Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 122

Thread: Is suburban LRT for new neighborhoods dead?

  1. #1

    Default Is suburban LRT for new neighborhoods dead?

    When LRT was first devised, it quickly became a mode to promote new not yet built sprawl neighborhoods (eg Clareview). We see some who still have that vision (eg an LRT line supporting the destruction of farmland into sprawl between Edmonton and YEG).

    On a cost benefit basis though, it just doesn't make sense anymore. In Edmonton we saw the suburban vision of WLRT be rejected. In Calgary, SE LRT (the train to billion dollar hospital the PCs built in the middle of nowhere, distant sprawl communities), SE LRT ranks the worst option:

    http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/s...tml?id=8533922

    Rapid transit to the southeast, long touted as the next major project for Calgary, has been ranked last in a new city study of future transit expansions.

    Transit planners’ cost-benefit analysis of seven new special lines included ones down Centre Street, to the deep southwest and a couple cross-town “bus rapid transit” routes. The southeast transitway, along the future LRT corridor, ties for sixth-best with a loop route to the University of Calgary and nearby hospitals.
    Do you agree that in an age of realization that cities need to densify not sprawl, LRT has changed forever with the suburban vision no longer making sense?

    One oddity in the study above though is SW LRT does well, being seen as an option given the inability in Calgary to complete the ring road there (reserrve issues). Unlike the SE option it doesn't travel through emptiness or involve expensive bridges (eg edmontons 87 LRT).
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-06-2013 at 09:09 AM.

  2. #2

    Default

    So LRT to Millwoods is suburban, but new LRT to millwoods is urban?

    So LRT to West Edmonton is sururban, but new LRT to West Edmonton is urban?

    I'm not sure what point you're attempting to get at here...? And rejected? There's as much or more opposition to this new vision than the old vision.

    Did you miss the memo about LRT to NAIT and then to St Albert currently under construction in the city to the north of you (Edmonton)?

    Maybe you missed the other memos that this new vision LRT isn't any cheaper in construction, has lower passenger carrying capacity, and isn't any quicker than an express bus.

    I'm not sure how using the same route that LRT has planned for 30+ years makes the route any less or more suburban.
    Last edited by Medwards; 17-06-2013 at 09:32 AM.

  3. #3

    Default

    I for one, have never seen a study of the cost/benefit other than the paper entitled; The Edmonton LRT: An Appropriate Choice? c 1991 by West and Kim, that seriously question both the motives and economics of LRT. With skyrocketing LRT construction costs since the early 1990's, I doubt that there is any will to analyse what they already know, that the results would be negative. All we get is political spin and transit hype while hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on LRT as basic transit services is mired in inefficiencies.

    http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/pub/cpp/June1991/Kim.pdf
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 17-06-2013 at 09:54 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  4. #4
    Plug C2E into my veins!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta, Westwood
    Posts
    16,039

    Default

    Our city is beginning to change. We are seeing new condos and infill projects take shape. We will never be Toronto. But we are most certainly densifying and developing our own urban identity.

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    The SE in Calgary is a built out mess. I can see why it would be so expensive to get LRT down there. Plus, most of those users are going to be park & riders anyways... so they can continue to drive west to McLeod and hop the LRT there. I can see why it's a lower priority. They'll continue pushing stations out the NW, NE and South lines

    Don't see how that applies here to Edmonton though
    Parkdale

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Don't see how that applies here to Edmonton though
    I think the mertics are interesting, cost per rider. It doesn't fully explain in the article how the benefit aspect is calculated.

    The relevance is that planning for lines is focusing more and more on hitting density and potential ridership, and less and less on commute time savings. The design of LRT is changing in accordance with that, theoretical top speeds are less important than hitting populations. I think the days when a brand new unbuilt neighborhood gets LRT are numbered. I also think reconsideration is needed for the "end of line piece", like Gormley and Lewis Estates, the cost benefit isn't great.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-06-2013 at 11:18 AM.

  7. #7

    Default

    SE Calgary would be akin to putting LRT to Riverbend and Terwillegar.

    I'm not sure how anything has changed in our route planning. They are still using right of ways that were envisioned 40 years ago. and this applies to both Edmonton and Calgary.

  8. #8

    Default

    Here is my take...

    Why do the far flung SE Calgary residents want LRT? The answer for the Majority would be they want to take the train to and from work. 5 days a week.

    Now you look at the North Central line.. does the same hold true? Yep it sure does but these people will also use the North Central LRT MORE as a main mode of transport NOT just a commuter train from the suburbs to work and back.

    IMO the far SE of Calgary would best be served by Strategic BRT not by a multi billion dollar LRT project that is geared towards dealing with commuting and really not much else.

    Edmonton's initial build for the new Low floor line should have been from the new low floor rail yards to JP or Meadowlark. (IMO)
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-06-2013 at 12:22 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  9. #9
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Im confused. ...is moahunter using this as an argument against building the edmonton lrt to the airport? Or saying that the proposed SE lrt to millwoods is crap?

  10. #10

    Default

    ^Millwoods is not a new suburban neighbohood, it is a mature suburban neighborhood. SE LRT which runs through various mature neighborhoods is in line with what the prioriity list above is saying, and what we are seeing in other cities.
    Last edited by moahunter; 17-06-2013 at 01:53 PM.

  11. #11
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^wasnt that priority list biased heavily towards costs though? Pretty sure it was.

    Extending our South LRT line to the airport would be cheaper now then in say...30 years. Buy the land now and build the one station at the airport. Build the remainding proposed stations at such a time (in 30 years) when they're deemed needed. The track is there so the costs for a station on which the land is already owned would be minimal.

  12. #12

    Default

    Toronto is a perfect foil for this topic I think....

    Look at the Shepard Subway Line and some of the Ford Proposed lines.... We had lines built/proposed with MASSIVE capacity that are under utilized.

    In reading all of the article moa listed a large part of the reason the Calgary South line scored so slow is because of some very expensive logistical issues. We also have to be careful about putting things off just because they are hard.

    Ridership should be the NUMBER ONE factor full stop and then we have to choose the best system to meet the need. Not the system we think meets the need like Rob Ford and his Subway to under developed areas.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  13. #13
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Toronto is a perfect foil for this topic I think....

    Look at the Shepard Subway Line and some of the Ford Proposed lines.... We had lines built/proposed with MASSIVE capacity that are under utilized.

    In reading all of the article moa listed a large part of the reason the Calgary South line scored so slow is because of some very expensive logistical issues. We also have to be careful about putting things off just because they are hard.

    Ridership should be the NUMBER ONE factor full stop and then we have to choose the best system to meet the need. Not the system we think meets the need like Rob Ford and his Subway to under developed areas.
    Im sorry but I have to believe that an lrt link to the airport would have high ridership. And perhaps with some money thrown in from Leduc county it could even be extended into leduc city which would give the south lrt the highest ridership out of any of the proposed lines in edmonton and relieve much of the commuter traffic off that heavily congested section of the QE2.

  14. #14

    Default

    why do I bother responding to EDP... (deletes post)

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Toronto is a perfect foil for this topic I think....

    Look at the Shepard Subway Line and some of the Ford Proposed lines.... We had lines built/proposed with MASSIVE capacity that are under utilized.

    In reading all of the article moa listed a large part of the reason the Calgary South line scored so slow is because of some very expensive logistical issues. We also have to be careful about putting things off just because they are hard.

    Ridership should be the NUMBER ONE factor full stop and then we have to choose the best system to meet the need. Not the system we think meets the need like Rob Ford and his Subway to under developed areas.
    Im sorry but I have to believe that an lrt link to the airport would have high ridership. And perhaps with some money thrown in from Leduc county it could even be extended into leduc city which would give the south lrt the highest ridership out of any of the proposed lines in edmonton and relieve much of the commuter traffic off that heavily congested section of the QE2.
    ^ Maybe.. but ridership is key.. if there is demand for the system than go to it... but I bet rapid Bus service would be the better option at this time.

    Lets say we had 1 Billion dollars and That is the exact cost of LRT to the Airport....

    Now do I want a LRT to the airport... or BRT for half the price and expansion of the inner city LRT system as well..

    I choose option 2 please.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-06-2013 at 04:26 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  16. #16
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    With such convenient and relatively cheap car parking at the airport I can't really see why anyone would bother paying to drag their luggage on and off any mode of transport that doesn't go right to their front door.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    With such convenient and relatively cheap car parking at the airport I can't really see why anyone would bother paying to drag their luggage on and off any mode of transport that doesn't go right to their front door.
    Not everyone has a car. Not everyone wants to leave there vehicle unattended for days, or weeks at a time.

  18. #18
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    With such convenient and relatively cheap car parking at the airport I can't really see why anyone would bother paying to drag their luggage on and off any mode of transport that doesn't go right to their front door.
    Not everyone has a car. Not everyone wants to leave there vehicle unattended for days, or weeks at a time.
    And not everyone wants to pay $$$ for a cab there and back.

  19. #19
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Toronto is a perfect foil for this topic I think....

    Look at the Shepard Subway Line and some of the Ford Proposed lines.... We had lines built/proposed with MASSIVE capacity that are under utilized.

    In reading all of the article moa listed a large part of the reason the Calgary South line scored so slow is because of some very expensive logistical issues. We also have to be careful about putting things off just because they are hard.

    Ridership should be the NUMBER ONE factor full stop and then we have to choose the best system to meet the need. Not the system we think meets the need like Rob Ford and his Subway to under developed areas.
    Im sorry but I have to believe that an lrt link to the airport would have high ridership. And perhaps with some money thrown in from Leduc county it could even be extended into leduc city which would give the south lrt the highest ridership out of any of the proposed lines in edmonton and relieve much of the commuter traffic off that heavily congested section of the QE2.
    ^ Maybe.. but ridership is key.. if there is demand for the system than go to it... but I bet rapid Bus service would be the better option at this time.

    Lets say we had 1 Billion dollars and That is the exact cost of LRT to the Airport....

    Now do I want a LRT to the airport... or BRT for half the price and expansion of the inner city LRT system as well..

    I choose option 2 please.
    Is that the actual dollar amount for the LRT extension to the airport? I find that hard to believe...I could see the most expensive part of extending the line right now to get the tracks from century park to just south of ellerslie road. From that point on its nothing but open fields to the airport, and the city could buy up the required ROW for cheap. What is it that developers are paying? $40K/acre?

    And as Ive argued already they dont need to build all the stations proposed now. Build a proper park and ride at century park, and then build a station at the airport. Petition leduc county and city to throw some money into the pot and then extend the line into leduc city. Ridership could very well be worth the price tag.

  20. #20
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Clareview
    Posts
    412

    Default

    ^I think it would be $1 billion or more. The bridge over Blackmud Ravine and Anthony Henday would be huge. And even laying tracks would be costly. The city would certainly need to buy several more trains to maintain frequency. And it could be decades until stations would be needed in neighbourhoods south of Ellerslie. Plus, isn't the max speed of our trains around 80km/hr? Driving or BRT would be significantly faster.

    I would love to see LRT to the airport, but the distance is significant. I worry that Edmonton's transit costs would be tied up on the airport line for decades and we wouldn't see any other extensions or lines for even longer. I think lines to Millwoods, Castle Downs, and WEM should be prioritized to connect the city for those who live and work here. Many people travel within the city daily (for work, school, etc.) while many people would rarely use an airport line. I think we should connect our inner-neighbourhoods first.

    The EIA is still relatively small compared to YYC and YVR, for example, in size and ridership. I would like to see what future expansion plans EIA will have. Maybe an LRT can coincide with it's future growth. Maybe one day a HSR station could connect the airport with Edmonton and Calgary.
    We would share and listen and support and welcome, be propelled by passion not invest in outcomes. We would breathe and be charmed and amused by difference. -Alanis Morissette

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Toronto is a perfect foil for this topic I think....

    Look at the Shepard Subway Line and some of the Ford Proposed lines.... We had lines built/proposed with MASSIVE capacity that are under utilized.

    In reading all of the article moa listed a large part of the reason the Calgary South line scored so slow is because of some very expensive logistical issues. We also have to be careful about putting things off just because they are hard.

    Ridership should be the NUMBER ONE factor full stop and then we have to choose the best system to meet the need. Not the system we think meets the need like Rob Ford and his Subway to under developed areas.
    Im sorry but I have to believe that an lrt link to the airport would have high ridership. And perhaps with some money thrown in from Leduc county it could even be extended into leduc city which would give the south lrt the highest ridership out of any of the proposed lines in edmonton and relieve much of the commuter traffic off that heavily congested section of the QE2.
    It really is not in Leduc Counties best interest to work with the City at all with this.(expectantly with the City threatening huge annexation) plus its not in the City of Leducs best interest either.

    if the CoE wants it they would have to pay.

    I think a better option would be Lobbying the province for that HSR with a stop at the Airport.

  22. #22

    Default

    Track is not that much. for the ROWs and the Grade construction it would cost 12-25 million total.. (now electrical track may be a LOT but the base construction is very manageable.

  23. #23

    Default

    Really? Where is the source of your low ball numbers? The average cost of building LRT or "low cost" streetcars is about $100m/km
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  24. #24
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    IF they ever build the high speed rail link between edmonton and calgary they wouldnt bother putting a stop at our airport. The entire HSR line would make Edmonton International an obsolete dinosaur.

    I imagine the HSR would be a bullet train, and in the future...lets assume 30 years from now...rail technology has progressed and the nominal speed of the train could get me from Edmonton to Calgary in 20-30 minutes. It would be like driving from downtown edmonton to AHD. Who would want to use EIA and have to transfer at either YYC or Toronto or Vancouver, when you could just take the train to calgary and fly direct. Sorry, but a HSR link between the two cities is not in edmontons best interests.

    If speed for the LRT is an issue, why not extend the South LRT line to the current city limits and build a giant park and ride facility there for all the new SW communities. Then, build a heavy rail train that could be used for higher speed commuter rail between the south edge of edmonton and the city of leduc, with a stop at EIA.

    With the proper regional planning the heavy rail commuter train could run down the center of the QE2 and have a stop at the north end of Nisku, and one at the over pass to the International Airport and a third stop at the north end of the city of leduc and another at the south end. EIA and the CoE could then work together to build a mini mono rail from the existing terminals to the heavy rail station on the QE2....

    At the same time, if they used the same contractor for this LRT/Heavy Rail extension as well as on some other planned or proposed extensions throughout the rest of the city you would think they could get some sort of deal or discount on track and electrical cables since they would be buying in mass bulk instead of just 3-4km worth like our last LRT extension.
    Last edited by GranaryMan; 17-06-2013 at 10:31 PM.

  25. #25
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,665

    Default

    ^ Or possibly a better solution, IMO, is to use CP's tracks into the city. Instead of transferring at Ellerslie, people could transfer at Wagner Station. It would bring you closer to downtown than Ellerslie station, and would allow you to travel faster, for longer, making it more competitive with other modes of transportation. Also, it would most likely be far cheaper, as most ROW and railway infrastructure already exists.

    Here is what I envision (the blue line being the Airport Express)

    https://www.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=2...1bee50b5&msa=0
    Last edited by chrisvazquez7; 18-06-2013 at 12:13 AM.

  26. #26
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Beautiful BC
    Posts
    1,657

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    With such convenient and relatively cheap car parking at the airport I can't really see why anyone would bother paying to drag their luggage on and off any mode of transport that doesn't go right to their front door.
    Not everyone has a car. Not everyone wants to leave there vehicle unattended for days, or weeks at a time.
    And not everyone wants to pay $$$ for a cab there and back.
    And not everyone wants to pay to subsidize people who seem to be able to afford airfares yet not the trip to and from the airport.

  27. #27

    Default

    I built spur lines for a contracting company for A &B Rail and CN. remember my costs are low cuz that does not include the rail or associated infrastructure itself. just the grade preparation with the cost the company charged for those specific spurs. (ended up being approximately 100,000 for 3 weeks work for 300m) so i based it on that hence my 12-25 mil cuz i know it went up.

    and the ROW was a estimate of 40,000 per acre and a standard 30m wide right of way (as a land owner i would charge more due to the splitting of the land., or less if they promised a station on my property. ).

    and it very well be 100m/km in an urban setting. but between CoE and the Airport is far from Urban.

    http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...e_June2007.pdf

    I cant find the Alberta one for some reason.

    Anyway in easy conditions ( flat open land much like CoE to the airport. ) it costs in 2007 dollars 550,000 to 1.4mil per km for a high volume 2 lane highway. ive built both railway spurs and roads and they are very similar at that level. so thats 11 - 28 million.

    Greenfield projects like this are quite a bit cheaper then reconfigureing based upon the current urban environment. i dont know if its still cost effective.. but its no 2 billion doller project.

  28. #28

    Default

    And i didn't know the EIA was the more important then quick cheaper travel between Edmonton and the rest of the world. most places you fly you have to go to Calgary anyway. Maybe Edmonton should divest itself of the ERAA so it can make unbiased decisions.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    ^ Or possibly a better solution, IMO, is to use CP's tracks into the city. Instead of transferring at Ellerslie, people could transfer at Wagner Station. It would bring you closer to downtown than Ellerslie station, and would allow you to travel faster, for longer, making it more competitive with other modes of transportation. Also, it would most likely be far cheaper, as most ROW and railway infrastructure already exists.

    Here is what I envision (the blue line being the Airport Express)

    https://www.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=2...1bee50b5&msa=0
    I like that plan. my only issue with it is with Edmontons eventual expansion along the south we may need the true LRT the whole way eventually.. but in reality with a cost shareing option that airport express plan wold be decently priced

  30. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    I built spur lines for a contracting company for A &B Rail and CN. remember my costs are low cuz that does not include the rail or associated infrastructure itself. just the grade preparation with the cost the company charged for those specific spurs. (ended up being approximately 100,000 for 3 weeks work for 300m) so i based it on that hence my 12-25 mil cuz i know it went up.

    and the ROW was a estimate of 40,000 per acre and a standard 30m wide right of way (as a land owner i would charge more due to the splitting of the land., or less if they promised a station on my property. ).

    and it very well be 100m/km in an urban setting. but between CoE and the Airport is far from Urban.

    http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...e_June2007.pdf

    I cant find the Alberta one for some reason.


    Anyway in easy conditions ( flat open land much like CoE to the airport. ) it costs in 2007 dollars 550,000 to 1.4mil per km for a high volume 2 lane highway. ive built both railway spurs and roads and they are very similar at that level. so thats 11 - 28 million.

    Greenfield projects like this are quite a bit cheaper then reconfigureing based upon the current urban environment. i dont know if its still cost effective.. but its no 2 billion doller project.

    Your figures are way off. From the same BC report the cost estimates for an urban
    interchange with overpass is $20M-$32M. Our costs in Edmonton are often 5 to 10 times those. Your $11M to $28M for LRT are off the mark. Building to Gorman along an existing ROW and then at grade into city owned land is $72M/km.

    If building LRT could be done at your estimated costs, I would fully support more construction. At the average of $100M/km for a streetcar, I do not.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  31. #31

    Default

    Yes my figures are off. i have not included the electric track system which very well may be the Huge cost difference. i don't know what infrastructure is needed on that end of the project. if that's the case though maybe a electric tram/lrt system is not the best answer for this line? maybe the basic track system and Internal Combustion Light trains are a better option.

    (and from the Alberta Report,( when i find it, lost in my old projects folders).... i remember it being about the same, I use it to budget my developments and at that its high, but we do lots of our own work. but budgeting with it means very few cost overruns, i would trust the report, if i could find the thing)

  32. #32
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    ^ Or possibly a better solution, IMO, is to use CP's tracks into the city. Instead of transferring at Ellerslie, people could transfer at Wagner Station. It would bring you closer to downtown than Ellerslie station, and would allow you to travel faster, for longer, making it more competitive with other modes of transportation. Also, it would most likely be far cheaper, as most ROW and railway infrastructure already exists.

    Here is what I envision (the blue line being the Airport Express)

    https://www.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=2...1bee50b5&msa=0
    I like it

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Toronto is a perfect foil for this topic I think....

    Look at the Shepard Subway Line and some of the Ford Proposed lines.... We had lines built/proposed with MASSIVE capacity that are under utilized.

    In reading all of the article moa listed a large part of the reason the Calgary South line scored so slow is because of some very expensive logistical issues. We also have to be careful about putting things off just because they are hard.

    Ridership should be the NUMBER ONE factor full stop and then we have to choose the best system to meet the need. Not the system we think meets the need like Rob Ford and his Subway to under developed areas.
    Im sorry but I have to believe that an lrt link to the airport would have high ridership. And perhaps with some money thrown in from Leduc county it could even be extended into leduc city which would give the south lrt the highest ridership out of any of the proposed lines in edmonton and relieve much of the commuter traffic off that heavily congested section of the QE2.
    ^ Maybe.. but ridership is key.. if there is demand for the system than go to it... but I bet rapid Bus service would be the better option at this time.

    Lets say we had 1 Billion dollars and That is the exact cost of LRT to the Airport....

    Now do I want a LRT to the airport... or BRT for half the price and expansion of the inner city LRT system as well..

    I choose option 2 please.
    Is that the actual dollar amount for the LRT extension to the airport? I find that hard to believe...I could see the most expensive part of extending the line right now to get the tracks from century park to just south of ellerslie road. From that point on its nothing but open fields to the airport, and the city could buy up the required ROW for cheap. What is it that developers are paying? $40K/acre?

    And as Ive argued already they dont need to build all the stations proposed now. Build a proper park and ride at century park, and then build a station at the airport. Petition leduc county and city to throw some money into the pot and then extend the line into leduc city. Ridership could very well be worth the price tag.
    I was just making a point... I don't know the cost...
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    ^ Or possibly a better solution, IMO, is to use CP's tracks into the city. Instead of transferring at Ellerslie, people could transfer at Wagner Station. It would bring you closer to downtown than Ellerslie station, and would allow you to travel faster, for longer, making it more competitive with other modes of transportation. Also, it would most likely be far cheaper, as most ROW and railway infrastructure already exists.

    Here is what I envision (the blue line being the Airport Express)

    https://www.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=2...1bee50b5&msa=0
    I like it
    So you spend all the money and all you do s have a train to go from DT to the Airport.... I am sorry but the traffic at our airport is not enough to meet this demand at the carrying capacity of this system.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,341

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    IF they ever build the high speed rail link between edmonton and calgary they wouldnt bother putting a stop at our airport. The entire HSR line would make Edmonton International an obsolete dinosaur.

    I imagine the HSR would be a bullet train, and in the future...lets assume 30 years from now...rail technology has progressed and the nominal speed of the train could get me from Edmonton to Calgary in 20-30 minutes. It would be like driving from downtown edmonton to AHD. Who would want to use EIA and have to transfer at either YYC or Toronto or Vancouver, when you could just take the train to calgary and fly direct. Sorry, but a HSR link between the two cities is not in edmontons best interests.
    Alternatively, HSR with stops at YEG and YYC would allow the two airports to be managed as a single entity. If current growth trends continue, 30 years from now YYC will be highly congested but surrounded by development and unable to expand. Joining forces with YEG to operate as a single Alberta airport would solve the problem.

  36. #36
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by expat View Post
    With such convenient and relatively cheap car parking at the airport I can't really see why anyone would bother paying to drag their luggage on and off any mode of transport that doesn't go right to their front door.
    Not everyone has a car. Not everyone wants to leave there vehicle unattended for days, or weeks at a time.
    And not everyone wants to pay $$$ for a cab there and back.
    And not everyone wants to pay to subsidize people who seem to be able to afford airfares yet not the trip to and from the airport.
    Not everyone going to the airport is flying. Hundreds of people work there, and with the surrounding area being developed, even more will be working in the are in the future.

  37. #37
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,665

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    ^ Or possibly a better solution, IMO, is to use CP's tracks into the city. Instead of transferring at Ellerslie, people could transfer at Wagner Station. It would bring you closer to downtown than Ellerslie station, and would allow you to travel faster, for longer, making it more competitive with other modes of transportation. Also, it would most likely be far cheaper, as most ROW and railway infrastructure already exists.

    Here is what I envision (the blue line being the Airport Express)

    https://www.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=2...1bee50b5&msa=0
    I like it
    So you spend all the money and all you do s have a train to go from DT to the Airport.... I am sorry but the traffic at our airport is not enough to meet this demand at the carrying capacity of this system.
    Okay, point taken. But you could also have intermediate stops at Nisku and Ellerslie. Then people working at Nisku could use it. And people in the South end will have a faster alternative into downtown.

  38. #38

    Default

    ^ or you extend the High Floor system and are able to service the expansion of the city south, but again I point out that if we do this that means that LRT to other places in the city is delayed.

    List of LRT projects with reasonable foreseeable timelines if we really are serious about LRT

    Millwoods to DT- 2015-2019
    DT to WEM 2019-2022
    NAIT to St Albert 2022-2024
    DT Circular and Sherwood park -2024-2027

    I cannot see an Airport line coming before ANY of these projects... we also have the Gorman extension and Heritage Valley. I honestly believe that we cannot prioritize any additional LRT projects before this...

    In my experience, even with cities that have metro to the airport, I still opt for shuttle buses that cost for 15-20 dollars one way. They take me to my hotel, they are often easier to access and the ride in the nice big luxury coaches is more enjoyable.

    What we need is dedicated bus/taxi car pool lanes. Like they have in Chicago to O Hare.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  39. #39

    Default

    Run more frequent shuttles from Century Park (every 15 min), start one from WEM, reserve the ROW, and forget about this ridiculous idea for the next 20 years until our airport use warrants it.

    Re: line cost, don't forget that between Century Park and the airport lie two more needed bridges for the line...
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  40. #40

    Default

    ^ Amen
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  41. #41
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dialog View Post
    Run more frequent shuttles from Century Park (every 15 min), start one from WEM, reserve the ROW, and forget about this ridiculous idea for the next 20 years until our airport use warrants it.

    Re: line cost, don't forget that between Century Park and the airport lie two more needed bridges for the line...
    The costs of those 2 bridges are not going to drop in the future, all you're suggesting is doing what past city councils have done and create an infrastructure debt for the next generation. ...but I suppose because its on the south side of the city and not in the downtown core its acceptable to not spend the money....right?

  42. #42
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    ^Your using infrastructure debt in a strange way here, and not in the typical way.

    The common 'infrastructure debt' that gets thrown around with regards to roads is not doing the required maintenance, so the road fails faster than it was supposed to and costs more to replace. Sorta like not performing oil changes on your car to save money, until your engine dies.

    NOT building the LRT bridges for an LRT to the airport isn't the same thing. That's like buying a mini-van as a single guy. Eventually you might have a wife and kids to fill it up. In the meantime, you've spent a bunch of money for dubious utility value.

    Note, car analogies suck. Let's not focus too much on the fact I picked a van, or that a van is super useful, etc. I just want to point out that I don't think not building the LRT bridges is real infrastructure debt.

  43. #43
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^Your using infrastructure debt in a strange way here, and not in the typical way.

    The common 'infrastructure debt' that gets thrown around with regards to roads is not doing the required maintenance, so the road fails faster than it was supposed to and costs more to replace. Sorta like not performing oil changes on your car to save money, until your engine dies.

    NOT building the LRT bridges for an LRT to the airport isn't the same thing. That's like buying a mini-van as a single guy. Eventually you might have a wife and kids to fill it up. In the meantime, you've spent a bunch of money for dubious utility value.

    Note, car analogies suck. Let's not focus too much on the fact I picked a van, or that a van is super useful, etc. I just want to point out that I don't think not building the LRT bridges is real infrastructure debt.

    I disagree. The routes been planned. Its a guranteed thing...maybe not needed today or tomorrow but lets say we will need it "next week". We know the cost of it is only going to increase exponentially as can already be observed from past to current lrt construction and in general any construction project.

    So the bridges are needed. No one argues that fact. Lrt costs too much, again not being argued. Costs are going to increase....also cannot be argued. Not building today while costs are lower than "next week" for something we know will be needed is creating an infrastructure debt.

    The least thing they could do is build the bridges and ROW today, pave them and have a TRUE BRT line from century park to EIA. Unless they start saving today for the project that they might start in 30 years they are just passing the buck onto the next generation.

  44. #44
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,941

    Default

    ^Please re-read my terrible car analogies. (Ignore the fact that the cost of cars does not seem to increase relative to inflation) Your still advocating buying the mini-van when we don't need it yet, and may not even need for 30 years. I don't have the ridership data for the current 747 route, nor could I predict ridership for a bus BRT route from Century Park to EIA but it's not going to be much higher than the current route.

    If the bridge and infastructure is built, but not really used for 30 years, it'll need to be maintained and maybe even replaced in 30 years. Your suggestion creates another type of 'infrastructure debt', making us pay for things that aren't required yet.

    (To continue the car analogy, like buying a mini-van at 18, and not actually having a family till your 28 when the van is getting to be old and needing to be replaced)

  45. #45
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    However it wouldn't just be EIA passangers using the lrt or brt line. People working in nisku could use it rather then sitting on the qe2 and people in leduc could use it instead of contracting buses from ets. Like I said before with regional planning and cooperation leduc cou ty and city could help fund and maintain the line.

    And its already known that the line WILL be needed in the future, its not a matter of if.

  46. #46

    Default

    There is also an avoided cost issue. See the definition
    http://www.business-case-analysis.com/avoided-cost.html

    Not building LRT or HSR to the airport and using much more flexible bus systems can be far cheaper that the interest charges alone on such huge capital infrastructure expenditures.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  47. #47

    Default

    Base Costs do not generally increase past inflation. Yes a bridge built today could be used in 30 years... but a bridge built when needed 30 years from now will cost the same ( or be superior) and have 30 years longer useful life.

    if anything Machinery, Materials and other products with globalization have dropped in price and the longer we wait the cheaper in relative terms it is to build. If we are not going to build now. then get the ROWs at least.

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^Please re-read my terrible car analogies. (Ignore the fact that the cost of cars does not seem to increase relative to inflation) Your still advocating buying the mini-van when we don't need it yet, and may not even need for 30 years. I don't have the ridership data for the current 747 route, nor could I predict ridership for a bus BRT route from Century Park to EIA but it's not going to be much higher than the current route.

    If the bridge and infastructure is built, but not really used for 30 years, it'll need to be maintained and maybe even replaced in 30 years. Your suggestion creates another type of 'infrastructure debt', making us pay for things that aren't required yet.

    (To continue the car analogy, like buying a mini-van at 18, and not actually having a family till your 28 when the van is getting to be old and needing to be replaced)
    I think the car example is GREAT actually.. because a car has a lifespan... life a bridge, lrt cars and track. So great we build a system that is underused only to have to refurbishes is 40 years down the road when it might be BETTER used but still likely not meeting it's full potential.

    Further to that the Van gets 20 Miles to the Gallon and carries one person while a fiat 500 would get double the millage.

    The Van was a great example and I totally get what you are saying.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  49. #49

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    However it wouldn't just be EIA passangers using the lrt or brt line. People working in nisku could use it rather then sitting on the qe2 and people in leduc could use it instead of contracting buses from ets. Like I said before with regional planning and cooperation leduc cou ty and city could help fund and maintain the line.

    And its already known that the line WILL be needed in the future, its not a matter of if.
    We also may need a underground freeway when the city hits 7 million.. doesn't mean its best to build it now.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  50. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Base Costs do not generally increase past inflation. Yes a bridge built today could be used in 30 years... but a bridge built when needed 30 years from now will cost the same ( or be superior) and have 30 years longer useful life.

    if anything Machinery, Materials and other products with globalization have dropped in price and the longer we wait the cheaper in relative terms it is to build. If we are not going to build now. then get the ROWs at least.

    Wrong, not in Alberta's economy. Where are you getting these assumptions that are totally off the wall?

    For instance, we built the first, 14 km with 5 stations including two massive underground ones of LRT in 1978 for $65M, about $223M today or about $15M/km but not LRT costs over $100M/km, over 6 times as much.

    We built an arena in 1974 for $17.3 million which is about $84 Million today but it's replacement is costing over $600 million, over 6 times as much.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Further to that the Van gets 20 Miles to the Gallon and carries one person while a fiat 500 would get double the millage.
    The Fiat gets infinitely better mileage than the van because it is being pulled behind a tow truck all the time :P
    Parkdale

  52. #52

    Default

    Our needs would be handsomely served by ETS operating coach busses from EIA to Century Park and WEM. Heck, evaluate a Millwoods TC run too. I have heard—not confirmed—that Toronto is using coaches for the 192 Airport bus, not the Low Flyers that were in use during my time in the GTA. That would be ideal for our uses.

    The problem is that the taxi lobby won't allow it.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  53. #53

    Default

    Are you saying replacement as in excaly the same building using codes and standards based on 1970s technology or are we paying extra today for better technology and a better building overall? (btw inflation in alberta has skyrocketed so while we are using the Canadian dollar its value in Alberta has plummeted vs the rest of the country.) so yes Alberta may be a special case. but most things have not really gone up in real terms very much other then better codes and standards.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Base Costs do not generally increase past inflation. Yes a bridge built today could be used in 30 years... but a bridge built when needed 30 years from now will cost the same ( or be superior) and have 30 years longer useful life.

    if anything Machinery, Materials and other products with globalization have dropped in price and the longer we wait the cheaper in relative terms it is to build. If we are not going to build now. then get the ROWs at least.

    Wrong, not in Alberta's economy. Where are you getting these assumptions that are totally off the wall?



    We built an arena in 1974 for $17.3 million which is about $84 Million today but it's replacement is costing over $600 million, over 6 times as much.
    NOT COMPARABLE... we are not building another rexal so using the new arena as a DIRECT comparable is false...your ability to recognize apples and oranges is HORRIBLE
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-06-2013 at 05:53 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  55. #55
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Base Costs do not generally increase past inflation. Yes a bridge built today could be used in 30 years... but a bridge built when needed 30 years from now will cost the same ( or be superior) and have 30 years longer useful life.

    if anything Machinery, Materials and other products with globalization have dropped in price and the longer we wait the cheaper in relative terms it is to build. If we are not going to build now. then get the ROWs at least.

    Wrong, not in Alberta's economy. Where are you getting these assumptions that are totally off the wall?



    We built an arena in 1974 for $17.3 million which is about $84 Million today but it's replacement is costing over $600 million, over 6 times as much.
    NOT COMPARABLE... we are not building another rexal so using the new arena as a DIRECT comparable is false...our ability to recognize apples and oranges is HORRIBLE>
    No, I think its a perfect comparison. Its LRT construction IN edmonton afterall. Its roughly the same time span from when the last expansion was built to the current one being built which gives a good idea of how much things will cost in 30 years time when you propose we force the next generation to pay for it.

    Same deal with the arena. Perfect comparison. Apples to Apples comparison. Look at any other city and you get the same results. You just cant admit when you're wrong.

  56. #56
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    However it wouldn't just be EIA passangers using the lrt or brt line. People working in nisku could use it rather then sitting on the qe2 and people in leduc could use it instead of contracting buses from ets. Like I said before with regional planning and cooperation leduc cou ty and city could help fund and maintain the line.

    And its already known that the line WILL be needed in the future, its not a matter of if.
    We also may need a underground freeway when the city hits 7 million.. doesn't mean its best to build it now.
    Im marking this down on the calendar as EDP just suggested a freeway for edmonton.


  57. #57

    Default

    An underground one... where I don't have to look at it. ;-P
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Base Costs do not generally increase past inflation. Yes a bridge built today could be used in 30 years... but a bridge built when needed 30 years from now will cost the same ( or be superior) and have 30 years longer useful life.

    if anything Machinery, Materials and other products with globalization have dropped in price and the longer we wait the cheaper in relative terms it is to build. If we are not going to build now. then get the ROWs at least.

    Wrong, not in Alberta's economy. Where are you getting these assumptions that are totally off the wall?



    We built an arena in 1974 for $17.3 million which is about $84 Million today but it's replacement is costing over $600 million, over 6 times as much.
    NOT COMPARABLE... we are not building another rexal so using the new arena as a DIRECT comparable is false...our ability to recognize apples and oranges is HORRIBLE>
    No, I think its a perfect comparison. Its LRT construction IN edmonton afterall. Its roughly the same time span from when the last expansion was built to the current one being built which gives a good idea of how much things will cost in 30 years time when you propose we force the next generation to pay for it.

    Same deal with the arena. Perfect comparison. Apples to Apples comparison. Look at any other city and you get the same results. You just cant admit when you're wrong.
    I did not mention LRT but even there its questionable...

    The two arenas ARE NOT the same building. in order for your comparison to work we would have to be building the EXACT same building today.

    you are not using com parables with the arena...
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  59. #59
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Base Costs do not generally increase past inflation. Yes a bridge built today could be used in 30 years... but a bridge built when needed 30 years from now will cost the same ( or be superior) and have 30 years longer useful life.

    if anything Machinery, Materials and other products with globalization have dropped in price and the longer we wait the cheaper in relative terms it is to build. If we are not going to build now. then get the ROWs at least.

    Wrong, not in Alberta's economy. Where are you getting these assumptions that are totally off the wall?



    We built an arena in 1974 for $17.3 million which is about $84 Million today but it's replacement is costing over $600 million, over 6 times as much.
    NOT COMPARABLE... we are not building another rexal so using the new arena as a DIRECT comparable is false...our ability to recognize apples and oranges is HORRIBLE>
    No, I think its a perfect comparison. Its LRT construction IN edmonton afterall. Its roughly the same time span from when the last expansion was built to the current one being built which gives a good idea of how much things will cost in 30 years time when you propose we force the next generation to pay for it.

    Same deal with the arena. Perfect comparison. Apples to Apples comparison. Look at any other city and you get the same results. You just cant admit when you're wrong.
    I did not mention LRT but even there its questionable...

    The two arenas ARE NOT the same building. in order for your comparison to work we would have to be building the EXACT same building today.

    you are not using com parables with the arena...
    The arenas are comparable though. You're building an arena in the same city...and even if you want to agree to disagree the LRT comparison IS Apples to Apples. Its LRT in edmonton...HECK! We even have a small section of current underground LRT/Subway tunnel to compare costs....its crazy how much more things can cost in 30 years time.

    In fact...isnt that part of the reason that the edmonton lrt system didnt and still really isnt expanding to this day??? Due to inflated costs that are insane compared to the original construction costs. Would it not make sense for us today to buy up the required ROW for the LRT on the empty farmland going to the airport and further south instead of waiting 30 years until the land is all built up and we have to spend astronomical amounts of money to buy that same land?

  60. #60

    Default





    Tell me whats the same... they are both arenas THATS IT!

    One holds more people, better finished, more and larger amenity space, more sqr footage, better/up to date mechanics and built in areas of town that involve different logistics.

    They are NOT comparable.

    Build a second EXACT copy of Rexal today on the suburban fringe of Edmonton.. Now that is a direct comparison.

    The closest you come to direct com parables between the two arenas would be to use $ per sqr foot. but first you have to strip off the winter garden and LRT connections from the price you are quoting. So I believe the cost of JUST the arena was around 487 million.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-06-2013 at 06:10 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  61. #61
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    ^I will agree to disagree.

  62. #62

    Default

    ^ That's fine.. I deal with calculating rebuild cost all the time. One of the accepted measures is $/sqr foot. I, and others, use it daily. Why? because it breaks things down to standard units... The two arenas you are comparing are not standard they are not the same. Anyone can see that simply by looking.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 18-06-2013 at 06:14 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  63. #63
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    ^ That's fine.. I deal with calculating rebuild cost all the time. One of the accepted measures is $/sqr foot. I, and others, use it daily. Why? because it breaks things down to standard units... The two arenas you are comparing are not standard they are not the same. Anyone can see that simply by looking.
    You're correct. They are not the same. One is 30+ years older and built to different building codes and standards. Still an arena in the city of edmonton. So a pretty good comparison.

    However you cannot deny the fact about the lrt lines built 30+ years ago and the costs 6x higher than inflation dictates. So you choose to pick at an arena debate. whatever.


  64. #64

    Default

    No, my comparisons are the same and you cannot understand that construction costs have risen many more times than consumer inflation. I did not even use the costs of new LRT construction and insttead used streetcar construction. If I had used the North LRT to NAIT with the similar tunneling as the original Central to Belvedere line, the difference would not have been 6 times but 12 times.
    Look at the Gorman line "$210M for a ground level 2.9km extension partly on an existing RR ROW is ridiculously expensive. The Clareview 2.2km extension and station in 1981 cost only $10M ($26M in 2013 dollars) That makes this extension 6 times the cost per kilometer in real dollars. "


    As far as the arena, yes designs have changed but the ice is the same size and the number of seats on the original was 15,423 at $84M in 2013 dollars is $5,446/seat the new arena will have 18,559 at $604.5M is $32,571 or 6 times the cost. Yes there are additional facilities but even if you trim off a third of the cost, you are still 4 times the cost in real dollars.


    Here is ANOTHER comparison

    Winnipeg's building costs should be lower that Edmonton's and they just finished an outdoor stadium. Their costs were $200 million for 32,422 seats = $6,168/seat whereas the original Commonwealth Stadium cost $20.9M in 1978 or $71.6M in 2013 dollars for 42,500 seats = $1,685/seat

    $6,168/$1,685 = 3.66 times the cost in real dollars.

    EDP or Himser, can you show two or three apples to apples comparisons like I have that can show that costs for similar construction projects done 20 years ago are the same or less than they are today in Edmonton with BofC inflation calculator adjustments?

    http://www.bankofcanada.ca/rates/rel...on-calculator/

    Your denial that that construction costs have not risen several times that of commercial inflation is laughable.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 18-06-2013 at 08:10 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  65. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^Please re-read my terrible car analogies. (Ignore the fact that the cost of cars does not seem to increase relative to inflation) Your still advocating buying the mini-van when we don't need it yet, and may not even need for 30 years. I don't have the ridership data for the current 747 route, nor could I predict ridership for a bus BRT route from Century Park to EIA but it's not going to be much higher than the current route.

    If the bridge and infastructure is built, but not really used for 30 years, it'll need to be maintained and maybe even replaced in 30 years. Your suggestion creates another type of 'infrastructure debt', making us pay for things that aren't required yet.

    (To continue the car analogy, like buying a mini-van at 18, and not actually having a family till your 28 when the van is getting to be old and needing to be replaced)
    I think the car example is GREAT actually.. because a car has a lifespan... life a bridge, lrt cars and track. So great we build a system that is underused only to have to refurbishes is 40 years down the road when it might be BETTER used but still likely not meeting it's full potential.

    Further to that the Van gets 20 Miles to the Gallon and carries one person while a fiat 500 would get double the millage.

    The Van was a great example and I totally get what you are saying.
    EDP, You think cars are a great comparison yet another arena is not???

    Here is what you got in 1974


    Standard features
    Collapsable frame
    Self jamming doors
    Exploding fuel tanks
    Free cremation


    It cost about $2,600 in 1974 or about $12,600 in today's dollars

    For the same money you get today

    2013 Nissan Versa 1.6

    Lets not even talk about computers
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  66. #66

    Default

    Oh geez PRT you know how ridiculous it is to bring the computer industry/Moore's Law into this thread...
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  67. #67

    Default

    Oh geez Dialog, you don't read anything in context do you? What part of "Lets not even talk about computers" don't you understand?

    Why don't you address the apples to apples comparisons that I gave on construction costs that are 4 to 6 times inflation such as LRT, the Arena and the Stadium examples?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  68. #68
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Oh geez Dialog, you don't read anything in context do you? What part of "Lets not even talk about computers" don't you understand?

    Why don't you address the apples to apples comparisons that I gave on construction costs that are 4 to 6 times inflation such as LRT, the Arena and the Stadium examples?
    They cant and they wont because it would just prove you're right and they're wrong.

  69. #69

    Default

    mmm its pretty clear that a bigger building with better finishes is going to cost more.. inflation aside.

    take it to extremes... its like saying these two things are the same. After all they are both baseball stadiums



    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  70. #70

    Default

    Is there an arena made around the same time as Rexall with a similar level of functionality, fit, and finish to the new arena for comparison? Or some way of converting the new arena costs to 1970s dollars?

    Building standards have changed a fair bit over the years, and I can see this driving costs. For example, my 1969 vintage condominium unit has no balcony, no in-suite laundry, no fan in the washroom or above the stove, and no sprinkler system. These are either customarily included in condos now, or regulated to be part of them. So sure, you could rebuild my building to the 1969 standards (with special dispensation to bypass the rules) and save money, but wouldn't you rather spends some extra money, and build the Pearl? Myself, I'd rather build the arena as proposed then build another Rexall downtown.

  71. #71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    mmm its pretty clear that a bigger building with better finishes is going to cost more.. inflation aside.

    take it to extremes... its like saying these two things are the same. After all they are both baseball stadiums
    You know that your pretense is false and you are embarrassing yourself. I gave you three comparisons and you have failed to make one. Your arguments are weak. You just don't realize that construction costs of such infrastructure and facilities had risen far faster than consumer inflation.

    We are talking about 400% to 600% differences in costs.

    For example, the Stats Can Construction union wage rate index has risen an average 18.1% in Canada between 2007 and 2012
    25.2% in Edmonton
    36.9% in St John's NL
    16.4% in Toronto
    24.0% in Calgary

    Meanwhile the consumer inflation has only risen 9.5% between 2007 and 2012

    http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...on144b-eng.htm

    Building an apartment has risen 62.3% in Edmonton between 2002 and 2012 and actually is less than the 68.6% peak in 2008. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...on144a-eng.htm

    Non-residential institutional buildings costs rose 51.8% in Canada in the same period but Edmonton's average is usually higher. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tabl...on144e-eng.htm

    Do I have to explain... I guess I do, compounding those rate differences such as consumer inflation of 9.5% (2007-2012) over four periods 1.095x1.095x1.095x1.095=143.8%

    Now compound something like construction labour rates of 25.2% (2007-2012) over four periods
    1.252x1.252x1.252x1.252=245.7%
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 19-06-2013 at 01:05 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #72

    Default

    ^ i am not embarrassing myself... nor am I drilling things down to the analytically level you are. I am not talking about construction inflation or the like.... I am simply saying this.

    The Two arenas are not the same, they are not direct com parables. A fairer (but still not accurate) way to do it would be breaking it down to $/ sqr foot AFTER the LRT and wintergarden portion are removed from the equation. Ustauk gets it!

    So you keep raging on with mathematical equations and talk of inflation because that is NOT what I am referring to. My point is really very simple.. THE TWO ARENAS ARE NOT THE SAME and thusly are not directly comparable.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 19-06-2013 at 01:45 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  73. #73

    Default

    All this dancing around by you and claiming that cars are a GREAT comparison. Then why don't you focus on the LRT costs comparisons have been made.

    The cost creep of LRT is an acknowledged fact and even stated publicly by Charlie Stolte, the ETS transit Manager and hence the switch to "low cost" streetcars that still cost $100M per kilometer and that price is still rising.
    The Office of the City Auditor also acknowledged that providing transit will rise dramatically to $9.37 by 2020
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 19-06-2013 at 01:49 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  74. #74
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    i thought this thread as about LRT?
    be offended! figure out why later...

  75. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    All this dancing around by you and claiming that cars are a GREAT comparison. Then why don't you focus on the LRT costs comparisons have been made.

    The cost creep of LRT is an acknowledged fact and even stated publicly by Charlie Stolte, the ETS transit Manager and hence the switch to "low cost" streetcars that still cost $100M per kilometer and that price is still rising.
    Please provide us with a detailed break down of $/km for systems being built today in other CANADIAN centers.

    How much is Ottawas costing for example?
    How about Toronto's LRT?
    Vancouver's Evergreen line?
    Hamilton?
    Surrey's proposed low floor?
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 19-06-2013 at 01:53 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  76. #76

    Default

    Why?

    Can't you do your own homework? Don't be so lazy.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 19-06-2013 at 01:56 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #77

    Default

    Here, for the horse I can lead to water but can't make him think...





    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  78. #78

    Default

    When discussing finances with ePRT just remember his claims that a PRT network could be built in Edmonton, not only at no cost to the city but that the city could actually make a profit from leasing the ROW needed.

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    When discussing finances with ePRT just remember his claims that a PRT network could be built in Edmonton, not only at no cost to the city but that the city could actually make a profit from leasing the ROW needed.
    Still true.


    I see that you are still mired in ad hominem attacks when you have lost an argument. Oh wait, you have added nothing to any discussion, other than your straw man arguments and character assassinations.



    Do you want to be serious or just keep being childish? Why don't you come up with some sourced facts like I have posted from Stats Can? Take your lazy pot shots elsewhere.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 19-06-2013 at 02:48 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  80. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by richardW View Post
    i thought this thread as about LRT?
    Lol, as the OP I don't really wanna throw stones, that glass house thing, you know?

  81. #81

    Default

    Ok... PRT.. now where is Ottawa, Surrey, Vancouver, Hamilton

    You are great at making all these outrageous claims but really bad at supplying true comparables.

    But thanks for at least breaking THIS down to $/km... now only in your arena rants you would break it down to $/sqr foot.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  82. #82

    Default

    So existing estimates put the entire low floor Valley line at $119/km that includes a train yard. (27 km for 3.2 billion)

    I don't see what you are ranting about.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  83. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    When discussing finances with ePRT just remember his claims that a PRT network could be built in Edmonton, not only at no cost to the city but that the city could actually make a profit from leasing the ROW needed.
    Still true.


    I see that you are still mired in ad hominem attacks when you have lost an argument. Oh wait, you have added nothing to any discussion, other than your straw man arguments and character assassinations.



    Do you want to be serious or just keep being childish? Why don't you come up with some sourced facts like I have posted from Stats Can? Take your lazy pot shots elsewhere.
    You're the one making the claims EPRT. Of course you also claim there's a conspiracy among transportation departments worldwide against PRT. Just calling the credibility of your claims into question. Haven't attacked you at all, just your outrageous claims.

  84. #84

    Default

    Actually, I made no outrageous claims at all. Himser made false claims. He stated that construction costs follow inflation or even lag them. The Stats Can figures and three concrete examples show that construction inflation rates are many times that of consumer inflation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Base Costs do not generally increase past inflation. Yes a bridge built today could be used in 30 years... but a bridge built when needed 30 years from now will cost the same ( or be superior) and have 30 years longer useful life.

    if anything Machinery, Materials and other products with globalization have dropped in price and the longer we wait the cheaper in relative terms it is to build.
    After seeing the facts, do you still stand behind Himser's statement?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  85. #85

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You're the one making the claims EPRT. Of course you also claim there's a conspiracy among transportation departments worldwide against PRT. Just calling the credibility of your claims into question. Haven't attacked you at all, just your outrageous claims.
    So using Stats Can data is an outrageous claim????
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  86. #86

    Default

    I wasn't referring to his facts at all. Just stating that your history of coming up with costs of various projects is less than stellar and that should be taken into account when looking at any cost estimates that you post.

    I don't know enough about the cost of rail in the particular case that I can estimate if Himser is in the ballpark or not. However, I've read enough about public transit systems around the world to know that your claims of a PRT network can be built at no cost to the city, that the project can make a profit on a fare of $1 per person, even when paying the city a lease payment for ROW rights, is simply pulling numbers out of the air.

  87. #87

    Default

    Because after all your study, you know nothing about PRT

    The system can be built as a profit making venture by private business or as a free service like they built at Heathrow Terminal 5 as a cost saving measure and has replaced shuttle buses from the terminal to the distant car park

    On Wednesday 8th May Heathrow Pod celebrated reaching its 2nd anniversary of full passenger operations followed the next day by news that the vehicles had completed their one-millionth driverless mile.

    The system that has been hugely popular with Heathrow’s passengers began operations in May 2011 and has carried 700,000 passengers to date from the Terminal 5 Business Car Park across to Terminal 5 itself. Having removed 140,000 bus journeys from Heathrow’s congested roads and having saved 400 tonnes of carbon emissions the system has been a phenomenal success for Ultra, Heathrow and most importantly the airport’s passengers.

    The huge success at Heathrow is now encouraging interest from the UK and across the rest of the world. With PRT now a proven, reliable and attractive option, a number of similar but much larger systems are now being considered in a number of locations including Amritsar, Northern India and Florianopolis, Brazil in addition to second system that Heathrow Airport plan to implement at Terminals 2 and 3.

    http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/2ndanniversary/

    As a basic guide, a complete Ultra pod system, including guideway, stations, vehicles and control systems will cost approximately between $7-$15 million US dollars per km to construct, however individual project costs can vary considerably depending on factors relating to the surrounding environmental setting, integration requirements and the expected system usage.

    http://www.ultraglobalprt.com/how-it-works/costs/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULTra_(rapid_transit)
    We are talking about construction costs relating to LRT in this thread, not PRT. Your attempt to discredit me and PRT costing is wrong. PRT is a transit technology paradigm shift that is rapidly becoming a reality.
    Again, you fail.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  88. #88

    Default

    ^lol, a few electric busses would have carried just as many passengers and saved just as much CO2 for a lot less than 15m per kilometer. The heathrow PRT which transports people at 30km per hour in battery powered golf carts is not a realistic transit alternative to LRT.

  89. #89

    Default

    You forget about the 2 electric buses needing four shifts of drivers for 22/7 service and that service levels have improved with automated transit.

    Let's get back to LRT as this is not a PRT thread.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  90. #90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

    Let's get back to LRT as this is not a PRT thread.
    Translation: Let's stop talking about how my figures on other projects are totally out to lunch and let's continue the our discussion using more cherry picked numbers I found somewhere.

    It all comes down to trusting the source material.

  91. #91

    Default

    You are being obtuse and not contributing to the discussion at all.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    So existing estimates put the entire low floor Valley line at $119/km that includes a train yard. (27 km for 3.2 billion)

    I don't see what you are ranting about.
    I will just bump this.. because it seemed to have gotten lost.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  93. #93

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Please provide us with a detailed break down of $/km for systems being built today in other CANADIAN centers.

    How much is Ottawas costing for example?
    How about Toronto's LRT?
    Vancouver's Evergreen line?
    Hamilton?
    Surrey's proposed low floor?
    Toronto's LRT ranges from 95M/km to 350M/km, depend on line and segment
    Vancouver's Evergreen Line is 130M/km
    Surrey's LRT option is about 80M/km
    Last edited by snowystar; 20-06-2013 at 08:47 PM.

  94. #94

    Default

    Ottawa is 170/km and growing
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  95. #95

    Default

    Which proves my point that LRT construction costs in every city is growing several times faster than consumer inflation and has become unsustainable as the cost to benefit ratios rise to impractical levels. Hisman's comments were wrong that construction costs rise in lock step with inflation.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  96. #96

    Default

    Its a known fact that Construction inflation rises significantly as Safety, Certification, unionization and other factors have changed over the years since the first LRTS were built.

    Add that to the different standards we have today with building codes, intersection changes (no more strait X crossings they all have lights now), comfort orientated LRT cars, Beter safety devices, tilting ect.

    we are getting a MUCH better system then they could think to produce in 1975 at yes a MUCH higher cost. if we built the SAME LRT today with the 1975 Technology and standards AND the 1975 labour code. it would be based on just Alberta inflation.

    either way the LRT may be overpriced but a Greenfield LRT (like to the Airport) would cost significantly less, in the range of 2-5 mil/km http://hamiltonlightrail.com/variabi..._per_kilometre
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/26/...s-they-should/
    http://melbpt.wordpress.com/2008/04/...ington-report/

    I like LRT and we need it. but it needs to be paid off in time. with the concept of growing Up not Out (if we do that) in 60 years (not a long time for big capital projects) Edmontons Population should be at. ~1.5 million just in the City. almost double what we have now. that either means a doubling of density (hard to do downtown) or a large buildup of suburbanish neighborhoods like Jasper Place, Strathcona, Beverly ect.

    We need the LRT no matter the cost.. but maybe we should build the Greenfield ROWs before we need to buy and build costly intersections at each street. ( ~$385,000 per crossing, (im using intersection lighting costs as that would be about the same inmo?) i would say build the LRT to Spruce Grove, Leduc, Ft Sask NOW before the costs go up any higher. it will need to be there eventually. (and maybe COE shouldn't do it but the regional Board/province should. )

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Which proves my point that LRT construction costs in every city is growing several times faster than consumer inflation and has become unsustainable as the cost to benefit ratios rise to impractical levels. Hisman's comments were wrong that construction costs rise in lock step with inflation.
    I see that we are going to get a great system for a reasonable cost in TODAY'S market.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  98. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Himser View Post
    Its a known fact that Construction inflation rises significantly as Safety, Certification, unionization and other factors have changed over the years since the first LRTS were built.

    Add that to the different standards we have today with building codes, intersection changes (no more strait X crossings they all have lights now), comfort orientated LRT cars, Beter safety devices, tilting ect.

    we are getting a MUCH better system then they could think to produce in 1975 at yes a MUCH higher cost. if we built the SAME LRT today with the 1975 Technology and standards AND the 1975 labour code. it would be based on just Alberta inflation.

    either way the LRT may be overpriced but a Greenfield LRT (like to the Airport) would cost significantly less, in the range of 2-5 mil/km http://hamiltonlightrail.com/variabi..._per_kilometre
    http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/26/...s-they-should/
    http://melbpt.wordpress.com/2008/04/...ington-report/

    I like LRT and we need it. but it needs to be paid off in time. with the concept of growing Up not Out (if we do that) in 60 years (not a long time for big capital projects) Edmontons Population should be at. ~1.5 million just in the City. almost double what we have now. that either means a doubling of density (hard to do downtown) or a large buildup of suburbanish neighborhoods like Jasper Place, Strathcona, Beverly ect.

    We need the LRT no matter the cost.. but maybe we should build the Greenfield ROWs before we need to buy and build costly intersections at each street. ( ~$385,000 per crossing, (im using intersection lighting costs as that would be about the same inmo?) i would say build the LRT to Spruce Grove, Leduc, Ft Sask NOW before the costs go up any higher. it will need to be there eventually. (and maybe COE shouldn't do it but the regional Board/province should. )
    You are talking both ends of the argument at the same time. Ridiculously stating that you can build to the airport of 2-5 million per kilometer. We cannot even acquire the ROW for that let alone build anything for that amount. Then you state that we should build LRT at ANY cost. You thinking is pure misguided fiscal irresponsibility and a construction contractor's wet dream.

    Your Hamilton LRT reference does not represent the real costs for building in Edmonton.

    Jasper Place, Strathcona and Beverly are certainly not suburbanish, they are mature neighbourhoods and both Strathcona and Berverly were towns on their own before becoming part of Edmonton. You miss what the premise of this thread is. It is about building LRT (in Calgary) in a responsible way based upon proper cost/benefit ratios and building to high density areas. You talk about building to mature neighbourhoods and want to secure greenfield sites including the airport than may not have sufficient ridership and may only benefit real estate developers who own large tracts of undeveloped land and would make huge profits simply if an LRT station is located nearby. Are you suggesting more urban sprawl? That totally contradicts build up rather than out.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 22-06-2013 at 07:14 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  99. #99

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Which proves my point that LRT construction costs in every city is growing several times faster than consumer inflation and has become unsustainable as the cost to benefit ratios rise to impractical levels. Hisman's comments were wrong that construction costs rise in lock step with inflation.
    I see that we are going to get a great system for a reasonable cost in TODAY'S market.
    Your definition of reasonable is highly dubious.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post

    You are talking both ends of the argument at the same time. Ridiculously stating that you can build to the airport of 2-5 million per kilometer. We cannot even acquire the ROW for that let alone build anything for that amount. Then you state that we should build LRT at ANY cost. You thinking is pure misguided fiscal irresponsibility and a construction contractor's wet dream.

    Your Hamilton LRT reference does not represent the real costs for building in Edmonton.

    Jasper Place, Strathcona and Beverly are certainly not suburbanish, they are mature neighborhoods and both Strathcona and Berverly were towns on their own before becoming part of Edmonton. You miss what the premise of this thread is. It is about building LRT (in Calgary) in a responsible way based upon proper cost/benefit ratios and building to high density areas. You talk about building to mature neighborhoods and want to secure greenfield sites including the airport than may not have sufficient ridership and may only benefit real estate developers who own large tracts of undeveloped land and would make huge profits simply if an LRT station is located nearby. Are you suggesting more urban sprawl? That totally contradicts build up rather than out.
    Yes i am because it is a complex issue that has complications on both sides. more greenfield = more sprawl= cheaper LRT, More urban = less sprawl =Expensive LRT when we will need it in 40-50 years.

    I a,m not advocating building stations anywhere on that line. just building the line itself to those places. stations cost a LOT of money compared to just the line. and if we want to discourage sprawl building stations is the wrong thing to do. building the line however allows for future station construction when needed. AND at the developer costs not at purely the city costs. ( if you want to build a neighborhood by the LRT track you can pay the 200 mil, the track is already there ) this way we get the benefits of costing an Greenfield LRT AND lowering sprawl in the satellite citys of Spruce, Ft Sask and leduc.

    They are mature neighborhoods. so a mix between heavily urban like downtown and suburban like the outskirts. so suburbanish ( you cant find too many buildings above 3 stories in these areas)

    ok you don't like my sources for greenfield LRT. what is a true number for greenfield LRT? the best i could find is in those three links. (btw the Hamilton numbers strictly said they did NOT include ROW)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •