ADRM said:
I think the Vox article in the previous post does a pretty good job of that, no?
Click to expand...

I was hoping for a more technical analysis. Do soil conditions play a role, what is the cost of labour, the cost of construction materials, what role does opposition to construction disruption play, etc..

The Vox article just pointed out a handful of examples of potential waste (such as NYC using more people to operate TBMs than Spain) without providing any substantial proof that those things are actually wasteful, and not a necessity due to unique conditions in NYC.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I was hoping for a more technical analysis. Do soil conditions play a role, what is the cost of labour, the cost of construction materials, what role does opposition to construction disruption play, etc..

The Vox article just pointed out a handful of examples of potential waste (such as NYC using more people to operate TBMs than Spain) without providing any substantial proof that those things are actually wasteful, and not a necessity due to unique conditions in NYC.
Click to expand...

I'd appreciate paying for a third party audit of mass transit construction costs increases in Toronto. The cost escalations even just in the last decade are enormous. I'd like the public to understand why prices have risen so much, and what can be done to control them.
 
Vancouver just built a 11km SkyTrain line with 6 stations and a 2km tunnel for $1.4 billion so what's Toronto's excuse?
 
You mean Evergreen line of course.
Canada Line, also fully grade-separated, was $2B for 19km.

Over in Montreal, their current plans are for some 60+ km of track for about $5B.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Vancouver just built a 11km SkyTrain line with 6 stations and a 2km tunnel for $1.4 billion so what's Toronto's excuse?
Click to expand...
I'll trade one Coquitlam for on Scarborough please!

The excuse there is of course political. There is no reason we can't build the Scarborough subway in the rail corridor or elevated for cheaper.

The Relief Line's problem is that it is going to have to be tunneled.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Vancouver just built a 11km SkyTrain line with 6 stations and a 2km tunnel for $1.4 billion so what's Toronto's excuse?
Click to expand...

Vancouver uses small trains that are both shorter and narrower than Toronto's huge subway trains. This reduces the cost of tunnelling and of Station construction. I suspect this is where a lot of the savings has come from.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
That reuses old infrastructure. It's a disingenuous comparison.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's all that disingenuous. Many cities cannibalize or reuse existing infrastructure for portions of their subway expansion, which is just one of many ways to bring down per km costs.

Reecemartin said:
Cost wise there no Canadian comparison to the DRL. Vancouver's system uses a totally different spec and stop spacing. Montreal's REM will be similar to skytrain and reuse existing ROW's. It's been a long time since a subway on the scale of the TTC's has been built through the downtown core of a Canadian city.
Click to expand...

Crosstown comes pretty close. It's definitely not the core, and the stations are 2/3 the length. But the project is sizable, and the area it's passing through is still fairly old and built-up.
 
Last edited:
Our equivalent would be SmartTrack/RER which is mostly reusing existing rail corridors.
 
salsa said:
Society has lost its way. Toronto built most of it's subway system within a couple of decades, at a time when our economy was smaller. Today we are paying over $3 billion for a 1 stop subway in the suburbs, and there is no money available for absolutely critical transit projects such as DRL. New York built one of the most extensive subway systems in the world many years ago, but since then very little progress has been made because it costs $billions for a single kilometer of new subway.

People can make up excuses all they want ("we are not like communist China" or whatever), but this is insanity. At this rate, Toronto and New York will become a living hell if they don't bring down construction costs and start rapidly building more transit to serve the growing population.
Click to expand...

BurlOak said:
Jane Jacobs?

It appears that before a politician would make up their minds and engineers would be trusted to build it. There was little time to discuss things with the public, since the government knew best. Before you knew it, construction had begun and progress was seen so no other politician would be able to, or dare to cancel it.

Now, look at a design team for any project. Most of the effort revolves around public discussions, PICs, EAs. There is more concern for some damn minnows, mussels or grass than there is for the end user, or the taxpayer. All these people exist to slow the project down. It is lucrative for them to extend the consultation as much as possible since these people contribute nothing to the end product, and they need to make their money in the discussion phase.

Make the mandate to build a line in 5 years for $300M/km and ignore all else. It is still possible, but we need to cut out the frills that kill progress.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

WislaHD said:
I'll trade one Coquitlam for on Scarborough please!

The excuse there is of course political. There is no reason we can't build the Scarborough subway in the rail corridor or elevated for cheaper.

The Relief Line's problem is that it is going to have to be tunneled.
Click to expand...

Tuck said:
Toronto is allergic to elevated, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Who cares. Draw the red line: Elevate or no subway. TTC needs to stand up for once. Or Metrolinx. Or anybody.
ssiguy2 said:
Vancouver just built a 11km SkyTrain line with 6 stations and a 2km tunnel for $1.4 billion so what's Toronto's excuse?
Click to expand...

BurlOak said:
You mean Evergreen line of course.
Canada Line, also fully grade-separated, was $2B for 19km.

Over in Montreal, their current plans are for some 60+ km of track for about $5B.
Click to expand...

Reecemartin said:
Well while the Evergreen line is a good project, it still suffered delays and in addition a lot of the cost savings came from the fact that a large part is at grade parallel to a existing rail corridor. The project as a whole runs through a very different corridor, uses less costly infrastructure (Skytrain vs. Subway) and is in the suburbs the project isn't really comparable to DRL.
Click to expand...

TheTigerMaster said:
Vancouver uses small trains that are both shorter and narrower than Toronto's huge subway trains. This reduces the cost of tunnelling and of Station construction. I suspect this is where a lot of the savings has come from.
Click to expand...

TheTigerMaster said:
That reuses old infrastructure. It's a disingenuous comparison.
Click to expand...

Reecemartin said:
Cost wise there no Canadian comparison to the DRL. Vancouver's system uses a totally different spec and stop spacing. Montreal's REM will be similar to skytrain and reuse existing ROW's. It's been a long time since a subway on the scale of the TTC's has been built through the downtown core of a Canadian city.
Click to expand...
Listen, I appreciate the differences, but the excuses have to stop at some point. Let's see some results.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Listen, I appreciate the differences, but the excuses have to stop at some point. Let's see some results.
Click to expand...

Let's not believe for one moment that it is the cost that is the barrier to results - the lack of new downtown lines post 60s isn't the result of cost, but a chosen policy of not expanding subway downtown. A municipality that chose to build a subway extension for 3B+ is in no position to argue that cost is a barrier to build what is needed.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top