cassius
Active Member
I should point out that "Dennis and Lea" was also submitted by a UT forum member, though I haven't seen him around these parts in some time.
|
|
|
diminutive
Active Member
NYC's SAS costs are astronomical and highly anomalous by any standards. Even London's Crossrail, which involves several highly complex transfers underneath Central London works out to just under 200m/km in CAD. So, yea, if the starting point for an LRT running down the median of a this is ballpark to a system which has to tunnel through London, there is something odd. And, presumably, this extension wouldn't even need cost drivers like a new operations/maintenance center.
I get that people should be cautious comparing projects since no two circumstances are the same, but circumstances aren't *that* dissimilar either. There are cities with more expensive labor, more challenging interchanges, denser urban fabrics and more challenging geology that manage to seemingly control costs more efficiently than us.
rbt
Senior Member
Careful with price comparisons for this one. A majority of the Crossrail corridor existed and was government owned before the project was created; much of it already had track. Much of the route is above ground.
Then you get pieces like the $1.7B ($CAD) Tottenham Court Road station (single station) with changes that extend well beyond the necessities of the Crosrail project.
Adjusting costs for the CrossRail to compare them to other projects is not a minor project.
CrossRail is closer to electrification of the Lake Shore East/West GO line with a tunnel from Bathurst to Jarvis combined with a major rebuild of Union Station.
sixrings
Senior Member
outside eglinton west is the new flexy streetcars... lrvs... or are they the lrts?
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
^Good question. Outside of Adelaide, Australia, I don't think Flexitys are used anywhere outside of Europe. Most of the systems that use them are German and use them for streetcar-like operation.
sixrings
Senior Member
no i mean outside of eglinton west there is a NEW LRT or STREETCAR..... I dunno which one... its open from 10am to 7pm daily... im going tomorrow.
Voltz
Senior Member
It's the Metrolinx mockup from the CNE that is parked outside of Eglinton West currently, it's the LRT vehicle for the new lines.
diminutive
Active Member
A Jane-YYZ extension would be 100% above ground along a government owned corridor as well but is still not exactly coming in as cheap.
Yea, I get the point that Crosslink's costs are uneven over its segments, probably with the central component costing well over 3-400 million per km and the outer portions costing 100m/km or less. In that sense the comparison with ECLRT works quite well; an expensive central tunnel going out into inexpensive above ground rail. The weird part is the average cost for the Crossrail, which as you point out includes things like a 1.7b Tottenham Court Station, isn't that far from the cost of the erstwhile 'cheap' part of the Eglinton LRT.
Though I take your point that it's an imperfect comparison. I only mentioned Crossrail because the comment I was responding to argued that our capital costs were reasonable by comparison to London and NYC. London has managed some very affordable RT expansion (Tramlink, Overground, Crossrail), while NYC's huge costs reflect station requirements which clearly aren't applicable to an LRT running in the middle of a huge suburban road.
When Transit City was first proposed, these in-median LRT lines were supposed to be ~50-70m/km, yet 5 years later the prices seem to have escalated to double that. It's a bit troubling.
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
Yes, but that corridor is actually being changed. Land expropriated along it's entire length, street rebuilt along it's entire length, track put down along it's entire length, etc.
There are portions of the London project which won't even be getting new track. They're not even getting new signalling (ATO/ATP contract applies to the central/shared portion only). The spending on those segments is maybe $1M/km for new signage.
You really need to stick to dig into the individual contracts for each segment to get a per km cost of the project. The majority of expenditures of the ~$23B CAD project are in the 21km tunnel portion but as I said it includes changes reaching well beyond the Crossrail project.
Image that Lake Shore East/West did not meet at Union but were instead terminated at Dufferin and Coxwell respectively (no through tracks). Now close the gap via a tunnel and draw the entire length from Hamilton to Oshawa as a single line with an additional siding or platform here or there. That's effectively what London project is; a huge undertaking but very difficult to perform cost comparisons on.
Last edited:
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Flexity LRV's are used in Minneapolis, and Melbourne according to Bombardier. Five German cities utilize flexity's in Light Rail operating conditions. This include both low and high floor LRVs.
sixrings
Senior Member
I noticed on the advertisement at Eglinton west was the mention of PRIMOVE technology.... If the LRTS may infact use this technology wouldn't it be substantially cheaper to convert the Sheppard Subway to LRT? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZylrGjebnw... with this technology you would not have to increase the heights of the tunnels from yonge to don mills.
Nobina
New Member
I've been wondering this too, since the Bombardier website for the Flexity Freedom does specifically state optional 100% catenary-free operation. Why couldn't through service using LRT on Sheppard be implemented using this technology?
With through service, they could potentially build a portal somewhere to the west of where the current tunnels end (around Senlac?) and run the line above ground on Sheppard west to Downsview. With the opening of the TYSSE in 2016, an LRT connection between the Yonge and Spadina subway lines is essential, whether it be an eastward extension of the Finch West line, or a westward extension of the Sheppard line.
Sorry to get a little off topic.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I mentioned this tech quite a while ago. It would be easier for tunnels but more importantly it would be far easier and cheaper LRT tech to use on the current SRT. The reason being is that all the current SRT stations are going to have to have the entire roof of the building torn up and replaced due to the added height of the catenary wires. This tech would mean that instead of redoing the stations all that would be needed would be to take out tracks and replace them, a far cheaper and quicker endevour. It also has the obvious benefit of not having the eyesore of the overhead wires.
Of course if one does this type of LRT, then we are getting back to prorietary tech and if Toronto is doing that then they shouldn't tear down the SRt to begin with.
Of course if one does this type of LRT, then we are getting back to prorietary tech and if Toronto is doing that then they shouldn't tear down the SRt to begin with.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
How many installations of PRIMOVE are out there? I know Alstom has their own ground power system, and it's limited to a few installations in France, and one somewhere in the Middle East. It'll be considerably more expensive to install and maintain than conventional OCS, and it's not like Toronto is new to OCS, so visual obstruction is a moot issue. There's lots of way to reduce the visibilty of OCS.
I was wondering about the tunnel height. If an option to convert LRT was considered, couldn't the hard rubber pads in which the tracks sit on be taken out, and the tracks be attached directly the concrete bed?
I was wondering about the tunnel height. If an option to convert LRT was considered, couldn't the hard rubber pads in which the tracks sit on be taken out, and the tracks be attached directly the concrete bed?
nfitz
Superstar
We've been debating Primove here on Sheppard since Miller was mayor. I think the conclusion was it might make things in the tunnel easier, but the worst problem was actually in the stations, where the train would still sit too high if the raised the track level. They'd have to drop the platforms at all the existing stations, which wouldn't be cheap.