Based on data compiled by Daryl Dela Cruz, cut and cover appears cheaper than elevated. I developed a spreadsheet that used this data for some calculations and was questioned about this discrepancy. My response:
You'll notice that for ALRT lines, Canada Line is the only line which used cut and cover. The others that used cut and cover were LRT and I am suspicious of their costs being higher for LRT with their typically larger train-cars and overhead AC (meaning they have to dig out substantially more than they would have to for third rail Skytrain).
However, even though Canada Line is the only line, I feel inclined to trust this data point since it's a very recent number, a very local number, and the above grade seems to be more expensive per km than the evergreen line (expected since Skytrain Marks are LIM and much lighter).
For reasons why though my guesses are:
However, even though Canada Line is the only line, I feel inclined to trust this data point since it's a very recent number, a very local number, and the above grade seems to be more expensive per km than the evergreen line (expected since Skytrain Marks are LIM and much lighter).
For reasons why though my guesses are:
- Cost of concrete is high (lots of concrete needed for above grade)
- Engineering cost is probably about the same
- Construction speed is faster with good soil, takes up less space, and is much easier.
- Stations are cheaper (a building on the ground is cheaper than a building in the air: you just dig a wider hole).
- You end up redoing the road surface in either case (North Road got rebuilt for the above ground Evergreen Line, and No.3 and Cambie for Canada Line)
- Don't need fancy bridge building cranes, equipment and workers.
No comments:
Post a Comment