 1 extension to Vaughan was roughly half a billion per km so by no means are we getting fully tunneled metro costs.

[ZEBuilder]

There is Speed River and Grand River. Also elevated across the Fairview Mall parking lot, Fairway Road and the CP Rail line. Elevated crossing over the Hwy 8 exit ramp. Elevated on Shantz Hill Road. Elevated again over the CP Rail crossing first and then CN Rail.

So, while not tunnelled, the amount of bridges and elevated sections is quite significant, compared to essentially zero in phase 1. I'm not qualified to assess how much of the cost impact is due to these bridges and elevated segments, though, how much to construction cost inflation, and how much to something else.

The bridges and elevated sections add significant cost compared to road running the LRT but that is to be expected.

The bridges themselves aren't inherently difficult to construct or design, but the type of bridge and then the soil conditions will both change how difficult it is to construct and thus impact the cost. Most of the time on short to medium span bridges the preferred design is an integral or semi integral abutment bridge. These don't have an expansion joint, thus minimizing maintenance costs, but instead you generally need deep foundations, again this is soil dependent, semi integral can be found on strip footings but is again soil dependent. Other bridge types can utilize shallow foundations but depending on the geotechnical conditions may require deep foundations. So long story short bridge type can change cost significantly just by picking one bridge type over another. This isn't something decided until detailed design which is still a ways away. Regardless soil conditions will govern the foundation type and can quickly inflate costs.

***In Ontario for large projects (bridges, infrastructure, highways) the foundation work is generally two fold. A geotechnical engineering team will be brought in to determine  the surficial conditions, they will produce the factual information report regarding the soil/rock, everything one needs to design a foundation, the report may or may not include foundation recommendations. The project then goes to tender with the factual report, expected loadings (from the structural engineer) with a stipulation that the contractor retains an engineer to design the foundation based on what was provided. This moves risk to the contractor and is extremely typical of large infrastructure projects. However if a design says the contractor must use a 2.5m caisson the risk is on the engineer writing that stipulation.***

Now for our bridges it's good to understanding the surficial conditions around the bridge sites to determine what may make the foundations complicated and potentially drive up the cost.

From Fairway to the Grand River bedrock is rather deep, there is minimal likelihood of having a bridge footing founded on bedrock, hence you will likely have caissons or H piles, this alone means more work and more cost. From the Grand River to Sportsworld the bedrock is shallower but still deep enough that you aren't excavating to bedrock for a footing so again likely will require caissons or H piles. Now around the Speed River and north of Eagle St where the remaining 3 bridges are bedrock is rather shallow, it is entirely possible that those bridges can be built with strip footings provided the bedrock is shallow enough that excavation isn't horrible. Obviously one would need to know the actual soil conditions before one designs something but it is certainly possible with how shallow bedrock is in that area that it could be relatively simple foundations, but again depending on the bridge type you may need to have a more complex foundation and hence more cost.

For the bridge crossing Fairway and the CP tracks (10+180 to 10+690) you're looking at a 510m long bridge that would likely need to be found on deep foundations. For the bridge next to the River Rd extension (11+640 to 11+770) you're looking at a 130m long bridge through the same soils that would likely need to be found on deep foundations. For the bridge crossing the Grand River and running along 8 (12+010 to 13+480) you're looking at a 1.47km long bridge through soils that would likely require deep foundations. For the bridge crossing the Speed River (16+460 to 17+000) you're looking at 540m where bedrock is relatively shallow, so strip footings could be possible however one has to be careful about scour so you may see a mix of both even though bedrock is shallow. For the bridge crossing the CP tracks (17+650 to 18+090) you're looking at 440m on shallow bedrock so strip footings may be possible. Then the last one is the CN tracks (19+760 to 19+850) so 90m again on some shallow bedrock so strip footings could be used.

Geotech Report references:
Low Cut and High Fill FIDR Highway 8 widening north and south of the Grand River: FIDR Highway Low Cut/High Fill
High Mast Lighting FIDR Highway 8 widening Grand River to Maple Grove: FIDR High Mast Lighting
CNR Overhead @ 401 10 lane widening: FIDR CNR overhead widening
Speed River Bridges @ 401 10 lane widening: FIDR Speed River Bridges Widening (Not very useful but reflects CNR overhead bedrock and OGS data)
102 Fountain Geotech (Preston Springs): CVD Preliminary Geotech Report
Ontario Geological Survey Bedrock data: OGSEarth

All in all it's 3.18km of bridges most are 10m (33ft) or so from the ground surface to top of track but some range up to 17m (56ft). Of which 2.11 km will likely require deep foundations to adequately support, the remaining 1.07km will likely see a mix of shallow and deep footings. So foundations alone are going to be an incredible cost. There's a reason the Preston to Galt cost estimate is 960 million less, you're avoiding 2.65 km of bridge (83% of the total Fairway to Galt bridge length).

For comparisons sake the Frederick St Bridge replacement is about 30 million dollars for less than 100m, so our 3.18km of bridge would be about 950 million dollars, obviously Frederick is wider but it is way simpler in terms of not needing so many foundation elements. Or even the Roseville Rd replacement, its narrower and is about 17 million dollars for about 70 meters, so our 3.18km would be about 800 million, so again not a crazy cost estimate at all when you're looking at 17km of LRT track and catenary, 3.18 km of bridges, 2km of retaining wall, and roughly 5.4km of road reconstruction (3.4km of Hespeler, 1.3km of King St/Shantz Hill, 700m of road around Preston (side streets, King and Eagle). 

The Surrey-Langley SkyTrain extension is roughly 375 million per km and is entirely elevated so given ours is only 177 million per km and 20% is elevated its not an insane cost.

[ac3r]

When I ride the ION, it is always crowded. I don't know why you say it sucked. There are European cities comparable in size to Waterloo Region that have tram systems. I don't know why you think that it can't work in Cambridge. We spend billions of dollars on roads that become clogged with traffic because we don't provide more efficient alternatives.

Have you ever lived in a European country? There is nothing to compare between Canadian cities and European cities. The ION sucks because it's slow and designed to cost as little money as possible because it was the only way people were going to let the region go ahead with it.

It just makes zero sense to expand it into Cambridge. Most people in that city do not want it. The city government does not want it. The majority of tax payers in the region don't want it. Increasingly, the people that did want it no longer want it. The people that do want it seem to be aware of the fact that it's a total ripoff, so now they're proposing building it in even smaller phases because six 1 billion dollar invoices is psychologically more palatable than one 6 billion dollar invoice. Or more hilariously, building an LRT in Cambridge that isn't even connected to the existing LRT...lmao.

I can only hope sanity prevails and they bin this terrible idea. But if there is one thing this region excels at, it's making terrible choices. I fully expect them to spend years debating, burning through millions of dollars on studies and consultants, approve the project, then spend 15+ years dragging out the construction and inflating the bill far beyond what we can afford.

[Acitta]

When I ride the ION, it is always crowded. I don't know why you say it sucked. There are European cities comparable in size to Waterloo Region that have tram systems. I don't know why you think that it can't work in Cambridge. We spend billions of dollars on roads that become clogged with traffic because we don't provide more efficient alternatives.

Have you ever lived in a European country? There is nothing to compare between Canadian cities and European cities. The ION sucks because it's slow and designed to cost as little money as possible because it was the only way people were going to let the region go ahead with it.

It just makes zero sense to expand it into Cambridge. Most people in that city do not want it. The city government does not want it. The majority of tax payers in the region don't want it. Increasingly, the people that did want it no longer want it. The people that do want it seem to be aware of the fact that it's a total ripoff, so now they're proposing building it in even smaller phases because six 1 billion dollar invoices is psychologically more palatable than one 6 billion dollar invoice. Or more hilariously, building an LRT in Cambridge that isn't even connected to the existing LRT...lmao.

I can only hope sanity prevails and they bin this terrible idea. But if there is one thing this region excels at, it's making terrible choices. I fully expect them to spend years debating, burning through millions of dollars on studies and consultants, approve the project, then spend 15+ years dragging out the construction and inflating the bill far beyond what we can afford.

No, I have not lived in a European country. I know that they take their public transit much more seriously than car-centric Canadian cities. However, the only people who complain about better public transit are the car-brained idiots who never use it. The ION is well-used, even if it is not as well-designed as it could have been. Public transit, in general, is well-used in the Region. I know, I ride the buses and the ION. If the ION to Cambridge already existed, I would be using it regularly. Going from downtown Kitchener to downtown Cambridge is a much longer trip than going between Kitchener and Waterloo, so extending the ION really makes sense, especially with the booming population numbers in the region. Sadly, at the rate things are progressing, there is a good chance that I will be dead before it goes into operation.

[tomh009]

But if there is one thing this region excels at, it's making terrible choices. I fully expect them to spend years debating, burning through millions of dollars on studies and consultants, approve the project, then spend 15+ years dragging out the construction and inflating the bill far beyond what we can afford.

And you think the region is worse in that regard than, say ... Toronto? Seriously?

[tomh009]

Have you ever lived in a European country? There is nothing to compare between Canadian cities and European cities. The ION sucks because it's slow and designed to cost as little money as possible because it was the only way people were going to let the region go ahead with it.

No, I have not lived in a European country. I know that they take their public transit much more seriously than car-centric Canadian cities. However, the only people who complain about better public transit are the car-brained idiots who never use it. The ION is well-used, even if it is not as well-designed as it could have been. Public transit, in general, is well-used in the Region.

I grew up in Europe and have lived there for long stretches since then. And I have spent close to two years in Japan, too. The key underlying factor is that European cities generally are, and generally always have been, much more urban than North American cities. As a result, they are far less car-centric, and far more people walk, cycle and take transit--and the same is true in Japan as well.

You hate that fact that the LRT is above ground, but LRT and tram systems are common in Europe as well. But it is indeed driving both ridership and development, roughly meeting its original goals (COVID-19 impacted it along the way).

I don't see any point in arguing this with you any further as there is no way to have a reasoned debate with you on this topic.

[creative]

… or any other topic!