Conrad Black
Senior Member
I'm amazing at the prices they are looking at for subway or LRT. Why so much?
|
|
|
Environmental factors, conservative labor rules, safety regulations etc...I'm amazing at the prices they are looking at for subway or LRT. Why so much?
It would most likely end up being less expensive than the subway conversion option. Just look at the cost of the Union-Pearson elevated guideway. It's something like $50 million/km. Naturally, the design specs need to be different, and the biggest cost associated with elevated LRT is the stations. Since they need to be 90m platforms, the cost of doing an elevated station wouldn't be significantly less than doing an underground station. Canada Line platforms are 30m I believe, so that's why their stations are so much less expensive. The Evergreen Line stations are probably a better baseline to use, because I believe their platforms are around 90m as well.
Now having said that, since it would be elevated, the stop spacing could be further apart, so elevated stations would only be needed at Wynford, Bermondsey, Victoria Park, Warden, and Birchmount, with the elevated station at Kennedy being there regardless of which plan is chosen. If each station costs $150 million more to do elevated than at-grade, you're looking at an additional $750 million to elevate (that's assuming that the per km cost of doing at-grade track is roughly equal to doing elevated track).
The Evergreen Line platforms are the same length as the Expo and Millennium Lines, at 80-metres in length they are twice the length of the Canada Line’s short platforms. With Translink’s direct involvement, rather than a public-private partnership, more attention has been given to the design of the system to ensure that it can fulfill the capacity demands of the future. However, safe and modest station architectural designs will remain given the high costs of constructing architecturally-unique stations like those of the Millennium Line. The modestly designed elevated stations of the Canada Line in Richmond, half the length of the proposed Evergreen Line stations, cost between $25 to 30-million to construct per station.
Canada Line platforms are 30m I believe, so that's why their stations are so much less expensive. The Evergreen Line stations are probably a better baseline to use, because I believe their platforms are around 90m as well.
From a Vancouver website: http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2012/10/skytrain-evergreen-line-moving-full-forward-for-2016-arrival/
I would say your estimate for station cost is overly conservative - maybe by a factor of 2 or more.
Canada Line platform underground stations are all built to 50m, with only 40m opened for some stations. Elevated and at-grade stations (except airport) are 40m and can be expanded to 50m. The airport station is 50m.
Evergreen Line stations will be at least 80m expandable to 100m (some are a bit closer to 90m by looking from the drawings), except Lougheed Station, which will be 120m.
Lincoln station, which is an elevated, single-entrance, side platform station with 80m platform built on top of a mall parking lot, cost 28M to construct.
Hmm, interesting. Is that station an anomaly though? Or are most of the Evergreen Line stations a similar cost? If Vancouver can consistently be in the ~$30 million range for stations, it only brings the total cost of doing elevated along Eglinton East down.
Even if the difference between subway and LRT is $500 million, that would still be a waste. The RT doesn't need subway capacity. A simplified transfer by locating the subway and LRT platforms in a single, grand hall at Kennedy Station for easy transfers is all that's needed. $500 million can buy a lot of LRT or kickstart the construction of the U2 line (DRL).
Also, Kennedy, as one of the most heavily used stations in the system, ought to have unique and exceptional architecture and finishes. I would say that it should be on par with the new Spadina line stations, though world-famous architects aren't needed for great results. Metrolinx should understand that.
Even if the difference between subway and LRT is $500 million, that would still be a waste. The RT doesn't need subway capacity. A simplified transfer by locating the subway and LRT platforms in a single, grand hall at Kennedy Station for easy transfers is all that's needed. $500 million can buy a lot of LRT or kickstart the construction of the U2 line (DRL).
@rbt
Huh? If you are riding the 133 or 129, why would you favour LRT with an extra transfer at Kennedy (after one at Malvern or McCowan) over delivery from your bus ride directly to a subway terminus?
@rbt
Huh? If you are riding the 133 or 129, why would you favour LRT with an extra transfer at Kennedy (after one at Malvern or McCowan) over delivery from your bus ride directly to a subway terminus? Time saved by LRT is marginal at best, in that it is not sufficient to dissuade most from preferring a BD extension. Transit geeks agonize over a few minutes saved without understanding that 5 minutes or even 10 minutes saved isn't motivation for many average riders to take on an extra transfer unless forced by the network. And if the extension gets up to Sheppard, the value of LRT will be diminished to nearly zero.
You might have a case for the 102. But I suspect that if a BD extension happened, we would see the route split or branched with a new Markham North service running from either STC or McCowan/Sheppard (whatever the terminus is).
The only riders who would object are Centennial students and staff. And none of them vote in enough numbers or concentration to scare any politician.