[Kyle Campbell]

As noted above, general construction price inflation in the Toronto Region is noticeably higher than general (consumer) price inflation because there's more construction going on here than other N American cities, coupled with a lack of experienced people to do the work. Add to that the specialist nature of transit construction - particularly working next to live rail lines - and the pool of available workers is even smaller.

Due to the lack of political will to build transit in the 1980s and 1990s, there's also been a sudden increase in the amount of transit-related construction as we catch up with what should have been built earlier.

These all contribute to the higher transit construction costs.

Metrolinx attempted to address this by inviting overseas contractors with transit-building experience to get involved with tenders but that is not a panacea as they have additional costs involved in establishing themselves here that inevitably get included in their bid prices.

I don't totally buy that explanation, as Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton etc are pulling from the same pool of experienced workers for their projects. Land is expensive sure, but I think Toronto gets quoted higher because it's Toronto, and companies think the market can bear it.

 

[TOtramz]

I wonder how much extra it would have costed to build the full thing to finch station? I feel like they should have done it in one go because price inflation makes it unlikely we're going to get any more extensions

 

[urbancog]

Montreal, Ottawa, Edmonton etc are pulling from the same pool of experienced workers for their projects

Yes, and they're pulling people away from Ontario:

Interprovincial migration indicators, provinces and territories: Interactive dashboard

This interactive dashboard allows the user to visualize the evolution of interprovincial migration over time as well as by province or territory, by age group and by gender. The dashboard shows the levels of in-migrants, out-migrants and net interprovincial migration. It also presents trends in...

www150.statcan.gc.ca

 

[6ixGod]

View attachment 629150
Please read carefully. The charts are inflation adjusted.

The point here isn’t just that transit plans have changed over time. It’s that our reactionary approach to cost control, constantly cutting the scope of projects at the expense of transportation utility, hasn’t produced lower costs at all. The dogmatic belief that “LRT is always cheaper than subway” completely ignores the actual reasons behind cost escalation and has resulted in poorer material outcomes.

That’s precisely what I was going to screenshot. Thank you wise person

 

[Obsidian]

I wonder how much extra it would have costed to build the full thing to finch station? I feel like they should have done it in one go because price inflation makes it unlikely we're going to get any more extensions

You can say the same thing about every transit project at any time in history. it's always cheaper to do them in the past, but you don't have all the money you need for it in the past as well.

 

[kaptrice]

What do you think ION LRT does well that Finch LRT doesn’t? Much of it is centre running, slow, and with frequent intersections with car traffic. You cite VIVA BRT, which uses centre island platforms you call dangerous for an LRT.

iON spends a lot of distance in private rights-of-way, on the Waterloo & Huron Park spurs, in the hydro corridor approaching Fairway, and beside Courtland Ave. Even the centre-running segments are mostly fine given the relatively good signal priority.
What really hurt the line are the one-way sections and the abundance of sharp turns they create. That, and the low speed limits.

 

[drum118]

I wonder how much extra it would have costed to build the full thing to finch station? I feel like they should have done it in one go because price inflation makes it unlikely we're going to get any more extensions

It should be built for the full length of Finch, not to Yonge. Cost wise, $300 million per km that will increase over time based on inflation and what taking place at the time. Tunneling will be way higher'

 

[jmi22]

Generally speaking how wide would a street need to be to accommodate an elevated line like the Skytrain?

Modern light metro guideway columns can fit within a single traffic lane, as is frequently seen across Vancouver. So technically a two lane 8m street could accommodate one but I don't think that would be very politically viable lol. There is not a single major arterial in the GTA you could not fit an elevated line down

 

[jmi22]

Not very wide at all. Just past Commercial-Broadway, the Skytrain follows a back alley paralleling Commercial Dr.

It's more the curve into Humber that's way too tight for a Skytrain. The Skytrain (not the Canada Line) does high speed curves really well, probably better than any other system in the country. But nothing comes close to that sharp. I'm not sure there's enough space to make the curve the train would need without expropriating a fair number of homes on the southeast corner

Considering the very wealthy peoples homes that were expropriated for the Ontario Line tunnel exit out over the Don Valley, I think this would have been doable in the much less politically influential neighbourhoods of North Etobicoke

 

[T3G]

Considering the very wealthy peoples homes that were expropriated for the Ontario Line tunnel exit out over the Don Valley, I think this would have been doable in the much less politically influential neighbourhoods of North Etobicoke

Why do we want this?

Elevated transit can have its place in limited circumstances, but many comments on this forum seem completely to gloss over the negatives, i.e. in the fact that the area underneath the guideway will be permanently in shade. I would have thought a better solution for our suburbs would be to redesign them to be more livable, not make being in them even less unpleasant for the poor bastards who have to live there. Can you imagine if we tried to solve the issues with the streetcar network by elevating their lines? No one would hang out on the streets where they run.

Personally, I would gladly accept the trivially decreased reliability of a grade integrated LRT line rather than see ugly concrete guideways thrown about all over the place. Transit is meant to serve cities, not the other way around.

 

[duty free]

Not very wide at all. Just past Commercial-Broadway, the Skytrain follows a back alley paralleling Commercial Dr.

It's more the curve into Humber that's way too tight for a Skytrain. The Skytrain (not the Canada Line) does high speed curves really well, probably better than any other system in the country. But nothing comes close to that sharp. I'm not sure there's enough space to make the curve the train would need without expropriating a fair number of homes on the southeast corner

Seems like Line 5 & Line 6 would've been better off being built like this. Same goes for any future potential LRT on Eglinton East or Jane too.

 

[asher__jo]

Why do we want this?

Elevated transit can have its place in limited circumstances, but many comments on this forum seem completely to gloss over the negatives, i.e. in the fact that the area underneath the guideway will be permanently in shade. I would have thought a better solution for our suburbs would be to redesign them to be more livable, not make being in them even less unpleasant for the poor bastards who have to live there. Can you imagine if we tried to solve the issues with the streetcar network by elevating their lines? No one would hang out on the streets where they run.

Personally, I would gladly accept the trivially decreased reliability of a grade integrated LRT line rather than see ugly concrete guideways thrown about all over the place. Transit is meant to serve cities, not the other way around.

Permanent shade is an odd drawback to reference. We are able to build high rises and able to mitigate shadows, and the same can definitely be done with other elevated structures.

 

[T3G]

Permanent shade is an odd drawback to reference. We are able to build high rises and able to mitigate shadows, and the same can definitely be done with other elevated structures.

There is no such thing as mitigating shadows generated by physical structures, it is physically impossible. All you can decide is where to build the structure, and whether the shade generated by it will be less of an inconvenience than if it had been dropped in another spot.

 

[Aplus23]

There is no such thing as mitigating shadows generated by physical structures, it is physically impossible. All you can decide is where to build the structure, and whether the shade generated by it will be less of an inconvenience than if it had been dropped in another spot.

You're worrying about shadows on the road? If the guideway is in the middle of the road, why would shadows be a big deal?

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Why do we want this?

Elevated transit can have its place in limited circumstances, but many comments on this forum seem completely to gloss over the negatives, i.e. in the fact that the area underneath the guideway will be permanently in shade. I would have thought a better solution for our suburbs would be to redesign them to be more livable, not make being in them even less unpleasant for the poor bastards who have to live there. Can you imagine if we tried to solve the issues with the streetcar network by elevating their lines? No one would hang out on the streets where they run.

Personally, I would gladly accept the trivially decreased reliability of a grade integrated LRT line rather than see ugly concrete guideways thrown about all over the place. Transit is meant to serve cities, not the other way around.

Seems like Line 5 & Line 6 would've been better off being built like this. Same goes for any future potential LRT on Eglinton East or Jane too.

Looking at how Vancouver did it, they generally run the Skytrain down old rail rights-of-way, at-grade-expressways like the Lougheed Highway, or down back alleys one street back from the main road. They actually try to avoid running it in the middle of a pedestrianized road when possible. Finch itself is debatable, but if they ever wanted to extend Line 6 further down Highway 27 to Woodbine elevated would be fine.