Richmond Hill Yonge Line 1 North Subway Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[BMO]

I don't mean to be too frank but: Is this going to happen or not? The last updates on the TTC website are from 2008!

once again

Metrolinx is currently undertaking
a business case assessment for the project. A
phased option to extend the subway
initially to Steeles is being considered
due to funding constraints

edit: also keep in mind it's only been on the radar for 3 years, considering other subway projects like the sheppard subway and DRL have been studied and planned for well over a decade each in their own respect.

This was originally planned to be the VIVA BRT from Finch to Hwy 7, of which money was going to be alotted to but York Region decided to hold out on the money ( I think it was upwards of 200 million, but don't quote me), in favour of pushing the subway up to highway 7, factors such as better than expected ridership and places to grow has put more pressure on York Region to meet it's growth targets. This is one attempt by the Region to reach those targets, supported by the subway.

 

[accura407]

As for why do it? Because consultants are paid to design what politicians want and don't mind getting paid to run around in circles. Politicians are elected on general sentiment rather than logic or technical understanding. It was the reason for TransitCity being 90% surface rail. It's also one of many reasons why Sheppard Subway P3 is lacking potential partners. I think that's one part where Miller failed to win public support for his plan, they didn't give sound bite explainations of the advantages in cost and impact. People don't want another 'Gardnier eye-sore' and there is not enough space for cars already at ground level, so that means people are in favour of trains where they can't see them. Most people don't every look at construction project costs beyond the total price tag.

So my next question then is...since tunnel boring machines have a difficult time navigating through Toronto's terrain, is there a large difference in costs between a shallow cut & cover setup vs TBM? Based on your explanation, thats the idea i am getting here...

Is there any cost figures out there for how much a Subway in Toronto costs when being built as a cut & cover? Every project out there on the radar is suburban, so why not do it? The right of ways for these avenues are so wide that you can build detour roads around the site without much problems to traffic flow...

"300 million/km" is the figure for tunnel boring machines and grand central stations
??? what is the cost of cut & cover and simple/modest stations?

that's the main question that should be answered...

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

once again

edit: also keep in mind it's only been on the radar for 3 years, considering other subway projects like the sheppard subway and DRL have been studied and planned for well over a decade each in their own respect.

This was originally planned to be the VIVA BRT from Finch to Hwy 7, of which money was going to be alotted to but York Region decided to hold out on the money ( I think it was upwards of 200 million, but don't quote me), in favour of pushing the subway up to highway 7, factors such as better than expected ridership and places to grow has put more pressure on York Region to meet it's growth targets. This is one attempt by the Region to reach those targets, supported by the subway.

Thank You.

 

[BMO]

So my next question then is...since tunnel boring machines have a difficult time navigating through Toronto's terrain, is there a large difference in costs between a shallow cut & cover setup vs TBM? Based on your explanation, thats the idea i am getting here...

Is there any cost figures out there for how much a Subway in Toronto costs when being built as a cut & cover? Every project out there on the radar is suburban, so why not do it? The right of ways for these avenues are so wide that you can build detour roads around the site without much problems to traffic flow...

"300 million/km" is the figure for tunnel boring machines and grand central stations
??? what is the cost of cut & cover and simple/modest stations?

that's the main question that should be answered...

Although the ROWs in the suburbs are wider, I would argue they carry more cars than a downtown street and would actually create quite a bit of disruption. In downtown, in general the streets have less capacity, and the transit takes on more of the ridership. Using cut and cover in the suburbs would not only disrupt private vehicle traffic, but also make transit an even worse option during construction.

There really is NO good place in Toronto (suburb or downtown) to do Cut and Cover construction on the ROW itself. People just need to accept the fact that if they want better transit they have to suffer for a bit for the ultimate good. Ideally cut and cover should be used when there is nothing above ground that would be disrupted like greenfield or abandoned grey field site, or on a ROW that can be easily expanded to accomodate the traffic and construction, etc. Nowadays it's just less disruptive to do tunneling and just cut and cover at the stations as it is necessary. Even though it costs more, I'm sure from a political standpoint the benefits of better mitigation definitely out-weigh the increased cost of this method.

 

[Markster]

Although the ROWs in the suburbs are wider, I would argue they carry more cars than a downtown street and would actually create quite a bit of disruption.

I believe his point is that because the ROW is wide, the road can be relocated within the ROW, and so capacity doesn't have to suffer, even with cut/cover construction.

In downtown and midtown, the roads have widened to the point where they fill their respective ROW, whereas in the suburbs, there still tends to be grassy expansion space.

 

[BMO]

I believe his point is that because the ROW is wide, the road can be relocated within the ROW, and so capacity doesn't have to suffer, even with cut/cover construction.

In downtown and midtown, the roads have widened to the point where they fill their respective ROW, whereas in the suburbs, there still tends to be grassy expansion space.

fair enough.

 

[accura407]

I believe his point is that because the ROW is wide, the road can be relocated within the ROW, and so capacity doesn't have to suffer, even with cut/cover construction.

In downtown and midtown, the roads have widened to the point where they fill their respective ROW, whereas in the suburbs, there still tends to be grassy expansion space.

That is exactly what i meant. Yes. Sheppard is so wide that you can realistically have an 8 lane boulevard on that road...in theory. This is something that cannot be done anywhere in downtown or midtown (Eglinton-Crosstown)

Therefore if the ROW for road space is double what exists, all it takes is clearing out the green grass on both sides and paving it for lanes while the center 3-4 lanes are excavated to build the subway...

Or another option is to just shift everything to one side (north or south) which would involve adding 2 new lanes + 2 existing lanes then the other half of the street can have cut and cover construction completed. As an example of Sheppard ROW:

|- - X X X X - -| is what Sheppard currently looks like
|- - - - X X X X| is what a Cut & Cover Construction would do

Notice that all the work happens within the city owned ROW, no disruptions to property. It can be done...the question is... is there the will?

 

[gweed123]

That is exactly what i meant. Yes. Sheppard is so wide that you can realistically have an 8 lane boulevard on that road...in theory. This is something that cannot be done anywhere in downtown or midtown (Eglinton-Crosstown)

Therefore if the ROW for road space is double what exists, all it takes is clearing out the green grass on both sides and paving it for lanes while the center 3-4 lanes are excavated to build the subway...

Or another option is to just shift everything to one side (north or south) which would involve adding 2 new lanes + 2 existing lanes then the other half of the street can have cut and cover construction completed. As an example of Sheppard ROW:

|- - X X X X - -| is what Sheppard currently looks like
|- - - - X X X X| is what a Cut & Cover Construction would do

Notice that all the work happens within the city owned ROW, no disruptions to property. It can be done...the question is... is there the will?

Good point. And that way you can bill the reconstruction of the road as a "streetscape improvement project". Only issue with doing C&C that way though is you would need extensive relocation of utilities and servicing.

 

[Markster]

The main bottlenecks would then be the intersections, where you might lose some dedicated turning lanes.

 

[accura407]

The main bottlenecks would then be the intersections, where you might lose some dedicated turning lanes.

Maybe, but remember...Intersections are screwed no matter what because you need to build stations. Don't get me wrong, disruptions will remain but it will not be in the magnitude of the Yonge subway or Cambie St in Vancouver. All construction will take place within city ROW and maintaining 4 continuous lanes IS definitely possible.

I'm just curious to know how much $$ could be saved by going C&C over TBM. If we're talking 150-200million/km then surely i think its worth the pain. Suddenly the Sheppard East extension underground to Kennedy is roughly $1 Billion with another $200-400 million for an elevated connection to Scarborough Town Centre. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[nfitz]

I'm just curious to know how much $$ could be saved by going C&C over TBM.

It's site-specific, but often we TBM because it's cheaper than C&C.

If we're talking 150-200million/km then surely i think its worth the pain.

I don't think any tunnelling technique is costing anywhere near that much in Toronto; even for twin tunnels. The $300 million/km number you see bounced around ($284 million/km for Spadina) is all in - not just the tunnels, but the track, signals, stations, vehicles, yard expansions, design, assessment, land aquisition, concrete liners, ... everything. The actually tunelling cost itself is only a portion of this. If you look at the 2 Spadina tunnelling contracts that were awarded, it covers 8.6 km of tunnel, Sheppard West station and Highway 407 station for about $683 million. That's $79 million/km if you assume the stations cost $0. I.e. all the tunnels and 1/3 of the stations is less than 28% of the entire project cost.

Maybe this is how we get these bizarre stories of why subways are cheaper in city X, because people are only looking at the tunnelling cost, rather than the entire project cost.

 

[BMO]

just out of curiosity, how expensive is it really to lay down tracks in a tunnel? I would imagine there would be relaitvely less complications in a tunnels as opposed to an at-grade rail placement.

 

[nfitz]

I would imagine there would be relaitvely less complications in a tunnels as opposed to an at-grade rail placement.

Tell that to the workers that died in the Toronto subway a few years ago from carbon monoxide poisoning!

 

[BMO]

Tell that to the workers that died in the Toronto subway a few years ago from carbon monoxide poisoning!

there's no need to troll, i'm asking a legitimate question. That's one way people learn things, they ask questions to people who apaprently know more than them.

 

[wopchop]

There would be relatively more complications, actually. Besides the aforementioned hazards of working in tunnels (a big deal), which would add lots of extra man hours (mitigating confined space hazards), it would also likely increase insurance costs for contractors in tunnels. Working in a tunnel also requires more logistic coordination. The tunnel can only be loaded and stocked from relatively few points in comparison to an open cut. You can't bring your materials to the point you're actually working at. You need to bring them to a staging area, and then unload them, and then ferry them down the tunnel to the working area. That's more money for cartage, more money for loading, and more money for coordination.