News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 950     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 1.4K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 620     0 

General railway discussions

AlxOptimism said:
Thought I'd bring this up in this thread, the contract for the stations builds has gone into procurement (RFQ) for the Langley SkyTrain extension. The average cost of a station will be 59.375MM$

I think this really highlights how important it is to build more elevated in the GTA, underground stations are what... ten times the cost?
There will obviously be escalations but this is the current budgeted amount, all in it will probably end up being under 75MM$ per station.
Very important as we look forward to future extensions of the Ontario Line (North and West) to fight for lower costs and more transit for everyone
Click to expand...

Cost for underground stations, for a full Toronto subway (size/capacity is a cost-factor) range from 200M-400M per station.

Lower-capacity stations will cost somewhat less.

Skytrain stations are bigger than they used to be, but still only about 80M. TTC subway stations are ~150M as I recall
 
Northern Light said:
Cost for underground stations, for a full Toronto subway (size/capacity is a cost-factor) range from 200M-400M per station.

Lower-capacity stations will cost somewhat less.

Skytrain stations are bigger than they used to be, but still only about 80M. TTC subway stations are ~150M as I recall
Click to expand...
You can see in the article that the platforms will be shorter, look to be about 75m by my estimate as opposed to 100m elsewhere. Therefore the reduced cost.
I think there's a definite argument to be made to employ a similar approach on the Ontario Line with longer trains short turning as platform lengths are reduced. Stations are built so that platforms can be expanded as needed, which can be done relatively cheap for elevated stations.
For example, I don't see the need for platforms to be full length past Roncesvalles/King/Queen, especially with up to 90s frequencies.
(I know you have your own opinions about westward expansion from exhibition, WRT the Waterfront West LRT @Northern Light )
 
AlxOptimism said:
Thought I'd bring this up in this thread, the contract for the stations builds has gone into procurement (RFQ) for the Langley SkyTrain extension. The average cost of a station will be 59.375MM$

I think this really highlights how important it is to build more elevated in the GTA, underground stations are what... ten times the cost?
There will obviously be escalations but this is the current budgeted amount, all in it will probably end up being under 75MM$ per station.
Very important as we look forward to future extensions of the Ontario Line (North and West) to fight for lower costs and more transit for everyone
Click to expand...
I recently visited Vancouver, and it was a true wake-up call for me regarding transit in Canada. Three key lessons from Vancouver can be learned from my experience. First, there is a value in building transit sooner rather than later, and being able to admit that a decision was inferior in hindsight is better than not doing anything.
Second, we ought to value coverage. This goes hand in hand with (3) being cost effective. Going elevated has, in part, enabled a rapid transit system that covers most of the metro, and buses fill in the gaps very well. A colleague once even described the Langley extension as “expensive”.

Obviously, mid-capacity and elevated rail is the key component. Elevated enabled cheaper construction and high coverage, but it needed to be proven first. We have not proven elevated in Ontario, and we cannot repeat a failed project like the SRT. We need real, practical proof that elevated is actively better for the residents of this region, and that might mean using it to expand rapidly to show people what is possible. So much of the GTHA lacks rapid transit access compared to metro Van, hell even many Canadian cities. It is time to leverage modes and construction that can actually achieve what we need. GO expansion is only part of this equation, and I think we still need to expand our scope of what is necessary for transit in the GTHA, beyond what Metrolinx has forecasted.
 
sunnyside said:
I recently visited Vancouver, and it was a true wake-up call for me regarding transit in Canada. Three key lessons from Vancouver can be learned from my experience. First, there is a value in building transit sooner rather than later, and being able to admit that a decision was inferior in hindsight is better than not doing anything.
Second, we ought to value coverage. This goes hand in hand with (3) being cost effective. Going elevated has, in part, enabled a rapid transit system that covers most of the metro, and buses fill in the gaps very well. A colleague once even described the Langley extension as “expensive”.
Click to expand...
I hope that the Ontario Line in Flemingdon and Thorncliffe brings new positive awareness to the idea of elevated transit but a) Toronto/Ontario is a stubborn place and b) this are currently underserved and underappreciated areas of East York/Eglinton so I'm afraid it might be out of side out of mind and also c) the effect of the Ontario Line on the neighborhood could be perceived negatively, such as making the urban realm even worse and/or gentrification concerns despite 100% rental replacement (commercial tenant displacement?).

There's also the Eglinton West extension which will have about ~2km of elevation and 2 such stations, so there will be more than one point of exposure in the coming years.
sunnyside said:
Obviously, mid-capacity and elevated rail is the key component. Elevated enabled cheaper construction and high coverage, but it needed to be proven first. We have not proven elevated in Ontario, and we cannot repeat a failed project like the SRT. We need real, practical proof that elevated is actively better for the residents of this region, and that might mean using it to expand rapidly to show people what is possible. So much of the GTHA lacks rapid transit access compared to metro Van, hell even many Canadian cities. It is time to leverage modes and construction that can actually achieve what we need. GO expansion is only part of this equation, and I think we still need to expand our scope of what is necessary for transit in the GTHA, beyond what Metrolinx has forecasted.
Click to expand...
I wish that we could be proactive like you describe but I really don't know if that's in the cards anytime soon. If we just get an elevated extension of the OL to Don Mills/Shepard by the mid 2030's I'd be more than happy. To move faster on anything but tunneled extensions would require some impetus like hosting the Olympics (as unlikely as that now seems). Otherwise I don't think the motivation exists anytime in the next decade, especially with the oncoming fiscal restraint from city hall. Of course building elevated would be a great way to reduce total city obligations towards expanding transit but somehow I don't think they'll see it that way...

Maybe climate concerns in the 2030's will get us there.
 
It looks like the federal government is waking up and are looking to implement changes to help supply chain bottlenecks in Canada.

Transport Minister Omar Alghabra’s national supply chain task force, formed in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, determined the country needs a Plan B. In a report published earlier this month, the group gave 21 recommendations to help stabilize and unclog the supply chain, including a call for more investment to build “redundancies” and new backup routes for the most vulnerable choke points in trade corridors and border crossings.

What they should do is that the government should build and own the infrastructure and lease it to the highest paying railway for a period of time. Similar to the Canada grain car initiative, I'm sure that there are abandoned ROW's that could be reactivated to help create diversity. It's actually the governments fault for not regulating the abandonment of short lines and low traffic routes.
 
Bordercollie said:
It looks like the federal government is waking up and are looking to implement changes to help supply chain bottlenecks in Canada.

Transport Minister Omar Alghabra’s national supply chain task force, formed in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, determined the country needs a Plan B. In a report published earlier this month, the group gave 21 recommendations to help stabilize and unclog the supply chain, including a call for more investment to build “redundancies” and new backup routes for the most vulnerable choke points in trade corridors and border crossings.

What they should do is that the government should build and own the infrastructure and lease it to the highest paying railway for a period of time. Similar to the Canada grain car initiative, I'm sure that there are abandoned ROW's that could be reactivated to help create diversity. It's actually the governments fault for not regulating the abandonment of short lines and low traffic routes.
Click to expand...
While the report does cite chokepoints at marine terminals and border crossings, recent climate impacts to the rail (and road) infrastructure in BC and congestion at some intermodal terminals, I don't see where it says mainline rail capacity in general is an issue. If the Class I railroads are profitable and meeting their regulatory requirements by running multi-kilometre trains along their own rights-of-way, why would they want to pay the government to use its?

Branch lines were abandoned because they ceased to be profitable. Some have been picked up by shortline operators, but they still need revenue customers, and operate them bare-bones, slow and often light capacity and, as their name implies, are typically branches than don't bridge between mainline points. I really don't see how they would improve capacity.

From reading the report, the biggest chokepoints are the west coast marine terminals, particularly Vancouver. Where would the government build another one?
 
lenaitch said:
While the report does cite chokepoints at marine terminals and border crossings, recent climate impacts to the rail (and road) infrastructure in BC and congestion at some intermodal terminals, I don't see where it says mainline rail capacity in general is an issue. If the Class I railroads are profitable and meeting their regulatory requirements by running multi-kilometre trains along their own rights-of-way, why would they want to pay the government to use its?

Branch lines were abandoned because they ceased to be profitable. Some have been picked up by shortline operators, but they still need revenue customers, and operate them bare-bones, slow and often light capacity and, as their name implies, are typically branches than don't bridge between mainline points. I really don't see how they would improve capacity.

From reading the report, the biggest chokepoints are the west coast marine terminals, particularly Vancouver. Where would the government build another one?
Click to expand...
The northern route between Ottawa and Sudbury was abandoned and now when there is a disruption in the Kingston Sub there is no way to get to the east coast.

CN built a port at Prince Rupert to alleviate pressure at Vancouver. Maybe if they could build a port in the mouth of the ST Lawrence that would reduce strain on Halifax
 
Bordercollie said:
The northern route between Ottawa and Sudbury was abandoned and now when there is a disruption in the Kingston Sub there is no way to get to the east coast.

CN built a port at Prince Rupert to alleviate pressure at Vancouver. Maybe if they could build a port in the mouth of the ST Lawrence that would reduce strain on Halifax
Click to expand...
The northern route would absolutely be my first choice for strategic redundancy. Followed by a new mountain crossing as bottleneck relief; restoring CPs southern route seems attractive in terms of reusing corridors, but maybe not in an ideal location from a network perspective….

I’m a lot more tenuous about the need for a new eastern port. not having any real analysis on hand, it does seem to have a similar “feel” to saying a Winnipeg bypass is needed In that there may be some truth to it conceptually, but any actual implementation seems unlikely to have any purpose BUT a kind of emergency relief.
 
Bureaucromancer said:
The northern route would absolutely be my first choice for strategic redundancy. Followed by a new mountain crossing as bottleneck relief; restoring CPs southern route seems attractive in terms of reusing corridors, but maybe not in an ideal location from a network perspective….

I’m a lot more tenuous about the need for a new eastern port. not having any real analysis on hand, it does seem to have a similar “feel” to saying a Winnipeg bypass is needed In that there may be some truth to it conceptually, but any actual implementation seems unlikely to have any purpose BUT a kind of emergency relief.
Click to expand...
By increasing double track and mandating the railways to share trackage during an emergency would help. This is similar to what they did with Telecom companies ensuring that they can backup each other.
 
Bordercollie said:
It looks like the federal government is waking up and are looking to implement changes to help supply chain bottlenecks in Canada.

Transport Minister Omar Alghabra’s national supply chain task force, formed in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, determined the country needs a Plan B. In a report published earlier this month, the group gave 21 recommendations to help stabilize and unclog the supply chain, including a call for more investment to build “redundancies” and new backup routes for the most vulnerable choke points in trade corridors and border crossings.

What they should do is that the government should build and own the infrastructure and lease it to the highest paying railway for a period of time. Similar to the Canada grain car initiative, I'm sure that there are abandoned ROW's that could be reactivated to help create diversity. It's actually the governments fault for not regulating the abandonment of short lines and low traffic routes.
Click to expand...
The only specific infrastructure called out is a road - twinning Hwy 185 between QC and NB. There are some interesting observations about things like making full use of container capacity on the St Lawrence, and changes at ports to make containers move through more quickly, and vague references to rail capacity improvements, but a recurring theme is how limited the effect of capital improvements is when labour shortages are a significant issue, whether in the industry itself or federal bodies such as CBSA and CTA. The supply chain is a chain, and if you make one link titanium it only helps so much when the next ring is made of rolled up tinfoil.

that said, this is a report by industry types - the mention of a four year regulatory examination of the Milton intermodal terminal makes no mention to the degree to which the proponent took something sizeable on without receiving local community buy-in.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top