Allandale25
Senior Member
Another thread:
|
|
|
44 North
Senior Member
I think we might be overthinking the cost/complexities of tinkering with the project. Ignoring bringing the line further to Sheppard, which seems more off the cuff musing than a legitimate plan, adding a station at Lawrence doesn't seem too complex as an addendum to the project. Change construction method (from single bore to twin), change vertical alignment (i.e make it shallower by 5-10m) while keeping identical horizontal alignment. Then add station in. Similar has been done before, even recently.
Line 3 issue would be bad either way. Probably have to get more trains from Vancouver. Maybe Detroit.
steveintoronto
Superstar
^The abject irony of the 'P3 pays all' for the SSE, which is far from having a business case to begin with, is that private investment would find P3 attractive, but just not for the SSE!
There's dead silence from Ford on the line that could/would attract private investment, and the northern leg is already Metrolinx domain, and the southern leg about to be: The Relief Line. And Metrolinx itself in part if not all is about to (or attempt to) be privately financed to some degree or other (P3 is a flexible catch-all for many forms of private whole or in part financing). Will the government have to put investment in as well for the Relief Line? Absolutely. And the model for it and the SRT alike is *metro* as Montreal's REM illustrates, as does Vancouver. Standard gauge track (as the SRT already is) but using catenary, not third rail, for which there are a number of shortcomings. And certainly not linear propulsion.
If there's one possible advantage for Toronto in uploading, it's the adoption of more standard and modern ways of doing things. Note I stated "possible". Doug Ford needs a family friend just to tie his shoelaces the wrong way.
Meantime, let's not overlook this as a template, both technically and fiduciary:
REM has some problems, but they lie in the political sphere more than technical (VIA use of Mount Royal Tunnel, etc) but if this project is possible using this model in Montreal...then it can be used in Toronto. I would have some technical qualms, like using 25kVAC catenary instead of 1500VDC for mixed use on GO lines, and compatible signal and control systems, but that's all done in Europe, Asia and Australasia with little problem.
The real problem is the moron in QP. I wouldn't trust having him in control of an outhouse, let alone a province, but alas....
There's dead silence from Ford on the line that could/would attract private investment, and the northern leg is already Metrolinx domain, and the southern leg about to be: The Relief Line. And Metrolinx itself in part if not all is about to (or attempt to) be privately financed to some degree or other (P3 is a flexible catch-all for many forms of private whole or in part financing). Will the government have to put investment in as well for the Relief Line? Absolutely. And the model for it and the SRT alike is *metro* as Montreal's REM illustrates, as does Vancouver. Standard gauge track (as the SRT already is) but using catenary, not third rail, for which there are a number of shortcomings. And certainly not linear propulsion.
If there's one possible advantage for Toronto in uploading, it's the adoption of more standard and modern ways of doing things. Note I stated "possible". Doug Ford needs a family friend just to tie his shoelaces the wrong way.
Meantime, let's not overlook this as a template, both technically and fiduciary:
https://www.cdpqinfra.com/en/canada...étropolitain-project-128-billion-15-year-loan
REM has some problems, but they lie in the political sphere more than technical (VIA use of Mount Royal Tunnel, etc) but if this project is possible using this model in Montreal...then it can be used in Toronto. I would have some technical qualms, like using 25kVAC catenary instead of 1500VDC for mixed use on GO lines, and compatible signal and control systems, but that's all done in Europe, Asia and Australasia with little problem.
The real problem is the moron in QP. I wouldn't trust having him in control of an outhouse, let alone a province, but alas....
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
I get what you’re saying, but even the modifications you describe would take years to plan.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,496
- Reaction score
- 1,556
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
Disappointed in the lack of movement on this.
narduch
Senior Member
Wasn't their supposed to be an updated City report on the costing for this? The one they were burying before the municipal election?
Did I miss its release?
In my opinion no news is bad news on that front.
Did I miss its release?
In my opinion no news is bad news on that front.
asher__jo
Active Member
I clearly opened a Pandora's box with my comments about converting SRT to LRT. The proposal would have upgraded it to the same LRT technology Metrolinx had planned for Finch, Eglinton, etc. Here's a run-down, sadly it is pay-walled.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...hat-we-know-about-transit-in-scarborough.html
Anyway, my comments on how the subway is a grotesque waste of money for what is being built is not just my opinion. Jennifer Keesmaat and Andy Byford held similar opinions, but eventually went along with it when city hall voted for the subway.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...hat-we-know-about-transit-in-scarborough.html
Anyway, my comments on how the subway is a grotesque waste of money for what is being built is not just my opinion. Jennifer Keesmaat and Andy Byford held similar opinions, but eventually went along with it when city hall voted for the subway.
raptor
Senior Member
deferred to April
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Yeah - and the Star article suggests there is no clear reason for this. On the other hand, what difference does it make knowing the cost of the 1-stop subway if we're now back to the 3-stop subway? the whole thing is such a circus at this point.
(FWIW - I'm well-established here as a supporter of the Yonge extension and there is a situation where I bet you COULD get private sector support for building at least some of the subway stations. Gupta has a huge proposal for Yonge/Steeles and I bet they'd pony up $ for a station under their building and certainly the consortium at Langstaff/RHC would, especially if it would get the ball rolling sooner. But even there - on Yonge Street, with huge land values and development potential and in-place high-density permissions, I bet you'd fall way, way short of what Yurek et al seem to be imagining is possible in Scarborough. Getting developers to chip in is not a bad idea. Imagining they'll just produce the massive funding you don't want to pony up is a delusion.)
raptor
Senior Member
I find this saga very amusing, in a sarcastic way. The people (voters) get what they deserve.
No new transit will be built in Scarborough in my lifetime, mark my words.
My only concern is how this affects other projects.
No new transit will be built in Scarborough in my lifetime, mark my words.
My only concern is how this affects other projects.
crs1026
Superstar
Totally agree.
My question - other than the naive idea that developers will line up to pay the full shot, how is this concept different than what was passed by the last government, which provided for development charges to be set with reference to proximity to transit?
Why not just set the development charges to reflect the correct contribution, and then fund the rest. Just get on with it.
- Paul
muller877
Senior Member
I'm not sure if the press releases ever said the full shot but the Board material gave various alternatives. I think the developers can pay for a good portion of the cost (especially reducing the cost of the taj mahal at STC). But this 100% or nothing approach is of course not going to happen. At some stations maybe they can make a profit, At others the gov't may have to pony up some money.
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20181206/20181206_BoardMtg_TOD_Strategy.pdf
syn
Senior Member
The problem with knowing the cost of the one stop plan is that it sets a costing benchmark. If they announce the new cost is $4 billion - $5 billion, then we know a three stop solution is likely $6 billion - $7 billion when it's all said and done (including inevitable cost escalations, etc.).
By announcing a new three stop plan based on the current estimate, it will seem a lot more affordable, even though it will, of course, be subject to it's own cost escalations. That won't be a problem, as Ford will just claim the private sector will take care of it (even though they won't).
That area of Yonge lacks any kind of legitimate density. A developer would have to be given a large area of land to develop. Assuming it could be done (I don't believe the government owns all of that land), would the billions a developer would need to invest be worth it in the long run? Probably not.
We saw how this worked out on Sheppard. Ford claimed at the time he'd get the private sector to pay for a subway extension. It went nowhere. There was absolutely no interest. Even now, on the corridor with the subway, there still isn't the explosion in development people were expecting - and that's with a subway line already there. Why would developers take on a huge additional financial risk for a on opportunity to build in an ever lower density area, further away from the city?
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Well, yeah. I was being a bit ironic. Cost estimates on the SSE have been a moving target since Day 1. Obviously there is value in hearing the most up-to-date estimates (which is probably why we're not hearing them) but they end up being meaningless if every 2 years you change the scope and timing of the project.
First, you want an area that lacks density because the money comes from creating that density.
As for a large area, do you mean like the 150 or so acres owned by 3 development groups at Yonge and Highway 7? There's plenty of land there. Obviously the parcels are smaller along the length of Yonge Street but even there, you have things like the Gupta proposal for Yonge/Steeles, which is massive density on less than 3 acres. And then there's car dealership plaza which must be at least 20 acres; enough for a whole new neighbourhood. (Like, maybe Aouyan would have been happy to pay something as part of the large-scale M2M development, if it meant the Cummer subway station would be built faster. But they wouldn't have paid enough to turn it from a non-starter into a reality.)
No - demand and density aren't the issue there. But there still won't be remotely the kind of money Ford is envisioning and Scarborough isn't Yonge/7.
There is probably some incentive for developers - who do already pay for some of this stuff through DC's - to help build a station that will allow them to build a project for which there would otherwise be little or no demand. I don't know the value of having a tower that connects directly to a station underground, for example. But transit - especially subways - just costs too much for it to be viable as a broad solution. I mean, jeeze, they're citing the Mimico GO station as an example of an early success. I've no doubt it could work for (some) GO stations but subway stations are a whole different can of worms.
BurlOak
Senior Member
A decade ago, this was an option, and likely the best option - if you mean extending it north-east.
If you want to extend it to downtown, then it's not being considered becasue of the extra delays, lack of believability that anything will be done, and the huge political capital that would be expended with nothing to show for by the next election.
Projections would now have over 12k passengers (*) per hour transferring from the SRT route to the B-D. (possibly some may transfer to Eglinton LRT). This is a huge number - maybe the equivalent of forcing every third peak Yonge subway train to completely empty out and do a transfer. The Scarborough public would not expect this and does expect that transit should actually be getting better.
(*) Based on 2012 study - http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...itscases/Benefits_Case-Eglinton_Crosstown.pdf