rbt
Senior Member
The date the contract was signed is the important one for price setting as the price was fixed for the project.
|
|
|
The date the contract was signed is the important one for price setting as the price was fixed for the project.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
rbt
Senior Member
Somewhat true but the same applies to future contracts as well. A contract signed in 2015 will include a 4-year inflation figure until work is complete in 2019.
The right way to do it is discount each years work to a common year (say 1997), also adjusting for revenue increases as a result of inflation; then compare numbers.
Of course, we probably don't have enough information on Sheppard to discount the 2001 work to 1997 prices let alone the imaginary future contract.
So, at least pricing on the same baseline (fixed price set at contract signing date) gives a common reference point to cover the entire project.
A multi-phase bid process would of course make direct comparisons impossible without accounting for up to a ~20% slop for inflation adjustments which may be required.
nfitz
Superstar
Your being pedantic. You know full well that the the $300-million/km estimates are based on completion in 2015. Sheppard was completed in 2002. I was conservative and used 12 years instead of 13.
Perhaps if you didn't wag the dog in such obvious ways, people might take you a bit more seriously.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
Regardless of inflation, those numbers are stupidly high. Obviously, the TTC pumped the numbers up a bit for their pro-LRT campaign, but it could still be a lot lower. The stations are horribly overbuilt, what with the huge bus bays and cathedral stations.
And if the expense is due to safety restrictions, I don't think there's been one station-related death in the entire TTC, yet most the subway was built before these new safety restrictions came into place. I think they could be cut back just a bit, which would save millions upon millions of dollars when constructing subway.
And if the expense is due to safety restrictions, I don't think there's been one station-related death in the entire TTC, yet most the subway was built before these new safety restrictions came into place. I think they could be cut back just a bit, which would save millions upon millions of dollars when constructing subway.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
You know, it's cute that you're insecure and need to seem "serious" around here, an anonymous internet forum, by being preoccupied with what I post. All you do is bitch about other people's numbers, and then you go and use bizarre numbers yourself, using whatever unstated context you feel like creating (if they had started a theoretical project X years ago, built to whatever Y standards I assume and finished optimistically by year Z...and if you disagree, you're a pedant). Maybe you're just jealous that other forumers seem to parrot a lot of what I post about various transit projects. It must be difficult dealing with a forum where you think everyone else is so very wrong all the time...oh dear, so much work and such stress for you!
Inflation is less of an issue than the consistently rising scale of these projects and their ridiculously overbuilt components. It'd be useful to know what percentage of "inflation" is really just the by-product of a continuously beefed up safety code and systemic overbuilding. Inflation doesn't force subway projects to be 100% underground, it doesn't force 25+ bay bus terminals, it doesn't force elaborate mezzanines to be built, and it doesn't dictate any number of other design and technology decisions.
nfitz
Superstar
? How many posts of your have I followed up this month? 4? 5? I can't think of one other for over a week. Compare that to the number of posts you've followed up ...
Your personal attack is without basis, and factually untrue. I'll point out when people use wrong numbers ... as anyone would when someone is wrong. People have pointed out when my numbers are wrong ... and so they should.
How is using the $2.6 billion cost of the Spadina extension, dividing by the length of 8.7 km, to get $0.3 billion per km a bizarre number?
You consistently underestimate subway costs, and overestimate LRT costs to advance your completely biased notion that subway is more cost effective than LRT. You belittle and badger those that disagree with you. And when someone nails your ass to the wall, you go for personal attacks.
Your a troll ... be gone with you.
Chuck
Senior Member
Safety codes require wider platforms, wider tunnels, more entrances, and better ventilation. They do not require 26 bay underground bus stations, 30,000 square foot mezzanine levels, and hundreds of metres of underground passageways at each station. Had the original Yonge line stations been built to today's safety standards, they would look almost identical to what you see today. The platforms may be a foot or two wider, there would be an extra staircase at the end of each platform, and there may be a few more grates in the sidewalk for ventilation. Nothing more.
What the TTC has done or plans to do at stations such as Downsview, Leslie, and the proposed Steeles station on Yonge borders on insanity, and the increased construction costs we see today have very little to do with safety codes. Simply using a 13 foot diameter TBM rather than 11 feet, or adding a few feet to the platform width (or whatever the actual figures may be) is nothing compared to building even one bus station underground.
With a little common sense, the TTC could easily pare tens of millions of dollars from their subway costs per kilometre - and still meet the current code. I believe that $150 million per km is very reasonable in 2009 dollars, which would get us at least 67km for the same budget cost as Transit City.
What the TTC has done or plans to do at stations such as Downsview, Leslie, and the proposed Steeles station on Yonge borders on insanity, and the increased construction costs we see today have very little to do with safety codes. Simply using a 13 foot diameter TBM rather than 11 feet, or adding a few feet to the platform width (or whatever the actual figures may be) is nothing compared to building even one bus station underground.
With a little common sense, the TTC could easily pare tens of millions of dollars from their subway costs per kilometre - and still meet the current code. I believe that $150 million per km is very reasonable in 2009 dollars, which would get us at least 67km for the same budget cost as Transit City.
Last edited:
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I'm okay with slightly bigger platforms (I think that the Sheppard stations are a bit bigger than needed) and wider tunnels. More entrances, I'm a bit iffy about.
I guess if you were to have an entrance on one side of the platform and an entrance on the other side, that's fine. But over 3 is pushing it, unless it's a station like Union. You could have a platform in the middle, and not even put a mezzanine or first floor or whatever in, just entrances in extensions of the platform.. This could be useful in more suburban stations, where traffic wouldn't be that high.
Agreed. Well if you put a subway at about $200-220 mil/km, and elevated and trenched portions (Eglinton, maybe Don Mills, DRL,) at $130-150 mil/km, it should average around there. Over 60 km of subway could be built (if you build it smartly) instead of Transit City. If you include the logical LRT routes (Finch for now,) it could be a great start to expanding our transit system.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
Ah, there's your good old sniveling martyr complex...haven't seen it in a while! Grow up.
"Your a troll?" I don't have a troll. I used to have some of these crazy-haired troll pencil tip things, like all grade 3s did at the time.
These arguments, as usual, have nothing to do with subway vs LRT, so don't turn it into one with your bias. What matters is recent TTC-style overpadded underground construction vs what the rest of the world can get done and what has been done in this city only a few decades ago.
You know that's not the number and context being referred to. Still, Spadina is a poor standard to use for theoretical future lines, being overstuffed and overdressed as a Christmas turkey, including features like about $12M/km of inflation added to the contingency, which exists partly to counter as-yet unknown inflationary increases. Money well-spent and not at all down the drain! The Yonge extension folks are wisely trying to prevent such neededless cost inflations, yet they've failed and added a whole host of different cost paddings, like wasting a good $150M on Steeles station alone. As Chuck says, there's a distinct lack of common sense here.
rbt
Senior Member
Agreed but that isn't for the TTC to decide. Province (and feds?) dictate the various building codes which Toronto is required to follow. Construction methodology regulations for safety of the workers also adds significantly to the cost of construction in Ontario.
Paleo
Active Member
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
^^I'm pretty sure it's an Ontario thing. We seem to be pretty anal about our safety, to the point that it stops being really useful and/or practical. I think it would be responsible for the province to cut back on some unneeded regulations, allowing subway building to be easier and cheaper.
But that still doesn't excuse the monolithic stations the TTC is building. I swear, there are cathedrals in Europe smaller and less grand than Don Mills station. Steeles is going to be $150 million, and they're complaining about how much it costs to build subway... Well there's yer problem!
But that still doesn't excuse the monolithic stations the TTC is building. I swear, there are cathedrals in Europe smaller and less grand than Don Mills station. Steeles is going to be $150 million, and they're complaining about how much it costs to build subway... Well there's yer problem!
Dan416
Senior Member
If we had continuous subway expansion, it would obviate the need for overbuilt terminal stations.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
That's funny cause Steeles isn't even supposed to be the terminus, though I agree a lot of money can be saved by continuous expansion.