nfitz
Superstar
What do you mean? The tunnel diameter is bigger than what they are drilling for the Spadina subway extension.
|
|
|
EL72
New Member
Getting rid of that ugly Coffee Time and car wash on the East side will do wonders for the Keele/Eglinton corner and may even help that small strip of businesses on Eg. in the long run.
Solid Snake
Active Member
politicians being the predictable creature that they are, I predict Metrolinx and the Province will bury Victoria Park Station to not piss off Scarborough too much...maybe even Warden unless it's elevated
nfitz
Superstar
Eglinton/Victoria Park/O'Connor is already a pretty difficult intersection (remember there are 5 roads coming off of it, not 4). I can see worse ways to spend money than burying it through there. I don't see any issues like this at Warden, Birchmount, Pharmacy, or Bermondsey. And that's it ... that's all the major intersections we are talking about (Wynford is already grade-separated, they've already said they would grade-separate Kennedy and Don Mills ... and surely they can figure out a way to not foul up the T-junction at Leslie).
Voltz
Senior Member
The pre Ford plans call for Wynford to be de-grade separated, to create a better pedestrian environment, which I think is stupid.
nfitz
Superstar
Really! Missed that. Wynford is a funny street. It does feel very pedestrian-orientated just north of Eglinton. But then there's this hell to the south ... I can see why they might do that.
Voltz
Senior Member
I'd rather have the underpass left open so vehicles do not have to cross the LRT tracks, they can still convert the ramps to a regular intersection so they do not feel like a mini free-way interchange and pedestrians can reach the platform at grade. I would also have stairs from Wynford up to the platform for those who do not want to wait to cross at street level.
waltthizzney
New Member
so why does this cost 8 billion when the canada line in vancouver cost 2 billion?
Tulse
Senior Member
This specific project does not cost 8 billion.
BurlOak
Senior Member
The Ford Eglinton Crosstown was 25 km long (actually 19 km long of new construction and 6 km for converting the SRT to LRT). The cost was listed as $8.2B. Thats $330M/km, or $$360M/km for the new Eglinton portion.
The Canada Line was 18.5 km long for a cost of $2B - or $100M/km. This includes 9km of tunnel, 1.4 km of at-grade and 8 km of elevated.
I think that is the key question that is not being asked nor being answered. Why does it cost so much more in Toronto?
I am not sure who should ask or answer this question, but it is integral to the arguement. If there is a referendum on the Eglinton subway, it would make a huge difference if the cost is $6B, $8.2B, or somewhere (and where exactly) in between. Remember that the part of Eglinton in dispute is not a downtown setting.
nfitz
Superstar
Wasn't that explained in inordinate detail further up this thread, or in one of the other Transit City threads back in 2009 or 2010?
Dan416
Senior Member
I think the issue is that nobody is satisfied with the answers being provided.
leopetr
Active Member
Canada Line was supposed to be bored but the contractor cheaped out and used cut and cover, digging up the street for years and putting lots of businesses out of business.
Canada Line has very short stations and accordingly low capacity. It was running at capacity shortly after completion and will need to be upgraded soon.
There's a single-tracked section on the Canada Line, creating a built-in bottleneck.
Parts of the Canada line are elevated which is cheaper than tunnelling. Only the SRT rebuild part of Eglinton will be elevated.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I recall a fair bit on why our tunnel boring was more expensive than others (larger diameter tunnel, more difficult soil condition, inflation), but I did not recall the other ideas discussed as much. Instead of comparing our tunnels to others, why not compare our grade-separated transit with capacity of 10,000/hr (expandable to 20k) to others.
Would Scarborough have accepted an elevated line - I do not recall it even being on the Table. Of course cost must come into it, so the question is, do people want median LRT (plus the burried section) for $6B, or fully underground for $9B (I am adding some to get the line to Sheppard as with the median/surface option), or $XB for an elevated line. If X=$6.5B, maybe elevated is the way to go, if X=$8B, then median LRT is better. If you want people, or councillors, to decide on this, they should be aware of all viable options to make an educated vote - and I think elevated is viable.
I may be able to make the same arguement with cut and cover instead of bored. If the cost of cut-and-cover undergournd is $6.5B, then maybe it should be considered. Would this leave one lane in each direction? Possibly business along the route could be compensated with some of the savings. Since funding is dictating the speed of this project and not engineering, perhaps shorter segments could be built at a time to minimize the disruption - and the contractor may be able to put more effort into finishing each short segment faster.
Maybe if Metorlinx builds this with P3, they could ask for proposals and decide beforehand what the benefit of a grade separated line (or burried) would be and give the tolerable lane closures and durations.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Possibly the City wrote a poor RFP document and there was too much wiggle room for the Contractor. But it is just as likely that it was the City (and not the Contractor) that cheaped out. The City saw the cost savings and decided the savings were worth the aggravation. There is aggravation with all types of construction - if the cost savings are large enough, the city can put up with a lot more complaints.