Ring Road To Nowhere

[redforever]

Originally Posted by ken0042

I would argue that a semi-circle does not make a "ring."

My point about the by-pass not being done; when you head east on Victoria from the Ring Road you still have several lights to contend with. I did see signs talking about a by-pass for that area now that it is being built up. Depending on the time of day you are going through, it can take up to 30 minutes to cross Regina; with a good chunk of that being that portion east of the Ring Road.

In fact Regina is a great example of a ring road that was never really completed; and the parts that were completed were not done well. I would suggest that Regina should be an example of what not to do.

Well, it goes to Leewan Dr on the west side of the city and there is nothing past that...it is the end of the city. So yeah, maybe Leewan Dr is not actually "the" ring road but it serves its purpose for the time being for a city the size of Regina.

And yes, there are parts that are not done well....mainly their exits, especially driving west on the north side of Regina, where you cross Albert St (also known as #6 highway).

Basically, there is no merge lane...an accident waiting to happen if you want to exit north, that is for sure.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GGG

Costs of materials depending on the material to very from inflation. Concrete increases at a lower rate of inflation whereas asphalt is higher than the rate of inflation. Land acquisition costs historically all the way back to the Dutch tulip bubble track inflation.

Here is a link to concrete vs. asphalt http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&...66699033,d.cGU

I will try to find data on steel.

As for design I don't think some terrible engineer did it. I think an engineer following the design Standard of the day built it to that design standard. If we followed the same design standard we would have lower costs.

System interchanges did not exist outside of LA in the 60's and 70s. You just put in a cloverleaf.

OK, first thing. You're using an article from Oregon. Concrete and asphalt costs vary from city to city, let alone country to country. How do I know? I work with aggregate producers daily, in 3 different continents. So throw it out, it won't apply here.

Asphalt in Alberta IS NOT $53/ton (used in your data), it's almost double that in Calgary. Run the numbers on the below chart (City of Calgary) in that study and see where it comes out

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...-pricelist.pdf

I believe concrete is around $200/ton (can't find ready data, but if you want I can call a client and ask). I don't see the number they used on that graph, but again the process to make concrete and asphalt is somewhat similar. I would get into it, but it would take me days to explain it and I don't have the wherewithal right now.

Here's the problem. As infrastructure gets built out, as houses are built, as Suncor builds new facilities, it creates huge local demand on aggregate, which increases the price. The cost of cement and asphalt (which use aggregate as a main component) goes up accordingly. You can't really import it, because transport fees are outrageous, so you're stuck with the local cost. In our case a highly inflated one due to demand for the stuff in the province and its cities.

Machinery used to process it has increased dramatically in cost. So has the labour to run it, the fuel used to transport it and the steel that makes up the wear parts (which I sell). No way is it tracking inflation.

There is no way in H-E double hockey sticks asphalt and concrete cost the same now as they did 50 years ago. Same with steel. I don't even need to look that up seeing as I sell 200 ton a month of the stuff, and know the cost structure that goes back 70 years for the company I work for.

Telling me that the cost of construction 50 years ago, adjusted for inflation to today, would be the same on one of these interchanges is plain wrong.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Addick

The eastern sections of the RR have moved traffic away from Deerfoot

The traffic numbers have shown that did not happen.

[Mazrim]

Originally Posted by ken0042

My point about the by-pass not being done; when you head east on Victoria from the Ring Road you still have several lights to contend with. I did see signs talking about a by-pass for that area now that it is being built up. Depending on the time of day you are going through, it can take up to 30 minutes to cross Regina; with a good chunk of that being that portion east of the Ring Road.

In fact Regina is a great example of a ring road that was never really completed; and the parts that were completed were not done well. I would suggest that Regina should be an example of what not to do.

The Regina Bypass got $200 million from a federal program (will cost $1.2 Billion total and is about 40 km of road on bald-ass prairie with 10 interchanges) and will start showing up soon based on what I've been reading.

[stampsx2]

^^^ have you seen what saskatchewan roads look like after five years? Do it cheap now so the public doesn't complain, pay city crews double for repairs and materials later.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

^^^ have you seen what saskatchewan roads look like after five years? Do it cheap now so the public doesn't complain, pay city crews double for repairs and materials later.

Yes, I have. I grew up 30 minutes north of Regina.

And it does not even take 5 years. Give those roads one good winter of frost heaving them in the spring and they have major work to be done on them.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Acey

The traffic numbers have shown that did not happen.

I'd be curious to see an hourly breakdown, because since Stoney opened, I have seen noticeably reduced traffic on both Deerfoot and 52nd around 6:30 AM.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

OK, first thing. You're using an article from Oregon. Concrete and asphalt costs vary from city to city, let alone country to country. How do I know? I work with aggregate producers daily, in 3 different continents. So throw it out, it won't apply here.

Asphalt in Alberta IS NOT $53/ton (used in your data), it's almost double that in Calgary. Run the numbers on the below chart (City of Calgary) in that study and see where it comes out

http://www.calgary.ca/Transportation...-pricelist.pdf

I believe concrete is around $200/ton (can't find ready data, but if you want I can call a client and ask). I don't see the number they used on that graph, but again the process to make concrete and asphalt is somewhat similar. I would get into it, but it would take me days to explain it and I don't have the wherewithal right now.

Here's the problem. As infrastructure gets built out, as houses are built, as Suncor builds new facilities, it creates huge local demand on aggregate, which increases the price. The cost of cement and asphalt (which use aggregate as a main component) goes up accordingly. You can't really import it, because transport fees are outrageous, so you're stuck with the local cost. In our case a highly inflated one due to demand for the stuff in the province and its cities.

Machinery used to process it has increased dramatically in cost. So has the labour to run it, the fuel used to transport it and the steel that makes up the wear parts (which I sell). No way is it tracking inflation.

There is no way in H-E double hockey sticks asphalt and concrete cost the same now as they did 50 years ago. Same with steel. I don't even need to look that up seeing as I sell 200 ton a month of the stuff, and know the cost structure that goes back 70 years for the company I work for.

Telling me that the cost of construction 50 years ago, adjusted for inflation to today, would be the same on one of these interchanges is plain wrong.

Post the data, also you need to smooth the curve for booms and busts because of course its cheaper to build in a downturn than a boom time. Note the costs in my link don't matter as we are talking relative cost as compared to inflation. I am aware that the cost here would be higher.

What skews everything is the last 10 years in Alberta costs have greatly outpaced inflation. This is not sustainable and won't continue in the long term.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by GGG

Post the data, also you need to smooth the curve for booms and busts because of course its cheaper to build in a downturn than a boom time. Note the costs in my link don't matter as we are talking relative cost as compared to inflation. I am aware that the cost here would be higher.

What skews everything is the last 10 years in Alberta costs have greatly outpaced inflation. This is not sustainable and won't continue in the long term.

Safety factors have increased the cost of construction significantly. That alone will mean that construction cost increases will outpace inflation into perpetuity.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GGG

Post the data, also you need to smooth the curve for booms and busts because of course its cheaper to build in a downturn than a boom time. Note the costs in my link don't matter as we are talking relative cost as compared to inflation. I am aware that the cost here would be higher.

What skews everything is the last 10 years in Alberta costs have greatly outpaced inflation. This is not sustainable and won't continue in the long term.

So should we wait until we hit a low point in the cycle, or build the the thing over 50 years? Because that's the only way you're going theoretically align costs with inflation.

That or you could just build the effing road.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Safety factors have increased the cost of construction significantly. That alone will mean that construction cost increases will outpace inflation into perpetuity.

Agreed, that was my point. People who say its going to cost more in the future are wrong.

Its costs more now than in the past because we are getting a better road. Better design and better safety factors.

Build it now because we need it now. Don't build it now because of this false belief that it will cost more in the future. The big reason to build it now is that you have a time based deal with the Tsu Tina.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by GGG

What skews everything is the last 10 years in Alberta costs have greatly outpaced inflation. This is not sustainable and won't continue in the long term.

Unless we plan to build SW Stoney in Manitoba, the fact that cost of building a road in Alberta is very high is very relevant to a debate about the cost of building a road in Alberta.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GGG

Agreed, that was my point. People who say its going to cost more in the future are wrong.

How do you know this? Do you have a crystal ball that predicts the eventual slowdown and reduction in material cost? You posted an article to back up your statement from a different country (region) that has no relevance in Alberta.

There is an aggregate shortage in Alberta. Susan lake, which supplies the vast majority of Ft Mac, is dry in 3 years, and they pull almost 3 million ton per year from it. Outside of that deposit, there isn't a lot of readily available aggregate in Northern Alberta to support the major oilsands operations, let alone the daily O&G exploration. There are already companies trucking stone from Cochrane to Ft Mac in preparation for the swing that's about to happen, which would have been LUDICROUS to suggest 5 years ago because of trucking costs. It will only get worse in 5 years unless we figure out a way to get cheap stone into Alberta. I've seen imports from China already happening, but that's hit and miss with road spec, and no one wants to go that route (yet) unless they have to, because it costs jobs. I believe we should protect our province from this type of thing, but that's a totally different argument for a different thread.

Yeah sure in 20 years we might stagnate and the economy collapses making the project "cheap" and in line with inflation, but that's waaaaaay down the road. Even then it's not a given; there's as much chance of that as there is that we continue growing like we have the last 20 years. IMO the time to do it was 2012 when the US subsidies dried up, and Alberta drilling activity was low(er). MAYBE you could have saved a few $$/ton, but that opportunity is looooong gone. My US clientele (which includes the largest cement producer in the world, Lehigh/Hanson) is starting to ramp up production as the US economy comes around. The Dakotas are becoming a suckhole for labour and materials as they develop, which in comparison to Alberta is the Wild West. Anyone sitting on an aggregate deposit is sitting on a gold mine in those areas, because you can't build roads and leases without rock. Demand has never been higher.

Unless you can figure out a way to build an overpass in Vietnam (or some other region with cheap material and labor) and truck it to Alberta, your local build costs in the near (and IMO the far) future are going to easily outpace National inflation. Until then, we are stuck in a supply crunch which is going to equal higher prices.

Stone is a commodity, and it isn't changing anytime soon.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'd be curious to see an hourly breakdown, because since Stoney opened, I have seen noticeably reduced traffic on both Deerfoot and 52nd around 6:30 AM.

I posted them in this thread a while back for Deerfoot, an initial drop then they went right back up to the same level, +/- a few percent. The 40,000 vehicles on Stoney, then, have come from 52 St, Barlow, 100 St. Without numbers for these secondary thoroughfares which have undoubtedly seen a drop in volume, there is no way to definitively say this is induced demand.

[ken0042]

I can honestly say that since Stoney opened up, I have returned to taking Deerfoot into downtown instead of Glenmore/ Crowchild.

I really think that having fewer big trucks is the difference maker on Deerfoot now.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

The ring road is going to get a MASSIVE amount of truck traffic off Glenmore; you can't discount that.

I don't see it. Even without the new interchange projects cutting through Glenmore is still faster than going all the way around, especially for trucks coming off Hwy 8. Even Hwy 1 to Hwy 1 would be easier by cutting to Glenmore (less hill climbing than taking Stoney north with negligible difference in time and distance).

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Unless we plan to build SW Stoney in Manitoba...

99/100 Sun commenters think this is a great idea if it saves money.

[btimbit]

I think that since SE Stoney opened I have not driven a single inch of Deerfoot. But I might be the only one because when I looked it up a few weeks ago the numbers for deerfoot were pretty similar for before and after.

Back when I was driving from of Evergreen to SAIT every day Stoney would have been an absolute blessing. If the thing actually gets built I'll probably move back to the area.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

So should we wait until we hit a low point in the cycle, or build the the thing over 50 years?

This is, in fact, the best way to build infrastructure.

Also, the councillors are totally right that there are better ways to spend the money. But their timing is awful. We should've told the province to upgrade our LRT with the money instead as soon as they suggested any part of the ring road.

From what I've heard though, there's a really silly political reason why the province prefers the ring road - it stays on their books as an asset. They can spend $5 billion on a road, and have a $5 billion road. They haven't really lost anything, they've just converted cash to an asset. If they spend $5 billion on LRT, which is given to the city, they're $5 billion poorer.

It's all totally nonsense, but you can spin the accounting for the ring road in a way that you can't for the LRT (unless the province were to somehow retain ownership of it).

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by SebC

This is, in fact, the best way to build infrastructure.



From what I've heard though, there's a really silly political reason why the province prefers the ring road - it stays on their books as an asset. They can spend $5 billion on a road, and have a $5 billion road. They haven't really lost anything, they've just converted cash to an asset. If they spend $5 billion on LRT, which is given to the city, they're $5 billion poorer.

It's all totally nonsense, but you can spin the accounting for the ring road in a way that you can't for the LRT (unless the province were to somehow retain ownership of it).

I haven't heard this before? Source?