First of all, you misrepresented some of my statements. I did not suggest "Finch-Albion LRT", and do not know what the heck it is. I know what Finch West LRT is, but it is irrelevant for the debate about Eglinton.
Likewise, I did not support TARL in its present form.
You brought up Finch LRT as an alternative that riders from the north will utilize instead of travelling southwards to B-D, so it’s totally relevant to the discussion. What you fail to realize however is that west of Martin Grove, Eglinton as subway could transition up to Dixon Road for a direct pathway into the airport. This means that the residents of Rexdale and students of Humber College and gamblers of Woodbine and mall goers of the Albion Centre, et all may find it all the more convenient to simply take the 191 down to the Eglinton-DRL interlined subway for a one-seat ride into the downtown.
I never said that you uttered those words specifically but rather that your reply was exemplar of the mindset that fails to see through the veiled smoke and mirrors of TTC bureaucracy, no offense. Transit City has its merit along some corridors e.g. Waterfront, Jane and Don Mills; albeit with a complete overhaul of HOW these lines are built. But for others like Eglinton anything less than a subway is immoral. Eglinton today already exceeds the hourly passenger demands that the overloaded Bloor-Danforth streetcar had prior to the inauguration of metro there. Twin with that its ability to supplant the right away necessity for TARL, Midtown GO, Sheppard West extension, Finch all the way to Pearson, etc. and we’ve more than enough reasons to back this winner. I agree with your last point that some of the aforementioned projects have utility other than to bolster Eglinton, but the solution can also find itself via other means (PART to Malton GO, Finch H.C. BRT, Union-Pearson GO bus shuttle, more frequent scheduling of the 196E). At least you admit that Eglinton mass transit is what's needed the most after the DRL though.
Secondly, yes I agree that LRT is somewhat inferior mode for Eglinton route. However, I believe that LRT, while being substantially cheaper, will accomplish the majority of tasks that a subway would. Therefore, LRT is the best choice, as it will not compete for funding with other urgent priorities, such as DRL.
"Some" of the Eglinton corridor can accomodate cheaper construction, not "most" of it. I think that 10 km out of 30 would be an optimistic estimate.
When will the deception stop? Nothing outside of the central tunnel has to be underground for a significant length of time. Everywhere from Pearson to just east of Royal York Rd; the Humber River to Mt Dennis Stn; Black Creek to Trethewey; and Brentcliffe to the DVP can be done via a mix of at-grade (trenched) and elevated guideways including bridge crossings. To say these portions of track will amount to $300 million when Vancouver was able to build its entire Canada Line for $190 million per kilometre (NB: that’s with over half the ROW being underground including major river crossings) is overanalyzing what the rates of inflation in five years will look like, not to mention the criteria being used to justify what is nothing more than a mere
suggested total figure. What are TTC consultants basing this estimate on?
It is true that Eglinton could save something on station costs (only Don Mills, Jane, Kipling, and the airport would need big stations). But this route has its share of other challenges:
- 3 highways: 404, 401, 427
- 4 rivers: East Don, West Don, Black Creek, Humber
- crossing old central part of the city with its numerous utility lines (I suspect that has added to the projected cost of Eglinton LRT tunnel)
- complex wyes for service connections to Spadina and/or Yonge lines
Solution:
- rail overpasses (bridges);
- ditto (you left out Mimico Creek, btw);
- deep tunnel bore (seeing as the line will exceed the depth of the Bradford GO corridor, it will definitely exceed 10m and be well clear of buried infrastructure);
- Eglinton Stn already has crossover tracks and storage tracks in place to accommodate the passage of not-in-service trainsets. How complex can it be to apply a north-to-west/south-to-east track configuration between Davisville and Eglinton? Just widen out the Berwick portal and have the Eglinton cars enter via the Davisville Buildup without ever having to disrupt service along the Yonge Line. Doing such may even result in a possible interlined service (eastbound Eglinton/southbound Yonge serving Davisville Stn southwards). The Spadina Line’s an easier fix as the right-of-way’s through the Allen and there’s a storage track between Lawrence West and Glencairn. Just have that dip underneath the ROW and swing trains either southbound-to-westbound or eastbound-to-northbound to Wilson Yard.
So, I think that $200 million/kilometre for the 10 km of "easy" Richview and East York sections, and $300 million/kilometre for the remaining 20 km, is not an overstatement (perhaps, an understatement). Adding up: $8 B, which is $3.4 B more than the allocated Eglinton LRT funding.
No, the opposite is true. The central tunnel bore, approximated at $183 million/km for 12 kilometres in 2007 dollars (which when factoring in forecasted inflation rates of 5.2% would equal to $192 million/km by 2013) would still only come to little over $2.3 billion. The tunnel will be built to have the capacity to house T1 trainsets. Only diff, Crosstown LRT stations designed at 90m platform lengths would now have to be standard 150m lengths, an add-on yes, but not excessive. And if the tunnel is supposed to be the most expensive part of the proposal, ergo, how can the rest of alignment outdoors be any more expensive per kilometre?
I emphasize again, not to take the exaggerated claims of the TTC so literally when they are known for aggrandizement and thrifty spending of the public purse.
aris_metro_aerial_station_dsc00849.jpg
