The following questions pertain to the pipes within the context of Hamilton’s 11km proposed LRT line:
1. In a recent meeting, it was said that these pipes are 20 years in to a 100 year expected life span. Is this true?
This was a generalized statement in regard to the overall life left in the underground infrastructure as an asset class. It was meant to confer the idea that the underground is in very good condition and is relatively early in its life cycle condition. Relatively speaking, approximately 20 years old out of a one hundred year expectancy.
2. If LRT was not planned, or if the LRT plan does not go forward, would the city be doing any significant work related to pipes on this stretch, or are they in stable/good shape to continue on as is, barring any catastrophe?
We don’t see any large scale work expected in the corridor to deal with condition, however there may be capacity related works to permit development that have to be done.
3. If LRT was to proceed, what is the opportunity(ies) that present themselves related to pipes/infrastructure, and how would the city seize them? What is their worth to the city?
The single largest opportunity with respect to the underground infrastructure and the LRT is with respect to upsizing to facilitate development and address existing capacity issues. To construct the LRT, Metrolinx would have to move just about every pipe in the corridor. Although the network of pipes, both water and sewer, are in good condition they have been placed over a long period of time, as required and not necessarily in the optimal location or arrangement but economical at the time. This provides for an opportunity to have the system optimized and upsized at a fraction of what it would have cost the City to do the same work on its own. This work is conservatively valued at $160M to $180M+/- and the cost to City by leveraging the LRT work is estimated to be less than $10M.
4. With respect to the opportunities you may have identified in the answer to question 3 above, are these essential changes that the city would otherwise have done within the foreseeable future, or are these simply opportunities that are based incidentally, should LRT proceed? In other words, are they must haves that would have otherwise been done, or nice to haves based on opportunity to get them done?
They may or may not be done as they may be unaffordable otherwise. If the work was not done it would not eliminate the opportunity for development along the corridor but it would increase the Developer’s cost to the point where it may not be as attractive an investment. The underground infrastructure work, associated with the LRT initiative, should be seen an opportunity to get something that would be very beneficial and likely otherwise unaffordable.
Thanks Gary for this information and for your prompt response.
Note: Comments that are disrespectful or otherwise unprofessional will not be published.If you don't see your comment published, rethink how you are conveying your thoughts.
"the underground is in very good condition and is relatively early in it's life cycle"
ReplyDeleteDid anyone hear Mr. Moore declare there are $200 million to be saved by replacing solid infrastructure?
No?
Translators are being summoned, one should be along shortly to let us know what Moore meant to say.
Stay tuned.
Mr. Moore framed the upside differently, identifying $150M to $170M in value available for <$10M because of work being done related to LRT.
DeleteFor comparison's sake, 1km of road reconstruction on King Street between Battlefield and Applewood a couple of years ago cost the City $6.5M.
https://www.hamiltonnews.com/community-story/5681212-stoney-creek-s-king-street-reconstruction-project-runnin-smoothly-city-officials-say/
Noted
Here's where it gets a bit muddy:
ReplyDeleteThe generalization ("Relatively speaking, approximately 20 years old out of a one hundred year expectancy") is arguably at odds with the detail ("Although the network of pipes, both water and sewer, are in good condition *they have been placed over a long period of time*.").
If Director Moore could define "a long period of time", it would be easier to get a better handle on the actual age of the infrastructure.
I suspect that there are extraneous considerations other than age, as well: If infrastructure is designed to last 100 years, the City shouldn't be dealing with any sub-grade work required for neighbourhoods built after WWI.
Zadig
how many could we shoehorn inside the pipe? And they would be flushed out into the bay, never to be heard from again?
ReplyDeleteScary.
DeleteThank you Ruby for the warning.
A few days ago, a person by the name of Ruby voiced serious concerns here about the dangers to our society if we start grouping people into who is a real person and who is a non person.
Ruby broke down why grouping people into "us" and "then" was very dangerous and how that might escalate to more dangerous actions.
I cut and pasted it.
First the "non people" were ridiculed.
Then the "non people" were ignored.
Then the "non people" were marginilized.
Then the "non people were victimized.
Then the "non people" were disenfranchised.
Then the "non people" were dehumanized.
Then the "non people" were exterminated.
What stage is jim graham at?
"how many could we shoehorn inside the pipe? And they would be flushed out into the bay, never to be heard from again?"
Which group, according to jim graham should be "flushed out into the bay, never to be heard from again?"
Charles McGill
orangemike/Charles McGill/Jim Taylor/Allen Graham/Ruby/Bob etc. etc etc.
Deletejimmy graham,
ReplyDeleteAfter figuring in Hamiltons finanical contribution at 10 million Engineer Moore said here in writing, here, today, savings for the Hamilton taxpayer would be "conservatively" valued at 160 million to 180 million plus or minus.
He was quoted by CBC last week, at the Wednesday council vote, as saying savings of 200 million dollars.
Youve been given the chance to dispute that with citations but never did.
So if youre more comfortable trying to make your point by using the figures of conservatively 180 million saved to the City taxpayers cited by Engineer Moore here today, no problem.
Youve also used disputed that the work done on the pipes would be an "upgrade".
Ok. Engineer Moore uses the words "upsizing" and "optimized".
Youve said there no present or future value in replacing 20 year old pipes. Enginner Moore disagrees:
"They may or may not be done as they may be unaffordable otherwise. If the work was not done it would not eliminate the opportunity for development along the corridor but it would increase the Developer’s cost to the point where it may not be as attractive an investment."
"This provides for an opportunity to have the system optimized and upsized at a fraction of what it would have cost the City to do the same work on its own."
So is your position still the same?
Just want to make sure for frame of reference.
Because you said before Hamilton should walk away from 200 million in taxpayer savings on infrastructure changed cause there would be no 200 million in savings to Hamilton taxpayer, that the pipes along King Street were in no need of replacing, and that any work we turn down to day can be done sometime later with no consequnces.
Is your position now that Hamilton taxpayers should walk away from a conservative projection of 180 million dollars in savings to the taxpayer?
Should Hamilton walk away from an oppurtunity to optimize upsize and get the most effiecient use of the system for maximum cost savings?
Should Hamilton keep the system it has now that will make growth and developement more expensive or impossible in the future?
If your positions remain unchanged by all this new and specific information, please let us know why.
Charle McGill
Basically, Moore confirmed what i said. It's be great to get down there and reationalize the piping if we were goign there anyway, but not if we weren't. Whicj we're not cause LRT is DOA.
ReplyDeleteSorce
Put another way, if the City can derive more than $10M in infrastructure benefit, the taxpayer wins. Since the City would be deriving $150M-$170M in benefit, it's a net positive.
DeleteAnd the City may be going down there anyway, either in aid of projects in the development stream or in the interests of making greyfield lands shovel-ready for residential or employment intensification (Moore: "there may be capacity related works to permit development that have to be done").
Noted
Here's what he said. The pipes are in good shape but they have been laid as required historically. So, it is not an optimized way of laying all those pipes. It would be wonderful to start over an lay them down in an ordered way. But that's only if they are going to rip up the ground anyway for LRT. Again, if I bring my car to the shop, i wouldn't let them take apart my whole engine just to get at parts that don't necessarily need fixing.
DeleteSorce oakav
So the issue with existing infrastructure is not age but capacity, and the City would be expanding capacity to allow development to take place?
ReplyDeleteMandrake
Feel sorry for Gary Moore. He has to be so careful in his answers when his political masters are split on the subject. He is in a tough position as a professional. He has a family to feed like all of us.
ReplyDeleteI think he did a great job answering this.
Jimmy
Engineer Moores answers were honest, clear, direct, true, factual and left zero room for interpretation.
DeleteIf thats what you mean by "careful" I agree.
Charles McGill
This article verified that there is no infrastructure savings and that we'd actually be spending money there at the expense of other infrastructure spending projects of a higher priority
ReplyDelete"This provides for an opportunity to have the system optimized and upsized at a fraction of what it would have cost the City to do the same work on its own. This work is conservatively valued at $160M to $180M+/- and the cost to City by leveraging the LRT work is estimated to be less than $10M.… The underground infrastructure work, associated with the LRT initiative, should be seen an opportunity to get something that would be very beneficial and likely otherwise unaffordable."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it's a way of enhancing infrastructure value at a fraction of the cost, and unlock development potential in the process. And FWIW, 44 lane kilometers (the length of the B-Line LRT route) of "shave 'n' pave" alone would cost the City around $9M.
Mandrake
"And FWIW, 44 lane kilometers (the length of the B-Line LRT route) of "shave 'n' pave" alone would cost the City around $9M."
DeleteAccording to the City's 2015 budget, arterial resurfacing would cost Hamilton taxpayers roughly $280K per lane km, or roughly $12M in all.
https://www.hamilton.ca/budget-finance/historical-budgets/2015-tax-and-rate-budgets
Noted
enhancing infrastructure deemed in good shape by those in charge while struggling to address deficit shortfall's is the political equivalent of shooting oneself in the groin. Not the foot, the groin. Fred shouldn't be trusted with live ammo.
DeleteAlso:
ReplyDelete"The city’s economic development department won accolades for capturing the Maple Leaf wiener plant last year after enticing the company’s Canada Bread facility in 2009, but media attention focused on the expected tax benefits, not the financial promises made to Maple Leaf officials. Although the ultimate price tag is still uncertain, some financial incentives have slowly leaked out.
They include a $2.6 million city LEED grant to “green” the wiener plant facility; a $3 million commitment to provide stormwater services; and a land sale price of $170,000 per acre in an area where the city is spending $585,000 an acre to secure a road right-of-way for the business park. The company also saved $3.4 million from the city’s steeply discounted industrial development charges – a taxpayer funded subsidy available to all new industrial facilities."
http://www.hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.php?id=1145
The status quo isn't cheap by any means, even when it succeeds.
Mandrake
A consultant-prepared “financial/economic impact analysis” concludes it will cost $351 million to service the airport employment growth district (AEGD), but that figure doesn’t include several key infrastructure elements including sewage treatment upgrades and the trunk sewer and water lines connecting the aerotropolis to the Woodward Avenue treatment facilities 25 kilometres away. The upbeat report argues that the controversial 2050 acre development will attract nearly 25,000 jobs and generate the city over $50 million a year in tax ‘profits’ by 2031.
ReplyDeleteThe report says more than half of the $351 million servicing cost could be collected from development charges, and that local servicing supplied by the land developers will cover another quarter of the costs, leaving $42 million in the lap of taxpayers. However, it acknowledges that the city steeply discounts industrial development charges and if that practice continues it will add another $185 million to the taxpayer burden – the equivalent of nearly $14 million a year for the next 20 years.
http://hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.php?id=795
Mandrake
The first two public information sessions related to the proposed Airport Employment Growth District (AEGD) attracted fewer than a dozen residents and generated exactly four written comments… from one citizen, two developers and the Chamber of Commerce, with the latter three linked to staff’s practice of holding special stakeholder meetings with the Chamber and the HHHBA.
DeleteCATCH, June 2008:
“In presenting the scanty consultation results to the planning committee on May 9, McCabe appealed to councillors for ideas and assistance. “It’s been a huge problem for us and we’ve tried different ways and we’re using our new communications officer, to get public out to these meetings,” he said. “People don’t get excited or interested or they don’t understand it, [so] we really need your help to try and get people out.”
Dave Mitchell replied he could guarantee 250 people would turn out in Glanbrook, as they had for a meeting on gypsy moth spraying. He also suggested including presentations and not just an open house with a display of panels. McCabe felt it is harder to get people interested in planning issues.
“Gypsy moth is easy to get people out for because they can understand it,” he noted, “but official plans, we have faced this over the years, I mean they’re very general.”
Terry Whitehead agree with including a formal presentation and suggested holding the consultations as part of ward meetings organized by councillors.
“Tying into a significant meeting and advertised in conjunction with the ward councillors, you’ll probably get bigger numbers than just having a PIC [Public Information Centre],” he advised. “I can almost guarantee in my ward that will be the case.”
http://hamiltoncatch.org/view_article.php?id=335
Mandrake