JTA planning to seek bids to build, run U2C

[marcuscnelson]

Interesting, if nothing else. Based on the contractor lists, it looks like the Balfour Beaty plan involves Navya and Olli AVs, while Haskell involves EasyMile and 2getthere AVs. Still somewhat unclear how exactly they expect this to be ready for primetime, mixed traffic operation in two years, but it seems pretty hell or high water that they're going to at least try.

Based on JTA's other activities with the Skyway, it looks like they're going to do Bay Street and see how it goes, then wait a decade in hopes that the technology will be mature enough to implement on the rest of the network. At the end of the day, I imagine the bigger deal with this project is going to be the "smart street" infrastructure rather than the AVs themselves.

“We feel very competent in delivering this project,” Ford said Thursday. “Why? Because we have learned a great deal over this time frame to be able to execute this new technology.”

Is it just me or does this not really mean anything?

The board also approved, by a 4-0 vote, for Ford to negotiate and execute a lease with the Corner Lot Development Group, LLC. For a 3.8-acre parcel of land between Montana Avenue and Broadcast Place near the Southbank.

The 40-year agreement calls for Corner Lot Development Group to build 340 multi-family residential units and retail space on the property. The first-year rent on the property would be $272,000 and increase 2 percent in each of the two years to follow.

The property is part of the Transit-Oriented Development model that the authority has pushed in recent years. The Montana Street project would be within walkable distance between the Kings Avenue Skyway station as well as other modes of public transportation.

Oh hey, they're finally developing that property between the Baptist offices and The District. And it's right next to a Skyway station. Hopefully they do the sensible thing and add as little parking as necessary, and encourage people to use the transit in the transit-oriented development.

[marcuscnelson]

So now there's an automated bus.

https://www.newflyer.com/bus/xcelsior-av/
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/new-flyer-unveils-the-xcelsior-av-tm-north-america-s-first-automated-transit-bus-865145733.html

Assuming this technology actually works, I wonder if it'd make more sense to just have a fancy BRT lane with these going down the fancy smart street on Bay, vs trying to make the zillion tiny shuttles work. Of course, in theory you wouldn't actually need an automated bus for that but going with the assumption that JTA just has to be building "the transit system of the future," this seems a bit less silly.

[thelakelander]

The technology works. Heck, the Skyway now is technically driverless. For public transit, it would make more sense to have vehicles that move larger masses of people for a fixed system, regardless of the rolling stock, driverless or with a driver. I think we all know that the Bay Street Innovation Corridor is more about being a pilot of testing various emerging technologies in a real life urban environment, moreso than serving the basic need for public transit. I hope as far as the U2C goes, there's a plan for something larger than the AVs that have been tested in recent years. Those things will likely be irrelevant in the world of emerging technologies by the time the U2C project is actually operational.

[bl8jaxnative]

Based on JTA's other activities with the Skyway, it looks like they're going to do Bay Street and see how it goes, then wait a decade in hopes that the technology will be mature enough to implement on the rest of the network. At the end of the day, I imagine the bigger deal with this project is going to be the "smart street" infrastructure rather than the AVs themselves.

If that's the case, it sounds like they know that running those minibuses on the skyway will require a few metric shit tons of engineering and testing to ensure it's 100% safe.  Having that be the nebulous "that's coming in another phase" is a way to avoid having to admit it was too expensive of a proposition + irresponsible to have been made to start with. 

[bl8jaxnative]

$30 million for four blocks of Skyway conversion? That is insane. That's more than LRT. If these are the numbers coming out, this plan should be stopped.

LRT in the US is being built at $100million / mile.   4/10ths of a mile for $30M is actually cheap.

[thelakelander]

^LRT that's elevated, includes tunnels, bridges or includes complete comprehensive complete streets rebuilding of the streetscape and over the top landscaping is what will cost someone $100 million per mile. Get rid of the bells and whistles and stick with the no frills transit basics and you won't be anywhere near 1/2 that cost.

[BridgeTroll]

Hmmm... makes the I-10 widening seem worthwhile and cost effective...

[thelakelander]

^ You have to take bl8jaxnative's statement of LRT costing $100/million a mile with a grain of salt. The cost of light rail construction varies, depending on the amount of elevated structures, tunneling, street rebuilds, etc. required for the individual project. LRT projects built over the years have ranged from $15 million per mile to over $100 million.  On average, LRT systems are closer to $30 million per mile, than $100 million. Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Camden, etc. are all examples of cities with LRT lines built for less than $20 million per mile. Jump into the streetcar world and the prices drop more. With that said, none of it has anything to do with widening I-10. They shouldn't be viewed as projects that compete against each other. I'd argue that they serve two different markets and that a project like I-10, is just about as much as upgrading safety on an obsolete facility, as it is increasing capacity. Plus I-10 already exists and the ROW is already in place, so it's not a project where things will start from scratch.

[marcuscnelson]

Another day, another contract to overhaul the existing Skyway. This time it's for the traction motors.

[bl8jaxnative]

^ You have to take bl8jaxnative's statement of LRT costing $100/million a mile with a grain of salt. The cost of light rail construction varies, depending on the amount of elevated structures, tunneling, street rebuilds, etc. required for the individual project. LRT projects built over the years have ranged from $15 million per mile to over $100 million.  On average, LRT systems are closer to $30 million per mile, than $100 million. S\

You only have to look at the sources for the source I cite. 

There is no US LRT system in the last 2 decades that has built for $30M / mile.  You're huffing glue.

[Tacachale]

^ You have to take bl8jaxnative's statement of LRT costing $100/million a mile with a grain of salt. The cost of light rail construction varies, depending on the amount of elevated structures, tunneling, street rebuilds, etc. required for the individual project. LRT projects built over the years have ranged from $15 million per mile to over $100 million.  On average, LRT systems are closer to $30 million per mile, than $100 million. S\

You only have to look at the sources for the source I cite. 

There is no US LRT system in the last 2 decades that has built for $30M / mile.  You're huffing glue.

Hmm, who to trust, Ennis or this guy.

[thelakelander]

Lol.....

Here are five examples of light rail, ranging from LRT and modern streetcar, to DMUs that average out closer to $30 million per mile, than $100 million. All were built within the last 20 years. I even added links so no one would have to take my word for it:

El Paso Streetcar (completed 2018) $97 million / 4.8 miles = $20 million per mile
https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/local/2016/09/23/streetcar-work-remains-time-budget/90869508/



Oceanside Sprinter (completed 2008) $477 million / 22 miles = $22 million per mile
https://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/article.aspx?id=14634



RiverLine (New Jersey) (completed 2004) $1.1 billion / 34 miles = $32 million per mile
https://reason.org/commentary/end-of-the-line-for-river-line/#:~:text=This%2034%2Dmile%20stretch%20of,whopping%20%241.1%20billion%20to%20construct.



Norfolk Tide LRT (completed 2011) $318 million / 7.4 miles = $43 million per mile
https://www.webcitation.org/61AGo7IdD?url=http://www.railwaygazette.com/index.php?id=44&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=13828&cHash=bdc9f64434



Houston METRO LRT (completed 2004) $324 million / 7.5 miles = $43 million per mile
https://web.archive.org/web/20111210053421/http://lightrailnow.org/news/n_hou005.htm


.....and the systems at $43 million per mile do include the bells and whistles like LRT running through water fountains and features.





Now show us something with the links to the source included suggesting any type of LRT, that isn't elevated or underground, costing anywhere near $100 million per mile to construct.

[bl8jaxnative]

I wish this were in person to help convey that, at least from my point of view, this is a __friendly__ pissing match.

That's the tricky thing with online crap... how does one convey that sort of thing?


OK, note that if the first example you pick for LRT is not LRT, you may not be thinking this thing through well enough.   There are important reasons why to seperate out LRT from trolleys and commuter rail.  Experts in the industry didn't just accidentally stumble into those distinctions.   

Restoring ol' Mandy the Mule to go 8 mph down the middle of a street has a lot less requirements ( costs ) than an LRT vehicle with full grade separation able to go 55MPH inbetween stations.

BTW, that ol' riverline project is  38% higher cost than what you cited.   The further one goes back, especially given the size of these project, the more important it is to factor in inflations.   In 2020 constant dollars it's more like $1.55B.

Oceanside sprinter is a wonderful edge case.   They had an unusual case where an existing, lightly used freight railroad was willing to sell it's existing line.   They kept their costs down because they didn't have to build it from scratch.

They also kept down further by not front loading the project with requirements.  They didn't double track it.  They didn't electrify the line.  They kept it to a minimum.   

I'd love to see transit do that sort of thing more.  But there aren't many corridors with lines like that.   And, much worse, the agencies are notorious for gold plating.

[bl8jaxnative]

Now, if we were casually having a beer ( masks down of course, can't drink a beer with a mask one ), there's a lot that could be communicated about this to convey things.

I'll grant you that it's not literally none.   But why latch onto the precision of that claim?  So 3% of the projects out there did it.  And they all happened before Obama was in office.   So what?

At the heart of it though is the claim of that lower cost is tone deaf.    The mass transit communities been wringing it's hands for years about the high costs of rail transit.   They're in the middle of trying to sort out if the US is higher than Western Europe and, if so, why. 

I have yet to anyone in the industry claim the $100M / mile mark is not the standard for LRT.  Guadalajara just completed an LRT line.  Ottawa just opened a LRT line for $2+ billion and, IIRC, I'm not sure if it was much more than 5 or 6 miles.  Edmonton's new LRT line was a little longer and similar is overall cost.   Denver's token SE line extension was somehow ~$100M / mile.  The same with Phoenix's recent extension.

Charlotte's blue line was  billion and a quarter project for less than 10 miles.   Metro Transit is saying their planned 15 mile SW LRT line woudl cost $2 billion.  But that was before they recently said ooopsie, not quite done with the planning on that one.  We didn't take into account a crash wall and full cost of the tunnel.  Look for tht one to come in again ~$2.3B.   This isn't much different thn the billion they spent on their University Avenue line, 11 miles.   But what do you exepect from an organization, Metro Transit, that they spent $130M for zero miles of LRT recently.  $130 and they got none.  Apparently no one could be bothered to make sure that  BNSF was on board before spending all that money.  Surely people knew that their proposal would only work w/ BNSF on board.



ANywhooooo.... I get it.  It's crazy money.    And if you think it through some more you may even notice the trick I played, dragging things to LRT when some lil' line like that in heart of downtown wouldn't need an LRT line, a tram would work quite well. 


If you a dig into it more, there aren't  lot of LRT projects.   ~$100M / mile is the going rate

one source
www.publicpurpose.com/ut-lrt00capcost.htm


IIRC this was the previous one.  CityLab's sometimes got some good stuff like this
.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-26/the-u-s-gets-less-subway-for-its-money-than-its-peers

In the United States, most recent and in-progress light-rail lines cost more than $100 million per mile. Two light-rail extensions in Minneapolis, the Blue Line Extension and the Southwest LRT, cost $120 million and $130 million per mile, respectively. Dallas’ Orange Line light rail, 14 miles long, cost somewhere between $1.3 billion and $1.8 billion. Portland’s Orange Line cost about $200 million per mile. Houston’s Green and Purple Lines together cost $1.3 billion for about 10 miles of light rail.

[Peter Griffin]

Yea, neglecting to factor in the inflated cost of a construction project is pretty disingenuous. Also, you're not showing a trend or average of all projects, you're cherry picking projects that confirm your argument, and as bl8 pointed out, don't match apples-to-apples with the LRT being discussed here.

Misleading post, lake.