[denfromoakvillemilton]

Agreed!

• We need to build all the lines at the same time.
• Then get after a sales tax and other city revenue tools for Toronto that won't jeopardize 905 votes for the province.
• Get all the lines (subway, LRT, Streetcar extensions) shovel ready to make them eligible to the Federal Infrastructure program (50% paid for by Ottawa)
• Borrow the funds to start the projects by issuing bonds with the revenue tools as a mean to pay it back while interest rates are still low, while Ottawa and QP funding arrives.

We just need a council with the political courage to see it through. Let's finish the damn network once and for all and enter the 21st Century already

Agreed. This can be done. Stop waiting for other government and get moving Toronto.

When these subway solutions in the suburbs are costing over $600M/km, then DRL when finally designed will likely cost close to $1B/km. We need cheaper solutions or else nothing will happen.

I support subways in the outer cores of the city but it should be cut and cover as much as possible and/or elevated. Tunnels downtown is 100% justify, not Sheppard, Scarborough and don't get me started with York Region.

There should be a moratorium on underground subways outside the former city of Toronto. Waste of money and half the reason why we are at this point.

 

[BurlOak]

What is the math here?

Canada Line is 19 km long. According to Wiki, the line cost $2.1B, is 19km long, 9 km is tunneled and 8 km is elevated. This other source says that 6.6km was built with TBM. Finally, this source says that the savings by going cut-and-cover where $600M.

So how can we arrive at $2.1B. Say $50M/km for at grade, $75M/km for elevated. That's $700M, leaving $1.4B for the 9km of tunnel.
Add the $600M to this, and we get that the 9km would have cost 2.0B. This works out to $220M /km for TBM. Now subtract this, times 2.4km built by TBM, from the $1.4B, to get the total cost of $867M for 6.6km. This works out to $130M/km.

So in a nutshell, cut and cover is about 40% less expensive.

Apply this to all subway projects in Toronto and we can build almost twice as much.

 

[11th]

Sheppard West Subway cost now $3B.

https://twitter.com/jpags/status/826588513227440128


It seems that there is no will for any project to find the most cost effective solution. No benefit is given to prioritizing those projects that have been optimized. This is the biggest impediment to subway (and transit) construction in Toronto.

At this rate, can we assume DRL long will cost $20 billion by the time it's shovel ready?

 

[W. K. Lis]

The full 13.7 km (8.5 miles), 16 station, 2nd Avenue Subway in New York Subway is estimated to cost $17 billion. So the $20 billion (Canadian) for the DRL sounds correct.

 

[nfitz]

Sounds optimistically low to me.

 

[BurlOak]

Sounds optimistically low to me.

Or, build it cut and cover through downtown, Bridge over the Don. Cut and cover to Pape and Millwood bridge and then elevated to Seneca. What would that cost? $4B?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The full 13.7 km (8.5 miles), 16 station, 2nd Avenue Subway in New York Subway is estimated to cost $17 billion. So the $20 billion (Canadian) for the DRL sounds correct.

I presume it's a lot more challenging (and costly) to build in Manhattan than along Don Mills Road.

 

[nfitz]

Or, build it cut and cover through downtown, Bridge over the Don. Cut and cover to Pape and Millwood bridge and then elevated to Seneca. What would that cost? $4B?

Cut an cover through downtown? That would cost more, with all the services in the way. You tunnel under the service to save money.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

At this rate, can we assume DRL long will cost $20 billion by the time it's shovel ready?

Assuming it costs $666 Million per km (same as Sheppard West extension) the 16.6 km Relief Line Long would cost $11 Billion today.

 

[44 North]

Or, build it cut and cover through downtown, Bridge over the Don. Cut and cover to Pape and Millwood bridge and then elevated to Seneca. What would that cost? $4B?

I can't see cut and cover through downtown being all that feasible. It wouldn't be a non-starter in the political sense, but technically. Elevated on Don Mills sounds good though.

I presume it's a lot more challenging (and costly) to build in Manhattan than along Don Mills Road.

Exactly. I think Don Mills would be very simple, and an excellent opportunity to utilize construction/infrastructure methods that bring down costs.

 

[innsertnamehere]

There is so much space on Don Mills that cut and cover may be a real possibility to cut costs. South of eglinton is going to be expensive though, there are two large bridges involved.

 

[gweed123]

There is so much space on Don Mills that cut and cover may be a real possibility to cut costs. South of eglinton is going to be expensive though, there are two large bridges involved.

And the road is wide enough that realistically you could keep half the road open and install a Jarvis-style reversible centre lane for a 3 lane cross-section. Not ideal, but still functional. It would just mean the DVP or Leslie would need to handle more of the longer distance traffic.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This is what they did in Auckland: Closed four driving lanes, kept two lanes open for local traffic open. This should be repeated on Don Mills Road. Don Mills is generally a six or seven lane road. Close four lanes and keep two open for local traffic. The DVP would pick up the longer distance trips. And realistically, the right of way on Don Mills is so wide that we could close four lanes, keep three of the existing lanes open for local traffic and then build an additional temporary lane to minimize traffic impacts. So four open lanes in total (two in each direction)

Futhermore, since there generally aren't single family homes adjacent to Don Mills, I'd hope that the vibration issues wouldn't be an excuse not to use cut-and-cover, like it is on McCowan and elsewhere.

 

[BurlOak]

Cut an cover through downtown? That would cost more, with all the services in the way. You tunnel under the service to save money.

It seems that you go with cut and cover, disruption is a couple of months along the line, and a couple of years at the shallow stations.
For TBM, disruption is for about 20% of the length of of line for stations (which occur at intersections where disruption is more critical) at downtown spacing, and disruption lasting maybe 5 years.

I'd say the overall disruption is similar to less. The disruption to critical intersection intersection significantly less. The overall construction duration, which is another measure of disruption, is significantly less.

 

[muller877]

It seems that you go with cut and cover, disruption is a couple of months along the line, and a couple of years at the shallow stations.
For TBM, disruption is for about 20% of the length of of line for stations (which occur at intersections where disruption is more critical) at downtown spacing, and disruption lasting maybe 5 years.

I'd say the overall disruption is similar to less. The disruption to critical intersection intersection significantly less. The overall construction duration, which is another measure of disruption, is significantly less.

I was fortunate enough to be in China and saw a truly professional cut and cover process. Through a CBD so there were lots of wires/pipes.

They followed the Auckland process. However, they closed down the entire block for 1 week (it was a 4 lane road). By the end of the week the block was re-opened and they were onto the next block.

They worked 24/7 and got it done. Was an impressive process (I was looking over it from my hotel). I wish we could hire these construction managers to coordinate our subways.

With cut and cover I don't see why the stations would take more time. They have to make the hole wider (and add an extra "box" above the line for the mezzanine but other than the station entrances the rest of the work can be underground/sidewalk disruption.