Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 122 of 122

Thread: Is suburban LRT for new neighborhoods dead?

  1. #101

    Default

    So you are advocating build a LRT line without stations. What is the purpose of a line to nowhere and without passengers?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  2. #102

    Default

    Lol I ment other then a station at those locations. (sherwood park and st Albert are diffrent as there is no greenfield between the city and them.

  3. #103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    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.
    Your expectations are unrealistic in today's marketplace and I am highly suspect that you have enough information to correctly audit the various projects nor do I think you are qualified nor certified to do so. Not a personal attach just a statement of fact.
    "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

  4. #104

    Default

    Nor are you qualified or certified.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  5. #105

    Default

    ^ I NEVER represent myself as anything but a LRT enthusiast. Pointing out that I am not an lic'd or reconsigned forensic accountant doesn't mean you are closer to being it.

    The truth is you simply do not have enough information or the ability to PROPERLY and ACCURATELY present some of your arguments in the fashion you do.
    "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

  6. #106

    Default

    But you stated that we will have a great system at a reasonable cost. What do you define as reasonable?

    Being blind to the real cost escalation and the lack of any fiscal analysis by the COE using tools such as cost/benefit ratios simply is not doing the due diligence that taxpayers should expect when the COE decides on multi-billion dollar projects.

    At least the DT Arena was heavily discussed and the fiscal costs were metered out unlike the HST proposals that do not get the same analysis.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  7. #107

    Default

    ^ I have used the cost of other systems being built at the same time in the same country under similar economic conditions using a standard unit.

    All in all I am satisfied with the cost of our low floor 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

  8. #108

    Default

    So Surrey looks at Edmonton and Toronto LRT costs and says they must be OK, Toronto looks at Vancouver and Edmonton and says they must be OK and Edmonton looks at Vancouver and Toronto's LRT costs and says they must be OK....

    This follows a parable, read Luke 6:39-40.

    Just because other cities are failing to do due diligence, you want to follow their bad example even if our transit needs and conditions are vastly different?

    For example, we both agree that density is one of the most important facts about where LRT should be built but it also usually increases the costs due to available ROW

    Here is the density of the several cities you want to compare to.
    Vancouver 5,249 people/km2
    Toronto 4,186
    Burnaby 2,463
    Ottawa 1,860
    Surrey 1,500
    Edmonton 1,186

    See, they are not the same, the average of the other cites is 3,051/km2, 2.5 times Edmonton's density
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 24-06-2013 at 08:00 AM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #109

    Default

    Sure not get me a realistic density number that strips out the Underpopulated NE and removes the river valley from its equations.

    I don't care about the city density numbers I care about the density of the areas the LRT is servicing. Like Oliver which has teh same density as most NYC neighborhoods.
    "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

  10. #110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Sure not get me a realistic density number that strips out the Underpopulated NE and removes the river valley from its equations.
    Why? Are you trying to slant the data to conform to your bias? Stanley park and the industrial wharfs around Vancouver are also included in Vancouver too and in our underpopulated river valley they plan a line and a station too.

    You have not supplied one piece of sourced information that explains why you support Himser irrational comments that transit construction cost inflation are the same or less than consumer inflation when they are clearly multiple times the rate. Even when you take changes in design, features and workplace safety into account, they do not offset the tremendous rise. My Stats Can. construction labor rates alone show that his comments are incorrect.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  11. #111

    Default

    ^ like really... go away.

    comparing Stanley park to huge swaths of farm land in the NE and one of North America's largest green belts.

    For someone who purports to be this super transportation critic you sure don't understand the concept of comparables.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 25-06-2013 at 02:06 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

  12. #112

    Default

    And you supply any facts????
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  13. #113

    Default

    Any facts about what... the size of unused parkland/farmland in Edmonton and the size of Stanley park...

    Just look at Google maps.

    Population densities of individual Edmonton Neighborhoods can be found on the City of Edmonton Website.
    "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

  14. #114

    Default

    No, you have derailed the discussion completely with your avoidance of the issues that are directly about the topic of this thread. The facts that construction costs have risen 4 to 6 time faster than inflation and that construction labour costs have been a significant driver of those increases and the supporting documents I supplied.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    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).
    Actually no this is the OP...

    I know you want to make every mass transit thread about you... but it isn't. This conversation is about supplying LRT based on cost benefit analysis. You are the one that tries to derail EVERY lrt thread with shotty analysis.

    What do you do for work PRT? Are you a construction analyst.... please delight us with the 20 year history of local labor rates, local steel prices, local copper prices, local cement prices. Please Dazzle us with reports on how changes to code and OH&S over the last 20 years have impacted project costs? and lastly... please explain to us what "inflation" means and justify your use of core inflation (which excludes MANY MANY MANY things like the cost of gasoline) as a basis for your analysis of construction.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 26-06-2013 at 04:08 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. #116

    Default

    The article talks about the rising cost/benefit ratios making transit expansion less affordable which is what I am talking about.

    Nobody knows what point you are trying to make other than you think that LRT costs between $120M and $170m per kilometer is fine with you.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    The article talks about the rising cost/benefit ratios making transit expansion less affordable which is what I am talking about.

    Nobody knows what point you are trying to make other than you think that LRT costs between $120M and $170m per kilometer is fine with you.
    The article talks about cost benefit analysis and indicated that there are other transit projects (both LRT and non LRT) that deliver more for the dollar spent. No where does the article say that the SE line has been costed in oblivion nor are the worlds less affordable used.

    How can we trust your analysis of LRT/construction when your representation of this simple article is wrong.
    "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

  18. #118

    Default

    This is what I said

    "The article talks about the rising cost/benefit ratios making transit expansion less affordable which is what I am talking about. "

    I did not say LRT expansion, I said transit. You just assume that I am always speaking about only LRT, I was not. I was talking about construction costs while using LRT costs as an example. Building a bus-only transit way involves construction costs too and I have been against BRT mega-projects as well.

    Rather than trying to drag me down to your level, why don't you debate the issues?
    You keep failing at your own arguments so instead you attack the other debater. Classy.


    You just love stepping on rakes don't you Bob?

    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 26-06-2013 at 06:40 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  19. #119

    Default

    Not once did the article talk about the New South line in Calgary being unobtainable, you don't use accurate comparables and your analysis is flawed.

    This is the last I will say on this subject with you.
    "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

  20. #120

    Default

    I never offered an analysis of a specific line and never compared it to anything. What the article states is the cost/benefit ratios and I discussed the issues of construction cost inflation which is something you will not discussus and it appears you cannot comprehend.

    Maybe you should read how other projects in Edmonton are getting unaffordable
    http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum...d=1#post528040

    I am glad that you have accepted that you have nothing to add to this thread. Too bad you did not realize that from the start.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 27-06-2013 at 11:35 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  21. #121

    Default

    on a different note....

    What isn't studied alongside the cost benefit of this project is the cost of not building the system. If other nodes of transport are maxed out and Millions will need to be spent to build more low capacity roads and such than this too needs to be examined.
    "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

  22. #122

    Default

    "Each route could be put in place at about a third of the cost of a light rail line, and less than one tenth of the estimated cost of Metro North. The lines would run from Swords and Dublin Airport to the city centre, Blanchardstown to UCD, and Clongriffin to Tallaght."

    Source:
    Rapid bus scheme for Dublin ‘could cut journey times by 40%’ - Environmental News | The Irish Times - Mon, Feb 03, 2014
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/envir...y-40-1.1676911

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •