Disparishun
Active Member
No, Washington DC gets less than a third as much snow as Toronto on average.
Toronto Spadina Subway Extension Emergency Exits | ?m | 1s | TTC | IBI Group
- Thread starter 299 bloor call control.
- Start date
No, Washington DC gets less than a third as much snow as Toronto on average.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
Cost escalation also comes from the attitude that 'we have a contingency built in, lets use it' that allows for scope creep. If the economy had kept construction prices high I would think the stations would be the first thing reduced back to econo boxes to fit within the budget.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
If ballooning code requirements are a problem, we can always change the codes, lest it becomes impossible to build anything.
Expensive decisions are not always the result of code requirements...the most expensive decisions aren't, anyway. Larger walkways and second exits and elevators and so on are all desirable, even though they cause costs to rise beyond what older stations were built for. Yet building codes did not dictate running the entire Spadina extension underground. There's absolutely no reason, not a single reason, why it should be underground north of York U. The only reason to run underground between Downsview and York U might be elevation issues - going up and then back down might not work in that 3-4km span. Perhaps running 100% underground merits an 'operational rating' or whatever of, say, 98, while having large surface/trenched/elevated sections would merit a rating of *just* 95. It goes way beyond "saving a few bucks." If this obsession with tunnels wasn't an issue, an entire billion dollars could probably be saved just on this 8.6km extension, enough for an entire project somewhere else or enough to subsidize financial sinkholes like the Queen streetcar or the Steeles East bus for an eternity.
Uh, the opposite of overbuilding is not boring. Yes, these people are 100% right and there's stations that are overbuilt and boring/ugly (Leslie and Kennedy come to mind), as well as stations that are scaled right and attractive (Rosedale), or overbuilt and attractive (Downsview), or scaled right and boring/ugly (many fit this description, though some are ugly due to neglect and aging).
As for art and design, it doesn't need to cost anything extra to get better looking stations. Sheppard's platform, for instance, has that low-res tiled mural. It makes the station and probably cost no more than one or two million extra beyond regular tiles, if that much. The cost of an arched ceiling in a passageway, or the cost of better-placed lighting, or the cost of a different colour of precast or using brick on that one wall instead of plastic panels...all of this is very trivial. We don't need to hire international architects and build mini Guggenheims.
Scaling stations correctly can be tricky. Bessarion, for instance, might be considered overbuilt because of a large mezzanine level, an enormous entrance hut with 3 automatic sliding doors, etc., but it really is a very basic station. There's two exits but for some reason they're both in the middle of the platform - it would have made infinitely more sense to have one exit at each end of the platform, bringing the station closer to more people. Why does Bessarion need this empty mezzanine level? Why not have a two-storey platform level? The whole shebang needs to be excavated to build the station, but why fill it all back up again with concrete and lighting and tiles? It costs money to build and more to maintain.
Bayview has some of the TTC's most gargantuan spaces, but it has them because the station is so deep. It would have been better if the entire Bayview & Sheppard intersection had been excavated down 20-30 feet - they excavated almost the whole neighbourhood during construction, anyway, but likely didn't do this because of some stupid detail like temporary road access to one gas station on the corner.
If Spadina stations were on the surface, or slightly elevated or slightly trenched, the savings would be absolutely enormous, even if tens of extra millions in property acquisitions were necessary. Stations wouldn't be outdoors like that DC example, they could be outdoors like Yorkdale or Midland or Davisville, which is to say not really outdoors at all.
Expensive decisions are not always the result of code requirements...the most expensive decisions aren't, anyway. Larger walkways and second exits and elevators and so on are all desirable, even though they cause costs to rise beyond what older stations were built for. Yet building codes did not dictate running the entire Spadina extension underground. There's absolutely no reason, not a single reason, why it should be underground north of York U. The only reason to run underground between Downsview and York U might be elevation issues - going up and then back down might not work in that 3-4km span. Perhaps running 100% underground merits an 'operational rating' or whatever of, say, 98, while having large surface/trenched/elevated sections would merit a rating of *just* 95. It goes way beyond "saving a few bucks." If this obsession with tunnels wasn't an issue, an entire billion dollars could probably be saved just on this 8.6km extension, enough for an entire project somewhere else or enough to subsidize financial sinkholes like the Queen streetcar or the Steeles East bus for an eternity.
Uh, the opposite of overbuilding is not boring. Yes, these people are 100% right and there's stations that are overbuilt and boring/ugly (Leslie and Kennedy come to mind), as well as stations that are scaled right and attractive (Rosedale), or overbuilt and attractive (Downsview), or scaled right and boring/ugly (many fit this description, though some are ugly due to neglect and aging).
As for art and design, it doesn't need to cost anything extra to get better looking stations. Sheppard's platform, for instance, has that low-res tiled mural. It makes the station and probably cost no more than one or two million extra beyond regular tiles, if that much. The cost of an arched ceiling in a passageway, or the cost of better-placed lighting, or the cost of a different colour of precast or using brick on that one wall instead of plastic panels...all of this is very trivial. We don't need to hire international architects and build mini Guggenheims.
Scaling stations correctly can be tricky. Bessarion, for instance, might be considered overbuilt because of a large mezzanine level, an enormous entrance hut with 3 automatic sliding doors, etc., but it really is a very basic station. There's two exits but for some reason they're both in the middle of the platform - it would have made infinitely more sense to have one exit at each end of the platform, bringing the station closer to more people. Why does Bessarion need this empty mezzanine level? Why not have a two-storey platform level? The whole shebang needs to be excavated to build the station, but why fill it all back up again with concrete and lighting and tiles? It costs money to build and more to maintain.
Bayview has some of the TTC's most gargantuan spaces, but it has them because the station is so deep. It would have been better if the entire Bayview & Sheppard intersection had been excavated down 20-30 feet - they excavated almost the whole neighbourhood during construction, anyway, but likely didn't do this because of some stupid detail like temporary road access to one gas station on the corner.
If Spadina stations were on the surface, or slightly elevated or slightly trenched, the savings would be absolutely enormous, even if tens of extra millions in property acquisitions were necessary. Stations wouldn't be outdoors like that DC example, they could be outdoors like Yorkdale or Midland or Davisville, which is to say not really outdoors at all.
nfitz
Superstar
Correct. Much less snow in D.C. If you look at the 1971-2000 climate normals for Reagan National Airport you'll see that the average annual snowfall is only 15.2 inches (38.6 cm). Yet the 1971-2000 snowfall for Pearson airport is is 115.4 cm.
Also it is much warmer in Washington than Toronto, so when there is snow, it normally melts quickly. Their coldest month is January, with an average temperature of 34.9°F (1.6°C) with December and February being 37.5°F (3.1°C) and 38.1°F (3.4°C) respectively. Our January average is -6.3°C with December and February being -2.9°C and -5.4°C respectively.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
What would change for Finch West station besides the finishes if it was designed more cheaply? It is a two floor rectangle under the street, a straight hall to stairs and an entrance building, and a straight hall to a bus platform. It seems like a stretch to call Finch West overbuilt when it has a platform width not too much different from most center platforms Lawrence West, Glencairn, Yorkdale, Wilson, Downsview, Kipling, etc., has a bus terminal less grandiose than past suburban stations like Warden, Eglinton, and Islington, and an entrance building. The finishes are the only thing significantly different than what has been built in the past. Comparing the station to other subway stations built in the last 30 years in other countries it doesn't seem too grand either. If the cost is out of line with other places it isn't because of the simple station box + hall + stairs + bus platform... it is because the labour costs (including consultants, engineers, office staff) and perhaps materials costs. If they put bathroom tiles on Finch West and made the station entrance and bus platform buildings out of brick then it really wouldn't be much different than most stations.
Darwinkgo
Active Member
For Finch West you could save money by having only one entrance, and/or eliminating the concourse level. Having the fare barriers be in above ground buildings and having the only other level be the platform level removes a fair amount of engineering and floor space. It also improves 'security by design' as it could expose the fare control line to continuous monitoring from both passing vehicles and pedestrians while placing all isolated spaces behind the fare line. If the ttc wishes to implement employee free station any time in the future design changes with that in mind is important. While the station is a transfer station, and it is nice that it is beautiful, there is little need to duplicate facilities and produce unneeded floor space. Since the tunnel is being bored it makes little difference if the station box is placed directly under the road vs under the bus terminal, removing the need for a concourse level.
lead82
Senior Member
If they wanted to save money on Finch West, then all they have to do is simply get rid of the bus terminal that they have planned there. What is the purpose of having a bus terminal for basically just 1 route, 41 keele. By the time this opens, Finch will be an LRT line, or close to being one. What other routes would use this station? Maybe the 107, but that's about it. Removing that terminal would save maybe $20-30M
nfitz
Superstar
I expect there would be a major reorganization of the bus lines in the whole area of the city once the subway opens. There won't be a bus terminal at the York University station, or at Sheppard West, so surely Finch West will be the logical point for these local-type routes to feed into the subway. Variants of the 106, 107, 108 ... plus the 41, and presumably buses north on Keele into Vaughan (I guess 107 covers that). I can easily see 4-6 routes. I'd hardly think a 4-bay bus terminal is overkill. Almost seems spartan, as it leaves little for emergency shuttle service.
Last edited:
Fresh Start
Banned
The Sentinel bus most definitely will continue to route into the campus. No way am I expected to believe that the school officals seriously think one subway at York Lanes is enough transit coverage for all. That's one hell of a large place to walk out. The Downsview bus most likely will takeover some of the 35 bus' branches (Hullmar, Shoreham) and terminate at Steeles West.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Well they certainly can't save money by only having one entrance. They have a project currently to add a second entrance for safety reasons to older stations that only have one.
The concourse level could be removed except for the part which takes people from the entrance to the escalators to the middle platform and required mechanical. A middle platform underground requires a level above or below to cross the tracks and under a road that requires a partial concourse level. Fare collection can definitely move to surface buildings but once a station box has been created and its roof supported the engineering required to put things into that box is simple since those additions would be largely independent of the primary structure. Moving things out of an already created station box to an above ground building increases the amount of space required in the surface buildings but doesn't reduce the size of the station box which is determined by platform length, track width, and platform width. Putting the station box directly under the bus terminal would save costs though if it didn't force the bored tunnel to be deeper or force expropriation costs due to a tunnel bored too close to existing buildings.
I still think that if bathroom tiles were used and rectangular brick entrance buildings were the design that nobody would think Finch West was overbuilt. I have a hard time seeing how an underground station box which is two storeys tall is more overbuilt than a station box one storey tall at the same depth with a whole lot of dirt and soil to support above. I also don't see how putting a second floor inside an existing enclosed space large enough to fit it would cost more compared to creating a larger surface structure which would require more external walls and a roof to be built. In my mind it comes down to how much can be saved by removing the concourse level which exists between the escalators, how much could be saved by running the subway under the bus terminal rather than the street (i.e. would expropriation or other costs stay low enough that the savings of having less structure to build would be realized), how much can be saved by using simple tiles and ordinary exterior finishes, and by determining if the bus platforms can be removed.
Last edited:
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Re: Issues contributing to costs:
The construction regulatory environment has undergone significant changes over the last several years which are all contributing to higher costs (both a municipal and provincial regulations). A few items to consider:
For those on SOS - some of your estimates regarding costs (in particular the DRL) are wildly optimistic - considering new brownfields regs will be in place (18 month transition period just started) and the associated additional costs and requirements in dealing with inert fill... anyway not to get too technical, but that line in particular is going to have a number of issues which will drive costs significantly due to soil and groundwater conditions and the fact that it traverses through a complex urban environment with a lot of 'stuff' in the ground.
While the new station designs are exciting (it would be wonderful to have some grand stations in heavily utilized locations like St. George or Dundas) I am concerned that given the ridership projections and the escalating costs already occurring prior to heavy construction that this may be the last HRT line built in the city for a while. Obviously the DRL is the next major priority, but the sticker shock combined with declining fiscal positions of all three levels of government aren't going to be very helpful.
The construction regulatory environment has undergone significant changes over the last several years which are all contributing to higher costs (both a municipal and provincial regulations). A few items to consider:
- Toronto Green Standards (were specifically mentioned in each report for cost escalations);
- Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act;
- WSIB and Ministry of Labour requirements, premiums etc are generally increasing;
- The water table was higher than initially anticipated during preliminary estimates;
- Building Code / Fire Code Issues (secondary exit requirements);
- Notwithstanding the recent declines in commodity prices - overall construction material costs (especially items such as concrete) have escalated significantly beyond the CPI rate of inflation since the Sheppard Line was built and since original estimates for the TYSSE were made. Statscan tracks construction material avg increases (Construction Price Index) - those familiar with it know that the increases were consistently large throughout the past decade.
For those on SOS - some of your estimates regarding costs (in particular the DRL) are wildly optimistic - considering new brownfields regs will be in place (18 month transition period just started) and the associated additional costs and requirements in dealing with inert fill... anyway not to get too technical, but that line in particular is going to have a number of issues which will drive costs significantly due to soil and groundwater conditions and the fact that it traverses through a complex urban environment with a lot of 'stuff' in the ground.
While the new station designs are exciting (it would be wonderful to have some grand stations in heavily utilized locations like St. George or Dundas) I am concerned that given the ridership projections and the escalating costs already occurring prior to heavy construction that this may be the last HRT line built in the city for a while. Obviously the DRL is the next major priority, but the sticker shock combined with declining fiscal positions of all three levels of government aren't going to be very helpful.
Chuck
Senior Member
It would also be nice if the TTC didn't make construction cost estimates public. By letting the entire world know that a project is expected to cost X million dollars, this guarantees that the general order of magnitude of the bids will be at least that high. Otherwise, free money is being left on the table.
drum118
Superstar
You better tell this to the world considering this takes place all over the world now.
The public has a right to know what the cost could be considering they are paying for it.
The market will decide if that price is high or low since they are going to built it in the first place and try to make a buck or two.
nfitz
Superstar
That's why the second streetcar bid was $0.5 billion higher than the $1.0 billion winning bid ...
Fresh Start
Banned
No, I feel that the TTC is not being scrutinized enough on their spending, so why would we grant them more leeway to splurge through concealment? We need an independent auditor to go in and investigate where the money precisely is going and to have the TTC held legally accountable if cases of embezzlement are discovered. Remember TYSSE has yet to begin construction, so how can the TTC have gone through all the contingency funding already. At this rate the final total may reach $3 billion. The cost to install elevators in commercial buildings in Toronto last year was $535,106.19 and greenery/beautification around TTC properties can't be greater than a couple million at best per station. Are we paying the workers $100 per hour or what? Something just doesn't seem right.