Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[sixrings]

very true, but the damage is less than straight up closure of the street. besides, most of eglinton's retail is already fairly low end.

I just have to wonder if there were more reasons then simply the cut and cover to explain why these high end stores did not come back. Correct, "eglintons retail is already fairly low end", which is why I am hoping after the construction things get better around here.

 

[BurlOak]

How much is the cost differential between cut and cover and bored tunnels?

I think this was a great reply.

Hardly. Unless a given corridor is generating huge amounts of sales, the economic loss of cut and cover wouldn't come close to approaching potential cost savings. And, in any case, bored tunnels are extremely disruptive as well since you still have to build cut-cover station boxes. And since the station boxes have to be deeper to reach the bore, the disruptions are far longer lasting.
......
It's also interesting that the Canada Line used stacked cut-cover designs. The exterior width of the tunnel box was only 5m! The road impact of that wouldn't be any worse than building an LRT ROW.

Not only are stations more time consuming and disruptive to build when they are deeper, they are also much more expensive. In a downtown environment, where stations are much closer than 1 km, it starts approaching a continuous cut-and-cover line anyways. Also, deeper results in more expensive emergency exits and ventilation costs (it is harder to push around air 20m below grade than 10m below).

Unfortunately, I have not seen a good source for hard numbers as a comparison.

 

[innsertnamehere]

important to remember that underground stations do not require extended closure of the street, but rather typically a reduction of traffic lanes to a single lane in each direction for a period of about a year while they dig down enough to place temporary steel hole covers which in turn allow traffic to return to it's regular patterns while construction occurs below. traffic is then reduced again when they are ready to replace the road surface with it's new permanent self, as the station approaches substantial completion.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Maybe thats true... But I see daily more and more stores on Eglinton closing because of the LRT construction and it is NOT cut and cover... No business is going to want to be around during construction and its a coin flip what comes after construction is done.

Let's be honest, many of those businesses looked like they were on the brink of failure. We can't put off improving our city because some corner store may go out of business. I know it'. insensitive but it's the truth.

 

[sixrings]

Let's be honest, many of those businesses looked like they were on the brink of failure. We can't put off improving our city because some corner store may go out of business. I know it'. insensitive but it's the truth.

I acknowledged that these Eglinton stores "were on the brink of failure." My original point though was questioning whether or not cut and cover really was the main reason strip clubs and dollar stores opened up after they cut and cover Yonge and the expensive stores moved out.

 

[nfitz]

Effectively the same way that the original section of Yonge was built so cheap and Vancouver's response to that disruption was much the same as ours with Yonge; it'll never happen again. The tender wasn't intended to allow cut & cover; but it did.

If TBM tunnelling is only about $50 million per kilometre, your not going to save huge amounts by going to cut-and-cover. I'd think it would cost more on a major street like Yonge or even Eglinton!

 

[rbt]

Hardly. Unless a given corridor is generating huge amounts of sales, the economic loss of cut and cover wouldn't come close to approaching potential cost savings.

Retail isn't the only, or even the biggest, industry impacted by street outages within a city.

The real impact would be measured much in the same way that congestion in general is, unless of course you believe Toronto is missing out on $11B/year in retail sales?


Likewise, now that it is finished, the line will contribute positively across the board; not just retail sales.

Congestion in Vancouver certainly felt worse in 2008 than 2004, though I was only there for a few weeks, and it does seem to have let up a bit.

Progress comes at a cost but not all of those costs are given a dollar figure and accounted for.

 

[ssiguy2]

The Canada Line is elevated. Still that's really inexpensive. How did they pull that off?

The main reason they pulled it off was that it wasn't Toronto which in and of itself saved them 10 years and $5 billion.

The price tag is even more amazing when you consider that most of the line was underground but part of that underground section was underwater a la False Creek as well as the fact that it required 2 massive transit-only bridges over the Fraser River.

The price tags Toronto comes up with are truly bizzare. I have still never heard a response to a question I have raised many times..............how does a little 6km SRT transference to LRT and 2km extension come in at $2 billion in Toronto while a brand new 11km automated line with 6 new stations and bus bays, 1.5km of underground, total exclusive elevated rail for the non-underground part come in at $1.4 billion in Vancouver?

This is made even more offensive when the little extension and conversion in Toronto will take a whole year longer to build than a new 11km SkyTrain line which will be a hell of a lot cheaper to operate to boot.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I have answered you many times already, but you conveniently ignore me.. regardless, here are 10 different reasons why that I can think of off the top of my head, with the 10th one being most important;

1. LRT stops are 90m long, skytrain are 60.

2. complete reconstruction of Kennedy GO to be the convergence of 3 different lines is included in the SRT cost. (it is essentially 3 stations in one that are going to be completely rebuilt)

3. due to disrepair of the SRT line, most of the elevated structure requires extensive work. (much like the Gardiner)

4. Vancouver money is not 2010 $, and needs to account for inflation. the Vancouver amount is probably measured in 2007 dollars or something.

5. I seem to recall that the vancouver total does not include vehicle purchasing, while the SRT replacement does.

6. SRT replacement will be 9.7km long, not 8.

7. there will be a 900m underground portion of the SRT, including an underground station at Sheppard. there will also be an underground approach to Kennedy, with the existing Eglinton bridge being torn down.

8. The at grade portion of the RT is going to be completely ripped out, and rebuilt.. the only portion of the old line that will be reused from what I remember is the elevated guideway, and even that may be wrong. all stations are going to be ripped down and rebuilt, including multiple stations with bus bays as the Evergreen line has.

9. Evergreen line has no underground stations, Scarborough LRT has 2.

10. Guess what? The SRT replacement WILL COST $1.4 BILLION DOLLARS, THE EXACT SAME AS THE EVERGREEN LINE!!!

 

[diminutive]

If TBM tunnelling is only about $50 million per kilometre, your not going to save huge amounts by going to cut-and-cover. I'd think it would cost more on a major street like Yonge or even Eglinton!

Under certain situations, yea, cut-cover could well be more expensive if there are more utilities to be relocated and such.

But it's a bit disingenuous to only look at the TBM tunnelling costs alone here. Deeper tunnels entail bigger, deeper station boxes which take longer to build, bringing greater project risk and inevitable inflation. Deeper bores also require more substantial and expensive emergency exits, ventilation and power systems. Special track segments like crossovers have to be cut-covered as well assuming we are talking about a twin bore.

 

[diminutive]

Retail isn't the only, or even the biggest, industry impacted by street outages within a city.

The real impact would be measured much in the same way that congestion in general is, unless of course you believe Toronto is missing out on $11B/year in retail sales?


Likewise, now that it is finished, the line will contribute positively across the board; not just retail sales.

Congestion in Vancouver certainly felt worse in 2008 than 2004, though I was only there for a few weeks, and it does seem to have let up a bit.

Progress comes at a cost but not all of those costs are given a dollar figure and accounted for.

The marginal congestion impact would hardly be very significant, either. Even large projects like the Canada Line only impact a small overall percentage of a given city's road network. Since motorists are rational and will plan around scheduled long term delays, and local bypass routes are usually provided, there typically isn't a huge congestion impact. Similarly, planned long term reductions in lane capacity (e.g. highway removal or pedestrianization) don't tend to lead to traffic chaos either.

By this logic a project like tearing down the Gardiner or giving lanes to LRT/Bus ROWs would be terrible ideas.

And, to get back to your original point, cut and cover isn't uniquely disruptive compared to alternatives. Surface construction is obviously equally disruptive. As is TBM tunnelling in terms of having a cut-cover box every 800m for years, plus TBM launch/extraction sites and supplementary equipment sites.

 

[nfitz]

But it's a bit disingenuous to only look at the TBM tunnelling costs alone here. Deeper tunnels entail bigger, deeper station boxes which take longer to build, bringing greater project risk and inevitable inflation.

It's a good point ... but surely a bit disingenuous to suggest disingenuity.

Each case is different. Can you imagine the benefit we'd have now if the Bloor-Danforth line had used TBMs for more than a couple of very short segments? The stations would be far more relevantly located than they are now.

 

[rbt]

The marginal congestion impact would hardly be very significant, either.

Great, so there is no politically hostile reason why this shouldn't be included as an indirect cost of construction. Metrolinx includes economic benefits post-construction as a monetary value so they should be capable of adding this insignificant charge to the cost.

If the number really is insignificant, it would take the wind out of those who fight against a project due to construction disturbance.

 

[diminutive]

If the number really is insignificant, it would take the wind out of those who fight against a project due to construction disturbance.

If someone came up with a reliable method for actually quantifying the impacts I'd hardly complain. In fact if it led to the TTC/Metrolinx considering alternatives to boring everything no matter what's above, all the better.

That said I doubt any collection of numbers or statistics would ever convince most SOS-Weston types.

The real issue is that governance of Toronto magnifies the importance of these groups. I mean, the TTC Chair was elected in a NIMBY backlash for the love of god. Why on Earth we have tolerate a system which allows craven hacks like Karen Stintz to chair something like the TTC is beyond me.

Even just having political parties at City Hall, which could enforce consistent transit plans amongst Councillors, rather than just allowing them to jump for whoever screams loudest that week would help.

 

[rbt]

If someone came up with a reliable method for actually quantifying the impacts I'd hardly complain. In fact if it led to the TTC/Metrolinx considering alternatives to boring everything no matter what's above, all the better.

We seem to think we can measure the positive benefits after the fact. It should be easier to measure the negative impact during construction than that.

That said I doubt any collection of numbers or statistics would ever convince most SOS-Weston types.

"Some Weston residents believe it will be the end of the world however Metrolinx, using software developed at U of T and proven accurate in previous projects, has shown the construction impact will be between $1M and $2M".

Those Weston residents are suddenly crazy people rather than a group to be catered to.



I always assumed we didn't try to estimate construction impact due to liability reasons but if it's a non-significant figure then we should be including it.