[MrGoose]

Where did I say that it shouldn't be built?

I was just refuting the unsupported claim that it is undersized.

It is undersized because the projections that claim it will be grossly oversized for demand were conducted long before the Golden Mile was upzoned for 40K people, and all these 50+ story condos were proposed. This line will induce development, and thus ridership, as we should expect, as we have seen happen to Line 1 and Line 4

It is undersized because the lifespan of this infrastructure is at least 120+ years, if we are only projecting demand to 2030, then we are ignoring potential future growth for 100+ years. It is critical that when we occupy a valuable and UNIQUE ROW that spans the entire city and is the only such ROW for at least 4km in either direction, that we future proof it for what ridership could be in 25, 50, 75 years. We have many examples of long-awaited transit lines blowing way past projections when they are finally built out. The Elizabeth Line in London exceeded ridership projections the day it was opened. The Canada Line exceeded ridership projections within 5 years of opening.

It is undersized because everything else except the trains is built to a subway sized standard and subway sized costs. We have subway diameter tunnels, subway sized stations and 6! subway style interchanges with other rapid Transit lines, and will go to the airport.
- Kitchener Line/ UP Express
- Barrie Line
- Line 1 Spadina
- Line 1 Yonge
- Ontario Line
- Line 2 / Stouffville Line

Except that the trains are low floor and hold 30% less people than an equivalently sized subway train. And will have to interface with traffic, and wait for traffic and is incapable of high frequency automated operation because it has to interface with traffic.

But it still cost 20+ billion dollars, because we built 60% of the line like a subway, we just neglected to put subway cars in it. And the 40% we built as a streetcar, would've been the easiest part of the line to grade separate because it is a 27m wide suburban stroad.

Its undersized for the money we spent, for the ridership that we can expect to see within its lifetime, and for its length and the amount of interchanges it will have.

 

[Voltz]

It is undersized because the projections that claim it will be grossly oversized for demand were conducted long before the Golden Mile was upzoned for 40K people, and all these 50+ story condos were proposed. This line will induce development, and thus ridership, as we should expect, as we have seen happen to Line 1 and Line 4

It is undersized because the lifespan of this infrastructure is at least 120+ years, if we are only projecting demand to 2030, then we are ignoring potential future growth for 100+ years. It is critical that when we occupy a valuable and UNIQUE ROW that spans the entire city and is the only such ROW for at least 4km in either direction, that we future proof it for what ridership could be in 25, 50, 75 years. We have many examples of long-awaited transit lines blowing way past projections when they are finally built out. The Elizabeth Line in London exceeded ridership projections the day it was opened. The Canada Line exceeded ridership projections within 5 years of opening.

It is undersized because everything else except the trains is built to a subway sized standard and subway sized costs. We have subway diameter tunnels, subway sized stations and 6! subway style interchanges with other rapid Transit lines, and will go to the airport.
- Kitchener Line/ UP Express
- Barrie Line
- Line 1 Spadina
- Line 1 Yonge
- Ontario Line
- Line 2 / Stouffville Line

Except that the trains are low floor and hold 30% less people than an equivalently sized subway train. And will have to interface with traffic, and wait for traffic and is incapable of high frequency automated operation because it has to interface with traffic.

But it still cost 20+ billion dollars, because we built 60% of the line like a subway, we just neglected to put subway cars in it. And the 40% we built as a streetcar, would've been the easiest part of the line to grade separate because it is a 27m wide suburban stroad.

Its undersized for the money we spent, for the ridership that we can expect to see within its lifetime, and for its length and the amount of interchanges it will have.

Those Subway and GO interchanges will drain more riders from the line than they add at the busiest section.

Your cost figure includes 25 years of maintenance and operations,

If everyone somehow got ridership projections wrong and this ridership will jump from mixed traffic buses to a full underground subway, then we have bigger problems

 

[Aplus23]

We can add a 3rd car to each trainset & the stations were built with that in mind. Doesn't that help capacity issue if one arises?

 

[MrGoose]

We can add a 3rd car to each trainset & the stations were built with that in mind. Doesn't that help capacity issue if one arises?

We did not save any money or time.

Even if @JSF-1 and the planners are right, that the Ellington Crosstown will never exceed 5k passengers per direction per hour, we still could have saved money (either in construction costs or future improvement costs) by using high floor subway trains instead of low floor streetcars.

The tunnels are the same diameter as subway tunnels and high floor trains provide more capacity per unit train because you don’t have space being taken up by wheel wells and motors.

So to provide the same amount of capacity you could have made smaller stations (saving money on construction costs) or have made the same sized stations with the ability to easily expand capacity in the future (by simply adding more train cars)

Plus, the line is fundamentally limited in its capacity not just by the size of the trains, and how they drastically reduce capacity and throughput by having wheel wells that take up space and hinder passenger movement,

The line is also capacity restricted because it has to interface with traffic and consequently run slower and less frequently than it otherwise could have if it were grade separated.

That means,

• being delayed by cross traffic
• having idiot drivers potentially get involved with accidents with the trains or damaging poles or getting stuck on the tracks as this picture so helpfully illustrates

• Why would an emergency vehicle feel the need to find itself in this trackway?
  
  View attachment 573553

  
  
• being capacity restricted by having to run slower because of narrow platforms
• not being able to have automated train control on the eastern segment

So much of what we are discussing when it comes to improving the capacity of GO: wider platforms, high floor platforms, higher frequencies, and grade separation, is being tossed out the window with this project!

We are building a brand new train line on a unique crosstown ROW and hamstringing it from the start by failing to grade separate it, giving it narrow low floor platforms, eliminating the possibility of high frequencies by preventing automation etc.

Its not that capacity issues could be fixed for ridership projections 20 years from now, its that capacity issues for 50 - 60 years from now are being introduced in a way that cannot be easily fixed.

 

[Voltz]

Plus, the line is fundamentally limited in its capacity not just by the size of the trains, and how they drastically reduce capacity and throughput by having wheel wells that take up space and hinder passenger movement,

The line is also capacity restricted because it has to interface with traffic and consequently run slower and less frequently than it otherwise could have if it were grade separated.

That means,

• being delayed by cross traffic
• having idiot drivers potentially get involved with accidents with the trains or damaging poles or getting stuck on the tracks as this picture so helpfully illustrates
• 
  
  
• being capacity restricted by having to run slower because of narrow platforms
• not being able to have automated train control on the eastern segment

So much of what we are discussing when it comes to improving the capacity of GO: wider platforms, high floor platforms, higher frequencies, and grade separation, is being tossed out the window with this project!

We are building a brand new train line on a unique crosstown ROW and hamstringing it from the start by failing to grade separate it, giving it narrow low floor platforms, eliminating the possibility of high frequencies by preventing automation etc.

Its not that capacity issues could be fixed for ridership projections 20 years from now, its that capacity issues for 50 - 60 years from now are being introduced in a way that cannot be easily fixed.

This is a bit out to lunch, 50 years from now? Paying for 50 years of maintenance and operations for a subway that won't be needed until then is a massive waste.

 

[T3G]

Here's a thought: how about the city... doesn't attempt to pack all of human civilization along the Eglinton corridor? There are so many parts of the city covered in SFH homes that could be upscaled, overloading one LRT line so that it's over capacity sounds like it could be very easily avoided by planning for the future.

It's a problem that could also be avoided by encouraging densification along other corridors and building other LRTs on other streets. But the subways subways subways folks are ensuring there won't be any money left in the budget for any mid tier transit solutions. Give me overbuilt, incredibly expensive transit serving a limited market or give me death!

 

[MrGoose]

This is a bit out to lunch, 50 years from now? Paying for 50 years of maintenance and operations for a subway that won't be needed until then is a massive waste.

In what way would a subway be more expensive to run than what we have right now?

A subway would have the same tunnels, interchanges and tracks.

Is there anything to suggest that trams are cheaper to maintain than high floor trains?

And in terms of personnel , an automated subway would not need to have any drivers whereas we are locked into having drivers for the Crosstown

 

[innsertnamehere]

Golden Mile is going to have a huge, multi-decade buildout into the 2070's most likely. The condo market in Scarborough is simply not there to absorb that many units.

Plus the OL is going to help by relieving capacity right as the line approaches it's highest ridership point.

The line really is not going to be over capacity any time soon so as to be a going concern for anyone posting on this board today. We will all be well into retirement or dead before it has problems.

 

[MrGoose]

Golden Mile is going to have a huge, multi-decade buildout into the 2070's most likely. The condo market in Scarborough is simply not there to absorb that many units.

Plus the OL is going to help by relieving capacity right as the line approaches it's highest ridership point.

The line really is not going to be over capacity any time soon so as to be a going concern for anyone posting on this board today. We will all be well into retirement or dead before it has problems.

So?

Just because we won't be around to suffer the consequences of underbuilding doesn't mean it should not have been built to the proper capacity.

If the planners of the 1900s had this kind of mentality then there would be no subway deck under the Bloor Viaduct, the Yonge Line would have been an streetcar, etc etc.

And again, what benefit did we gain from making the Eglinton Crosstown an LRT to justify the lower capacity?

Being an LRT
- does not contribute to lower construction or operating costs because the stations are still the same size, the tunnels are the same size etc.
- the trams aren't cheaper to run than a full sized subway train.
- has higher staffing costs because the line must have human drivers
- did not make the construction any faster
- does not better serve any potential trips b/c the tram runs slower than a subway b/c it runs in traffic

Here's a thought: how about the city... doesn't attempt to pack all of human civilization along the Eglinton corridor? There are so many parts of the city covered in SFH homes that could be upscaled, overloading one LRT line so that it's over capacity sounds like it could be very easily avoided by planning for the future.

It's a problem that could also be avoided by encouraging densification along other corridors and building other LRTs on other streets. But the subways subways subways folks are ensuring there won't be any money left in the budget for any mid tier transit solutions. Give me overbuilt, incredibly expensive transit serving a limited market or give me death!

In what way does the Eglinton Crosstown being an LRT serve more customers than a subway?

The tunnel section is exactly like a subway in terms of construction and the eastern segment would have been the easiest segment to cut and cover. The western extension is being treated as a subway.

Those Subway and GO interchanges will drain more riders from the line than they add at the busiest section.

Your cost figure includes 25 years of maintenance and operations,

If everyone somehow got ridership projections wrong and this ridership will jump from mixed traffic buses to a full underground subway, then we have bigger problems

Lets say the projections are completely correct. Why couldn't this have been a Canada line style subway then? Just run 1 subway train unit instead of 2 trams (that have no open interior gangways).


What benefit did we gain from making the Eglinton Crosstown an LRT to justify the lower capacity?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Sure, then we should build a 26-lane freeway to Sudbury and a quad-track subway line to Oshawa because it might run over capacity at some point a century from now.

There is such thing as "opportunity costs".

What benefit did we gain? How does saving billions on construction costs sound? You can deal with a lot of other things when a line costs 40% less to build.

I'm not saying the Crosstown is indefensible - and it is true that an Ontario line type line which was elevated in the east end likely could have been delivered for similar or only slightly higher costs, but it's not a bad project and ridership demands really aren't going to actually be all that high for the foreseeable future. You are complaining about the ridership of the surface section through the golden mile, but reality is that stretch has almost 0 residents within walking distance and the number of jobs in the area is currently falling with the emptying out of suburban office parks.

You have to remember the context in which the Crosstown was built too. The other option was either a Line-1 type TTC subway which is wildly expensive to build (much more than the Crosstown) or a fully buried LRT line like Rob Ford had initially planned, which made even less sense.

 

[T3G]

In what way does the Eglinton Crosstown being an LRT serve more customers than a subway?

The tunnel section is exactly like a subway in terms of construction and the eastern segment would have been the easiest segment to cut and cover. The western extension is being treated as a subway.

I didn't say the Crosstown does. That ship has sailed, there is nothing that can be done.

I'm talking about all the subway nonsense going about now. We are electing the most expensive transit option every time and fundamentally neglecting other corridors. Imagine if, instead of fantasies about extending the Sheppard line to Downsview Park and Pickering, we were instead talking about LRTs on Lawrence, York Mills, or Finch East. Upscaling those corridors and spreading out the demand city wide would be a hell of a lot more impressive urban planning strategy than overloading Eglinton and then crying that the capacity does not suffice. Not good enough.

Subways are the nuclear option. Why are there literally no other tools in our arsenal?

 

[MrGoose]

Sure, then we should build a 26-lane freeway to Sudbury and a quad-track subway line to Oshawa because it might run over capacity at some point a century from now.

There is such thing as "opportunity costs".

What benefit did we gain? How does saving billions on construction costs sound? You can deal with a lot of other things when a line costs 40% less to build.

How did we save on construction costs?

The tunnels are wide enough for subway trains and the station boxes are longer than an equivalent station box on the Yonge Line.

The eastern at-grade section is a 27m wide stroad which could have been very easily cut and covered.

We aren't going to be adding more stations if it was a subway, if anything, we'd be removing some of them because of faster operations.

 

[innsertnamehere]

How did we save on construction costs?

The tunnels are wide enough for subway trains and the station boxes are longer than an equivalent station box on the Yonge Line.

The eastern at-grade section is a 27m wide stroad which could have been very easily cut and covered.

We aren't going to be adding more stations if it was a subway, if anything, we'd be removing some of them because of faster operations.

Because we didn't build 7km of tunnelled subway? The line is $3+ billion cheaper because of it.

Making up theoreticals about cut and cover construction is just not the case or a fair comparison. We know the cost premium for doing it a full subway as it was almost built that way. At the time it was $5.9 billion for the Crosstown as built or $9 billion for a fully tunneled version like Rob Ford wanted. And that plan was universally ridiculed on this board and basically everywhere else at the time. The eastern section of the line is going to have ridership which can be accommodated by a light BRT for the foreseeable future, yet alone a full-size metro. That money is better going elsewhere in the network like the Ontario Line.

 

[zang]

If the planners of the 1900s had this kind of mentality then there would be no subway deck under the Bloor Viaduct, the Yonge Line would have been an streetcar, etc etc.

Perhaps you missed the period in 2008 where we nearly closed the Sheppard line completely because we massively overbuilt capacity without the ridership to justify it? We built based on wishes and projections (and votes) and it ended up being a huge money sink, and still is some 22 years later. It’s never met projected ridership numbers. Ever.

 

[MrGoose]

Perhaps you missed the period in 2008 where we nearly closed the Sheppard line completely because we massively overbuilt capacity without the ridership to justify it? We built based on wishes and projections (and votes) and it ended up being a huge money sink, and still is some 22 years later. It’s never met projected ridership numbers. Ever.

This argument might be relevant if we had built the Sheppard line as a crosstown route and it still failed to reach a profitable level of ridership.

Except that the Sheppard Line started at 6km long with only 1 major interchange and the Eglinton line is starting at 18km with 4 major interchanges, with another extension already under construction, and another major line being built to intersect it.

A similar looking Sheppard Line would look like what the Sheppard Line is supposed to look like once its extension is complete and there is no doubt that such a line would have much higher ridership than what the current Sheppard Line has.