[BurlOak]

With the comment about expanding Wilson to feed a DRL, I wondered just how much more service you could feed out of Wilson.

Though aren't there new connections just being finished between Wilson and Downview which would allow them to feed more service northbound out of the yard?

Given that it's about $50 million per kilometre of subway tunnel (not including power, track, etc), and $200 million per subway station, with only 4 km of track needed, the cheapest option would be for non-revenue track from the current end of non-revenue track at Welback to Downsview.

You are mixing apples and oranges. Either the stop is a huge bus terminal and the cost is $200M, or it doesn't have many connections and is $50M. (Bessarian was$35M I think). Bathurst would be on a cut and cover portion since there is no room for TBM between West Don and Bathurst. Hopefully the they argue the there is no point in using TBM for the +/-1.5km from Bathurst to new Downsview platform. Deep TBM would add big $ since Bathurst would have to be much deeper as a TBM launch site.

 

[crs1026]

Open a yard on the walmart site? Instead of creating a new yard there they could purchase the Obico yard from CP, which is for sale. At least that's what Steve Munro thinks. Then you could free up Greenwood yard for DRL trains.

The Walmart site - in fact, the whole south side of Dundas - will be condo's shortly. Whereas the south side of the CPR is all industrial and not densely used - Obico is an obvious possible site but there are others in the same area.

The question that this would raise is - if a tunnel is to be built under the CP line to reach the yard, should it be a mainline taking Line 2 to Sherway. I have always felt that's the wrong place to take it, but the development going on down there would mean a base of support would likely emerge for that.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

There is a larger list of Roman bridges that are long since gone.

They probably weren't maintained at the recommended frequency of the engineer.

I can't recall a rehab on the Sheppard bridge - the normal cycle is about 25 or 30 years. I would not be surprised if this bridge needs a rehab that would cost roughly half the replacement cost ($40M).

25 to 30 years for the initial rehab seem excessive for more than just the cosmetics.

 

[wopchop]

Playing a game of connect-the-dots might make the map look pretty, but ultimately we shouldn't be building transit in places where there is no demand.

This is why we have travel demand modelling.

It also should be pointed out that a western extension of Line 4 would cost money. I'd hope that this would be far down the priority list, as we have more important things to spend money on.

It isn't about connect the dots at all, actually. You would only need ~3.5km of track to go from Welbeck to Downsview station, if we figure it approx $275m/km, then that extension is ~$963m. Let's call it an even $1b. IMO, an entirely new yard could certainly cost as much as that, if not more. According to this report, the TTC estimated a new yard the size of Wilson would cost $675m (in 2009$).

Access to Wilson from the east might also reduce operational costs for trains going into or coming out of service.

All I'm saying is that I'd like to see it studied. There's no harm in that.

 

[nfitz]

You are mixing apples and oranges. Either the stop is a huge bus terminal and the cost is $200M, or it doesn't have many connections and is $50M. (Bessarian was$35M I think).

I doubt either of the stations (Bathurst or the second platform at Downsview) would be on the low end of things.

Bessarion was costed at $34 million when construction was awarded in 1998. There's at least 20 years of inflation on that number before a new station would be awarded. $50M would reflect an increase in the construction price index of 1.95%.

In reality the construction price index is typically assumed to be 3% to 4%. So $34 million from back then would be $60 to $75 million now. And that doesn't include engineering costs - which are estimated to be over $30 million a station for the Scarborough line.

Looking at the Scarborough costs, they are estimated to be $160 million for a minimal station like Lawrence East, with just a bus terminal to $500 million for a terminus station like Sheppard, including cross-overs, tail tracks and a storage track.

If anything, $200 million for Bathurst and Downsview are underestimates! The $250 million budged for Scarborough Centre station is probably better. Though if one was going to add additional stations as Senlac with nothing, and the track is shallow, perhaps they can get it down to closer to $100 million for construction ... but it's not going to happen for $50 million. Though I don't think the track IS very shallow at Senlac, where the tunnel already reaches the beginning of the station box. And if the track IS that shallow everywhere, then they are not using TBM, which will also drive up costs.

 

[44 North]

West Don would be much easier with its higher elevation. Either build new WB and EB subway on either side of bridge, or rebuild the entire bridge at higher elevation with subway under.

I was thinking it over, and one thing I was wondering is the depth of the tail track at Welbeck. Because if it were deep enough to allow the grades, and the TTC were to sway to local nimbys' concerns regarding the building of a bridge, perhaps a solution like what was done for the West Don at York Mills could work. That is: divert the river, build half the track and tunnel just below the water level, then divert the river back to build the other half. The drawback of course is that it'd probably be costly, and the station at Bathurst would be pretty deep. And perhaps laws have changed since the 60s and such an endeavour might be ruled out due to the high risk if a heavy rainstorm were to occur during construction.

 

[smallspy]

I can't recall a rehab on the Sheppard bridge - the normal cycle is about 25 or 30 years. I would not be surprised if this bridge needs a rehab that would cost roughly half the replacement cost ($40M).

I don't recall exactly, but it was last done around the turn of the century. One or both of the ends of the bridge will have plaques indicating the exact date.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[TransitPolicyChanger]

Thanks to Google StreetView it appears to be 1997 - with the Bridge built in 2001

 

[Forgotten]

Yes, this is an excellent idea which had crossed my mind a few times. Instead of a complicated wye at Broadview or Pape to connect with B/D and a Greenwood Yard, a new yard could be built in the Thorncliffe area. The DRL may end up a standalone line, but if there's an opportunity for cost and time savings it may be worth it.

The community of Thorncliffe doesn't want a new yard dumped on them just because the rest of the city doesn't want one in their backyard. Moot point any how as land costs are too high for your pipe dream.

An alternative proposal that wouldn't cost the city a penny in land costs is to look west. We have the Don Branch sitting in the valley right now. It's long enough to hold two trains. How about rebuilding it with modern, slender, sleek, single concrete piers? Now add another. And another. And another. Add a few switching tracks. BAM! Instant yard with no land costs or NIMBY's to complain. With a current day design, the whole thing would look, dare I say, sexy or even world class?

 

[nfitz]

The community of Thorncliffe doesn't want a new yard dumped on them just because the rest of the city doesn't want one in their backyard.

I'm happy to have yards near me. Why would those in Thorncliffe not want very good employment (these aren't minimum wage jobs!) not situated at currently vacant all-but-abandoned industrial land and old rail yards?

I doubt they'd build one there though, given the proximity to Greenwood. I'd think they'd be more likely to use Greenwood, and build something else along the BD.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm happy to have yards near me. Why would those in Thorncliffe not want very good employment (these aren't minimum wage jobs!) not situated at currently vacant all-but-abandoned industrial land and old rail yards?

I doubt they'd build one there though, given the proximity to Greenwood. I'd think they'd be more likely to use Greenwood, and build something else along the BD.

Proximity to a yard probably has nothing to do with whether those jobs will come from the neighbourhood.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

Proximity to a yard probably has nothing to do with whether those jobs will come from the neighbourhood.

Little to do - I wouldn't say nothing. The city does have to improve local hiring, particularly in priority areas; they could do more to encourage this, such as removing employee parking.

What it does do though, is to strengthen communities, with more people working in the area. This increases local retail, and restaurants. I frequently see TTC employees in the Coxwell/Greenwood area frequenting local businesses. The same businesses I want to to be there, to service my needs.

And would lead to safer streets and communities with more people in the area working around the clock, resulting in more eyes out there.

One would have to be extremely Nimby not to want this in one's community. Particularly given all the vacant industrial land in that neighbourhood!

I'm not far from Greenwood yard - I don't hear local comments negative about that - perhaps with the possible exception of parking issues.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Little to do - I wouldn't say nothing. The city does have to improve local hiring, particularly in priority areas; they could do more to encourage this, such as removing employee parking.

What it does do though, is to strengthen communities, with more people working in the area. This increases local retail, and restaurants. I frequently see TTC employees in the Coxwell/Greenwood area frequenting local businesses. The same businesses I want to to be there, to service my needs.

And would lead to safer streets and communities with more people in the area working around the clock, resulting in more eyes out there.

One would have to be extremely Nimby not to want this in one's community. Particularly given all the vacant industrial land in that neighbourhood!

You'd probably see redevelopment in the area that would create impact that is far above what a yard can generate. In any case, I am not sure if you can fit a yard in easily - Hydro One will probably have a fit if you use the corridor.

AoD

 

[nfitz]

You'd probably see redevelopment in the area that would create impact that is far above what a yard can generate. In any case, I am not sure if you can fit a yard in easily - Hydro One will probably have a fit if you use the corridor.

You might do better. But we need yards somewhere, and it's not a terrible place for a yard (other than proximity to Greenwood) There's hardly any existing residential nearby either!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You might do better. But we need yards somewhere, and it's not a terrible place for a yard (other than proximity to Greenwood) There's hardly any existing residential nearby either!

Well there is residential - but nothing close like Greenwood. I think Hydro would be the main issue (esp. considering how close the site is to the Leaside transformer station).

Or do it the Hong Kong way - partner with the owner of East York Town Centre (or whatever industrial land onwers nearby) tear it down, build the station along with the yard underneath the site and put towers on top to cover the cost. If the economics work out you'd have - a) a depot b) a new station c) new development on top to kickstart neighbourhood renewal and d) captive ridership. If you are really daring, you can even slap in a large new mall in the podium and create some additional draw from the rest of the city.

AoD