[scarberiankhatru]

Precisely - there aren't any bloated bits. There seems to be a minority of Urban Toronto conspiracy theorists who believe that that the second gunmen is profiting from this somehow.

The second gunmen aren't profiting, but engineering consultants are. They're printing their own money here. No party involved has any interest in trying to keep costs down.

A 28 bay underground bus terminal with three ramps to the surface, requiring tens of millions of dollars of exproriated property to build, is as bloated as a drowned carcass. At the public meeting, when I asked about the option of building an at-grade bus terminal or something integrated in a development, like York Mills station, since they're expropriating dozens of properties, anyway, to build the ramps, it was like I was speaking in Klingon. 28 bays is clearly bloated and that bit alone is directly costing millions of dollars.

 

[unimaginative2]

Precisely - there aren't any bloated bits. There seems to be a minority of Urban Toronto conspiracy theorists who believe that that the second gunmen is profiting from this somehow.

Haha. Wow. You and whoaccio really haven't ever worked in government.

There are many reasons to build larger and deeper stations (but not too deep or large), such as the need for a mezzanine level to access either track direction regardless of where the passenger entered from, or to provide passage ways to nearby buildings or terminals. Modern fire codes come to mind, as well as the fact that the original shallow and simple simple stations are dangerously over crowded, and in need of expansion.

I agree that there are many valid reasons to build large stations, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's just not needed. A full-length mezzanine level isn't necessary in the overwhelming majority of cases. At most, a small fare collection area at each end of the station would be enough. Even better would be accommodating fare collection on the surface like at many of the BD stations, perhaps integrated into development. All of these options would meet the fire code requirements, which simply stipulate the need for two exits. The overwhelming majority of the simple older stations in the system are not at all overcrowded and serve their function quite effectively. Stations like Main Street, Old Mill, Rosedale, Royal York, Glencairn, and countless others are economical and more than sufficient. Most of the stations on the new extensions will also never produce enough demand to require larger stations (>25,000 ppd). Aside from the two Steeleses, Finch West, and the two termini, a simple station with two surface buildings and exits would be more than sufficient to meet all forseeable demand.

 

[Whoaccio]

Precisely - there aren't any bloated bits. There seems to be a minority of Urban Toronto conspiracy theorists who believe that that the second gunmen is profiting from this somehow.

I don't think it is a conspiracy, just large scale incompetence. Just compare the costs per km of Vancouver's Canada Line to our ultra=subways. Yes, it is narrower and lighter, but it is also being built at disproportionately low costs.

 

[doady]

Dollar for dollar, the TTC's Transit City light-rail plan will serve more riders than a subway extension, said TTC chair Adam Giambrone.

This kind of attitude is pretty disturbing. Even without any extensions, the current subway system carries much more riders than Transit City ever will and the system is at capacity. The Transit City lines will only make overcrowding on the subways even worse, hurting more TTC riders than they will actually help.

 

[taal]

I'm sure Adam Giambrone is correct but using that attitude the only projects we'd see go ahead are all in Toronto for the most part. The DRL transit city X 2 and much much more.

I don't think that's the right attitude in this case. If one can make a case for LRT North of Finch or Steeles ... a valid one I'd be more willing to listen.

 

[taal]

Speaking of which:

Has anyone actually read the TTC report. The #s reported by York Region are pretty amazing:

People / Jobs per Hectare:
area - current, 2031, 2051

Richmond Hill Center - 45, 296, 548
Langstaff - 22, 144, 266
Royal Orchard - 70, 100, 131
Clark - 111, 145, 180
Steeles - 61, 280, 519

Definitely plausible but how were these numbers derived ... picked out of a hat! That's quite a bit of intensification. But don't forget the time line ... that's a lot of time so it can easily happen. Heck we'll go through 1/2 more booms by 2031 .

One problem I noticed when attending one of the meetings on York Region. A lot of stats they gave were backed up by absolutely nothing - things like the above. Moreover, the idea of overcrowding on the TTC's Yonge line was never ever addressed - it was mentioned but no serious planning / solution was reached.

FYI - the TTC used 100 people / jobs per Hectare has the bottom point. Also, there are 15 stations currently below that on all the subways.

 

[taal]

Check out:

http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TT...ion_recommended_concept_project_issues_de.pdf

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Speaking of which:

Has anyone actually read the TTC report. The #s reported by York Region are pretty amazing:

People / Jobs per Hectare:
area - current, 2031, 2051

Richmond Hill Center - 45, 296, 548
Langstaff - 22, 144, 266
Royal Orchard - 70, 100, 131
Clark - 111, 145, 180
Steeles - 61, 280, 519

Definitely plausible but how were these numbers derived ... picked out of a hat! That's quite a bit of intensification. But don't forget the time line ... that's a lot of time so it can easily happen. Heck we'll go through 1/2 more booms by 2031 .

I don't think they're totally abstract. Langstaff, for example, already has development proposals on the table which is where the 30,000-population number keeps coming from. That affects two stations. That whole 2-station area is also a Places to Grow node meaning that the province has already given minimum job/resident targets they have to meet for 2031.

Some of the other stations (Steeles in particular) have obvious redevelopment sites, and few already in the works (ie Hy and Zel's) certainly there is necessarily some guesswork but their zoning and bit of guesswork provide guidelines.

Anyway, my take is that Giambrone is being a bit of a tool. As always, TTC wants to do what's best for itself. I'm sure he'd be only too happy to compromise, for example, by taking the subway up to Steeles and doing LRT for the rest.

I'm not saying Metrolinx is infallible by any means but they have a REGIONAL mandate and I'm not sure that TTC even knows the 905 exists as more than resource for double fares, so pardon me if I dismiss Giambrone's musings.

 

[taal]

Off base ...

If the TTC wants the most for it self it should love the subway extension for all these *supposed* new riders it would bring to the subway ... a subway it would operate and recoup all profits from.

They are mainly concerned about the numbers being correct ... not wrong ... if they're correct the capacity issues on the Yonge line will be very serious. This proposal is completely useless unless those are addressed as well. Whatever that implies ... a connection to Downsview, DRL, and so on.

 

[nfitz]

The second gunmen aren't profiting, but engineering consultants are. They're printing their own money here. No party involved has any interest in trying to keep costs down.

TTC awards contracts to the lowest bidder. TTC contracts also do no allow the consultants to charge anything they want - they require the consultant to provide salary information, and the charge-out rate is fixed based on the salary of those performing the work. No one is getting rich here - it's good work, but the profit margins are not excessive.[/QUOTE]

 

[Edward]

So why is the cost so high compared even to Sheppard?

 

[Conrad Black]

With the recession hitting I'd think construction costs should come down especially for materials.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

TTC awards contracts to the lowest bidder. TTC contracts also do no allow the consultants to charge anything they want - they require the consultant to provide salary information, and the charge-out rate is fixed based on the salary of those performing the work. No one is getting rich here - it's good work, but the profit margins are not excessive.

Not quite. Engineers aren't saying "a staircase costs a billion dollars, so starting writing cheques"...however, the consultants are getting rich partially because overbuilt busywork pork barrel mini-projects, components of the overall extension, *are* being contracted out. The high number of wheels that get reinvented in this city also adds superfluous costs and diverts tax dollars to consultants and construction managers and insurance companies and banks and away from additional transit infrastructure. Consultants have recommended alignments and technologies that may or not be absolutely necessary and may cost much more than alternatives. Budget almost $700M for engineering and other costs, including hundreds of millions of contingency dollars that will be spent in unknown places, and it just might have an impact on the profit margins. And no one "in charge" of the consultants seems to have any interest in saving hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[GTS]

I picked up a supplementary agenda at the TTC meeting on Wed. Dec. 17/08 about the Yonge extension to RHC and it gave some good arguements about how this overcrowding will be handled when(or if) the Yonge line is extended. One main item that will alleviate some of the ridership is the University/Spadina extension to VCC. This branch will be completed first and the report stated that a lot of the riders will be diverted to this line instead of going to Yonge. Another item that will alleviate overcrowding is the installation of Automatic Train Control. ATC will be put in different part of the line in stages but it will greatly reduce headways of the trains. The improvements to the Bloor/Yonge exchange will reduce dwell times at that station signifacantly. And yet another feature to help alleviate overcrowding is adding a 7th car to the trains! I imagine that some of the older stations will need upgrading to handle a 7th car but I guess the extended stations such as Steeles and all will be built to accomodate 7 car trains.

 

[nfitz]

There are certainly inefficiencies - as there is any bureaucracy. But there is a reason we have these bureaucracies - because they generally do work. I don't really see an alternative. You could do a 407-type operation, and while it is cheaper in the short-term to build, and quicker; you end up costing more in the long-term, because the 4th P of a PPP that everyone likes to ignore is profit.