[rbt]

To be blunt, I don't trust the TTC's estimates. And again, conditions on Eglinton are basically the exact same (if not even better for transit,) as the B-D was at the time of its construction. And would you argue that transit in the city would be better if the B-D was LRT past Keele and Pape? I really doubt so. There is such a thing as investing in your future.

Almost certainly provided the same amount of dollars was spent. Might have a Queen LRT tunnel through downtown in lieu of tunnelled BD past Pape and Keele.

We wouldn't be looking at congestion issues at Bloor-Yonge with that configuration. King, Dundas, and Queen trains (even Yonge had multi-car trains) could be converging on the tunnel to get through downtown quickly dramatically increasing capacity on all 3 lines.

There is no wrong decision with transit spending in Toronto; but some are more right than others.

 

[ssiguy2]

Question..........................what is the price differential between tunneled LRT and subway? Monorail and subway are the same cost due to the monorail needing the 2 rails if the station has central platforms although is cheaper if there are opposite side platforms as only needing the standard one rail. They are the same dimensions and widths so there is no real difference in tunneling.
Lrt I would think would be more expensive due to needing higher platforms and tunnels to accomodate the overhead power line. The tunnels would conversely be thinner due to being thinner trains.
Due to those things is one more expensive than another?

 

[drum118]

Question..........................what is the price differential between tunneled LRT and subway? Monorail and subway are the same cost due to the monorail needing the 2 rails if the station has central platforms although is cheaper if there are opposite side platforms as only needing the standard one rail. They are the same dimensions and widths so there is no real difference in tunneling.
Lrt I would think would be more expensive due to needing higher platforms and tunnels to accomodate the overhead power line. The tunnels would conversely be thinner due to being thinner trains.
Due to those things is one more expensive than another?

The cost of the station since LRT will be about 300' vs. 500' for subways. If you built them for future subway needs, there is no cost saving. This is something TTC has not looked at very closely.

Very little saving on the tunnel as it has to be higher for LRT vs. wider for subway and therefore you need the same bore width with LRT.

As for the B-D being LRT pass Keele and Pape, I guess Second_in_pie has never ridden these section as they do require subway now.

 

[rbt]

Lrt I would think would be more expensive due to needing higher platforms and tunnels to accomodate the overhead power line. The tunnels would conversely be thinner due to being thinner trains.

Most new LRT systems are the same width as newer subway systems.

I'm pretty certain the LRT ordered for Eglinton are wider than Montreal subway cars, for example. They will be somewhat thinner than Toronto Rocket cars, but those are some of the wider ones in service.

 

[Asterix]

To be blunt, I don't trust the TTC's estimates. And again, conditions on Eglinton are basically the exact same (if not even better for transit,) as the B-D was at the time of its construction.

Is there anyone else better positioned with superior knowledge and expertise whose estimations you'd place more faith in?

Given that apparently the Bloor streetcar was dealing with multi-PCC car trains carrying 9000 people per hour (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=3134) is nearly twice the 2031 forecast demand for Eglinton, you'd need some radically different estimates. To bring it in to true subway level demand.

2. Just don't have a carhouse at Black Creek?

Which brings up the obvious question of where would you have the carhouse? There is designated available land at the Black Creek site and I'm not aware of any equivalent available space anywhere else along the central portion of Eglinton.

 

[drum118]

Is there anyone else better positioned with superior knowledge and expertise whose estimations you'd place more faith in?

Given that apparently the Bloor streetcar was dealing with multi-PCC car trains carrying 9000 people per hour (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=3134) is nearly twice the 2031 forecast demand for Eglinton, you'd need some radically different estimates. To bring it in to true subway level demand.



Which brings up the obvious question of where would you have the carhouse? There is designated available land at the Black Creek site and I'm not aware of any equivalent available space anywhere else along the central portion of Eglinton.

The other carhouse for Eglinton is the new LRT yard east of the current location of the existing SRT yard. If the SRT is upgraded to subway, where to build a yard for the east end is going to be fun trying to find land near it since none exist now.

As for numbers, it is a guessing game and it will depend on a number things including how a true nextwork is built.

 

[Second_in_pie]

Car ownership was much lower back then. If the Bloor-Danforth was initially built as LRT there might be subway service from Jane to Victoria Park and LRT service from Mississauga Centre to Jane and Victoria Park to Malvern which I don't think would be that bad. There is such a thing as investing in your future but investing in your future usually means working to buy a condo fresh out of university rather than buying a four bedroom house fresh out of university. You may eventually need the four bedroom house but having a condo first still makes more sense. The condo gives you value that can make getting the four bedroom house easier down the road.

I would improve this metaphor. It's more like you are the head of a multi-billion dollar car manufacturer. Are you going to build a bunch of tiny little manufacturing plants across the world, or are you going to build two or three big ones, that has a vastly increased efficiency over the little ones and can boost your profits enabling you to build more factories?
Build proper transit now and it increases true RT coverage across the city, supplementing bus routes that intersect it and raising ridership systemwide, while offering infrastructure that'll last and be useful for a century. You just won't achieve that by running "european" LRTs as your attempted backbone service.

 

[spider]

There is such a thing as investing in your future but investing in your future usually means working to buy a condo fresh out of university rather than buying a four bedroom house fresh out of university. You may eventually need the four bedroom house but having a condo first still makes more sense. The condo gives you value that can make getting the four bedroom house easier down the road.

The flaw in this line of thought is obviously that you would sell the condo and move into the 4 bed room house in a different location. You can't sell the LRT or move into a subway in a different location.

 

[EnviroTO]

The flaw in this line of thought is obviously that you would sell the condo and move into the 4 bed room house in a different location. You can't sell the LRT or move into a subway in a different location.

With the condo you are building financial value. With an LRT you are building value in the properties along the route which leads to greater property tax potential, and you are building ridership along the route. Both the increase tax revenues and the increase in ridership and density make it easier to build a subway in the future.

Both the Yonge line and Bloor line were busy streetcar routes that built high density development along their route before they were subways. Many European tram / LRT routes have become pre-metro routes and then became full metros.

 

[EnviroTO]

I would improve this metaphor. It's more like you are the head of a multi-billion dollar car manufacturer. Are you going to build a bunch of tiny little manufacturing plants across the world, or are you going to build two or three big ones, that has a vastly increased efficiency over the little ones and can boost your profits enabling you to build more factories?.

That isn't an improvement in the metaphor at all. The TTC doesn't manufacture anything. If your metaphor applies then two really huge stations in the city with triple deck subway trains is better than what we have for efficiency, however that is not the reality. TTC deals with the customers where they are and like Tim Hortons that means putting locations in every neighbourhood and some are big and some are small.

 

[Electrify]

Tearing down the SRT just to put up another form of rapid transit is a truly offensive waste of time and especially money to say nothing of the incredible disruption it would have on service while the line is being built.
Extending the B-D to STC is a no win proposition.
Toronto already has a pathetically small rapid transit system to begin with so it doesn't have the money to be throwing around with the end result being not one inch of rapid transit expansion.
I get tired of people bitching about the ICTS. The SRT is nothing like the Vancouver SkyTrain. The new trains are fantastic. SkyTrain has proven itself to be fast, comfortable, safe, quiet and, due to automation, very cheap to run.
The SRT is a failure due to the TTC and Queen's Park NOT because of the technology. From the bizzare connection at Kennedy, having too many stations, not enough trains and using the oldest ever made, ugly stations which are poorly maintained, being too cheap to buy the rail heating mechanisms, and the TTC union demanding they be driver operated which meant a redo of all the cars for non-automated operation.....................the TTC couldn't run the SRT worse if it tried.
Vancouver wanted their SkyTrain to be an excellent rapid/mass transit system and the TTC wanted the SRT to fail and has let it rot praying that someday they can get Queen's Park will build them a new line and hence let the riders suffer.............................both cities got exactly what they wanted.
Also, please don't hit me with the "it doesn't work in the snow" shit. Last year Vancouver got 60cm of snow in just 4 days..................even by Toronto standards a good hammering but the SkyTrain didn't stop for 5 minutes despite the fact that it doesn't even have the heating mechanisms. All they did was run one of the Mark1 cars {not trains} every 10 minutes along the track overnight which is only 5 hours. It's automated so it cost next to nothing. That wouldn't have at all been needed if the trains tracks were heated.
Would I build a ICTS system if I didn't already have one?...............no, I would build a monorail but that doesn't change the fact that SkyTrain has been a stellar success. Comparing the new SkyTrain MK11 cars to the crates you run is like comparing the PCC to the new LRT cars that have been ordered. They run on tracks but similarities end there.
I would also like to know how many at the TTC . Metrolinx, and City Hall are getting their palms greased over the costs they presented for an SRT revamp and extension to Sheppard. How is it that Translink is going to be building a new 11km SkyTrain line, thru a very hilly part of the city and will include a one km tunnel for $1.4 but somehow Toronto 2km extension to Sheppard and some upgrades to the route to allow for MK11 trains is going to becoming in at $2 billion?
I guess it's that TTC math again like where TC was suppose to cost $6 billion but within 18 short months went to $9 billion. Pretty funny how City Hall and the TTC didn't provide their updated figures until AFTER Queen's Park agreed to pay for it.
TransitCity is dead but Toronto mass/rapid transit expansion in any areas that are not in the original City will go no where until someone stands up and bluntly states that any new line with 100% grade separation will be elevated or use rail ROW and tunneling will only be used in very rare occasions. Transit expansion in Toronto will go no where and . quite frankly, if Toronto is determined to tunnel in the burbs then that is exactly where it should go.

You hit the nail on the head there. Of all the mistakes made in building the SRT, in the end it is a fast and efficient rapid transit line (which is more than can be said about the current TC proposal, but let's not go there ). The SRT is a lot like the York University busway: A rapid transit line which connects a station with little around it to a major destination. And while I don't use the YUB every day like I used the SRT several years ago, I do find riding it far more pleasurable than the latter. I think the difference is in the experience: YUB is a fast and attractive bus route with more modern vehicles and attractive terminals. It is an example that the attractiveness of a transit line relies on more than whether the wheels are made of steel or rubber.

I am thinking of redrawing the map with the B-D line replacing the SRT, but you reminded me why I chose to use Eglinton instead: to take advantage of the current infrastructure while still improving on the line so it becomes more than an extra transfer. With that said, it is clear that the people of Scarborough want the subway line extended. By forcing an Eglinton-Scarborough LRT down their throats is not much better than shoving Euro-styled tramways down their throats either.

 

[Asterix]

The other carhouse for Eglinton is the new LRT yard east of the current location of the existing SRT yard.

The poster to whom I was replying I believe is one who is advocating Eglinton only going as far east as Don Mills, so that other carhouse would be inaccessible.

(Unless they are only pushing for Eglinton to be fully grade separated to Don Mills and then regular surface running in a median ROW the remainder of the current planned line.)

 

[Paleo]

To be blunt, I don't trust the TTC's estimates. And again, conditions on Eglinton are basically the exact same (if not even better for transit,) as the B-D was at the time of its construction.

Indeed. They had pretty wild estimates for the Sheppard subway. I'm talking about the realm of farce.

Is Eglinton between Jane and Vic Park carrying 100,000 a day?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Is Eglinton between Jane and Vic Park carrying 100,000 a day?

Nope.

 

[Second_in_pie]

That isn't an improvement in the metaphor at all. The TTC doesn't manufacture anything. If your metaphor applies then two really huge stations in the city with triple deck subway trains is better than what we have for efficiency, however that is not the reality. TTC deals with the customers where they are and like Tim Hortons that means putting locations in every neighbourhood and some are big and some are small.

The point is that a big investment in rapid transit will benefit the entire system, not just a small stretch of land. If you were to extend the Sheppard Subway across to STC, it'd have a huge benefit to half the people in Scarborough.
Your idea of "building up value" is kind of flawed, because you're calling for a $1 billion expense on something you're expecting to need a different technology in 30 years, for the purpose of "building up value" which the new technology would be able to do anyways. It's like buying your Condo out of university, and then burning it to the ground when it comes time to buy your house. Not to mention that future subway costs could become insanely high.
Toronto is going to need more subway sometime, it's just a question of when. And I'll give you a hint; the earlier we build it, the earlier we are able to appreciate its benefits.