[NotAToy]

I think we should think about spending that 6 billion to extend Sheppard to STC. Then we have a northern crosstown line and it fixes the stump.

And then we'll need DRL even more. Let's fix the Yonge problem before anything else feeding onto Ynge is built. All said, I quite agree.

 

[Allandale25]

Also of note he was previously an underground Scarborough subway supporter,, now he is moreless unsing his platform to be part of the political hypocrisy on the file and worse another overly vocal, entitled outsider

When was he an underground Scarborough Subway supporter? Have a link?

 

[BurlOak]

Good idea, but show me a file in the whole Ford government that is being managed based on analysis. Ford Nation hates eggheads. Anybody using brainpower is labelled an elitist (Yes, there are very analytical and technically competent Conservatives, and they get no input either).

The current government is based on declarative statements that may or may not be true but can be chanted repeatedly, triggering applause. If we can attach labels and adjectives with implied negative judgement to anyone that raises an objection, so much the better.

The subway extension is past the point of no return, and while all the technical and financial data-based arguments are vastly compelling I figure it’s time to suck it up and stop re-debating this thing. I agree there should be a challenge process to see how much we can drive down cost. Even partial cut and cover ought to save money, especially at the stations. No other part of the City had an inconvenience-free construction experience with its subways. Scarberians should not expect this to be painless. Growing up is painful, and if this line brings Scarborough to some felt state of “equality”, great.... but they gotta put in the same sweat as the rest of the city did.

- Paul

I used to think Value Engineering was a waste of time, as why not just do Good Engineering in the first place to find an optimal solution. However, it seems that players on the project teams always come with their biases and often they each only think of their own discipline. Thus they make decision to reduce public complaints, reduce utility relocations, etc. and don't think of the consequences of those decisions to the entire project. Much depends on the Project Manager, and often they prioritize getting along, reducing conflict, and just finishing the preliminary design job on schedule. Once prelim. design is done, it becomes much harder to correct mistakes - especially when they cause delays during final design and result in another opportunity for public objection. Essentially, the current process leaves many decisions to staff, whose main focus is to make decisions that will appeal to the ignorant masses at EA's.

Value Engineering earlier in prelim design would allow a team of experts to review the major decisions and challenge those that resulted in expensive solutions being forced. It also provides a means for senior management and minister staff to become aware of the trade-offs that could be made to reduce costs or improve projects.
The other option would be to eliminate the EA process, and turn it into an info session, where public input is not sought. The way, the design team could focus on the project, and not on getting things through the EA.

 

[WislaHD]

No stop at McCowan/Eglinton?

There hasn't been talk about a stop here in forever. Even in the first three stop plan it wasn't there.

The absence of a stop here would be less egregious if there was funding on the table for the very useful Crosstown East.

 

[Hopkins123]

The absence of a stop here would be less egregious if there was funding on the table for the very useful Crosstown East.

I'd prefer the subway stop to be honest. Crosstown East as proposed is Ill-thought out.

 

[sixrings]

I'd prefer the subway stop to be honest. Crosstown East as proposed is Ill-thought out.

It's well thought out but there are people that only think subways, subways, subways is well thought out. Anyways there is no crosstown east because we spent all our money and time assuring these people that their subways, subways, subways mantra is financially viable.

 

[Rainforest]

Agreed, this is just setting the stage for the preliminary design and this report will be used a a baseline show any 'effeciencies' down the road in the upcoming pre-design

It will be interesting to see what modifcations they propose on this alignment to save costs. My understnding is they are not going back to review any other alignments, but will be reviewing the stops and construction methods.

If so, it makes a good sense. The Lawrence East station doesn't need to be in a deep cave. They can build the station south of the Lawrence / McCowan intersection, make it shallow underground, and leave enough space for the line to accend and bridge over the Highland Creek north of Lawrence.

The STC station doesn't have to be very deep, either. Underground for sure, but just deep enough to be stable.

 

[Rainforest]

Even DoFo can see the recession on the horizon. I suspect he's going to outright cancel it, or move it off so far in the future it may as well be.

Not necessarily. During recessions, governments often pump funding into public works in order to revive the economy.

This one could be a good deal for the provincial govenrment. The money trickle down, creating jobs and taxes, while the incurred provincial debt is "offset" by recording 100% of the construction costs as new provincial "asset".

You can rightfully question the validity of such accounting (what kind of asset is that if you can never hope to sell it for the full book value, and unlikely to ever sell it at all), but at this time, it isn't disallowed for the public finances.

 

[Rainforest]

The forecast ridership counts are actually pretty good (page 28, http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...2-28_SSE_Preliminary_Design_Business_Case.pdf).

Westbound Boardings AM Peak (1h): 5,800 at Sheppard, plus 3,600 at STC, plus 2,900 at Lawrence. That's 12,300 per hour in total.

Some of those riders will not be present at the busiest point of SSE. For example, riders boarding at Sheppard can alight at STC or Lawrence, and won't be on the train when it departs Lawrence for Kennedy.

Allowing for a 10% share of such trips, the busiest AP peak estimate (Lawrence to Kennedy) is about 11,000 pphpd. That's a pretty decent number; twice as great as Sheppard subway's, on par with Yonge North, and probably beats any other corridor in the city excluding OL / RL East.

 

[syn]

There is an amazing amount of "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" going on with this line. They didn't compare the SSE to the SLRT because they know what the answer would have been. The report clearly says the SSE isn't worth the money yet they continue to push forward with it. We all know this project was not grounded in logic or common sense but in politics and feelings and all parties involved insist on living in a bubble while ignoring and suppressing anything that contradicts their views.

This business case is telling us what we've known for decades - investing money in this form of transit for Scarborough is foolish, especially when there are bigger needs.

It's quite telling that Ford wants this line and the Eglinton West LRT buried, while the Ontario Line is being built to lower capacity specs with above ground sections, some of which that really shouldn't be above ground.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Not necessarily. During recesions, governments often pump funding into public works in order to revive the economy.

This one could be a good deal for the provincial govenrment. The money trickle down, creating jobs and taxes, while the incurred provincial debt is "offset" by recording 100% of the construction costs as new provincial "assets".

You can rightfully question the validity of such accounting (what kind of asset is that if you can never hope to sell it for the full book value, and unlikely to ever sell it at all), but at this time, it isn't disallowed for the public finances.

From what little I’ve studied of accounting, it’s hard for me to reconcile the “realness” of money with how governments and corporations seemingly push around masses of imaginary money around willy nilly. Is money even real? For my own sanity, I’ll trust that the accounting nerds understand what the hell is going on

 

[syn]

I think we should think about spending that 6 billion to extend Sheppard to STC. Then we have a northern crosstown line and it fixes the stump.

That makes a lot more sense than the SSE. Combine that with a full capacity subway RL/OL to Don Mills and you greatly reduce the load on Yonge.

 

[Rainforest]

For my own sanity, I’ll trust that the accounting nerds understand what the hell is going on

They understand what is going on, for sure. Whether they are approving it, or having their reservations that they prefer not to voice at this time, is another matter.

Ultimately, all virtual money, and even the printed / minted money for the most part, are just concepts. If the economy works, then the concepts are correct. If the bubbles start popping, then the concepts are wrong.

If the model works for a number of years or even a number of decades, creating bubbles that will pop afterwards .. grey area. Those in charge today don't need to be too concerned; they won't be in charge by the time the ugly side becomes evident.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The document actually says the construction costs are 4.21 to 4.67 B dollars, not the 6-6.5 B people are quoting, that is the lifecycle cost for 60 years.

In terms of benefits, those of expanding SRT operations (a huge portion of it) are not included (~350-700 M depending on how you interpret it). Development benefits are also not included.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The document actually says the construction costs are 4.21 to 4.67 B dollars, not the 6-6.5 B people are quoting, that is the lifecycle cost for 60 years.

In terms of benefits, those of expanding SRT operations (a huge portion of it) are not included (~350-700 M depending on how you interpret it). Development benefits are also not included.

yes I keep forgetting that the government changed accounting methods, to include lifecycle costs. This sounds entirely more reasonable.