[nfitz]

The pre Ford plans call for Wynford to be de-grade separated, to create a better pedestrian environment, which I think is stupid.

Really! Missed that. Wynford is a funny street. It does feel very pedestrian-orientated just north of Eglinton. But then there's this hell to the south ... I can see why they might do that.

 

[Voltz]

Really! Missed that. Wynford is a funny street. It does feel very pedestrian-orientated just north of Eglinton. But then there's this hell to the south ... I can see why they might do that.

I'd rather have the underpass left open so vehicles do not have to cross the LRT tracks, they can still convert the ramps to a regular intersection so they do not feel like a mini free-way interchange and pedestrians can reach the platform at grade. I would also have stairs from Wynford up to the platform for those who do not want to wait to cross at street level.

 

[waltthizzney]

so why does this cost 8 billion when the canada line in vancouver cost 2 billion?

 

[Tulse]

so why does this cost 8 billion when the canada line in vancouver cost 2 billion?

This specific project does not cost 8 billion.

 

[BurlOak]

This specific project does not cost 8 billion.

The Ford Eglinton Crosstown was 25 km long (actually 19 km long of new construction and 6 km for converting the SRT to LRT). The cost was listed as $8.2B. Thats $330M/km, or $$360M/km for the new Eglinton portion.

The Canada Line was 18.5 km long for a cost of $2B - or $100M/km. This includes 9km of tunnel, 1.4 km of at-grade and 8 km of elevated.

I think that is the key question that is not being asked nor being answered. Why does it cost so much more in Toronto?

I am not sure who should ask or answer this question, but it is integral to the arguement. If there is a referendum on the Eglinton subway, it would make a huge difference if the cost is $6B, $8.2B, or somewhere (and where exactly) in between. Remember that the part of Eglinton in dispute is not a downtown setting.

 

[nfitz]

I think that is the key question that is not being asked nor being answered. Why does it cost so much more in Toronto?

Wasn't that explained in inordinate detail further up this thread, or in one of the other Transit City threads back in 2009 or 2010?

 

[Dan416]

Wasn't that explained in inordinate detail further up this thread, or in one of the other Transit City threads back in 2009 or 2010?

I think the issue is that nobody is satisfied with the answers being provided.

 

[leopetr]

so why does this cost 8 billion when the canada line in vancouver cost 2 billion?

Canada Line was supposed to be bored but the contractor cheaped out and used cut and cover, digging up the street for years and putting lots of businesses out of business.

Canada Line has very short stations and accordingly low capacity. It was running at capacity shortly after completion and will need to be upgraded soon.

There's a single-tracked section on the Canada Line, creating a built-in bottleneck.

Parts of the Canada line are elevated which is cheaper than tunnelling. Only the SRT rebuild part of Eglinton will be elevated.

 

[BurlOak]

Wasn't that explained in inordinate detail further up this thread, or in one of the other Transit City threads back in 2009 or 2010?

I recall a fair bit on why our tunnel boring was more expensive than others (larger diameter tunnel, more difficult soil condition, inflation), but I did not recall the other ideas discussed as much. Instead of comparing our tunnels to others, why not compare our grade-separated transit with capacity of 10,000/hr (expandable to 20k) to others.

Would Scarborough have accepted an elevated line - I do not recall it even being on the Table. Of course cost must come into it, so the question is, do people want median LRT (plus the burried section) for $6B, or fully underground for $9B (I am adding some to get the line to Sheppard as with the median/surface option), or $XB for an elevated line. If X=$6.5B, maybe elevated is the way to go, if X=$8B, then median LRT is better. If you want people, or councillors, to decide on this, they should be aware of all viable options to make an educated vote - and I think elevated is viable.

I may be able to make the same arguement with cut and cover instead of bored. If the cost of cut-and-cover undergournd is $6.5B, then maybe it should be considered. Would this leave one lane in each direction? Possibly business along the route could be compensated with some of the savings. Since funding is dictating the speed of this project and not engineering, perhaps shorter segments could be built at a time to minimize the disruption - and the contractor may be able to put more effort into finishing each short segment faster.

Maybe if Metorlinx builds this with P3, they could ask for proposals and decide beforehand what the benefit of a grade separated line (or burried) would be and give the tolerable lane closures and durations.

 

[BurlOak]

Canada Line was supposed to be bored but the contractor cheaped out and used cut and cover, digging up the street for years and putting lots of businesses out of business.

Possibly the City wrote a poor RFP document and there was too much wiggle room for the Contractor. But it is just as likely that it was the City (and not the Contractor) that cheaped out. The City saw the cost savings and decided the savings were worth the aggravation. There is aggravation with all types of construction - if the cost savings are large enough, the city can put up with a lot more complaints.

 

[ssiguy2]

Here's another question...............
Why does it cost $1.2 billion to simply transfer SkyTrain over to LRT and take a truly unbelievable 4 years to do it? How is it that Vancouver's new 11km Evergreen SkyTrain line costs only $1.4 billion {including a one km tunnel} with 7 new stations and is only going to take 3 years? How is it that Calgary's new 8km elevated/at grade/tunneled West LRT with 100 meter stations is only costing $800 million and taking only 3 years?
Maybe it's Vancouver's dirt cheap real estate or not having to build to earthquake standards or maybe it's due to the very low wages of Calgary. Then again it may, just may, be because Toronto refuses accountability for their scarse transit funds and Toronto hands out transit infrastructure contracts the same way Montreal hands out it's highway & road contracts.

 

[Palma]

it should be noted that all the staff only work on two stations each.l so it is possible that some staff are more informed then others. i found this out because i showed up at 855 and they were almost paking up and i wanted to ask questions about the eglinton west design of the lack of a south entrance but no one had worked on that project. instead people were only familiar with the keele and caledonia stations. the one question i shouod have asked is will caledonia somehow connect to the go network.

My concern was also a lack of entrance on Keele (north). There will be a south entrance on Keele south at Eglinton and two on Eglinton on the north side (one on the east and one on the west side of Trethewey). I thought it was unnecessary to have 2 at Trethewey and there should, be 1 entrance on Keele north for the residential area north of Eglinton and Keele or at least keele and Yore Rd. The way one of them explained it was that the station box was only so big. Actually quite small – the size of the LRT. So if they put an entrance on Keele north or at Keele and Yore Rd, they would need to excavate and build a foundation for the stairs/escalators to go down a level to where the LRT will be.

They also have to expropriate one of the houses on Keele north and they have already been notified.. I had forgotton that there are a few houses on keele just north of Eglinton which could also explain why there would be no entrance on keele north. I feel that the station entrances should not be right on Eglinton because Eglinton should be reserved for retail, shops, etc. When you go to the Jane subway on Bloor for instance or even the Ossington station on Bloor the station entrances are not on Bloor. The Jane entrance is off Jane north of Bloor and the Ossington station again is north of Bloor off of ossington. The way one of them explained it the entrances on the outside would be covered so there would be protection from the elements. So it would seem like the Keele station would be prominently displayed. Not sure if that’s the only way they think people will take it – if they see it.

 

[rbt]

Possibly the City wrote a poor RFP document and there was too much wiggle room for the Contractor. But it is just as likely that it was the City (and not the Contractor) that cheaped out. The City saw the cost savings and decided the savings were worth the aggravation. There is aggravation with all types of construction - if the cost savings are large enough, the city can put up with a lot more complaints.

The city wrote a bad RFP and got stuck with the results because of Olympic timing constraints. They've indicated they will not allow cut & cover again.

 

[smallspy]

Here's another question...............
Why does it cost $1.2 billion to simply transfer SkyTrain over to LRT and take a truly unbelievable 4 years to do it? How is it that Vancouver's new 11km Evergreen SkyTrain line costs only $1.4 billion {including a one km tunnel} with 7 new stations and is only going to take 3 years?

Because you are only getting half of the costs and timeframe.

The EA and some of the detailed design for the Evergreen Line was finished in 2010 - last I checked, that was 2 years ago. The project was okay'd in 2008, which means that it will take 8 years from the time it was funded. Then there is the cost of the vehicles, and their storage (or expansion of the maintenance facility) - neither of which is included in that $1.4bil.

Generally when we cost things out in Toronto, they include everything - EA, detailed design, vehicles, etc., along with the timeframe to encompass all of the work to do be done. The $2.6bil for the Vaughan extension includes the 10 TR trains, the new connection to and the expansion of Wilson Yard, as well as the millions of dollars required for detailed design. Remember that the first tender for construction on the line - the launch shaft at Steeles West - was only awarded in March of 2010. 5 and a half years of construction to build an 8.6km fully-tunnelled line - the extension to Vaughan - actually sounds about right in terms of time.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[andrewpmk]

Canada Line was supposed to be bored but the contractor cheaped out and used cut and cover, digging up the street for years and putting lots of businesses out of business.

Canada Line has very short stations and accordingly low capacity. It was running at capacity shortly after completion and will need to be upgraded soon.

There's a single-tracked section on the Canada Line, creating a built-in bottleneck.

Parts of the Canada line are elevated which is cheaper than tunnelling. Only the SRT rebuild part of Eglinton will be elevated.

Even though Canada Line has ridiculously short platforms it probably could accomodate much more frequent headways (automated systems can go as low as 90 seconds) if the single track turnarounds at YVR and Richmond were rebuilt as double track. Surface light rail cannot efficiently run more frequently than every 5 minutes with full signal priority. Also the Transit City proposal was poorly designed by LRT standards because it had too many minor stops, small islands rather than real stations as stops, no pedestrian overpasses/underpasses at stops and no crossing arms. If you are running a high capacity LRT line it needs to be designed similar to the Calgary C-Train system or I refuse to support it.