Edmonton: $5B LRT expansion proposed for south, northwest, northeast Extension - Page 4

mick · #61 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 1:19 AM**

It was something like that but the university line was much deeper and required a TBM. I don't believe they will require a TBM for this project. Rather, it appears they will cut and cover.

If the price tag for this line comes out at 900m, I will be astounded.

frinkprof · #62 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 1:21 AM**

^Yeah, the University Station is the deepest underground transit station in Canada, and one of the deepest in North America if I'm not mistaken.

As for Coldsrx's question regarding costs of TBM versus cut and cover, and although I can't give you an answer, I know that it depends highly on a few factors. Soil types, depths, and nearby land uses (buildings) are some of these factors. Not only that, but a tunnel boring machine needs somewhere (basically a big hole that is there for the duration of the boriing) to go in, and for all the materials to go in and come out, while cut and cover is a little more dynamic.

chevvac · #63 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 1:23 AM**

Here is a quick map of WLRT (87ave option), NLRT and the SLRT/NELRT extensions based on the current system map. The station locations might be kinda off.... but they are close

http://members.shaw.ca/niveauzero/transitmap.pdf

mersar · #64 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 1:38 AM**

I'm trying to find the story from when the WLRT for Calgary was announced, they mentioned the cost that we'd be looking at to extend the tunnel part about 300m further, those 300m were into the hundreds of millions though.

MalcolmTucker · #65 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 1:44 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mersar

I'm trying to find the story from when the WLRT for Calgary was announced, they mentioned the cost that we'd be looking at to extend the tunnel part about 300m further, those 300m were into the hundreds of millions though.

That 300m would have included a road crossing and one underground station. I don't remember an official talk of the cost of that extra length, we will know when the tenders come back as the different companies have the option or providing the city the option of that station underground or not.

The $300 m number may have been from when Bronconnier mused about putting the section underground in mid summer after going on a tour of the Canada Line construction. That number was a worst case generated by a competing Mayoral candidate if my memory serves me well.

MalcolmTucker · #66 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 1:51 AM**

It seems to me that at the price proposed, the NAIT LRT will have a little more trouble getting through council.

For the same amount you could likely build alot more of the WLRT line which would serve more voters. (not more passengers perse, but the perceptions of voters of having improved transit)

Edmonton's system expansion seems to be now more constrained by corridor issues than anything else. Having little long term plan over the past years has greatly contributed to the cost of these projects if the estimates that have been purported here are true.

basilbrush · #67 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 4:59 AM**

Having a complete underground line from Churchill to NAIT would be ideal with stations at EPCOR, GMCC, Kingsway & NAIT. If early estimates for an at grade system are spiraling that high, then I would love to see what the estimates are for the underground version.

Hardhatdan · #68 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 3:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by basilbrush

Having a complete underground line from Churchill to NAIT would be ideal with stations at EPCOR, GMCC, Kingsway & NAIT. If early estimates for an at grade system are spiraling that high, then I would love to see what the estimates are for the underground version.

Just for fun? Why would you ever expect the estimates for an underground system to ever be less "escalated"?

The Geographer · #69 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 5:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Just for fun? Why would you ever expect the estimates for an underground system to ever be less "escalated"?

If a lot of costs are due to land acquisition and rebuilding roads, they could be relatively less escalated.

Hardhatdan · #70 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 5:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Geographer

If a lot of costs are due to land acquisition and rebuilding roads, they could be relatively less escalated.

??? To do cut and cover you still have to do land acquisitions and road rebuilding.

Guys, do a little research first please!

The Geographer · #71 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

??? To do cut and cover you still have to do land acquisitions and road rebuilding.

Guys, do a little research first please!

I said relatively less. To use and extreme example: If you spent a trillion dollars on land acquisition, then what is another billion?

If you fly all the way across the world, it is rational to spend more on food, activities, etc. then you would have at home since you spent so much money just to get there; you might as well not go cheap.

As another example, if Calgary spent 1 billion dollars on land acquisition along Centre Street to knock out all of the buildings to build a surface rapid transit line, it wouldn't make sense to just go with a dedicated BRT.

Bassic Lab · #72 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Just for fun? Why would you ever expect the estimates for an underground system to ever be less "escalated"?

As I understand it his point was precisely that, in that if the escalated figures are correct then the amount required for an underground option would be of interest for its shear size.

mick · #73 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 5:55 PM**

Can someone explain to me what 'engineering challenges' this line faces that would justify a 300m/km price tag? Again, this number is just stunning compared to anything I can find in NA. SLRT at 700m for 7.5km above grade is extremely high, as evidenced by Calgary getting 8km of wLRT 5 years of construction inflation later for the same price. The only answer anyone has suggested for the high cost of sLRT is that 'it includes the full meal deal'. I don't know what this means and I don't see what king of engineering challenges could justify a 1billion price tag on nLRT, so please, those in the know help me out.

I support LRT expansion as much as anyone here but if we are consistently spending more than any other comparable municipality, we'll simply get less of it.

basilbrush · #74 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

Just for fun? Why would you ever expect the estimates for an underground system to ever be less "escalated"?

Well of course, just for fun.

I mean, if it turns out that a complete underground system can be done for say $1.25B then wouldn't it start to look more attractive then spending $900M on running surface LRT through established neighbourhoods?

I know municiple spending never happens this way, but if it was my own money then i think i would be tempted to spend the extra on the superior system.

Just curious, that's all.

MalcolmTucker · #75 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mick

Can someone explain to me what 'engineering challenges' this line faces that would justify a 300m/km price tag? Again, this number is just stunning compared to anything I can find in NA. SLRT at 700m for 7.5km above grade is extremely high, as evidenced by Calgary getting 8km of wLRT 5 years of construction inflation later for the same price. The only answer anyone has suggested for the high cost of sLRT is that 'it includes the full meal deal'. I don't know what this means and I don't see what king of engineering challenges could justify a 1billion price tag on nLRT, so please, those in the know help me out.

I support LRT expansion as much as anyone here but if we are consistently spending more than any other comparable municipality, we'll simply get less of it.

Calgary's price tag does not include the years of property acquisitions done to allow the LRT to go ahead, including corridor reserves. I assume Edmonton's included of properties in Belegravia in the budget, and building a parkade to budget closer to the 'true costs' costs. The Calgary budget also assumes that properties acquired close to the Westgate site can be flipped for more money once train construction is done.

Perhaps more experience of local companies building this type of infrastructure, has led to lower bids. Perhaps not building to 5 car trains, using antiquated switching and control equipment, and building stations that at best can be described as minimalist helps alot. Calgary's system has been a measure of frugality for many years, and maybe it really does help that much.

You Need A Thneed · #76 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 6:28 PM**

The cost of any tunnel boring that would need to be done would be lowered by the fact that the City of Edmonton already owns the TBM required to do the job, and that they operate it themselves (saving the markup on that part of the project)

mick · #77 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 6:36 PM**

I probably should not have diverted the thread with the sLRT stuff. It's a discussion that we've had before http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...opic.php?t=696, and all the things you mentioned were discussed.

For nLRT, I would really like to know what sort of challenges justify this price tag.

rapid_business · #78 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 7:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chevvac

Here is a quick map of WLRT (87ave option), NLRT and the SLRT/NELRT extensions based on the current system map. The station locations might be kinda off.... but they are close

http://members.shaw.ca/niveauzero/transitmap.pdf

Looks good. That is a great map!

The only station I wonder about the functionality is the Laurier station on the WLRT line... the traffic circle would need to be revamped, and you'd need some higher-density around there eventually.

RicoLance21 · #79 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 7:33 PM**

^Between Laurier and Meadowlark, looks like there will be very little land acquisition involved, since there are service roads on both sides of 87 Ave. Am I right?

CMD UW · #80 Posted **Jan 22, 2008, 8:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardhatdan

I believe it is due to a large parcel of Gov. of Alberta land that would be donated to provide a large surface park and ride.

That and the fact that there are plans to develop the University lands west of 127 Street as part of the Macewan South Campus along with a future hospital.

It also allows a park n' ride to be developed west of the Macewan neighbourhood to serve Heritage Valley. The previous 111 Street alignment would have just provided a split platform station at Ellerslie Road.