Toronto Harbour Ferries

[the lemur]

Fixed pedestrian bridges are about $1200 per linear foot (10 foot wide bridge, North Carolina 2010).

Highway movable bridges are about $1450 to 2000 per square foot (Florida 2011, materials and construction: not EA or land). A 10 foot wide by 1000 foot long span would start at $15M and probably wind up at about $25M for EA, land value, roadway improvement (Fire/Ambulance will want to use it), etc.

Perhaps add another $2M for court costs/delays caused by the islanders who are disapointed about losing their winter ferry.

And what's the rate for a tunnel like the one going to the island airport?

 

[rbt]

And what's the rate for a tunnel like the one going to the island airport?

A tunnel wouldn't be an option due to low pedestrian traffic combined and security concerns (really easy to trap someone in the middle).

Even if constructing a tunnel was cheaper, the maintenance costs would be significantly higher.

 

[BurlOak]

Fixed pedestrian bridges are about $1200 per linear foot (10 foot wide bridge, North Carolina 2010).

Highway movable bridges are about $1450 to 2000 per square foot (Florida 2011, materials and construction: not EA or land). A 10 foot wide by 1000 foot long span would start at $15M and probably wind up at about $25M for EA, land value, roadway improvement (Fire/Ambulance will want to use it), etc.

Perhaps add another $2M for court costs/delays caused by the islanders who are disapointed about losing their winter ferry.

I was going to say that regular highway bridges are about $5000 to $8000 per square metre ($700 per square foot) and about twice as much for a moveable bridge and 3 times as much for a tunnel.

The cost of $1200 per linear foot works out to $120 per square foot - which seems low. I would guess that this would be for lightly travelled bridges that possibly are not even accessed by maintenance vehicles of any size.

 

[rbt]

The cost of $1200 per linear foot works out to $120 per square foot - which seems low. I would guess that this would be for lightly travelled bridges that possibly are not even accessed by maintenance vehicles of any size.

Correct, that price was for a simple pedestrian only bridge in North Carolina. No vehicles would be able to use it at all.

 

[k10ery]

The island airport tunnel is estimated at $80 million but I guess it is being overbuilt like all airport projects in Canada.

Island ferry revenues are supposedly $6 million a year, which suggests something like 1 million trips. If that is right, then a fixed link would actually pay for itself in reduced ferry costs, and reduced hassle of waiting in line, etc. Of course you couldn't eliminate the ferry but you could downsize it a fair bit.

 

[themarc]

themarc:

You can still have drawbridges or bridges with moveable span right? Cost would be an issue, obviously.

AoD

True but the size of the span would be restrictive too. Its about 200 yards across and that whole channel needs to be navigable at any given time - so the support columns would have to be on dry land IMO.

 

[themarc]

Fixed pedestrian bridges are about $1200 per linear foot (10 foot wide bridge, North Carolina 2010).

Highway movable bridges are about $1450 to 2000 per square foot (Florida 2011, materials and construction: not EA or land). A 10 foot wide by 1000 foot long span would start at $15M and probably wind up at about $25M for EA, land value, roadway improvement (Fire/Ambulance will want to use it), etc.

Perhaps add another $2M for court costs/delays caused by the islanders who are disapointed about losing their winter ferry.

I highly doubt any islanders would miss their winter ferry - the ferry staff might tho...

 

[rbt]

I highly doubt any islanders would miss their winter ferry - the ferry staff might tho...

Really? Very very few islanders have destinations at Cherry and Unwin.

I would rather ride inside a ferry (heated, sheltered from wind during the trip, etc.) than walk north on Cherry in winter weather.

 

[the lemur]

True but the size of the span would be restrictive too. Its about 200 yards across and that whole channel needs to be navigable at any given time - so the support columns would have to be on dry land IMO.

It's well over 250 yards even at its narrowest. What about a swing bridge?

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

Okay, riddle me this. A very expensive pedestrian link is already underway to the airport.

Now, pedestrians can't cross the airfield, chiefly on account of whirling blades of death descending from above, and can't go around it, beacuse the runway extends the entire width of the island. To build a pedestrian walkway, you'd actually have to fill in the lake to create more island around the exclusion zone.

But as it turns out, the Port Authority is already getting us halfway there. What would it take to create a raised landform walkway around the eastern perimeter of the airfield, linking the tunnel and Hanlan's Point?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If history is a guide (e.g. footbridges across the quays along the waterfront, as per the WT plan) - the TPA would probably loath to have any kind of structure for pedestrian purposes. Besides, there is something exceedingly corporate, antiseptic about the walkway that really clashes with the islands "experience" I think.

AoD

 

[the lemur]

Okay, riddle me this. A very expensive pedestrian link is already underway to the airport.

Now, pedestrians can't cross the airfield, chiefly on account of whirling blades of death descending from above, and can't go around it, beacuse the runway extends the entire width of the island. To build a pedestrian walkway, you'd actually have to fill in the lake to create more island around the exclusion zone.

But as it turns out, the Port Authority is already getting us halfway there. What would it take to create a raised landform walkway around the eastern perimeter of the airfield, linking the tunnel and Hanlan's Point?

Short answer: it's possible, but they just don't want to.

My impression is that non-passenger pedestrians wouldn't be allowed to cross over to the airport part of the island even if it didn't involve building a landform that skirted the airfield - even if it emerged indoors and airport users could go to the airport while others could continue walking to Hanlan's Point, the security issues involved in filtering the pedestrians are just too onerous.

 

[themarc]

Okay, riddle me this. A very expensive pedestrian link is already underway to the airport.

Now, pedestrians can't cross the airfield, chiefly on account of whirling blades of death descending from above, and can't go around it, beacuse the runway extends the entire width of the island. To build a pedestrian walkway, you'd actually have to fill in the lake to create more island around the exclusion zone.

But as it turns out, the Port Authority is already getting us halfway there. What would it take to create a raised landform walkway around the eastern perimeter of the airfield, linking the tunnel and Hanlan's Point?

Actually that pointy has been made to the TPA already. No word back yet but it might be a way to appease the opposition.

 

[themarc]

Short answer: it's possible, but they just don't want to.

My impression is that non-passenger pedestrians wouldn't be allowed to cross over to the airport part of the island even if it didn't involve building a landform that skirted the airfield - even if it emerged indoors and airport users could go to the airport while others could continue walking to Hanlan's Point, the security issues involved in filtering the pedestrians are just too onerous.

Easy - Pedestrians to the Island (and most have bikes) have to use the ferry (which will still be running). We asked the TPA about doing this well over a year ago but before the roadway at the end of the runway was too close to the threshold - now that it would go around by where the buoy's are currently anchored the glide slope clearance is more than adequate for a short "shielded" traverse of the runway.

Might be doable and optically acceptable.

 

[dowlingm]

I'm for an Eastern Gap bridge or tunnel (with vehicular access limited to TTC and EMS). It wouldn't have to replace the ferries, just take the pressure off/create additional capacity. The TTC should then have year round service (though I've always thought making it a branch of Pape to be an awkward choice, especially since it has been a non-accessible transfer point to the BD line and will be until the current renovations are done) and if they get off their ass and built the Cherry LRT then shuttle services can bring people to and from the terminus for onward travel during periods of high demand. If the TTC were given back the Ferries and accepted tokens/transfers the ferries wouldn't lack for trade even with a bridge taking the pressure off. I'm sure the residents wouldn't be thrilled but that's too bad. People who live near the CNE or High Park or other high draw areas can't dig a moat around their homes and charge a disproportionate fee to cross it.

As for people having to schlep to the Eastern Gap - I think that's a good thing. The more eyes on the portlands the more people will be invested in Waterfront Toronto not screwing it up.

EDIT: one other point - the Airport Tunnel is being combined with a water supply project for the city so the sticker price might be higher than a solely ped tunnel would be.