daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 23rd, 2006, 02:37 AM   #181
officedweller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 98

Here's the info for the Canada Line in Vancouver. Doubt it includes the installation of track, etc.:

http://db.selitunnel.com/4Daction/se...=51&lingua=eng


Project Overview
Subcontract for the design and construction of 2,467 km of a twin tunnel of the Vancouver Metro to be bored by EPB TBM, excavation diameter 6,10 m. The works also include the construction of 9 cross-passages, three stations to be constructed in cut and cover, a pumping chamber and other auxiliary works (the TBM shaft, etc.).

Cost: € 100.000.000,00 (CAD $ 138.000.000,00)
Start Date: 01/2006
Completion Date: 10/2008

Tunnel Excavation
Technical specifications of the EPB TBM are:
boring diameter 6,20 m
cutters 41 x 17"
max cutterhead thrust 37.066 kN
cutterhead speed 0-3,2 rev/min
cutterhead horse power 1200 kW

Tunnel lining
Precast reinforced concrete segments (25 cm thickness) - type universal ring with seal gasket and tail mortar injection.

Geology
Rock with medium resistance (sandstone and siltstone with boulders) and consolidated sandstone of glacial origin (bed rock).


************

See the SELI website for other projects and costs:

http://db.selitunnel.com/4daction/se...o=0&lingua=eng
__________________
officedweller
officedweller no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 23rd, 2006, 12:49 PM   #182
Elsongs
"There It Is, Take It!"
 
Elsongs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: City of Angels
Posts: 980
Likes (Received): 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alargule View Post
Yes, **** you too! If you're not interested, stay out of the discussion. Or are all of your 400+ posts of the same tendency?
Uhhh, excuse me, read my post again. It was meant as a joke. It's a PUN. Get it? "boring" = bore - as in tunnels? I put a freaking smiley for goodness sakes! Dork.

Sigh...If you don't get it, you never will. Some people just lack a sense of humor.
__________________
"I prefer The Road Less Traveled -- There's less traffic there."
Elsongs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 23rd, 2006, 12:53 PM   #183
Alargule
Res Uder et Siger
 
Alargule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,212
Likes (Received): 2094

Oh, that's called 'humor' all of a sudden now...
__________________
Nu op Wordpress: Rails in Amsterdam
Alargule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2006, 04:23 PM   #184
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Hmm, I wanna know tunnelling costs too. But my question is a little weirder. How much does tunneling or building a metro cost per mile if you took out the land acquisition or utilities variable? I'm intrigued only because I found a website that suggested something like that and now I'm curious to see how much cheaper it could be. (I have an insatiable appetite for useless subway construction costs)

http://www.carfree.com/book/paxtrans.html

PS--I don't know how many stations NYC will have, but Seattle's 3.15 mile underground extension will only have 2. And that's $539 million per mile, mostly because the land's expensive, the terrain is weird, and we have to cross a body of water. But...since NYC's lexington line seems to have a stop every 10 blocks, and if there's a stop every 2100 feet (10 blocks) at 8.1 miles for 2nd ave, that's about 20 stops....just a really rough guess though! So per station, costs would be about $750m for Seattle; $800m for NYC.
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2006, 12:22 AM   #185
officedweller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 98

The Vancouver example above would not include land acquisition and there would only be utilities relocation at the station sites for a bored tunnel.
__________________
officedweller
officedweller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2006, 06:07 AM   #186
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by kub86 View Post
and we have to cross a body of water.
Dunno if you understand the significance of that or not, but depending on how big that body of water is, that will cause a MASSIVE increase in the costs of tunnelling. I was wondering why it seemed to be so high a cost per mile.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2006, 03:52 PM   #187
bustero
Registered User
 
bustero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,580
Likes (Received): 10

http://www.railway-technology.com/pr...s-angeles-lrt5

As per the site above, the extension of the LA gold line (6miles, 8 stations) to cost 898m$, with 1.8 miles and 2 stations underground, it will be bored with twin tunnels.

To compare, the 8.5 miles, 10 station exposition line costs 640M $, with a couple of elevated stations.

Using a very rough comparison. Exposition line is 75M$ per mile. With the extra 2 stations to compensate for the elevation comparison.

Applying similar cost to the 4.2miles of the gold line that would be about 315m$. That would leave 583million $ for the 1.8 mile underground portion or 323 M$ per mile. These are not cut and cover hence more expensive. Plus they are twin bored so you basically tunnel twice.

I'm very sure without right of way considerations or costs, the difference of cut and cover and tunneling by boring is in the multiples, specially when the soil conditions start to be more complex (e.g. high water table, rock,etc)
__________________
towards a livable city...
bustero no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2006, 07:29 PM   #188
sbarn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: NYC & Bay Area
Posts: 1,223
Likes (Received): 991

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_christine View Post
Seattle is on the verge of building a 3.15 mile extension of the Central Link light rail system from Westlake to the University of Washington. The extension will add two stations to the light rail system. The tunnels will be entirely bored. The total cost is presently estimated to be $1.7 billion:

Seattle Central Link Univeristy Extension
$1.7 billion / 3.15 miles = $540 million/mile

New York is planning the 2nd Avenue subway. This will be an 8.1 mi. from 125th Street and Park Avenue in East Harlem to Hanover Square near Wall Street. The line will feature a mix of cut-and-cover and bored tunnels. The total cost is estimated at $16 billion:

New York 2nd Avenue Subway
$16 billion / 8.1 miles = $1.975 billion/mile
Unlike most subway lines built in Manhattan, the 2nd Ave subway won't be cut and cover... they're going to use 2 tunnel boreing(sp?) machines.
sbarn no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2006, 10:21 PM   #189
Amit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Mumbai
Posts: 343
Likes (Received): 0

$16 bn to build just 8 miles (13 km) subway in NYC?? That is $1,230 mn/km. That is unbelievably expensive!! The Seattle line works out to $330 mn/km.

In New Delhi (India), 65 km of metro/subway has been built so far at the cost of $2 bn.. $30 mn/km.

In Mumbai, metro construction is begining for a 146 km network by 2021 at estimated cost of $5 bn.. $34 mn/km.

The train cost is probably included. These are modern metro networks incorporating the latest technology.

I understand that labor, land and other costs are much higher in US. But so much higher?? Maybe the NYC cost is all underground tuneling in prime time Manhattan, while the costs in India are for underground+above ground lines.
__________________
Quotes from Gandhi :

Be the change you want to see in the world.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed.

An eye for eye ends up making the whole world blind.

God has no religion.

Last edited by Amit; December 2nd, 2006 at 10:30 PM.
Amit no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 3rd, 2006, 12:20 PM   #190
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit View Post
$16 bn to build just 8 miles (13 km) subway in NYC?? That is $1,230 mn/km. That is unbelievably expensive!! The Seattle line works out to $330 mn/km.

In New Delhi (India), 65 km of metro/subway has been built so far at the cost of $2 bn.. $30 mn/km.

In Mumbai, metro construction is begining for a 146 km network by 2021 at estimated cost of $5 bn.. $34 mn/km.

The train cost is probably included. These are modern metro networks incorporating the latest technology.

I understand that labor, land and other costs are much higher in US. But so much higher?? Maybe the NYC cost is all underground tuneling in prime time Manhattan, while the costs in India are for underground+above ground lines.
Economic condtions, especially labour and land costs, can make a huge, colossal impact on the costs. This includes safety regulations and other legal framework elements, which are many and complicated in north america, with powerful unions. Even if the technology is new-age, the specifications for the design need only conform to the national standards, which may be lower than what the specificatons would be in north america. U.S.A's AIA's specifications tend to be among the strictest, the U.K.'s RBIA's specifications too. These outline the construction methods and standards and expressly prohibit shortcuts and other corner-cuttings to make things cheaper for the contractor. These may not be in place in the countries you mentioned being really cheap. These can really add up. The real costs though could be a system lacking in endurance or possibly even in safey, but not likely, just a shorter life span.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2006, 05:19 AM   #191
Damien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by bustero View Post
http://www.railway-technology.com/pr...s-angeles-lrt5

As per the site above, the extension of the LA gold line (6miles, 8 stations) to cost 898m$, with 1.8 miles and 2 stations underground, it will be bored with twin tunnels.

To compare, the 8.5 miles, 10 station exposition line costs 640M $, with a couple of elevated stations.

Using a very rough comparison. Exposition line is 75M$ per mile. With the extra 2 stations to compensate for the elevation comparison.

Applying similar cost to the 4.2miles of the gold line that would be about 315m$. That would leave 583million $ for the 1.8 mile underground portion or 323 M$ per mile. These are not cut and cover hence more expensive. Plus they are twin bored so you basically tunnel twice.

I'm very sure without right of way considerations or costs, the difference of cut and cover and tunneling by boring is in the multiples, specially when the soil conditions start to be more complex (e.g. high water table, rock,etc)
Actually, Exposition is really only 7 more miles of tracks. It shares tracks with the Blue line in the downtown portion. And the tunneling for the Gold line came in at about $300 million - just the tunneling and station boxes - not including ventilation, escalators and all that jazz. So about $150-160 mil/mile.

Both projects have very costly portions, such as the elevated structure over the sunken freeway and 1st street bridge widening for the Gold, and a few overpasses and a short underground segment for the Expo.

And the benefit of bored tunnels as compared to cut-and-cover is utility relocation and other on-the-street disruptions.

Some have suggested, that at least in Los Angeles, bored tunnels are cheaper than cut-and-cover. On streets like Wilshire - the most used boulevard in the county, likely, but on abandoned ROWs next to streets with low traffic like Expo, I wonder.
Damien no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2006, 05:20 AM   #192
miamicanes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 904
Likes (Received): 181

On the topic of land acquisitions... do deep (say, 100+ foot belowground) tunnels still have to purchase ROW, or (in America, at least) would a landowner above have to prove to a court that the presence of a subway tunnel 100 feet below a parking lot or yard were causing actual harm worthy of being awarded payment for damages?

If ROW for deep bored tunnels is basically "free" (aside from stations, airshafts, and other things that actually have to penetrate the surface and would definitely require surface ROW), that alone could represent a HUGE savings over the cost of a different method requiring land acquisition in an expensive area... I know that in Miami, even the land in a poor residential neighborhood costs about $15-25/sq. foot... and that's assuming it's already a vacant lot. Add in the value of any structure on the land and its demolition cost, and the price goes up by a factor of 10 or more.

On a related note, if a city wanted to bore a deep subway tunnel 100 feet below YOUR house, would it actually affect you in any meaningful way (besides maybe not being able to drill a deep well directly above it, or build a skyscraper with deep foundation there someday)? Or is it something that if nobody told you it was there, you'd never even realize it?
miamicanes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2006, 05:22 AM   #193
Damien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amit View Post
$16 bn to build just 8 miles (13 km) subway in NYC?? That is $1,230 mn/km. That is unbelievably expensive!! The Seattle line works out to $330 mn/km.

In New Delhi (India), 65 km of metro/subway has been built so far at the cost of $2 bn.. $30 mn/km.

In Mumbai, metro construction is begining for a 146 km network by 2021 at estimated cost of $5 bn.. $34 mn/km.

The train cost is probably included. These are modern metro networks incorporating the latest technology.

I understand that labor, land and other costs are much higher in US. But so much higher?? Maybe the NYC cost is all underground tuneling in prime time Manhattan, while the costs in India are for underground+above ground lines.
As I understand in Manhattan a lot of the cost is real estate acquisition.
Damien no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2006, 05:24 AM   #194
Damien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles-Leimert Park & Boston-Cambridge
Posts: 152
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamicanes View Post
On the topic of land acquisitions... do deep (say, 100+ foot belowground) tunnels still have to purchase ROW, or (in America, at least) would a landowner above have to prove to a court that the presence of a subway tunnel 100 feet below a parking lot or yard were causing actual harm worthy of being awarded payment for damages?

If ROW for deep bored tunnels is basically "free" (aside from stations, airshafts, and other things that actually have to penetrate the surface and would definitely require surface ROW), that alone could represent a HUGE savings over the cost of a different method requiring land acquisition in an expensive area... I know that in Miami, even the land in a poor residential neighborhood costs about $15-25/sq. foot... and that's assuming it's already a vacant lot. Add in the value of any structure on the land and its demolition cost, and the price goes up by a factor of 10 or more.

On a related note, if a city wanted to bore a deep subway tunnel 100 feet below YOUR house, would it actually affect you in any meaningful way (besides maybe not being able to drill a deep well directly above it, or build a skyscraper with deep foundation there someday)? Or is it something that if nobody told you it was there, you'd never even realize it?
Not sure. But I guess that's why its wise to tunnel under publically owned property: streets.
Damien no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 5th, 2006, 03:20 AM   #195
officedweller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 98

In Canada - yes - ownership of real property gives you title to the area above and below the property.
__________________
officedweller
officedweller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2006, 06:01 AM   #196
bayviews
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,535
Likes (Received): 51

Real estate values make a huge amount of difference in transit construction, subway, surface, or aerial. That’s why it’s so expensive to expand rail in cities like NYC, LA, the Bay Area, & Boston where the real estate costs are so high. SF is considering building a light rail subway extension of less than 2 miles for $1.4 billion! Seattle’s pretty expensive also. Interesting, had Seattle gone with the late 1960s proposal it would have had a complete regional rapid transit system for about a billion bucks in total. Good though to see Seattle finally moving forward on this line. The biggest advantages of boring tunnel over cut & cover are mostly reduced disruption, costs for either very depending on conditions.
bayviews no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 10th, 2006, 04:53 PM   #197
kub86
Twinkie
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle/Bellevue
Posts: 733
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayviews View Post
Real estate values make a huge amount of difference in transit construction, subway, surface, or aerial. That’s why it’s so expensive to expand rail in cities like NYC, LA, the Bay Area, & Boston where the real estate costs are so high. SF is considering building a light rail subway extension of less than 2 miles for $1.4 billion! Seattle’s pretty expensive also. Interesting, had Seattle gone with the late 1960s proposal it would have had a complete regional rapid transit system for about a billion bucks in total. Good though to see Seattle finally moving forward on this line. The biggest advantages of boring tunnel over cut & cover are mostly reduced disruption, costs for either very depending on conditions.
(Not to get off topic....) But I'm curious about Seattle's 1960s proposal. Do you (or anybody) know where I can get more info? Like proposed routes and such? And why it was defeated?
kub86 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2006, 12:21 PM   #198
Mandelbrot
Registered User
 
Mandelbrot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 628
Likes (Received): 50

The cut & cover technique is not used in Australia, 100% of tunnels are bored so to speak. Can I ask what the advantages of one over the other? Traffic disruption would be a nightmare wouldn't it?
Mandelbrot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2006, 06:47 AM   #199
officedweller
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,379
Likes (Received): 98

Cut and Cover is supposed to be cheaper. Things I've heard wrt Vancouver's line relate primarily to the depth of the line:
- cut and cover results in stations close to the surface which are more easily accessible and cheaper to construct.
- there's more predictability in the type of rock/soil conditions that you will hit.
- removal of spoil is easier.
However, bored tunnels allow more manipulation of the grades (level sections for station placement).
WRT traffic, it depends on the route where it is being built. If the route doesn't trace a major roadway or right-of-way, or building above can't be demolished, then cut and cover wouldn't be feasible.
__________________
officedweller
officedweller no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2006, 09:40 AM   #200
p5archit
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Toronto, Vienna, Amsterdam
Posts: 533
Likes (Received): 1

It still blows me away when I read that the cost to build 1 Km. of subway here in Toronto is no longer $100 million, but is now $240 million- according to the TTC (Toronto Transit Commision)?

How it is even $100 million is beyond me, let alone $240 million?? Unless labour costs are so extremely high, property values exceedingly expensive and densities also very high, I still can't seem to understand why it would cost so much?

Madrid built 1 Km. for less than 90 million EUR. including their stations, and that is a much denser city than most NA cities..let alone Toronto (quite dense, but no quite Madrid..)

So what gives..Where do the extreme cost arise to make subway building so damned expensive that all politicians are afraid to touch it with a ten foot pole?

........frustrated and annoyed that Toronto does not have the foresight...

pfive
__________________
..unc!

Last edited by p5archit; December 15th, 2006 at 09:41 AM. Reason: e
p5archit no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium