[TheTigerMaster]

I'd like to see some outside firm look at this, not hired by the City/TTC. Because there really seems something conspiratorial with the present SSE situation. They've actually convinced people that Scarb has some unique topography/geology/hydrology which makes subway-building considerably more expensive and complicated than elsewhere in TO? Gimme a break.

The cost of the DRL South is approaching $7 Billion; it's not just the SSE that is expensive.

I strongly doubt anything conspiratorial is going on. Any engineer knowingly fudging with the numbers would be putting, not only their job on the line, but their entire career (their engineering license would be taken away if caught). And this would have to be coordinated with several engineers, making your suggestion even more unlikely.

If we can do these things, I think the tiny Bendale and Dorset branches of West Highland Ck shouldn't be an issue at all. The geology, topography, and hydrology aren't exactly different than elsewhere. SSE should have stations at Eglinton/Danforth and McCowan/Lawrence E done not all that different than what we've built in the past. No 10-storey depth, nor extremely unreasonable costs. If it does involve a bridge structure, let's see it presented. Don't hide the option entirely.

Likewise, the DRL is also going to absurd depths.

Excluding our subway bridges and focusing on underground infrastructure here. We just finished tunneling through swampland alongside Black Ck, in its floodplain, adjacent to a sizable tributary - and built a station there (407). We built York Mills stn below the West Don, literally with the river flowing overtop the station box. Then there's the shortlived Eglinton-Scarboro Subway; Metrolinx didn't mention anything about the complexity of tunneling below the enormous Don Valley nor extreme depths for the nearby station at Don Mills. It was a nonissue. Not to mention there's several other creeks and buried rivers we pass over/under/adjacent to for our subway system.

We have different safety standards, and new construction priorities. Noise and vibration reduction is a top priority nowadays - something that wasn't true prior to the 90s. Noise reduction is one of the main reasons why these tunnels are so deep, if the information I've learned at public sessions is correct. And of course, construction costs have been increasing across the industry; not just in Toronto

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Please note I wrote 'adding stops' - I was referring to more than one, as in the original 3-stop plan.

Even if you want to ignore the $5 billion number, this has went from a $3.35 billion (may be off on this number) three stop extension, to a $3.2 billion cost for one stop and a 17 stop Crosstown East extension, to $3.35 billion for just one stop. They're still in the planning phases and the costs are skyrocketing. For the one stop alone, that's $2 billion to $3.35 billion, a 67% increase and we're still in the preliminary planning stages.

Based on the constantly escalating numbers from City Hall, I don't think $2 billion is hyperbolic at all.

Given the cost escalations for the one-stop option, $5 Billion for stops at Sheppard and Lawrence and STC seems wholly reasonable to me.

 

[44 North]

The cost of the DRL South is approaching $7 Billion; it's not just the SSE that is expensive.

I strongly doubt anything conspiratorial is going on. Any engineer knowingly fudging with the numbers would be putting, not only their job on the line, but their entire career (their engineering license would be taken away if caught). And this would have to be coordinated with several engineers, making your suggestion even more unlikely.

But unlike SSE the RL actually has inline stations planned. And I'm not saying SSE's engineers are wrong or lying, I'm concluding that any present decision has been reached due to the preceding decision to go with single bore. Such a large machine couldn't easily/affordably have multiple extraction shafts at Bendale or Dorset creeks...it's a straight run. And the larger diameter probably requires further depths from the surface than the smaller single bore.

Likewise, the DRL is also going to absurd depths.

RL is a bit different though. It's not just crossing below the Don River itself, nor is it crossing some valley carved out in the last 10k yrs. It's crossing through an ancient valley system that's millions of years old, and has numerous foundations, utilities, transport corridors along the way. Also much of the depth of the RL is to take advantage of the closer proximity of bedrock (something too deep to reach north of Bloor-ish). So yeah the south end of the RL I sort of put in a different category than the rest of the subway system. Even still there are many unanswered question with the RL, e.g - why a single bore wasn't highlighted early on as it was with SSE.

We have different safety standards, and new construction priorities. Noise and vibration reduction is a top priority nowadays - something that wasn't true prior to the 90s. Noise reduction is one of the main reasons why these tunnels are so deep, if the information I've learned at public sessions is correct. And of course, construction costs have been increasing across the industry; not just in Toronto

I get that part. But I was giving recent examples too (TYSSE, Ford-McGuinty Crosstown). With SSE and the depths given things are way more extreme than those two. Again I attribute a key part of this to the early decision to go with single bore, but also the questionable decision to so easily highlight the express option as best. Inline stations were effectively rejected before being considered. We certainly didn't see that in the past.

 

[syn]

Entirely based on your own posts.

None of which you can actually cite. You're making it all up.

My goal is to counter your constant exaggerations, as well as your occasional direct lies.

None of which exist. You seem insistent on making it about me, instead of dealing with the facts.

I'm not going to copy all your links. Give me one that says additional stops are forecast to cost $2 billion.

Of course you won't. You accused me of making up the $5 billion figure I wrote came directly from city reports, and it's quite obvious I was completely accurate.

$2 billion is entirely my estimate (I didn't suggest it was a number from the city), and based on cost escalations it's entirely reasonable.

The likely $5 billion current cost for one stop is more than the $4.3 billion cost cited by Tory for the three stop plan 17 months ago.

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/06/17/tory-defends-extra-900m-scarborough-subway-extension/

As you can see from the report above (it includes a picture of the city document, so no one can suggest it's a media/leftist conspiracy), the cost for Scarborough one stop extension was $2 billion, then rose to $2.9 billion. Since then, it's gone up again, by nearly half a billion to $3.35 billion (not factoring in the likely 50% increase). That's a 67.5% jump in just over 17 months. Interestingly, Tory admitted the $2 billion estimate was based on a sketch, with no planning. It's actually quite hilarious; why would the city release an estimate to the public based on nothing more than a sketch?!

This same report indicates that the 3 stop option, as of 17 months ago,had rose to $4.3 billion. That's why they claimed to abandon the idea. This was 17 months ago; if we apply the same 67.5% increase to the three stop plan we have a total cost of $7,202,500,000. Even if it suffered a 50% increase that's still nearly $6.5 billion.

This is completely ignoring the fact that planning wasn't completely done, which is why the one stop extension will cost nearly $5 billion on it's own. This is why they abandoned the other two stops; it's not even remotely feasible from a cost perspective.

If it wasn't, they would've revised it to a 2 stop extension some time ago.

The cost of this extension has been spiraling out of control for over a year now. At this point it's entirely a political exercise; Tory has to deliver or he'll lose Scarborough votes, and that's why he justifies it no matter what the cost. It's also why there won't be stops (or even another stop) added; it's simply far, far too expensive.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Also much of the depth of the RL is to take advantage of the closer proximity of bedrock (something too deep to reach north of Bloor-ish).

What are the benefits of being closer to bedrock?

 

[Hopkins123]

What are the benefits of being closer to bedrock?

Most of Montréal’s metro system was built through bedrock and that afforded them the ability to build a lot of stations within close proximity to each other and not have to rigidly follow the street grid.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Most of Montréal’s metro system was built through bedrock and that afforded them the ability to build a lot of stations within close proximity to each other and not have to rigidly follow the street grid.

I presume because the foundation of adjacent structures don't need to be as well secured, correct?

 

[Hopkins123]

I presume because the foundation of adjacent structures don't need to be as well secured, correct?

It allowed them to build deeper tunnels, which made it easier to optimize tunnel alignment and to avoid and go around obstacles (existing underground infrastructure, bad quality soil, etc) allowing for desired and optimal station location.

Only in the Toronto/Scarborough specific context is going deep an issue apparently incurable by escalators/elevators.

 

[sixrings]

So you don't trust your pro scarborough pro subway mayor? Maybe next time elect coffey1 or onecity into office

 

[BurlOak]

But unlike SSE the RL actually has inline stations planned. And I'm not saying SSE's engineers are wrong or lying, I'm concluding that any present decision has been reached due to the preceding decision to go with single bore. Such a large machine couldn't easily/affordably have multiple extraction shafts at Bendale or Dorset creeks...it's a straight run. And the larger diameter probably requires further depths from the surface than the smaller single bore.

• Engineers care first and foremost about safety. I am sure the current plan is no less safe than any other that could have been derived.
• When the line was being looked at a couple of years ago and the STC station re-imagined, I recall seeing the terms for the review of the line and it precluded any ability to find real savings. Within the confines of what was given to them, and their constraints (such as it must be TBM underground subway extension of B-D with minimal disruption of the surface for any duration of time), SSE is what they came up with.
• If the question was to find the most economical means of connecting STC seamlessly with the rest of the subway system, they would have come up with a different answer.

 

[Rainforest]

None of which you can actually cite. You're making it all up.

None of which exist. You seem insistent on making it about me, instead of dealing with the facts.

The facts are as follows:

- You deliberately misrepresented my view on the role of polls, even after I specifically mentioned that they are one of the factors to be taken into account:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...h-subway-extension.27288/page-75#post-1273301

- Likewise, you claimed without any ground that SSE supporters think density doesn't matter; that's obviously not true.

- You've made a bunch of weird statements, like claiming that the SSE debate is about a staircase, or that the usage of RT can be measured by the fact that you happened to be alone in the RT car once in the late evening.

Those examples show that the majority of your statements are either plain wrong, or very loose / exaggerated.

Of course you won't. You accused me of making up the $5 billion figure I wrote came directly from city reports, and it's quite obvious I was completely accurate.

$2 billion is entirely my estimate (I didn't suggest it was a number from the city), and based on cost escalations it's entirely reasonable.

The likely $5 billion current cost for one stop is more than the $4.3 billion cost cited by Tory for the three stop plan 17 months ago.

http://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/06/17/tory-defends-extra-900m-scarborough-subway-extension/

As you can see from the report above (it includes a picture of the city document, so no one can suggest it's a media/leftist conspiracy), the cost for Scarborough one stop extension was $2 billion, then rose to $2.9 billion. Since then, it's gone up again, by nearly half a billion to $3.35 billion (not factoring in the likely 50% increase). That's a 67.5% jump in just over 17 months. Interestingly, Tory admitted the $2 billion estimate was based on a sketch, with no planning. It's actually quite hilarious; why would the city release an estimate to the public based on nothing more than a sketch?!

This same report indicates that the 3 stop option, as of 17 months ago,had rose to $4.3 billion. That's why they claimed to abandon the idea. This was 17 months ago; if we apply the same 67.5% increase to the three stop plan we have a total cost of $7,202,500,000. Even if it suffered a 50% increase that's still nearly $6.5 billion.

This is completely ignoring the fact that planning wasn't completely done, which is why the one stop extension will cost nearly $5 billion on it's own. This is why they abandoned the other two stops; it's not even remotely feasible from a cost perspective.

If it wasn't, they would've revised it to a 2 stop extension some time ago.

The cost of this extension has been spiraling out of control for over a year now. At this point it's entirely a political exercise; Tory has to deliver or he'll lose Scarborough votes, and that's why he justifies it no matter what the cost. It's also why there won't be stops (or even another stop) added; it's simply far, far too expensive.

Another blatant exaggeration on your part.

You read in one report that the one-stop extension is forecast to cost $2.9 billion, and the 3-stop extension $4.3 billion. The one-stop plan got re-evaluated to $3.35 ; that's a 16% increase. Now you want the 3-stop plan to cost $7 billion; that would be a 63% increase.

You have a problem, either with your math or with your logic.

 

[syn]

Density and ridership considerations have been consistently ignored by SSE supporters. This is a fact.

Any facts or sources presented have also been, fairly consistently, written off as anti-left propaganda.

The comment about the SSE debate being about a staircase is absolutely false. I was simply responding to another poster's (I believe Hopkins) idea that spending billions because old ladies with canes have to make a transfer going downtown is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

Please re-read the article. The original estimated cost of the SSE was not $2.9 billion. It was $2 billion, hence the title.

Here is yet another source: Scarborough subway extension will cost $900M more than initially thought.
"The cost of the one-stop extension of Line 2 from Kennedy Station to Scarborough Town Centre was initially pegged at $2 billion, however on Friday the mayor told reporters that further analysis by city staff has revealed the price tag to be $2.9 billion."
http://www.cp24.com/news/scarboroug...st-900m-more-than-initially-thought-1.2949967

The $2 billion price tag is what helped get it approved in the first place - this was presented in January, 2016.

Another source: The waiting is the hardest part

"January, 2016

Ms. Keesmaat and her staff pitch a new idea: a one-stop subway that only goes as far as Scarborough Town Centre, coupled with a massive redevelopment of the area around the station. The bureaucrats estimate this could be done for about $2-billion and propose using the money saved to extend the Eglinton Crosstown light-rail project, a provincial project now under construction, as far east as the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...34270677/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&
So if we revised our timeline - the cost of this one stop extension has risen from $2 billion to $3.35 billion - 67.5%, in just 22 months, which is still absolutely insane - and city staff suggest that new, 67.5% increase could still go up by another 50%.

Do you honestly think a far more complicated 3 station plan was going to stay at $4.3 billion with no cost increases whatsoever?

If so I'd suggest I'm not the one who has a problem with math nor logic.

 

[44 North]

What are the benefits of being closer to bedrock?

Not so much closer, but within the bedrock are where benefits can be found. On the whole I think these benefits are that it's more stable and drier - particularly compared with loose sand or till that has water pouring through. Now it should be drier and more stable, but we don't exactly know 100% what's down there. But I think it's safe to say that if we're going well below the bedrock/overburden layer it will be quite stable and dry. This 400m yr old shale might not be as solid as precrambrian granite or as watertight as a clay seam like other cities take advantage of, but naturally better than our past tunneling through 10,000 yr old waterlogged sand.

 

[Rainforest]

Density and ridership considerations have been consistently ignored by SSE supporters. This is a fact.

That's not a fact. That's your wishful thinking, not supported by any evidence.

Any facts or sources presented have also been, fairly consistently, written off as anti-left propaganda.

The comment about the SSE debate being about a staircase is absolutely false. I was simply responding to another poster's (I believe Hopkins) idea that spending billions because old ladies with canes have to make a transfer going downtown is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

You weren't just "simply responding" to one particular comment. You generalized, without any good reason. Of course the staircase claim is false, but you made that claim anyway.

Please re-read the article. The original estimated cost of the SSE was not $2.9 billion. It was $2 billion, hence the title.

Here is yet another source: Scarborough subway extension will cost $900M more than initially thought.
"The cost of the one-stop extension of Line 2 from Kennedy Station to Scarborough Town Centre was initially pegged at $2 billion, however on Friday the mayor told reporters that further analysis by city staff has revealed the price tag to be $2.9 billion."

The $2 billion price tag is what helped get it approved in the first place - this was presented in January, 2016.

Another source: The waiting is the hardest part

"January, 2016

Ms. Keesmaat and her staff pitch a new idea: a one-stop subway that only goes as far as Scarborough Town Centre, coupled with a massive redevelopment of the area around the station. The bureaucrats estimate this could be done for about $2-billion and propose using the money saved to extend the Eglinton Crosstown light-rail project, a provincial project now under construction, as far east as the University of Toronto's Scarborough campus."
So if we revised our timeline - the cost of this one stop extension has risen from $2 billion to $3.35 billion - 67.5%, in just 22 months, which is still absolutely insane - and city staff suggest that new, 67.5% increase could still go up by another 50%.

Do you honestly think a far more complicated 3 station plan was going to stay at $4.3 billion with no cost increases whatsoever?

If so I'd suggest I'm not the one who has a problem with math nor logic.

You mentioned yourself that the original $2 billion estimate was not properly researched, and yet you want to use it as the base to count the subsequent increase.

The $4.3 billion estimate was a result of a proper study. There is no guarantee it won't grow at all, it could grow by 10% or 20%, but not by 63%.

Furthermore, quite obviously nobody will build the extension to Sheppard if its cost somehow escalates that much. In that case, at most they will add back the Lawrence East station but still terminate the line at STC.

So, you are bundling together all worst-case scenarios, to make the subway project look as expensive as possible:
- Exaggerated cost escalations
- Absolutely no steps taken to reduce the construction costs (possible steps are discussed in this thread and elsewhere)
- And yet, the subway goes all the way to Sheppard

Each of those isn't very likely to happen, but all together are absolutely impossible.

 

[OneCity]

That's not a fact. That's your wishful thinking, not supported by any evidence.



You weren't just "simply responding" to one particular comment. You generalized, without any good reason. Of course the staircase claim is false, but you made that claim anyway.



You mentioned yourself that the original $2 billion estimate was not properly researched, and yet you want to use it as the base to count the subsequent increase.

The $4.3 billion estimate was a result of a proper study. There is no guarantee it won't grow at all, it could grow by 10% or 20%, but not by 63%.

Furthermore, quite obviously nobody will build the extension to Sheppard if its cost somehow escalates that much. In that case, at most they will add back the Lawrence East station but still terminate the line at STC.

So, you are bundling together all worst-case scenarios, to make the subway project look as expensive as possible:
- Exaggerated cost escalations
- Absolutely no steps taken to reduce the construction costs (possible steps are discussed in this thread and elsewhere)
- And yet, the subway goes all the way to Sheppard

Each of those isn't very likely to happen, but all together are absolutely impossible.

The original cost estimate did not take into account the deep extravagant bus bay for one of the highest usage stops on the BDL. That was the big jump. Since there are currently no stops and the geological conditions are now well known there is little room for any major surprises going forward. The cost will now go up with inflation, material and property values like any other line and as you mention if there was any political will in between the bickering to review further savings, it possible some cost could be reduced and possibly a stop added