[Payback]

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.

First thing you've said that I agree with.

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.

Eglinton makes so much sense it's astounding people are still in doubt over it's potential. Why would anyone from the suburbs need to take a bus all the way south to the BD line anymore, when Eglinton can cut that commute in half? What better way to link Square One to the subway grid then via a short BRT trip to the Renforth gateway? For that matter, is there a more logical connector to the airport (and don't say we could subvert the Geogretown GO line for several miles off course just to prove a point)?

Indeed bus routes on Eglinton carry well over 30, 000 ppd. So times four there's 120, 000 right there. If that's not justification for a subway line, I'd like to know what is. I think the 'tunneled' section of TC is the most crucial part of the line to get right. Beyond that a subway could easy well run at-grade, open-trench or elevated through the Golden Mile and Richview.

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.

In a perfect world we'd have subways in both corridors. Queen is relatively close to most downtown destinations. I could easily walk it north from Queen if a wanted to visit Chinatown, I know that's not possible from a Cityplace Stn. Obviously the waterfront will redevelop but since when are condo dwellers more relevant than most innercity residents who've suffered the indignities of sluggish streetcars for all these years? Where's their subway?

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.

If by full-fledged you mean Pearson to UTSC, then I suppose so, maybe slightly higher.

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.

If the central part got built first then construction stalled, at least the commutes of 32/34 riders is slashed in half. Think about it too, there'll always be pressure to finish Eglinton if it's stubbed. Much like Sheppard advocates see the unattainable end points of Downsview and SCC, much the same people will see Pearson and Kennedy as worthy points to fill in the gaps for.

 

[Rainforest]

If by full-fledged you mean Pearson to UTSC, then I suppose so, maybe slightly higher. {Cost of Eglinton subway - 7 billion?}

Unfortunately, 7 billion is the estimate for just Kipling to Kennedy, based on the length (about 30 km) and the cost of 200 - 250 million per km. Perhaps that could be reduced slightly by using thrifty design. But it cannot get close to LRT's cost. LRT can run at surface ROW and stop at traffic lights; subway can't.

 

[unimaginative2]

It's definitely going to be a lot more than $2.5 billion. Transit City's total cost shot up from $6 to $9 billion, and I heard that a lot of that increase was on Eglinton, where they massively underestimated the cost.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

$2.2 billion will barely pay for the stations in the underground segment, let alone the rest of the tunnels and tracks (unless they have a more reasonable 800m-1km stop spacing underground). The 20km of the line at grade will also cost over $1B. Considering it's not being fast-tracked like Sheppard and since the local NIMBYs are a tad vicious, Eglinton could be delayed by enough years that inflation starts adding hundreds of millions more to the cost - Kennedy to Kipling could easily cost over $4 billion.

 

[Rainforest]

It's definitely going to be a lot more than $2.5 billion. Transit City's total cost shot up from $6 to $9 billion, and I heard that a lot of that increase was on Eglinton, where they massively underestimated the cost.

Then, it would be nice if they publish the new estimate specifically for Eglinton LRT. If it is wildly above the original 2.2 billion, then the whole assessment can change of course.

The tunnel section likely will have wide stop spacing, given the cost of underground stations.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

We're being forced to assume a lot of things with the Transit City plan.

 

[Dan416]

Forced is definitely right.

 

[drum118]

Unfortunately, 7 billion is the estimate for just Kipling to Kennedy, based on the length (about 30 km) and the cost of 200 - 250 million per km. Perhaps that could be reduced slightly by using thrifty design. But it cannot get close to LRT's cost. LRT can run at surface ROW and stop at traffic lights; subway can't.

If the line was elevated, you would be looking at $75-$125 million per km to build it for Mark II/LRT/subway. That's $2.25- $3.75 Billion not including equipment.

I still love to see this LRT-subway come in as per cost.

I still say TTC should be looking at artic LRT cars that have drop in/out section going from 22-40m as it will help to cut down on added an extra car.

Using precast sections, you could install up to 15km a year after the columns footings are built. You would be looking at 3-4 years time frame to get this line built and in operation. There is nothing stopping to get this line erected in one year using more than one contractor and erection firm. You could open it in sections.

 

[Rainforest]

If the line was elevated, you would be looking at $75-$125 million per km to build it for Mark II/LRT/subway. That's $2.25- $3.75 Billion not including equipment.

I still love to see this LRT-subway come in as per cost.

I still say TTC should be looking at artic LRT cars that have drop in/out section going from 22-40m as it will help to cut down on added an extra car.

Using precast sections, you could install up to 15km a year after the columns footings are built. You would be looking at 3-4 years time frame to get this line built and in operation. There is nothing stopping to get this line erected in one year using more than one contractor and erection firm. You could open it in sections.

But it cannot be all elevated. From Keele to Laird, it will have to be underground whether LRT, ICTS / Mk II, or HRT is used. That section will be expensive, but LRT should still be 1.5 - 2 times cheaper then HRT from what I heard / read. ICTS probably falls in between.

West of Keele and east of Laird, LRT should be much cheaper as it can be at grade (median or side of road) with minimal separation (fence). Both ICTS and HRT will have to be elevated (or underground).

Btw, it is puzzling that ICTS even came up as a choice for Eglinton. Looks like it would have LRT's capacity, but cost almost as much as HRT. Basically, worst of the two worlds.

 

[Panzerfaust]

Btw, it is puzzling that ICTS even came up as a choice for Eglinton. Looks like it would have LRT's capacity, but cost almost as much as HRT. Basically, worst of the two worlds.

Exactly. I can not understand why anyone would propose the use of ICTS for Eglinton.

 

[drum118]

But it cannot be all elevated. From Keele to Laird, it will have to be underground whether LRT, ICTS / Mk II, or HRT is used. That section will be expensive, but LRT should still be 1.5 - 2 times cheaper then HRT from what I heard / read. ICTS probably falls in between.

West of Keele and east of Laird, LRT should be much cheaper as it can be at grade (median or side of road) with minimal separation (fence). Both ICTS and HRT will have to be elevated (or underground).

Btw, it is puzzling that ICTS even came up as a choice for Eglinton. Looks like it would have LRT's capacity, but cost almost as much as HRT. Basically, worst of the two worlds.

Why can it not be elevated??????????

There are many cities with elevated system.

With an elevated system you get to see what the weather is like, daylight and a view.

Got to think what the results will be if SRT goes bye bye from the manufacture point of view.

With an elevated system, you can build it faster than underground as well getting it into operation. A better return on the investment.

 

[Rainforest]

Why can it not be elevated??????????

Eglinton between Keele and Laird is just too narrow to stuck an elevated structure in. It has 5 narrow lanes (4 in some places) and houses are sitting pretty close to the road. There is no parallel hydro corridor or anything that could host the line, either.

With an elevated system, you can build it faster than underground as well getting it into operation. A better return on the investment.

This is correct, applied to the outer sections of the line, west of Keele and east of Laird. If subway / HRT is selected for Eglinton, elevating those sections might reduce the cost and accelerate the construction.

However, if Eglinton is LRT, there is no need to elevate. LRT can run on at-grade ROW, and this is even cheaper: should be under 50 million per km if the estimates for Sheppard E are good.

 

[EnviroTO]

But it cannot be all elevated. From Keele to Laird, it will have to be underground whether LRT, ICTS / Mk II, or HRT is used. That section will be expensive, but LRT should still be 1.5 - 2 times cheaper then HRT from what I heard / read. ICTS probably falls in between.

How is it 1.5x to 2x cheaper? Wouldn't heavy versus light only affect the track and base? I can only see significant savings when the stations are designed significantly different (i.e. less space, less exits, smaller platform lengths). If the station is built as a subway station with a lowered platform there will be almost no savings at all.

 

[Voltz]

How is it 1.5x to 2x cheaper? Wouldn't heavy versus light only affect the track and base? I can only see significant savings when the stations are designed significantly different (i.e. less space, less exits, smaller platform lengths). If the station is built as a subway station with a lowered platform there will be almost no savings at all.

One possible way to build an underground light rail line cheaper is to use one large tunnel for both tracks, possible due to narrower vehicles. I believe this is being done in Madrid

only way for the stations to be cheaper is if they don't overbuild them. If a station is shorter, and the ground above is not flat, then the station would not have to be as deep.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

If those savings can be applied to underground LRT lines, they can be applied to subway lines...underground LRT is marginally cheaper than underground subway, certainly not 2X cheaper.

At least half of a subway along Eglinton could be built in shallow trenches next to the road - blocks are very long west of Keele and east of Laird - but we don't know precisely how much more (if it is more) it might cost than an at-grade LRT because it won't be studied as part of the Eglinton EA. It might get a cursory dismissal as "too expensive" but if no one is seriously looking at the option, no one will look at serious cost saving options.