News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.4K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 397     0 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

TheTigerMaster said:
Why? Has't the auditor general already come out and said that Ontario's P3 model has cost taxpayers billions additional.
It shouldn't take 3 to 4 years to build it. With the Crosstown, surface construction was projected to take only 23 months. Based on that, Crosstown West and East should be able to start mid to late 2019 and still make the September 2021 deadline.
Click to expand...
You plan for the worse based on current track records of both outfits and being ready for what every surprise that may show up along the way.

One only has to look at Seattle and Phoenix to see lines that open as much as 6 months early and being under budget.

P3 can be a good thing or bad thing depending how the contract is written, since they are assuming the greater risk. It also depend on what taking place in the market for work. It also allow for things to get built sooner than later.

Then one only has to look at various projects for TTC & Metrolinx to see projects over budget and years late as standard bidding process.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I'm no engineer, but something tells me that a subway station built in a dense urban area is much more complicated than one built in the middle of empty fields.
Click to expand...
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Staging wise, maybe? You need to manage traffic, try not to interrupt the lives of people living nearby. But once you've cleared the utilities and set up a work zone, you should be fine, as the actual structure is relatively simple. Granted, the tunnels may be more complicated since its a denser area, I'm not sure - more work might need to go into making sure the digging doesn't disturb the foundations of buildings nearby.

The structures on the Spadina extension are not simple structures. Architecturally, theres a lot to them, and that makes them much harder to build. They're also not small structures, and sit on a larger plot of land than anything on Eglinton, so theres more work to do.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Why? Has't the auditor general already come out and said that Ontario's P3 model has cost taxpayers billions additional.
Click to expand...

That's very well known. We're paying a premium to somebody else to take some of the risk. De-risking always costs upfront money; and they're gambling there wont be problems and they'll bank the premium. The 1-year delay while putting together the tender is also pretty expensive (thanks inflation).

The huge benefit for current government leaders (not necessarily the tax payers) is it's painfully difficult to stop a project once the contract is signed. In short, P3 is great if you expect persons hostile to the project to take power at any point while it is under construction.

I don't think an anti-LRT mayor will take over Toronto again any time soon. I certainly don't trust Brown not to tinker though.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
The stop spacing makes sense once people understand that wider spacing does not cause faster travel times.

This was modelled years ago. Increasing the LRT stop spacing caused usage of individual stations to increase (relative to the closer spacing), consequently increasing dwell times at each station. The result was overall travel times more or less identical to the closer spaced options. Thus our current stop spacing has been optimized to maximize ridership, understanding that the LRT will move at the same speed regardless of number of stops.
Click to expand...

Technically, that's not what they found. They modelled Sheppard LRT with 400 m average stop spacing vs 800 m average spacing, and projected the speed to be 23 kph in the former case, and 27 kph in the latter case.

Then they said that the speed improvement for the wider spacing is "not is large as they expected"; for the reason you mentioned (longer dwell times). But that's not the same as "does not cause faster travel times".

TheTigerMaster said:
That said, speed really isn't an issue with the Crosstown. The western extension is projected to move as fast, or slightly faster than Line 2. The eastern section will be moving moderately slower than Line 2. The Crosstown as a whole will travel at speeds comparable to Line 2.
Click to expand...

For Crosstown specifically, I have to agree with you. The overall speed will be defined by the long underground section, and significant sections where the stop spacing is wide due to the lack of destinations (Leslie to Don Mills, or around Black Creek).

Therefore, the speed will be pretty good overall, and cutting a few more stops such as Oakwood or Ferrand would not noticeably improve the travel times.
 
Rainforest said:
Technically, that's not what they found. They modelled Sheppard LRT with 400 m average stop spacing vs 800 m average spacing, and projected the speed to be 23 kph in the former case, and 27 kph in the latter case.

Then they said that the speed improvement for the wider spacing is "not is large as they expected"; for the reason you mentioned (longer dwell times). But that's not the same as "does not cause faster travel times".
Click to expand...

Yeah I meant that the speed savings were sufficiently minimal. A 5 km trip 24 kph takes 12.5 min. At 27 kph, 11.1 min. It's a very very small difference. And because people need to walk to the stations, the minimal time saving would be offset by longer walk times
 
Tuck said:
AFAIK its because politicians decided to turn it into a vanity project.
Click to expand...

Well, it's slightly less one sided than that. The city has always been a bit self conscious because the earlier design erred on the side of spartan, functional stations. Some would argue that truly great cities put more emphasis on architectural values. (Although for almost any great architectural subway station you can name, the same city will have a half dozen or more bland ones. Bland works.)

TYSSE was the first new transit project in a long time and it was easy for planners to get caught up in the moment and try to correct that. Hopefully the pricetag in both time and money has sobered the city back up again.

It's not a bad thing that we now have some eyecatching subway stations. It's unfortnaute that they are all one one line that may be a line to nowhere for the next couple of decades. By the time that line becomes a backbone, the TYSSE architecture will probably be passe and no one will marvel at it. Whereas the bland, bathroom-style stations will still be around and will have proven their timelessness.

- Paul
 
TheTigerMaster said:
How does the cost of TYSSE stations compare to crosstown?
Click to expand...

TYSSE = $370 million per kilometre including stations
Crosstown = $278 million per kilometre with roughly the 15 underground stations each costing $80–$100 million to build and the ten street-level stops $3-$5 million each
 
A couple of the TYSSE stations (Pioneer Village being the key one, iirc) became critical path because their complexity challenged the contractor building them. A more basic station might have brought us a shorter time to completion. I don't know what impact this had on overall cost, but beyond hard dollars it argues for keeping things simple.

- Paul
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Why? Has't the auditor general already come out and said that Ontario's P3 model has cost taxpayers billions additional.



It shouldn't take 3 to 4 years to build it. With the Crosstown, surface construction was projected to take only 23 months. Based on that, Crosstown West and East should be able to start mid to late 2019 and still make the September 2021 deadline.
Click to expand...

This audit report was a farce if you read it. It compared the actual cost of a P3 to a government managed project. They assumed no cost overruns, increased union costs vs private operator, etc, etc, etc. The auditor general said that in Ontario there is no imperial evidence on this...but we know that is not the case.

A DBFM will of course be better on budget for a gov't run project. No implied profit and a lower financing cost. Of course the benefit to sending it to a private operator is fixing the maintenance, no cost overruns, and a timely completion of the project if the contract is worded correctly. Look at ion in Waterloo vs St Clair.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top