[Rainforest]

To reduce the cost? Can't see how that would work.

It could reduce the costs in the long term (by using the existing surface GO corridors for outer portions of the service), but will likely increase the Phase I cost, instead of reducing it.

Now, do "they" understand such relations? I wouldn't bet on it ..

 

[Rainforest]

I want more details ASAP.

Me too. The problem is that the authors of the document in question are unlikely to have any details at this point.

 

[rbt]

Noone in the right mind will build underground light rail through downtown for the cost of heavy rail. Not even Doug Ford.

They might be thinking of mainline-compatible heavy rail.

I expect Metrolinx wants to look at heavy rail but a smaller profile car. Something the same size as what you find in Montreal or Madrid which may allow for a single bore, stacked station design. This can significantly reduce the amount of excavation required (and station costs).

Wouldn't be surprised if they tender for a specific capacity (say 25k pphpd at peak hours) and leave everything else, including operations, up to a P3 entity. The RER tender is also very vague in the specification; stating desired outcome but very little about how it should be achieved.

 

[nfitz]

I expect Metrolinx wants to look at heavy rail but a smaller profile car. Something the same size as what you find in Montreal or Madrid which may allow for a single bore, stacked station design. This can significantly reduce the amount of excavation required (and station costs).

Not sure it saves that much in station costs, as invariably you dig down to the platforms. It can save on tunnelling.

Handing it over to a PPP and letting them do everything possible to save money - like closing Queen Street and Pape for 5 years for cut-and-cover may also save money.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

What technologies are there to possibly choose from? ICTS? RER (which would certainly be even more expensive than a traditional metro for this cash-strapped government)?

Where does this nonsense come from? RER MIGHT be slightly more expensive downtown, but you can more than make up for that taking the northern extension above ground. Frankly, if there is any truth to the CITY wanting something else it's the only thing that makes any sense at all.

I'm quite aware that this reads like a ploy by the province to kill the project outright, but if you take the statement at face value... This is probably what we need to do to get any kind of private sector involvement, opens the door to an RER implementation and tying the project into GO electrification.

tl;dr hold off on the panic. We'll do better fighting the bastards when the duplicity comes out than panicking about what could be read between the lines of announcements that are politically sensible for them and not that bad if honestly implemented.

 

[hw621]

That would mean a RER redesign (at least service-wise). I want more details ASAP.

SmartTrack 2.0 maybe LOL

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Me too. The problem is that the authors of the document in question are unlikely to have any details at this point.

Good chance that nobody in government does either, hence the vague statement

 

[sixrings]

Plans made during a five minute coffee break and then drawn on a napkin..

 

[WislaHD]

Conspicuously absent from the talk of redesign is any money earmarked for these projects.

This is a cancellation (for four years) by any other means.

 

[rbt]

Not sure it saves that much in station costs, as invariably you dig down to the platforms. It can save on tunnelling

Single bore with stacked platforms inside the bore increases tunnelling costs significantly due to the much much larger bore size BUT tunnelling is one of the cheapest steps.

Stations construction outside the bore, however, only requires enough for the entry gates and escalators/elevators; not the entire station length or width. Of course, there are 2 excavations for each station (one for each exit).

Metrolinx has been whispering about TTC incompetence for over a decade. They've found someone who will listen. Frankly, given the 2 major projects Metrolinx has been in charge of (Georgetown South and Eglinton LRT) I'm not expecting unicorns and rainbows from these changes.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Hint:

 

[nfitz]

Single bore with stacked platforms inside the bore increases tunnelling costs significantly due to the much much larger bore size BUT tunnelling is one of the cheapest steps.

I was thinking of Montreal where they use a single bore, but don't (usually) stack the stations. Montreal stations however, don't seem any less immense than recent Toronto ones. In fact, I'd say 1960s Toronto stations look like less material was removed than 1960s Montreal stations.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I imagine most stations on the DRL are going to have to be mined anyway - so what kind of technology reduces mining costs? that's where you will find savings.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Still trying to translate "a different technology for the project"? Do they mean light rail, automatic train control (ATC), or Doug's "mono-rail"?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I imagine most stations on the DRL are going to have to be mined anyway - so what kind of technology reduces mining costs? that's where you will find savings.

Reducing life safety requirements maybe? But that will require changing building codes.

AoD