This won't get anywhere without an actual engineer who knows his stuff, but given the amount of precision needed for LRT
With respect, the “amount of precision needed for LRT” is not 25% higher than the level of precision needed for a building. If an LRT designer/engineer weighs in and offers support, then I’ll certainly acquiesce but nothing that you’ve said changes my opinion. LRT surely has its complexities but so do buildings. For example, if shear walls are improperly designed, a high lateral force (strong wind) could make a building fall down. The LRT equivalent would be something like a curve in the rail, the loads represented by those curves, vehicle travel speed, etc and the possibility that the vehicle would leave the tracks. BOTH the building example that I’ve put forward and the LRT example are complex. Putting “design” aside, “Health, Safety and Welfare” is the most important education that design/construction professionals receive. On a less dire note, if the lowest level parking slab is going to inhabit the same space as the water table and the drainage system fails, the parking level is going to flood (see 1800 Lake) which likely is going to cost someone over $1M. For every example of complexity on one side (buildings) there is an equivalent/analog on the other (LRT). The crux of my point is not whether LRT is expensive or difficult but that it is not 25% MORE complex/unknown. I do not accept the premise that LRT design needs a higher level of precision than a building but I’ve made my case and you are certainly welcome to your opinion.
federal guidelines/red tape needed for federal funding, local political meddling that affects things (hey how about a $300M tunnel through woods?), and the length, which is absolutely a factor, a transit project like SWLRT is obviously going to be more complex/expensive than a building.
Are the federal guidelines an unknown? I’m assuming that anyone working on the design of an LRT line knows what the guidelines call for. Do the guidelines change significantly in the middle of the design cycle? I could accept this is a premise if you could put forward more information about changes to the federal guidelines “mid-stream” that were not known at the beginning of the design that would account for an additional 5%? 10%? contingency.
As for a $300M tunnel, the contingency did NOT absorb this cost. To my recollection this was 100% added cost. As for length, I’m not making a claim that “hard construction” costs should be cheap for LRT, I’m talking strictly about contingency which is meant to address unknowns. I’ve laid out a case for why length should have very little effect on CONTINGENCY by definition. Feel free to argue against the claim and the evidence that I’ve offered.
From what I recall having read through the central corridor engineering document, interpreting it through my background of higher Mathematics and combat robotics, 13 miles of damn-well-constructed infrastructure is a big order (with a lot more length for things to go wrong). A 5-over-1 building is a complex undertaking, but not on the same scale when it comes to any of those aforementioned factors.
Again, I’ve made a claim that “average” buildings (in this metro) are below grade two stories and several stories above grade. Anything above grade is basically off of the table for LRT (excepting stations which I talked about at length in an earlier post). LRT definitely has length, but almost no height and very little depth (typically). I threw out the figure that 70% of LRT lines occur at grade and then followed up with the claim that even if 30% of total construction is bridges, tunnels, and stations that those elements are NOT complete unknowns. Nobody is looking at a satellite image and saying, “Well, we’ve got this creek running through our path, does anyone know how to get a train across that?” There are precedents for LRT bridges and length, width and height can be measured, construction methods can be devised (steel or concrete), quantities assigned and dollar figures assigned.
You can have the opinion that LRT lines are more complex than building buildings but I made assertions above regarding the complexity involved in cladding, insulating, waterproofing, structure, etc, all complex things that are NOT part of LRT work (typically). I am NOT saying that LRT should be cheap or easy. I am merely making that claim that it should be no more complex than an average building project requiring a 25% higher contingency.
This isn’t a screed against funding transit. I’m trying to get someone to make a case for why LRT contingencies are 25% higher than building projects.
There's also far more casework to go off when it comes to buildings because there are simply more of them.
I think it’s a little disingenuous to infer that buildings have existed for millennia and are therefore less complex today. We (humans) have certainly learned a lot regarding building technology but modern building practices have not been around for millennia and the contemporary building code is updated every few years along with advances in building technology. Professionals in the building industry are expected to keep up with advances/code, I see no reason why LRT designers/engineers shouldn’t be held to the same standard. I will acquiesce that there are certainly more buildings than light rail lines. However, there are plenty of examples of rail going back 100 years (with heavy vehicles) to work from, including bridges, tunnels and other necessary infrastructure and the soil engineering for buildings is almost identical to soil engineering for LRT with the exception of “live load” from the vehicles. To infer that buildings are designed by rote and LRT is designed “from scratch” just isn’t true.
The involved political volatility can make the difference between something like running along a RR trench or a parallel road, even relatively late in the game, or needing a tunnel/bridge/other special improvements/modifications. SWLRT is an example of this. All of the different impacts such as utility relocation, needing to take more properties, or reconstructing roadways simultaneously, can be costly. Cost increases can compound too, and given the long planning process, which often gets delayed, inflation is a factor.
As I said above, to my knowledge the contingency absorbed 0% of the tunnel so let’s just take that off of the table. I can listen to arguments about “special improvements” if you mean things like sound walls, etc but tunnels and bridges should be accounted for at the very least in a schematic sense with dollar figures in place. Utility relocation should be a known quantity within a very high rate of assurance - especially at urban locations. For every example of an undocumented gas line, I could counter with an example of an undocumented well or a buried tank that was leaking pollutants. I understand that inflation is a factor but this too can be extrapolated with a degree of accuracy and is nowhere near a 25% fluctuation (increase) year to year.
"Contingency" funding is for just that, contingencies. I don't know what potential contingencies as part of constructing a building can match suddenly needing additional grade separation on a LRT line.
I already addressed this above - the contingency did NOT account for this issue. If such an oversight occurred so late in a building project cycle someone/multiple people would be fired/sued.
I want Bottineau to be a success. I want the rail network to be a success. I want transit to be a success. I’ll never decry my tax bill as a result of transit funding. However, as much as I support transit and transit funding, that doesn’t mean that the process is above reproach/criticism. As stated above by another poster, other areas have experienced even higher cost overruns than we have. There is something broken in the cost estimating/design/messaging and it is hurting transit funding.
I've been told that my posts can be condescending. In an effort to address this, let me say that I argue passionately but I try to support my arguments with evidence. These issues are important/fascinating to me and I've learned a lot from people on these forums. I have strong opinions but I'm not an expert in all things and I believe that I am willing to concede when my opinions can be refuted with evidence.
I’ll let you have the last word if you wish to respond and thanks for engaging.
Best of luck to Bottineau as the north side needs equitable transit investment.