[kettal]

The point is that Vancouver was able to build a completely grade separated rapid transit route that was 19 km long with a higher capacity than the Eglinton Crosstown line for a total $1.8 billion cost to governments. The majority of the line is underground and the tunnel diameter is the same as the TTC subway. That's a lower cost per kilometre than the Eglinton LRT which is mostly in mixed traffic.

Do you honestly believe that Toronto will put up with the cut and cover construction on central Eglinton that Vancouver endured on Granville?

 

[nfitz]

You do realize that 1.4 million google hits for a generic term is rather light? There's probable more rail fans than that in the world.

Perhaps ... but you didn't say seldom used. You didn't say rarely used. You said nobody. Clearly you were 100% wrong on that.

But it's not just rail fans ... the media frequently uses the term.

Here is a recent example I saw just the other day when I was reading up on the plan to cancel the LRT in Ottawa (see above) http://www.cfra.com/?cat=1&nid=68385

 

[unimaginative2]

Given that a majority of the Canada line is above ground, how do we know that anything else you said is correct?

Oh, please forgive me. It's 49.28% tunnelled. Needless to say, the rest of the information is accurate.

It's Cambie and not Granville. The Granville segment was tunnelled.

 

[kettal]

I'll take that as a "no."

 

[kEiThZ]

You're right, English sucks. The discussion from here on will be conducted in German.

Sprechen zie deutsche?

 

[Rainforest]

Quotes:
(- crossing old central part of the city with its numerous utility lines)
(- complex wyes for service connections to Spadina and/or Yonge lines)

I think the above two are red herrings. The LRT plan still has to cross all those old utilities in the core (granted you did mention that it has added to the cost of the LRT). That shouldn't be used as argument against subway since an existing condition that would have to be dealt with regardless of solution.

The wyes would replace the cost of building a yard for the Eglinton fleet. I'd assume that a yard would be built specifically for Eglinton since it's significatly different from the rest of the TC network.

Please note that I did not use those points in the subway-versus-LRT comparison. I used them to justify my numerical estimate of the Eglinton subway cost.

 

[unimaginative2]

Another interesting aspect of the Canada line is just how thin those elevated guideway supports are. This could fit in on most suburban arterials, especially ones like Don Mills that don't have any streetfront uses.

Remember that the dimensions of the Canada line vehicles are the same as TTC subway cars. They're bigger than the standard Skytrains.

 

[Second_in_pie]

I'm interested in how Skytrain gets such high speeds if it uses completely different rolling stock than the other two lines.

And if an elevated line is built first, I could definitely see communities and streetscapes being moulded around that elevated line. Don Mills or Eglinton East would be perfect for an elevated line.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Oh not at all. I think it would be perfectly fine. Yeah, there'd be disruption, but certainly no more than we've seen on St. Clair. Eglinton, while it does have some businesses, is also less of a shopping street than Cambie.

And disruption from trenching/elevating/cut'n'covering wouldn't be an issue for the rest/majority of the line, either, like east of Laird or west of Weston, where Eglinton will be ripped up for many years building the ROW, anyway. There's no excuse to not build a rapid transit line.

If we want anybody to use it and to lure a single driver out of their car - which we do if we're going to build such an incredibly expensive line coming at the expense of other projects - Eglinton needs to be fully grade-separated and also needs to be built as one continuous line to east of Kennedy (perhaps to Markington).

 

[Second_in_pie]

Eglinton needs to be fully grade-separated and also needs to be built as one continuous line to east of Kennedy (perhaps to Markington).

Markington=Markham and Eglinton? Definitely. The whole Kennedy-Kingston Road segment has a fair bit of density. It'd also connect with Lakeshore East and Kingston BRT.

 

[GraphicMatt]

It's clear now that we aren't doing it because of costs. And it'll be equally clear in the future that as a 'Crosstown' route it's a failure when very few people actually use it on a regular basis to go across town. I am sure the line will have high ridership. It's a 30 km line after all. There's lot of places to get on and off. However, will it have made a difference in reducing travel time for those who want to access the airport or get from one side of Toronto to the other (without going really far south to do it)? I doubt it very much.

So the line could get significantly high ridership but still be a failure? How does that work? Is the reason-for-being of the Eglinton LRT really to get people from Scarborough to the airport in less than an hour?

 

[Paleo]

The point is that Vancouver was able to build a completely grade separated rapid transit route that was 19 km long with a higher capacity than the Eglinton Crosstown line for a total $1.8 billion cost to governments. The majority of the line is underground and the tunnel diameter is the same as the TTC subway. That's a lower cost per kilometre than the Eglinton LRT which is mostly in mixed traffic.

Gotta love the length proponents will go with misleading statements and apples to oranges comparisons.

 

[unimaginative2]

Okay, are you talking about me? Care to tell me how we're so different? Or just throwing out a red herring?

 

[kEiThZ]

Quotes:
(- crossing old central part of the city with its numerous utility lines)
(- complex wyes for service connections to Spadina and/or Yonge lines)



Please note that I did not use those points in the subway-versus-LRT comparison. I used them to justify my numerical estimate of the Eglinton subway cost.

Yet that LRT tunnel would at least face one of those costs.

 

[kEiThZ]

So the line could get significantly high ridership but still be a failure? How does that work? Is the reason-for-being of the Eglinton LRT really to get people from Scarborough to the airport in less than an hour?

Hey it's not me that sold it as a 'Crosstown' line to replace a proposed subway. If they are suggesting that it's supposed get people out of their cars and be used as an alternative for actual crosstown whether that from Scarborough to the airport or Etobicoke to STC for work, if it fails to pull people out of their cars in the 'Crosstown' scenarios, it's a failure. After all, that's the only reason we are building a full length LRT to replace the short previously proposed subway.

As for ridership. Again look at the bar set by the TTC. They aren't looking for a huge growth over current bus routes, like they do when they build subways. If this LRT carries as many riders as the buses on the Eglinton they will declare it a success and go home. But is that standard worth 5 billion bucks?