[RedRocket191]

Assuming they'll operate on the exact same alignment with the same stations, they'd be equal in speed. But then they'd also be pretty much equal in cost, too, so why not go with the higher capacity option?

Because there are competing priorities for our money. Politicians have to juggle the need and wants of various people - transit being just one of them. I'm all for overbuilding, but if overcrowding isn't going to be an issue for the next 30 years, then I'd rather build something to LRT standard and use the leftover money to build more parks/keep pools open/save the whales/a million other things.

To the person who said Eglinton should be built to subway standard because it was planned as a subway.... I don't think that its a very good argument, as I can think of a thousand things that were planned as one thing but have been very successful as something else. Bombardier ART was originally designed as a maglev, for example, but has done pretty well in what it ended up being.

 

[unimaginative2]

Uh, Red Rocket...

But then they'd also be pretty much equal in cost, too

 

[RedRocket191]

Then I say how much is pretty much?

I have a hard time believing that they will be the same cost, but I want it studied to know for sure.

 

[unimaginative2]

On the same alignment suitable for eventual conversion? Well, I guess the only determinant will be the cost of overhead catenary vs third rail, raising the platforms at the stations, and the vehicles. Since LRVs are actually more expensive than subway cars, and you'd presumably need more to run them more frequently for the same capacity, what do you think?

edit: To be more specific, the LRVs Toronto's looking at would accommodate 250 passengers. That's roughly the same as two subway cars. Now, two subway cars costs about $5.75 million, while an LRV costs $7.35 million. So basically, if you're trying to run subway style trains, you're a lot better off running subway trains.

 

[RedRocket191]

If we're talking about this line in absence of anything else, then you might be right. How each choice fit into the grand scheme of things is what I want to know. What would the comparison be if it were part of a regional rail network?

 

[mgl]

I voted for the subway, but I'm less concerned with the technology than with the route alignment. The name DRL implies one thing only; a way to get people from the inner suburbs to the downtown core while giving relief to the crowded Y-U-S line. While that's a worthy objective, why not align the route so that it stops in interesting places? While there may be future development along the eastern waterfront, it's barren. I doubt even 20 years from now many of us will be taking weekly trips to all of the great restaurants and cool unique shops in that area. But if the line were under King or Queen, both east and west, there would be lots of places we'd want to go. The difference between the current DRL proposal and a true King or Queen subway that looped back up to the B-D line is that it wouldn't just be a commuter line but a true urban subway. Of course, aligning along King or Queen would dramatically raise costs because you couldn't re-use existing rights of way and you'd have to bury it, but it would be so much more useful.

 

[MisterF]

We could build both. I'm sure there's enough demand.

Yeah I know, I'm dreaming.

 

[unimaginative2]

If we're talking about this line in absence of anything else, then you might be right. How each choice fit into the grand scheme of things is what I want to know. What would the comparison be if it were part of a regional rail network?

What does that mean? Does it mean what if we extend it? Or does it mean... How much does it cost if we're building lots of other lines around the city. If it's the latter, I can't see how that would make much of a difference. If it's the former, then I have a couple of responses. On the west end, I think that LRT and an REX-type service is probably the optimal technology northwest of Dundas West station. In the East, Steve Munro has said that the LRT line would be completely grade separated right up to Don Mills an Eglinton. In that case, obviously the cost again, as I have shown, would be insignificantly different between LRT and subway, so obviously they should build a subway, and then finish it north to Finch on a mixed underground/elevated/trench alignment. That area is intensively developed and would intercept many busy east-west bus routes if it offered a direct ride downtown.

It's also extremely important to note that building a line with a capacity that we know will be exceeded is a very poor idea, contrary to what LRT advocates would have you believe. Upgrading any line, once it's running at capacity, is an extremely difficult and time consuming process. Think about it: an LRT line, with trains every 90 seconds (if that's even possible), moving thousands of people an hour, suddenly being shut down for a year to be converted to subway so that we can satisfy this "logical progression". Why not just build the damned subway in the first place, when we know the corridor will require one eventually? And, in corridors that will likely never require a subway, build LRT.

Everybody: the whole cost saving with LRT is because you can just plunk it down in the middle of the street, stopping at traffic lights. The problem with that is simply that it's then not much faster than a bus or mixed-traffic streetcar. Unless it's on a fully grade-separated corridor, it will never rival the speed and reliability of a bus.

In a sense, we will have built both, Mr. F. We've already built the streetcar version of the DRL: the Spadina/Harbourfront Line, the King Line, the Exhibition line. Now, we're building the faster subway version.

 

[Rainforest]

... I'm all for overbuilding, but if overcrowding isn't going to be an issue for the next 30 years, then I'd rather build something to LRT standard and use the leftover money to build more parks/keep pools open/save the whales/a million other things.

Next 30 years seems too optimistic though. The capacity of the fully grade-separate LRT (175 people per car, mix of 50% 2-car and 50% 3-car trains, 90 sec headways) will be about 17,500 pphpd. Combining the eastern and western wing, that's 35,000 pphpd.

We are trying to relief 2 subway lines (Yonge and US), total 60,000 pphpd. Assume the DRL gets 1/3 of that, that's 20,000. Add 25% for riders transferring from streetcars, people switching from their cars, and employees of the new office buildings near the new stations. That's 25,000 already. We are still on the mark, but there is little room to accomodate further growth.

And, the rail corridor is unique. If DRL starts choking, yet another line downtown will have to be fully underground.

 

[Rainforest]

Rainforest

Btw, the assessment for Eglinton is quite different. Presently, it is a mixed-traffic bus route, max capacity 1,700 - 1,800 pphpd. The usage will grow when the rail service is in place, but it has long way to go before it reaches the LRT limit of about 17,500 (for the central tunnel part; assumptions: 175 people per car, mix of 50% 2-car and 50% 3-car trains, 90 sec headways).

And if it ever reaches such limit, another LRT line can be built along Lawrence.

So, there is a good case to choose heavy rail for DRL, but LRT for Eglinton.

 

[unimaginative2]

Well said, Rainforest!

A DRL subway up Don Mills would also relieve Eglinton at its busiest point. Many passengers going east-west on Lawrence and Eglinton bound for downtown would transfer to the DRL at Don Mills, reducing congestion on the Eglinton LRT approaching Yonge.

 

[MisterF]

Btw, the assessment for Eglinton is quite different. Presently, it is a mixed-traffic bus route, max capacity 1,700 - 1,800 pphpd. The usage will grow when the rail service is in place, but it has long way to go before it reaches the LRT limit of about 17,500 (for the central tunnel part; assumptions: 175 people per car, mix of 50% 2-car and 50% 3-car trains, 90 sec headways).

And if it ever reaches such limit, another LRT line can be built along Lawrence.

So, there is a good case to choose heavy rail for DRL, but LRT for Eglinton.

That's exactly what should be built, IMO.

In a sense, we will have built both, Mr. F. We've already built the streetcar version of the DRL: the Spadina/Harbourfront Line, the King Line, the Exhibition line. Now, we're building the faster subway version.

Actually I meant a fully grade separated subway along either King or Queen to provide Bloor-style east-west local service downtown, and a DRL along the rail corridor with stations farther apart, serving suburban commuters. Streetcars don't cut it.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Random points:

In the long term, a subway DRL *and* another subway under ~Queen are both warranted. If we're going to overspend on transit, we really should do so downtown, not in places like Seaton.

A DRL subway up Don Mills to Finch (the natural terminus) would be very heavily used and the DRL, after Pape transferees and assorted other eastenders get on, would make full use of a subway's capacity by the time it neared Union. The western half of the DRL would probably be slightly less busy, but it'd still attract huge numbers of riders, including many switchers at Dundas West, people from the NW (this depends on what runs up Weston/Jane/wherever from Dundas West), transfers from Queen, riders from westend neighbourhoods, etc.

A few people have worried about DRLers causing worse congestion on the YUS loop if they transfer again, but I'm not sure that "too many" of them will. Some will get off the St. Lawrence/John stops, some will use the expanded PATH network, but, most importantly, those that would need to ride back up to College or Wellesley would just not take the DRL - they'd continue taking existing subway lines.

Eglinton's bus capacity is actually much higher than what Rainforest says because Eglinton is split by 3 subway stations, turning it into, effectively, 4 routes. If an Eglinton subway was built today and no other transit projects were built, Eglinton would be very well-used. However, its ridership could easily be eaten up by other projects...Eglinton is the ultimate fantasy map line because Toronto will only need a full Eglinton subway when the Avenues take off and when there's a substantial shift away from cars and towards transit. One could make a good case, though, that we should build for the future and build Eglinton as a subway since we're already going to spend an unknown number of billions of dollars on a tunnelled Eglinton LRT.

mgl: even if Queen had more interesting places than the DRL alignment by an imaginary score of 7 to 6 (this is completely subjective), interesting places don't matter...places that generate transit trips do. A Front/Union alignment easily serves everything between King and Queen's Quay, which is a corridor of intense development and many trip generators. If we built one line under Queen and called it a day, that wouldn't come close to serving the bulk of downtown well. How much longer will everything south of Front be "barren"? By the time the DRL is actually finished, there will hardly be any vacant sites at all left downtown.

 

[Rainforest]

... Eglinton's bus capacity is actually much higher than what Rainforest says because Eglinton is split by 3 subway stations, turning it into, effectively, 4 routes.

Such split will persists whether Eglinton is a bus route, an LRT, or a subway. Moreover, there might be effectively 5 routes if the DRL's eastern wing reaches Eglinton / Don Mills. And this is one of the reasons that LRT should be able to cope with ridership on Eglinton.

A full-fledged subway on Eglinton won't run empty of course. But it would cost to the tune of 7 billion, versus 2.2 billion (OK perhaps 2.5 in reality) for the planned LRT.

Planning a full-fledged subway on Eglinton creates this risk: central section gets build first, then the political climate changes and further subway construction is halted. If that happens, we will get another Stubway. In contrast, if the central tunnel is built as LRT, getting a continuous Crosstown line is virtually certain.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

There's simply no need for an Eglinton subway to cost $7 billion unless it's gold-plated and entirely tunnelled, but it would not need to be fully tunnelled west of Keele and east of Laird unless people want to make it seem "too expensive" to ensure another evil subway line doesn't get built. But just because it'd be cheap doesn't mean we should build it. The characteristics that would make an Eglinton subway cheap also suggest that an implementation of *real* LRT could be wildly successful.