News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

Money is not the issue, but squandering it on senseless projects is. For slightly more than Transit City's approximate cost of $15B (most of this had already been committed until last week), we could build about 75km of subway assuming $250M per kilometre. That should suit our transit needs for at least 2 generations with little more than minor upgrades here and there. 75 kilometres would provide:

- DRL from Dundas West to Fairview Mall: 20km
- Yonge North: 6 km
- SRT replacement: 6 km
- Sheppard, Downsview to STC: 12 km
- Eglinton, Airport to Kennedy: 30 km

Anything over and above that is completely senseless based on current transit requirements, at least within the concession system encompassing Toronto and York Region.

Edit: And a good way to kick start funding would be to divert 100% of the new funds generated from HST on gasoline towards subway expansion, at least from the GTA.
 
Last edited:
As I stated in the second part of my post, I acknowledged the possibility of any number of complications with such a process, and linking the current subway to a possible extension at Kennedy station is obviously one of them. However, you never actually answered the question. Would such an above-grade expansion not be far less expensive than digging underground? If so, why hasn't such a project been aggressively pursued? It seems to me that this could potentially be a way to "get the ball rolling", on the whole subway building agenda. Just a thought.

Have you ever been on the SRT? Some of the complications can be seen by just looking at google maps. Start there before aggressively pursuing it. Aside from the big problem of getting the subway from 3 floors below the SRT at Kennedy up and onto the SRT corridor, it then runs in a tight tunnel north of Ellesmere and elevated east of there. Converting this to LRT is a massive undertaking, let alone something bigger and longer and heavier.

The digging itself isn't where most of the capital cost goes. A subway extension to STC would not be particularly expensive to begin with so it's not clear how much money could be saved by rebuilding Kennedy station, rebuilding the tunnel, rebuilding the elevated structure, rebuilding all the stations, etc., just to save money by running the train on grass for a few km. It's probably cheaper to buy all the houses and industrial units on one side of Midland and run the subway there, if we're looking for the cheapest option. Perhaps a bored tunnel right through Brimley and Lawrence is the cheapest.

The tracks that go parrellel to the GO tracks can be replaced for a subway extension (not including the 90 degree turn at kennedy) but the elevated sections would have to be rebuilt, or atleast upgraded since the running HRT would increase the load exerted on the pillars below. Another thing to keep in mind is that the stations would have to be extended and a few stations removed like Ellesmere since it's daily usage is only around 1800 or so. Still, it wouldn't be extremely expensive when compared to building a brand new subway line or extending one. Maybe $120-150 million per kilometre compared to the ~$290 million being spent on the Spadina subway extension.

If the SRT tracks were east of the GO tracks, it could turn and run right on the big hydro corridor, to Midland, Brimley, or even McCowan, where it could go up to STC. If Kennedy was rebuilt, that is...and there was a chance to rebuild Kennedy with the necessarily complicated connections with both Eglinton lines.

Here's where the Spadina extension costs are going:

http://www.ttc.ca/postings/gso-comr...8/TYSSE_Project_Delivery_Strategy_Process.pdf

Some figures have changed and more will, but the proportions will stay roughly the same. It's before inflation, mind you. That 26% contingency is being eaten up by things like "oops, we didn't know the water table was this high, so we're adding like 20% to each station cost." $/km figures for some of these inclusions, like the Wilson yard modifications or the "property and miscellaneous," are interesting and working them out is a mandatory thought exercise if one is comparing subway project costs. A Danforth extension would only have two or three stations, wouldn't need as many trains, etc.

Ellesmere would not be removed. If the subway was extended, a proper connection with the York Mills bus would be built and, if anything, you'd remove Midland. The resulting station would be used over 5,000 times per day, probably over 10,000.

I'm quite sure there's an old railway ROW along a possible corridor mostly to STC. It's at least good cut 'n cover opportunity, and importantly can hit an easily developable area around Lawrence and Brimley. Compare that to the areas on the SRT, which are mostly ugly and quite undevelopable industrial lands.

Nope. The old rail corridor is gone and built over with houses. Anyway, you'd only be able to use it for about 1km by the time you curve up into from Kennedy. After Brimley, you hit Thomson Park, which means no more surface running even if you buy all the houses and backyards and use the corridor. The old rail corridor doesn't even go to STC.

There are no redevelopment opportunities at Brimley & Lawrence, just houses and parks and the hydro corridor and hospitals and about one plaza. The real opportunity is Midland & Lawrence, a small cluster of towers with room for more in the form of stores and empty land.
 
Scarberian have you ever made a map showing the routing you'd have a subway extension take from Kennedy to STC and the stops you'd include?
 
Transit City's approximate cost of $15B (most of this had already been committed until last week)

$9 billion was committed, $4 billion was cut, for a total of $5 billion committed for Transit City and Viva.

assuming $250M per kilometre.

I'd assume $400M per kilometre, especially for the DRL.

You might be able to get away with your number in the Richview corridor, but anything going through a built-up area will be a lot more expensive.

Remember that the lowballed estimate for expanding Bloor-Yonge Station to three platforms is $500M.
 
I'd assume $400M per kilometre, especially for the DRL.

You might be able to get away with your number in the Richview corridor, but anything going through a built-up area will be a lot more expensive.

Remember that the lowballed estimate for expanding Bloor-Yonge Station to three platforms is $500M.

I think you estimates are a little high. The Spadina extension, being built entirely underground and with stations the size of those on the Sheppard line, if not bigger, is being built for $306 million/km. Some of it is being cut and covered, but some of it is also being bored.

So it would be reasonable to assume that a line can reasonably be built for $250 million for CnC, $300 for bored, and $320ish for a more complicated bore (ie through a very dense area). It's likely that an Eglinton subway through the central portion would run about the same as for Spadina, assuming the stations on Eglinton are built at a reasonable size. From what I have seen for the proposed LRT stations, it looks like they're toning them down a little bit, which is nice. All you need is longer platforms and they would be very decent subway stations.
 
All you need is longer platforms and they would be very decent subway stations.

That's only if you don't account for the fact the Eglinton LRT stations will be built with a platform for the low-rise streetcars, not the much higher doors of subways. I don't believe it would be an inconsequential expense to convert the stations.
 
That's only if you don't account for the fact the Eglinton LRT stations will be built with a platform for the low-rise streetcars, not the much higher doors of subways. I don't believe it would be an inconsequential expense to convert the stations.

It wouldn't be inconsequential afterwards, you're right. But the stations aren't built yet. The design change would in effect be inconsequential. The added cost would come from the longer platforms, not the higher platforms.
 
The stations area already designed with the subway in mind, so the undergound portion is good to go as subway.
 
But aren't the huge stations of Sheppard and Spadina extension built large for fire safety and what not?? So, if Eglinton is being built with subway conversion in mind, shouldn't the stations be as big as well??
and also, Eglinton stations are gonna see a lot more patronage than Sheppard subway, so it would make sense to have large platform width right?? build it once, build it right!!
 
I'd rather have (relatively) cramped stations (they have to meet all the fire codes anyway) than not have it get built at all.
 
That's only if you don't account for the fact the Eglinton LRT stations will be built with a platform for the low-rise streetcars, not the much higher doors of subways. I don't believe it would be an inconsequential expense to convert the stations.

If they are built with conversion in mind, the future conversion could be a very simple process. It's retrofitting stations that had no consideration to future changes which get expensive and complicated.
 
When a station is deemed "cavernous" it's usually not the platforms themselves that are to blame. It's the hundreds of feet of underground tunnels (Leslie comes to mind), and massive concourse levels that aren't within the station box (Don Mills comes to mind) that can add tends of millions of dollars to the cost. Not to mention sprawling underground bus stations in the suburbs where land is plentiful!

Consider the proposed Steeles Station. For one, the number of bus platforms could be reduced. Then, the entire bus station could be built at grade on the Centrepoint parking lot, with structural provisions provided for a tall building overhead. Use Eglinton station's bus platforms as a model. A short tunnel could connect the south end of the station to the adjacent bus terminal, while a direct staircase down to the platforms could be provided on the north side of the intersection, like at the south end of York Mills. If a concourse level is required, build it within the station box like at North York Centre so that no extra excavation is required.

Voila, station cost cut in half and no need to spend millions on expropriation. No negative impact to passengers either.
 
When a station is deemed "cavernous" it's usually not the platforms themselves that are to blame. It's the hundreds of feet of underground tunnels (Leslie comes to mind)
We've been over this before. Most of Leslie station isn't underground. From Sheppard you have to walk UP to the Mezzanine level; let alone the bus platform on the level above that. In some other cities they wouldn't dream of building separate exits from the same single platform station that don't connect to each other without having through the platform level.
 
We've been over this before. Most of Leslie station isn't underground. From Sheppard you have to walk UP to the Mezzanine level; let alone the bus platform on the level above that. In some other cities they wouldn't dream of building separate exits from the same single platform station that don't connect to each other without having through the platform level.

I find the tunnel complaints interesting because a few years ago this board was all about how great MTR was for having a 6 to 8 exits/entrances for each station, how great the large tall ceilings were, etc.

Frankly, I think the new stations are pretty much perfect. They piss off the people who want to save their pennies and they piss of the people who want a grand station; compromise is only successful when everybody is unhappy.
 
If they are built with conversion in mind, the future conversion could be a very simple process. It's retrofitting stations that had no consideration to future changes which get expensive and complicated.
It will be more straightforward, but it will hardly be a "very simple process".

I find the tunnel complaints interesting because a few years ago this board was all about how great MTR was for having a 6 to 8 exits/entrances for each station, how great the large tall ceilings were, etc.
I don't know what was said several years ago, but of MTR's 50 or so urban stations, there are maybe at most 5 that can be considered to have "large tall ceilings", and most of those are aboveground stations or built as part of the development above the stations.
 

Back
Top