W. K. Lis
Superstar
Or this double decker train?
|
|
|
- Thread starter aquateam
- Start date
ssiguy2
Senior Member
RER is just a fancy name for traditional suburban rail such as in Melbourne and Sydney. Both Mel & Syd systems have underground tunnels for the trains in their downtown cores but Sydney uses exclusively double-decker trains while Melbourne uses primarily single level.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
One thing everybody should anticipate is regional demands. Not all the money can go to the GTA. And other cities (like London and Ottawa) are paying for a third of their transit plans, with much higher property taxes. In a situation of scarcer transit dollars (say if the PCs are elected), I expect the GTA will either see cuts or provincial demands for higher contributions.[/QUOTE]
While it is true that Ottawa and Kitchner have had to, unlike anywhere in the GTHA, pony up one-third of the costs of their respective LRT/rapid transit lines, London has flatly refused.
London has stated it will only put in 10% of the funding and not a cent out of the piggy back except for the community consultations as their 10% will come from future development taxes.
The City couldn't have been more timely and politically astute if it tried. The mayor sent out a letter to Wynne the day following the announcement of 100% financing for Miss/Bram LRT and had already announced 100% funding for the Hamilton LRT. He referenced them both in regards to expecting Queen's Park will be equally generous to London.
London is demanding $900 million from Queens Park for the LRT and has flatly refused any notion of it paying one-third the cost. Queen's Park can certainly get Ottawa to pick up the tab but made it very clear that Queen's Park is going to be paying for both the LRT and BRT systems and London wants construction to begin by early 2017 and even possibly later this year.
London was very politically astute knowing that Wynne would have a mutiny on her hands if she doesn't give London everything it's asking for as London has the 3rd highest per-capita ridership in the province and higher total ridership than Ham/Kitch/York/Bramp despite those being larger centres. London has since made an official request for funding with a news conference and he specifically named all the London Liberal MPs/MPPs and how he "looks forward o working with them" He made reference to starting actual construction in early 2017 implying he wants the cheque in the mail ASAP and it is not up for negotiations.
London will get it's money and has very tactfully put QP in a position where refusing is not an option.
While it is true that Ottawa and Kitchner have had to, unlike anywhere in the GTHA, pony up one-third of the costs of their respective LRT/rapid transit lines, London has flatly refused.
London has stated it will only put in 10% of the funding and not a cent out of the piggy back except for the community consultations as their 10% will come from future development taxes.
The City couldn't have been more timely and politically astute if it tried. The mayor sent out a letter to Wynne the day following the announcement of 100% financing for Miss/Bram LRT and had already announced 100% funding for the Hamilton LRT. He referenced them both in regards to expecting Queen's Park will be equally generous to London.
London is demanding $900 million from Queens Park for the LRT and has flatly refused any notion of it paying one-third the cost. Queen's Park can certainly get Ottawa to pick up the tab but made it very clear that Queen's Park is going to be paying for both the LRT and BRT systems and London wants construction to begin by early 2017 and even possibly later this year.
London was very politically astute knowing that Wynne would have a mutiny on her hands if she doesn't give London everything it's asking for as London has the 3rd highest per-capita ridership in the province and higher total ridership than Ham/Kitch/York/Bramp despite those being larger centres. London has since made an official request for funding with a news conference and he specifically named all the London Liberal MPs/MPPs and how he "looks forward o working with them" He made reference to starting actual construction in early 2017 implying he wants the cheque in the mail ASAP and it is not up for negotiations.
London will get it's money and has very tactfully put QP in a position where refusing is not an option.
rbt
Senior Member
I don't think it matters.
I imagine single decker today, and double decker in 30 years if capacity requires it. RER-B has a tunnel height issue to contend with otherwise it would probably be double deck today. Nothing (obvious to me at this time) would constrain a change in SmartTrack rolling stock at a later date.
If we have a choice, lets use an interior design similar to Sydney. The traffic flow seems far better than what I've experienced in the Paris double deckers.
Last edited:
Adjei
Senior Member
The studies are ongoing and are coming or did you expect the studies to already be in place. With the Crosstown, there was a proposal done first, then the studies and EA came later. I don't know why you are expecting any different. There are already business case analysis for increased go expansion here:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona.../benefitscases/Benefits_Case-GO_Lakeshore.pdf
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...ation/benefitscases/Benefits_Case-GO_Rail.pdf
And numerous documents from Metrolinx board meetings about GO RER here:
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...51203_BoardMtg_Capital_Projects_Update_EN.pdf
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...51203_BoardMtg_Capital_Projects_Report_EN.pdf
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd..._BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_Update_EN.pdf
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...oard_Presentation_Capital_Projects_Update.pdf
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20141211/20141211_BoardMtg_RER_Update_EN.pdf
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...0140905_BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_EN.pdf
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd...0140626_BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_EN.pdf
What studies and debate has the city of Toronto used in changing their transit plans twice in a week? They went from a sound three stop subway in Scarborough to a one stop subway with a 17 stop LRT line added.
If the GO RER was as flawed as y'all want it to be, it would be challenged and ripped apart like we are seeing done with SmartTrack. I wonder why the opposition parties at Queens Park aren't ripping apart this flawed transit plan? The reason they aren't is because it's sound and it would be naive to do it. GO RER should have been in place years ago. If we had something like that, there would not be calls for subways to Vaughan and Richmond Hill. People want frequent reliable transit and GO RER provides that.
As for the nimbys in Davenport, this bridge proposal has been known since 2009. For them to pretend no one knew anything about it is laughable. Especially coming from the city officials and politicians. They knew about this. Pretending that all this is new to them is laughable. As I said previously you can spend 10 years consulting with these people and they would still want their $600 million bridge. What we need is someone like Trump to tell these nimbys to shove it.
crs1026
Superstar
Those benefits cases are pretty good documents. The problem is, we don't know how much has changed as the RER concept has been redefined. We know it has changed a lot since then - electrification being one prime example. I would call them good background foundation, but not project approvals.
The Board reports are just activity reports. They do not describe the approved scope, nor do they provide any detail that would allow a Board to assess if work is progressing as expected, whether costs are on track, whether value obtained is as expected, whether full scope remains achievable. Most importantly for public consumption - no end date is targeted or projected nor is cost performance articulated. Nor are key impacts articulated....like, say, the need to build elevated structures thru particular neighbourhoods.
Yeah, I would expect better from a project that is said to be under way. The Georgetown South and West Toronto projects did better at communicating, and they weren't really all that forthcoming until late in the game.
- Paul
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
There are several ways you can "prep" to build a station in an area that minimally affect the costs of the subway.
Emergency exits and ventilation shafts will be needed on the 6km line.
What you do is that you design these ventilations and emergency exits in a way that a station is basically "roughed in" for later use.
This is actually what was done on the Finch subway line extension in the 1970's: North York Centre was a planned station stop in the beginning, and along with other stations (there was supposed to be stops between Eglinton and Lawrence and Lawrence and York Mills station) it was scrapped. However, mayor Mel Lastman convinced the TTC to at least build a rough in for the station to be added at a later date.
So it was always planned to happen from the beginning.
They could do this on the Line 2 extension at several key points along the line, basically making all the emergency exits at major intersections or wherever they envision a station to be needed in the future.
Voltz
Senior Member
A roughed in emergency exit that could be re purposed as a station would have to be structurally as large as a regular station platform anyway, there can't be much difference in cost compared with a finished station.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
Steve Munro has a new op-ed piece in the Toronto Sun about SmartTrack:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/24/backtracking-on-smarttrack
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/01/24/backtracking-on-smarttrack
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
"Metrolinx has not commented yet, but an engineer at the briefing cautioned that rail corridors might not be wide enough in places."
How much of a challenge is it to widen these?
muller877
Senior Member
I'm a bit ignorant on the construction differences between a working line and one not built yet. Here is my thoughts and please correct them:
TBM bores the line including using a concrete liner from entrance to exit shaft
They close the road where the station will be and dig a huge hole
They cut out the concrete that was installed as part of the TBM bore
They create platforms and all the station build-out
They lay tracks
Station is done
So the only difference I see with a working line:
- the dig-out has to occur when the line is shut (risk of concrete collapse)
- the TBM concrete removal would be done after they complete the station build-out (carefully when the tracks are closed)
- the final subway edge platform has to be built as the last step
I really don't see the large technical challenge. Am I missing something?
crs1026
Superstar
It depends, on what's in the way.
If it's just needing a little extra width, and it's flat and open land, then it's just the land cost and a little grading, fencing, and widening any culverts along the way. Add more money if there are power lines or utilities that have to be moved. Remember that railway rights of way often are used for buried cables or fibre optic pathways. If the line is on an embankment, or in a cut, there is more money needed for that You have to stabilise embankments well so they don't spread under the weight of trains. Signal poles and bungalows for the rail signals are expensive to move, because again there are buried cables involved. New drainage routes may be needed.
Something like the underpass under a major roadway, which would require a new tunnel or excavation, would be costly and disruptive. If a bridge isn't wide enough to add a track, you're looking at a whole new bridge.
It's all just stuff that money solves, but the underpasses embankments and bridges are the most problemmatic.
- Paul
Voltz
Senior Member
The tracks and trackbed sit on the tunnel liner, which is built in segments, and as best I can tell the TBM Tunnel liners get removed entirely where a station is built, so the tracks would have to come out with it.
Since the tunnel liners are several peices that are put together for each ring, I can't see it being possible to remove only part of it and leave in the bottom part, each whole piece would have to come out.
This picture should give an idea of the inside of such a tunnel.
rbt
Senior Member
Well, it's expropriation which is always a political challenge; though not really technically difficult as the process is well established. Nearly every transit project requires land expropriation of one kind or another.
Fence to fence the corridor already looks to be 3 tracks wide between Kennedy and Lake Shore, so we're looking for space for 1 (maybe 1.5) tracks. It'll be mostly backyards but at least 1 house will be coming down and possibly a couple of commercial buildings.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Backtracking on SmartTrack: http://m.torontosun.com/2016/01/24/backtracking-on-smarttrack#.VqWb-yuqY_c.twitter