[sche]

Yes, though, considerably cheaper than NYC.

But that's not the comparison one wants to make.

****

I would argue the single leading reason for inflated costs is the P3 model in which the proponent does the borrowing, the difference in interest rates between a public borrower and a private one are significant and
add vastly to project costs.

The size of contracts in the P3 model are also a problem, in that very few bidders tend to emerge because of the risk-factor in such large contracts. This lack of competition, along with a risk premium in the pricing drives up costs.

In respect of the particulars of construction, if land were cheaper (as it once was) I would agree that surface building would make a good deal of sense and be cheaper. Where land may still be low cost, that remains worth exploring. But when it comes to construction itself, aside from serious project-management issues at Metrolinx and the TTC both...........I would argue that the propensity for ultra-deep, bored tunnels is a huge cost driver.

Shallower, cut and cover directly under major roads (or adjacent to them, as was done with Line 2) would be cheaper. But its also politically challenging due to the adverse impacts for those who live, work or own businesses on any section of street subject to that. Its quite disruptive.
But it would certainly be worth looking at anyway.

One could certainly consider the Vancouver model on completely new builds, as is being done for some portions of Eglinton West. However, its important to consider than Vancouver tends to build lower capacity lines than does Toronto, and
how the Vancouver model works if a station in particular ends up with much larger footprint.

Its worth observing at this juncture than the above-grade proposal in downtown Montreal was killed over strong opposition from a wide swath of interests.

I would be highly sceptical of attributing our unbelievably inflated transit construction costs primarily to P3s. For what it’s worth, a P3 delivered the Canada Line, the lowest cost and best value transit project in Canada in the last 30 years. Meanwhile, New York afaik has not used P3s on its truly astronomically expensive projects.

 

[sixrings]

They should extend the line one stop west to the bus terminal within walking distance of Kipling station?!?

I think that was a joke to highlight how far the bus terminal is from the actual subway station. Far enough away there could be a stop.

 

[Northern Light]

I would be highly sceptical of attributing our unbelievably inflated transit construction costs primarily to P3s.

I did offer other significant factors as well; but I can show you the math on the interest payments. As typically structured an additional 300 basis points (or 3% of interest, over a 25-year term, drives up project cost by 41%.

You can use a mortgage calculator to compare the rates (just add some extra zeros)

For what it’s worth, a P3 delivered the Canada Line, the lowest cost and best value transit project in Canada in the last 30 years.

Ummm...we might have to differ on this one. The line is very capacity constrained as it was built with too low a capacity to save costs. It also didn't use technology that inter-operates with the balance of Vancouver's Skytrain system.

**

There's also the matter of whether the stated project budget is in fact remotely accurate, as several items were removed and paid for currently or later by the public sector.

Meanwhile, New York afaik has not used P3s on its truly astronomically expensive projects.

That is fair comment. Delving into NYC's many issues is another thread entirely though.

***

Edit to Add: Stephen Wickens did a fairly thorough report on the escalating cost of subway building, in 2020. He doesn't take a stand on P3s per se, noting the structure is too opaque to assess properly, and so while calling for more openness and transparency on that file he examines other factors. Its worth a read:

https://rccao.com/research/files/RCCAO-STATION-TO-STATION-REPORT-APRIL2020.pdf

 

[nfitz]

And what's the cost of such an extension relative to the ridership?

It's horrific. See the summary report I linked (the full report is out there somewhere too).

It was really obvious to everyone that an extension just to Sherway would be useless in comparison with every other project they examined in detail. No one in their right mind would be pushing this, rather than much better projects. Do we really need another station that has 3,500 riders a day? The peak-hour ridership (per direction) was only 700 people! Compare to extending it one stop to Dixie, where they'd push the peak-hour ridership to 3,300 and about 4 times the riders per day - and was still a very poor option

Look at the estimated operating cost per new rider for Sherway - it's over $22 a ride! And that's in 2001 dollars - the Spadina and Yonge north extensions were less than $1.50 a ride.

Now if they get rid of the shopping centre, and put a huge residential node there, the story might be different.

 

[Reecemartin]

I did offer other significant factors as well; but I can show you the math on the interest payments. As typically structured an additional 300 basis points (or 3% of interest, over a 25-year term, drives up project cost by 41%.

FWIW our costs are not ~40% higher than best practice, more like ~400% higher.

Ummm...we might have to differ on this one. The line is very capacity constrained as it was built with too low a capacity to save costs. It also didn't use technology that inter-operates with the balance of Vancouver's Skytrain system.

That has nothing to do with procurement method, the Translink board at the time chaired by Burnaby's mayor was singing from the rooftops how there would never be demand, so they downscaled the project requirements given to the bidders - they also chose terms that disincentivized using the same tech as the other lines - which IMO is fine because we ended up getting something with bog standard design.

That being said - the Canada Line still has room for an almost doubling in capacity from today, so the idea that it is wildly capacity constrained is not accurate. The design capacity is the same as Eglinton, and it has similar amounts of new tunnel (plus elevated rather than at grade for the rest) and a built in 30 year concession and cost less than half as much even if you factor in those additional costs.

 

[Northern Light]

That being said - the Canada Line still has room for an almost doubling in capacity from today, so the idea that it is wildly capacity constrained is not accurate. The design capacity is the same as Eglinton, and it has similar amounts of new tunnel (plus elevated rather than at grade for the rest) and a built in 30 year concession and cost less than half as much even if you factor in those additional costs.

Is currently capacity constrained, absent investment to expand said capacity. The importance of which is that you need to express the total cost to deliver the project as it would now be required in order to fairly use it as a comparator.

So the cost of the Canada Line when comparing it to any other project must include those costs that would currently be included in any other project so one is comparing 'apples to apples'.

 

[nfitz]

Thanks. That's helpful but it went back further than I was thinking. I was wondering if the Line 2 (West) Extension was ranked as part of Keesmaat's "Feeling Congested?" reports to Council.

Ah yes - I'd forgotten about the Line 2 west extension being part of that! I don't recall anything ever coming out of that - though all the other projects seem to be still floating around in one form or another.

I think that was a joke to highlight how far the bus terminal is from the actual subway station. Far enough away there could be a stop.

It was a joke. However, if they put the east end of a new subway station, at the walkway from the new bus terminal to the GO platform, you'd have 250 metres of subway between the west end of the Kennedy station and the east end of the new station!

If you put a new subway station right at the west end of the GO platform you'd have 360 metres of subway between the two subway stations (recall the existing GO platform only starts 50 metres west of the subway platform)! That's further than the distances of some stations downtown.

 

[sche]

Ummm...we might have to differ on this one. The line is very capacity constrained as it was built with too low a capacity to save costs. It also didn't use technology that inter-operates with the balance of Vancouver's Skytrain system.

**

There's also the matter of whether the stated project budget is in fact remotely accurate, as several items were removed and paid for currently or later by the public sector.

View attachment 448523

At ~$120M CAD/km, Canada Line costs are low enough that the lower capacity really isn't all that relevant when we are comparing to $500+M/km projects that are happening now. A line with 2x or 2.5x the capacity should obviously not cost 4x more since the main difference is just longer platforms, while tunnels, station accesses, etc. remain essentially the same.

Is currently capacity constrained, absent investment to expand said capacity. The importance of which is that you need to express the total cost to deliver the project as it would now be required in order to fairly use it as a comparator.

So the cost of the Canada Line when comparing it to any other project must include those costs that would currently be included in any other project so one is comparing 'apples to apples'.

Canada Line upgrades pretty much only consist of buying more trains to improve headway and lengthening trains from 40m to 50m, plus lengthening a handful of above ground station platforms from 40m to 50m - fairly insignificant relative to the scope of the overall project.

 

[nfitz]

FWIW our costs are not ~40% higher than best practice, more like ~400% higher.

Four times higher? I don't believe that for a second. Could things be done cheaper - sure. Could an apple and oranges comparison where one project just includes tunnels and stations, while another includes land procurement, communications systems, rolling stock, studies, designs, contracting costs, oversight, 30 years of operations, and 30-years of interest costs appear to those with little familiarity with construction to be 400% higher - maybe.

That being said - the Canada Line still has room for an almost doubling in capacity from today, so the idea that it is wildly capacity constrained is not accurate.

Running twice as many trains would indeed double the capacity. But that doesn't change that it is quite clearly capacity constrained - and will only get worse once the Millenium line extension opens, creating a transfer point with the Canada line.

Good grief, the entire station platforms are just about street-car length - heck, they are shorter than some Toronto LRV cars.

 

[sche]

Four times higher? I don't believe that for a second. Could things be done cheaper - sure. Could an apple and oranges comparison where one project just includes tunnels and stations, while another includes land procurement, communications systems, rolling stock, studies, designs, contracting costs, oversight, 30 years of operations, and 30-years of interest costs appear to those with little familiarity with construction to be 400% higher - maybe.

See for yourself - an inflation adjusted database of transit projects, excluding operations, maintenance, and rolling stock, in USD: https://transitcosts.com/projects/

Pay close attention to South Korean, Italian, Spanish, Turkish, and Scandinavian projects - these generally represent global best practice.

 

[drum118]

I think that was a joke to highlight how far the bus terminal is from the actual subway station. Far enough away there could be a stop.

Its a 7 minute walk

 

[drum118]

Four times higher? I don't believe that for a second. Could things be done cheaper - sure. Could an apple and oranges comparison where one project just includes tunnels and stations, while another includes land procurement, communications systems, rolling stock, studies, designs, contracting costs, oversight, 30 years of operations, and 30-years of interest costs appear to those with little familiarity with construction to be 400% higher - maybe.

Running twice as many trains would indeed double the capacity. But that doesn't change that it is quite clearly capacity constrained - and will only get worse once the Millenium line extension opens, creating a transfer point with the Canada line.

Good grief, the entire station platforms are just about street-car length - heck, they are shorter than some Toronto LRV cars.

The cost to expanded the stations is about $4B from what I been told

 

[sixrings]

Its a 7 minute walk

Isn’t that the same walk distance between queen and king or king and union. It’s farrrrr

 

[T3G]

Isn’t that the same walk distance between queen and king or king and union. It’s farrrrr

The downtown stations are an anomaly, most will be much further.

I don't find a 7 minute walk to be an insurmountable challenge, but for a "transfer point" putting the thing to transfer to so far does seem absurd. It should've been built right next to the station.

Also I find the GO options offered lacking. There really should be a Milton - Kipling GO bus since CP seems content to hoard their rail line like Gollum hoarded the ring. As it stands to make that journey you have to transfer to MiWay 109 which, while appreciably quick for a mixed traffic bus still takes far too long compared to a highway coach bus. It takes roughly the same time to get from Meadowvale Town Centre to Kipling or Union!

 

[drum118]

The downtown stations are an anomaly, most will be much further.

I don't find a 7 minute walk to be an insurmountable challenge, but for a "transfer point" putting the thing to transfer to so far does seem absurd. It should've been built right next to the station.

Also I find the GO options offered lacking. There really should be a Milton - Kipling GO bus since CP seems content to hoard their rail line like Gollum hoarded the ring. As it stands to make that journey you have to transfer to MiWay 109 which, while appreciably quick for a mixed traffic bus still takes far too long compared to a highway coach bus. It takes roughly the same time to get from Meadowvale Town Centre to Kipling or Union!

You should time your transfer time when you travel in Europe as they are long as well having to climbing up and down stairs since there are no elevators or escalates in those stations.

That 7 minute walk is a pain, but being underground is not that bad in poor weather compared to the shorter walking distance to/from a bus stop. If you are going from X to y not using transit, not a bad walk for that 7 minute walk.