[Rainforest]

Does it? All 6 of the Spadina extension stations are separate construction contracts. The tunnelling is two contracts (each including one of the stations), but they are still doing Spadina in 3 different chunks of tunelling, as it's not cost effective to do it in one long run. The track will be installed in one contract, but much of the cost is driven by length.

I doubt there's that much savings to be had to build 5 km and 4 stations, compared to 2.5 km and 2 stations (for example). If there was, we wouldn't see 6 contracts for the Spadina line, instead of just one.

I don't know details, but issues that come to mind are: 1) The cost of TBM launch sites; 2) The cost of bus terminals: every interim terminus needs a massive bus terminal, whereas a regular station can do with a small terminal or even with on-street connection.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I wondered if Ford would take the "etch it in stone" concept too far. He did talk about extending the Sheppard subway to Vic Park. Building one station at a time involves significant start-up costs for each portion. What if instead he tunnelled all the way to Scarborough Town Centre and built no tracks or stations. Essentially, he would for subsequant leaders to adopt that route.

I could accept that. Because the cost would be less. But Ford is only thinking about claming victory for reelection.

 

[BurlOak]

Does it? All 6 of the Spadina extension stations are separate construction contracts. The tunnelling is two contracts (each including one of the stations), but they are still doing Spadina in 3 different chunks of tunelling, as it's not cost effective to do it in one long run. The track will be installed in one contract, but much of the cost is driven by length.

I doubt there's that much savings to be had to build 5 km and 4 stations, compared to 2.5 km and 2 stations (for example). If there was, we wouldn't see 6 contracts for the Spadina line, instead of just one.

I think the route which Spadina Extension is following has much more green space making surface access easier. I think the Eglinton core is more comparible, where about 10km is being tunnelled from either end. Combining one station with the launching or extraction would save some money. Each intermediate station is a stand along operation that would not have to be part of the initial construction.

 

[nfitz]

I think the route which Spadina Extension is following has much more green space making surface access easier. I think the Eglinton core is more comparible, where about 10km is being tunnelled from either end. Combining one station with the launching or extraction would save some money. Each intermediate station is a stand along operation that would not have to be part of the initial construction.

We were discussing Sheppard however, not Eglinton.

I'm not saying there's anything to be gained from doing it at once. I'm just saying that it's so marginal, that it shouldn't be a factor in the decision making ... i.e. spend $4.5 billion now instead of $1-billion to save $50 million.

 

[Dan416]

I recall a portion of the SELRT was to be underground anyway. They should revise those plans for subway and just build that portion/station (I think it was to Consumers?) and then add the Vic Park station and call it a day.

 

[nfitz]

I recall a portion of the SELRT was to be underground anyway. They should revise those plans for subway and just build that portion/station (I think it was to Consumers?) and then add the Vic Park station and call it a day.

But if you want to build a subway, why would you want to build Consumers Road station as designed at grade ... how would it dive back underground without interfering with traffic?

 

[BurlOak]

We were discussing Sheppard however, not Eglinton.

I'm not saying there's anything to be gained from doing it at once. I'm just saying that it's so marginal, that it shouldn't be a factor in the decision making ... i.e. spend $4.5 billion now instead of $1-billion to save $50 million.

Sorry, I was not clear enough in my comments. The intent was that if Ford wants to ensure that Sheppard will be a subway, he could do the tunnel portion only to STC (no stations or tracks). I suppose stations would have to be built (or at least rouhed in) at the launch sites. The intent is not to save money, but to spend as little money as possible (as well as avoid duplicate costs) to force this route to be subway at a future time when more money materializes and public pressure builds.

 

[BurlOak]

I recall a portion of the SELRT was to be underground anyway. They should revise those plans for subway and just build that portion/station (I think it was to Consumers?) and then add the Vic Park station and call it a day.

I believe it makes sense for the subway to end at a transit hub. Transit City had this being Don Mills with LRT meeting from the 3 other directions. If the subway were to be extended, it should make it all the way to Kennedy. Here LRT could continue East, and GO going north-south.

 

[nfitz]

I believe it makes sense for the subway to end at a transit hub.

Then turn it south so it carries down Don Mills, and it can cross Eglinton, Danforth, Yonge, University, and terminate at the Dundas West transit hub.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

But if you want to build a subway, why would you want to build Consumers Road station as designed at grade ... how would it dive back underground without interfering with traffic?

I think he is saying that since you already have the basic plan to tunnel east of Don Mills, why not use the plan they had for the SELRT and modify it (i.e. the tracks stay underground) so it can be extended to VP sooner

 

[nfitz]

I think he is saying that since you already have the basic plan to tunnel east of Don Mills, why not use the plan they had for the SELRT and modify it for a subway so it can be extended to VP sooner

Why not just use the original plans to extend the subway to Victoria Park. How would the LRT plan, that calls for extending the existing platform at Don Mills station have any use to a subway extension. Presumably you'd want to see a grade change instead as you move east off the existing platform.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

Why not just use the original plans to extend the subway to Victoria Park. How would the LRT plan, that calls for extending the existing platform at Don Mills station have any use to a subway extension. Presumably you'd want to see a grade change instead as you move east off the existing platform.

I would definitely think the same thing. Perhaps he is unaware of the original subway plans? I have no idea

 

[gweed123]

I would definitely think the same thing. Perhaps he is unaware of the original subway plans? I have no idea

The original subway plans reached the point of being ready for EA, were they not? Or was the EA actually approved? In any case, I agree, presumably some sort of engineering was done on that extension. It may need to be updated to account for new development in the area, and new regulations, but it should still be much better than starting from scratch.

 

[nfitz]

The original subway plans reached the point of being ready for EA, were they not? Or was the EA actually approved? In any case, I agree, presumably some sort of engineering was done on that extension. It may need to be updated to account for new development in the area, and new regulations, but it should still be much better than starting from scratch.

I might be wrong, but I believe the EA was completed to Victoria Park, even though it was only built to Don Mills Road. I'd think that if you did build it now, it would generally be the same, with minor alterations.

 

[gweed123]

I might be wrong, but I believe the EA was completed to Victoria Park, even though it was only built to Don Mills Road. I'd think that if you did build it now, it would generally be the same, with minor alterations.

That's what I figured. I remember seeing that in the original plan they had the line divided up into 5 segments: Downsview-Yonge, Yonge-Don Mills, Don Mills-Vic Park, Vic Park-Kennedy, Kennedy-STC. The section from Don Mills to Vic Park was the most heavily studied/engineered section that was never actually built.

The only alterations that I can really think of that would be needed are to take into account new buildings that have gone up since the geotech work was done, and maybe some changes in the way the EA itself was written/evaluated. Maybe do a couple boreholes along the route to make sure that the soil conditions haven't changed, but besides that it should be pretty good coming off the shelf.