Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[drum118]

The answer here is they paid for a chunk of the land that TIFF owned, and construction was not encumbered in anyway.

Building over a subway station costs extra. If they have the choice to build 50m away or directly overtop, 50m away is by default the cheaper option.

They're not going to pay extra in construction costs + extra to the city to build over a subway station without some significant benefit; such as being able to build 1000 units instead of 500 units due to zoning differences. The city can and does sell excess density frequently for a price (section 37 funds); subways don't need to be involved for that.

The DRL through downtown might be different as the city might find commercial partners willing to pay $50M ($20M to the city, $30M to the construction contractor) in exchange for $2/sqft from their customers and $10/sqft at PATH level; but condos don't get a premium from end-buyers for subway connected versus subway adjacent. For a station like Leslie or Sheppard, there is absolutely zero benefit to the developer.


Eglinton Station has had a plan for development over it well before Eglinton LRT was proposed. TTC even had the land zoned for a half-dozen buildings. It's still a fenced in mess and unencumbered adjacent land is being sold and built on.


For this to work, the city will need to build the foundation for any overhead buildings as part of station construction at their own expense. This will probably add $40M to each station price and comes with the risk that it still may not sell at a price that breaks even.

One only has to look at the amount of foundation work that has to be done to protect the existing tunnel for the University line under the Exhibit site. There is no parking levels under the building since the site is too small for one.

The extra COST to protect the subway tunnel is past onto the buyer at a higher cost/ft than it normal would be for one with out the protection requirement.

The plan TTC had for the foundation of the old Eglinton bus terminal for a new development above it will change for the better with the LRT in the picture now. There will be far less bus bays there now with the LRT replacing the Eglinton Buses and cheaper to build it.

The Down side to the cost saving is the existing station will have to be move north for better transferring between the 2 lines with most of that cost being pickup by Metrolinx. It will mean 2 years plus of no service on the Yonge lines on the weekend with some closures lasting a week.

Looks at what taking place in New York for building over a Live yard and line. End results is better land use and more property tax income for the city. Same thing taking place in Europe these days.

All land around all the new station should be protected for future development above them with the station entrance being part of the ground level. In some cases, foundation should be built for future development to allow fast construction of it at a low disruption to riders. Yes it will require extra funds to build the foundation that may no come, but for the ones that have the highest potential of seeing development over time will pay for the ones that don't see any.

One only has to look at Emerald City to see where TTC greed cost them income by not having the development over the entrance and part of the development. An eye sore.

 

[pw20]

The answer here is they paid for a chunk of the land that TIFF owned, and construction was not encumbered in anyway.

Building over a subway station costs extra. If they have the choice to build 50m away or directly overtop, 50m away is by default the cheaper option.

They're not going to pay extra in construction costs + extra to the city to build over a subway station without some significant benefit; such as being able to build 1000 units instead of 500 units due to zoning differences. The city can and does sell excess density frequently for a price (section 37 funds); subways don't need to be involved for that.

The DRL through downtown might be different as the city might find commercial partners willing to pay $50M ($20M to the city, $30M to the construction contractor) in exchange for $2/sqft from their customers and $10/sqft at PATH level; but condos don't get a premium from end-buyers for subway connected versus subway adjacent. For a station like Leslie or Sheppard, there is absolutely zero benefit to the developer.


Eglinton Station has had a plan for development over it well before Eglinton LRT was proposed. TTC even had the land zoned for a half-dozen buildings. It's still a fenced in mess and unencumbered adjacent land is being sold and built on.


For this to work, the city will need to build the foundation for any overhead buildings as part of station construction at their own expense. This will probably add $40M to each station price and comes with the risk that it still may not sell at a price that breaks even.

I didn't consider the additional costs associated with construction - but land costs should be cheaper, ie free. TTC expropriates land and then sells it to developer at no cost to developer who then supports construction of station?

Again I realize this isn't a wave your magic wand situation... but seems to me there could be some business case to think a little smarter about station construction. The MTR in Hong Kong is a huge property developer.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

Except the rules here are the TTC cannot expropriate land for any other reason than building transit. Expropriating and then selling to a developer is not allowed.

 

[rbt]

I didn't consider the additional costs associated with construction - but land costs should be cheaper, ie free. TTC expropriates land and then sells it to developer at no cost to developer who then supports construction of station?

That specifically would be illegal. TTC would need to buy the land at market rates without the use of an expropriation process.

Also, land in the north of the city is essentially free already. $2M for a 1 acre lot is only a couple thousand dollars per unit.

Downtown, where developers are paying $50M per acre is a different but it's been a long time since subway has been built downtown.

The MTR in Hong Kong is a huge property developer.

Also illegal for the city to do. See Montreal and Bixi for a recent Canadian example of government competing against the private sector.


The closest you will get in Canada is for the city to build in a building foundation into the station, at the cities cost, then sell off the air-rights after the fact in a package with the excess expropriated land (there are always some small pieces). The buyer would still need to do land consolidations from the neighbours.

While good for tax revenue, I seriously doubt a contribution to the station capital would be made. If anything, I think it would make the overall government capital investment higher.

It might be worth trying with the downtown DRL stations as we know they would sell eventually (possibly 10 to 15 years after the fact, but eventually).

 

[pw20]

Except the rules here are the TTC cannot expropriate land for any other reason than building transit. Expropriating and then selling to a developer is not allowed.

Presumably we could change the law so that a percentage of value capture created via development could be factored into the price.

Anyway... I just think saying: we can't do - or developers won't do is hindering Transit Oriented Development. I'm not as naive as RoFo to think that development will pay for our subway lines - but I do think we can do more so that new stations are integrated into development.

Portland for example uses easements and federal infrastructure funds to purchase land and resell to developers. I don't its a panacea, however, I do think we can do more and think slightly more innovatively; some of these stations along Eglinton - (avenue road, bathurst, mt pleasant, laird) are crying out for great avenue style developments.

 

[smallspy]

Except the rules here are the TTC cannot expropriate land for any other reason than building transit. Expropriating and then selling to a developer is not allowed.

Really? Then how did they build the tower overtop of York Mills Station? That was where the original TTC bus terminal was located, and the TTC sold the land with the caveat that both the TTC terminal and the GO terminal be relocated inside of it. Or hell, the same could be asked of all of the extraneous properties that the TTC gave to Build Toronto in the past 5 years.

Going back to Eglinton, part of the problem is that at least some of the locations are being used for other purposes in the construction process, and can't be allowed to go to market until after the construction is complete. The former bus terminal at Eglinton is just one example of this, and I suspect that there may be others as well.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[rbt]

Presumably we could change the law so that a percentage of value capture created via development could be factored into the price.

This is one of the funding tools being considered by Metrolinx. Interestingly, it's been rejected by Toronto council a couple of times.

 

[rbt]

Really? Then how did they build the tower overtop of York Mills Station? That was where the original TTC bus terminal was located, and the TTC sold the land with the caveat that both the TTC terminal and the GO terminal be relocated inside of it.

Right. They expropriated for the bus terminal and at a later point rebuilt the bus terminal. TTC can certainly partner with developers to build over their infrastructure. What they cannot do is expropriate additional land for private developers.

Dundas Square was the final nail in that idea.

 

[howl]

The problem with building over LRT stations is the stations are a lot more than just a staircase coming to the surface in most cases. If you look at the plans available online you'll see almost every station entrance includes ventilation shafts which take up a large area and can't be built over (without expensive redirection) and many also have a traction power substations. That leaves very little room for all the things a residential or office building needs to have on the ground floor, such as a lobby, loading bays, elevators, fire stairs and underground parking access. In addition there is little or no room for underground parking, which might be permissible on a major transit line but may not be marketable.

A joint development will only work on very, very large sites, like the TTC lands at Yonge and Eglinton, or at Don Mills, where the development's ground floor requirements can be built beside the station and then perhaps the upper level units can cantilever over the station. Quite simply, while its a very good idea from an urban design point-of-view to build over the stations on smaller sites, no private developer is going to risk getting involved in a joint development when there are so many technical challenges to overcome. It's more profitable for them to buy the land next door and build their own building - connected to a station by a walkway.

 

[nfitz]

I do hope Metrolinx and the TTC will actually look to Europe and do better research on how they handle de-icing on trolley wires over there. While its only a once per 40 years or so occurrence, lets be better prepared on a larger overhead network in the future.

Why Europe? Wouldn't ice events like that be much less frequent than Toronto?

 

[officedweller]

Much of the station infrastructure can be under the roadway, with vent grills in the sidewalk. The only part of the station that needs to be on adjacent developable land is the point of access and maybe ticketing halls.

King Edward Station (underground) on the Canada Line in Vancouver will have a midrise condo partly cantilevered over the station house (without footings through the station). See render and existing site pics here:

http://yuanhengcanada.com/?post_type=portfolio&p=44

More info here (including floorplans and cross-sections):

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/4099cambie/index.htm

 

[W. K. Lis]

Much of the station infrastructure can be under the roadway, with vent grills in the sidewalk. The only part of the station that needs to be on adjacent developable land is the point of access and maybe ticketing halls.

King Edward Station (underground) on the Canada Line in Vancouver will have a midrise condo partly cantilevered over the station house (without footings through the station). See render and existing site pics here:

http://yuanhengcanada.com/?post_type=portfolio&p=44

More info here (including floorplans and cross-sections):

http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/4099cambie/index.htm

Remember the summer of 2013 and the flooding on the streets. Unless the grates include vast storm sewer connections, it would be better if those vents were raised above any possible flood situation.

These vents provide seating and include a little artistic presence.

 

[Johnny Au]

Where exactly were the photos taken? The top photo looks like Toronto becoming Venice.

 

[Wrenkin]

Second looks like New York, but you see the same thing in Vancouver above the Canada Line.

 

[Johnny Au]

Second looks like New York, but you see the same thing in Vancouver above the Canada Line.

Here is the URL of the second image: http://blog.archpaper.com/wordpress...20111024_mta-flood-mitigation-016-500x375.jpg
Since it contains "mta," it obviously means that it was taken in New York City.