[Palma]

Transit in Ontario is very political. Transit goes where the votes go. The new subdivision out in pristine King farmland will sell for much higher if a GO station was built there. What I don't get is why it costs $100M to build 1 station. That's insane. It's a small building and a parking lot. It's not an intermodal or underground terminal. Why such exhorbitsnt costs?

Kickbacks?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Because given the transportation portfolio to an MPP from a sub/ex-urban riding with a dirt poor mode split is the pathway to transit - as opposed to electoral - nirvana. Particularly Vaughan.

AoD

 

[rbt]

TPAP should be included in the $40M. How much design is required for a platform, a small building, a parking lot and a pedestrian tunnel to cross under. The hardest part here is building the elevators or ramps for accessibility. $40M is already a very generous number.

And yet you agreed the construction only value of the tunnel was probably $7M. TTC regularly says they have 30% overhead (studies, engineering, accounting, project management, etc.) over the construction cost and I assume that would apply to this drop-in place tunnel too.

I'm not an engineer and certainly haven't tendered any large structures; but just extrapolating from that one tiny piece I think the individual pieces might cost more than you expect.

Of course, it's an engineers estimate. It hasn't been tendered. You'll have to ask Metrolinx what their project overhead is and for a breakdown of their estimated cost.

 

[jje1000]

What I don't get is why it costs $100M to build 1 station. That's insane. It's a small building and a parking lot. It's not an intermodal or underground terminal. Why such exhorbitsnt costs?

The $100 M includes 60 years of maintenance, or whatever that means- I doubt the actual costs of building the station are nearly that high.

Regardless, first messing around with GO electrification and now this? Del Duca has to go.

 

[smallspy]

I don't disagree BUT even a simple pedestrian tunnel (no platform, building, etc.) under the tracks as tendered for other Barrie line stations is $5.5M (so for this station it'll be more like $7M due to inflation). I couldn't say why it costs that much; just that it seems to be consistent every time Metrolinx tenders something despite multiple bidders for the work.

A "simple" pedestrian tunnel is being built on an active railway corridor. That opens up all sorts of additional safety requirements - and thus costs - that aren't required when working around the railway. It also limits who your contractors are, as there aren't many construction contractors who have taken the time to get certified for railway construction.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[rbt]

A "simple" pedestrian tunnel is being built on an active railway corridor. That opens up all sorts of additional safety requirements - and thus costs - that aren't required when working around the railway. It also limits who your contractors are, as there aren't many construction contractors who have taken the time to get certified for railway construction.

Of course, everything you say is true. It's also going to be true for quite a bit of the work on the new station too isn't it?

The "simple" in my example was in relation to the station as a whole.

 

[smallspy]

Of course, everything you say is true. It's also going to be true for quite a bit of the work on the new station too isn't it?

At least some of the work for the station will be on the ROW, yes. How much of it, I don't know. At the very least is the platform and all of its auxiliaries.

I wonder if the cost of the new underpass for Bloomington is also being credited to the station. If so, that would certainly account for some of the escalation in cost. (Of course, if its not, it raises more questions than it answers.)

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[cbrown2009]

Maybe a stupid question here but why use the tunnels and not overpasses?

Edit to add: And why isn't ML installing all of the tunnels at the same time since installation involves shutting the whole line down for multiple weeends at each station

 

[cplchanb]

Maybe a stupid question here but why use the tunnels and not overpasses?

have you not learned from the past few years of all the nimby protests due to the "eyesores" and "lost land value"...... politics probably played a large part in the decision.

 

[Allandale25]

Maybe a stupid question here but why use the tunnels and not overpasses?

Edit to add: And why isn't ML installing all of the tunnels at the same time since installation involves shutting the whole line down for multiple weeends [sic] at each station

I'm sure others will know more but I'll take a stab at it. Given the clearance issues, I assume there are fewer steps to go below ground than to build a bridge across the tracks. So it could be easier and faster for people.

 

[steveintoronto]

In the case of inclement weather, derailment or loose catenary, let alone objects being thrown, including suicides, tunnel is the better way to do it. The usual adage of "more expensive" only applies if it's an add-on rather than part of the initial build. There may be exceptions, as in the case of a very high water table.

 

[cbrown2009]

Thank you for those answers.

have you not learned from the past few years of all the nimby protests due to the "eyesores" and "lost land value"...... politics probably played a large part in the decision.

The NIMBY argument I buy only partially because I would think all the large parking garages planned might be more sight blocking.

I'm sure others will know more but I'll take a stab at it. Given the clearance issues, I assume there are fewer steps to go below ground than to build a bridge across the tracks. So it could be easier and faster for people.

Ok.

In the case of inclement weather, derailment or loose catenary, let alone objects being thrown, including suicides, tunnel is the better way to do it. The usual adage of "more expensive" only applies if it's an add-on rather than part of the initial build. There may be exceptions, as in the case of a very high water table.

I would be thinking enclosed bridges, not open ones.

Again, I only ask because overhead wouldn't necessarily involve shutting down the tracks as was done recently (2 May weekends at Maple) and I question if the remaining track crossing tunnels are going to be done piecemeal, requiring trains to be shut down for many weekends in the near future or installed all at once, maybe requiring several work crews working simultaneously but ensuring the minimum number of shutdowns going forward.

 

[steveintoronto]

The NIMBY argument I buy only partially because I would think all the large parking garages planned might be more sight blocking.

That's a very valid point. It puts a context on how 'obtrusive' elegant bridges would be in comparison. There's no shortage of 'car warehouses' stacking up at a station near you.

Again, I only ask because overhead wouldn't necessarily involve shutting down the tracks as was done recently

I think catenary invokes a whole other level of regs to satisfy, and even putting a bridge over them is not as straightforward as it would seem. Non-electric would be pretty straightforward, it can all be pre-assembled into modules to erect on-site. As to whether catenary must be solidly attached to the underside or not is a good question, I suspect it is, for a number of unpleasant reasons, and to do so means killing the juice to do it. If the line is to be electrified later, it's a bit more moot of a point.

Pre-and post-build again might flip the economics of tunnel v. bridge. Soil conditions might also greatly affect the economic case. If it's underlying rock, a bridge is going to be cheaper, almost all things considered, unless it's a new-build and the tunnel is part of the box.

It's a fascintating point, I'll dig for some comparisons later.

Edit to Add: Had a few mins to do a quick Google, got a fascinating hit:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=181890

Bear in mind catenary might complicate the equation! I'll dig further later.

 

[salsa]

Nice deflection.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Metrolinx lectures TTC about fare integration when there is none between GO and UPX - two Metrolinx owned services

What do you mean about no fare integration between UPX and Go. If you take the UPX train to another stop other then the airport you pay the same as you would on a gao tarin from those stops. The only problem is that the dedicated readers for the UPX aren't set up for use with the go transit loyalty program which is why they tell you if you are taking it to the airport to use the UPX readers, if you are using it for any other station to use the go transit ones.