[kettal]

OK, you have a strong point here, and it probably explains at least a part of the cost escalation for the Eglinton project.

However, expropriation costs should be almost independent on the choice of technology, be it LRT or HRT. They should depend mostly on the length of tunnel and the number of underground stations.

Then, even though 1 km of HRT might still cost somewhat more than 1 km of LRT due to other costs, the presence of the large and technology-idependent expropriation cost in the total tally makes it desirable to squeeze more capacity out of that huge investment. If tunneling through midtown is so horrendously expensive, then we can't bank on a parallel LRT route (like Lawrence).

Do you expect a capacity problem in Eglinton, that the tunneled lrt cannot handle?

 

[gweed123]

You're wrong. It's not like the city has a pool of capital money they can draw from for TTC projects. They're entirely at the mercy of the provincial government, and before MoveOntario2020 there was exactly zero dollars available.

I suppose you could argue that had Transit City been a more subway-specific plan we'd be closer to just starting to build some new subway construction (aside from Spadina extension) but given recent cuts it's pure speculation to imagine what that would like. (Half a Sheppard extension? Eglinton subway from Bathurst to Jane?)

I do admire your optimism that we live in a world where this transit agency and government bureaucracy can turn on a dime and funding can just be moved from one pocket to another and everything can be built for much cheaper than it is now. To believe that in the face of three decades of opposing evidence is fairly badass.

I just feel like, when the funding dissapears, we always start from scratch with something different, we get promised funding, and then the funding partially dissapears again before shovels are ready. As a result, would it not make more sense to stick with the same plan, and keep lobbying for funding? Transit City was not a modification on a previous plan, it was a total teardown. Had the TTC just stuck with RTES, when MoveOntario 2020 was announced, many of those projects would have been shovel-ready. Instead, they decided to start from scratch, leaving a 4 year gap between funding announcement and having projects be shovel-ready. The federal stimulus money has clearly shown that 'shovel-ready' projects get funding more easily than projects that are a few years away from being shovel-ready.

Thankfully, because a lot of the prep work for RTES was done in the early 2000s (some of it even earlier), going back to a similar plan will not take nearly as long as Transit City took to become shovel ready (nearly 5 years). It would likely be 1-2 years before shovels were in the ground on Sheppard and Eglinton West. If the central tunnel portion of the Eglinton LRT can be adapted to subway, the delay would likely be less than 6 months. Like I said before, the EAs would only need to be slightly updated, and new construction contracts tendered. Maybe not even that, because the contracts for some TC lines would only need to be modified.

 

[EnviroTO]

However, expropriation costs should be almost independent on the choice of technology, be it LRT or HRT. They should depend mostly on the length of tunnel and the number of underground stations.

The costs of an HRT stations are higher than LRT if the capacity of the HRT is made higher than LRT. The Canada line is limited to a three car train so the cost of the stations can be cheaper since it requires less platform, and less emergency exit capacity. The greater the capacity of a vehicle using the station the greater the design capacity of the station. With 3 coupled pairs the LRT on Eglinton might carry more passengers (850pax) than the Canadian line's eventual three car train (500pax). Every public building has a fire code limit to how many people are allowed to be in a building, room, or floor and it is almost completely due to emergency escape capacity. As soon as two trains pull into the station at rush hour the track level floor needs to meet fire code for the total passengers in the two trains and on the platform.

 

[Rainforest]

Do you expect a capacity problem in Eglinton, that the tunneled lrt cannot handle?

If the western leg is completed (to Martin Grove or Pearson) and is as fast as Bloor subway (as the design team claimed at one point), quite a few bus riders from Kipling, Martin Grove, Islington, Royal York etc might transfer to Eglinton rather than staying on bus till Bloor. Given that Bloor's peak ridership is 24,000 today, one can expect Eglinton West attracting 12,000 or 15,000. This is close to the upper limit of LRT implementation they are designing for Eglinton.

Even if the line is truncated at Jane, TTC can boost its ridership by directing peak-hour branches of several bus routes (Lawrence - West Mall, Lawrence - Dixon, Royal York) to that terminus, and reduce the total number of buses needed.

Moreover, the network context should be taken into account. If we built Eglinton LRT and then kept building parallel routes (Lawrence LRT, Midtown Crosstown GO), there would be no risk of Eglinton going over capacity because those new routes would divert riders. But since we are poor and broken when it comes to transit investment, it makes more sense to squeeze maximum capacity out of the existing funds. If we are spending 6,065 billion for Eglinton and want a 14-km subway between Jane and Don Mills, we have 433 million per km. This should be doable, or at least this option should be examined.

 

[kettal]

If the western leg is completed (to Martin Grove or Pearson) and is as fast as Bloor subway (as the design team claimed at one point), quite a few bus riders from Kipling, Martin Grove, Islington, Royal York etc might transfer to Eglinton rather than staying on bus till Bloor. Given that Bloor's peak ridership is 24,000 today, one can expect Eglinton West attracting 12,000 or 15,000. This is close to the upper limit of LRT implementation they are designing for Eglinton.

That number is for the central section of Bloor, not the fringes, and as we all know, the Eglinton tunnel can easily handle 20 k.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Commute times will improve on GO Transit as they roll out all-day service and improve the quality of the tracks. The TTC is a local transit provider and modes of transport are chosen based on capacity not speed. It takes about 50 minutes to get from Kipling to Kennedy which is a distance of 27km (32km/h). If you are really trying to reduce a long commute the choices are live closer to work or take the GO. In the same time a subway goes to Eglinton from Union a GO train goes to Long Branch which is double the distance and this is before electrification.

Valid post. However we should not exclude subway construction in Toronto just because we want to frame the TTC as a local transit service. Toronto is a large metropolitan city with corridors that do qualify for subway level service.

If that is your position than you might as well turn over the subway network over to GO. I'd like to see what the TTC's revenues look like without the subway network.

 

[Rainforest]

That number is for the central section of Bloor, not the fringes, and as we all know, the Eglinton tunnel can easily handle 20 k.

With LRT, and with the way they are designing it, 20k will be quite difficult. The capacity of one car is 150 - 170 riders, a 3-car train can carry roughly 500 riders. To reach 20k, you'll need 40 trains per hour, on 1.5 min headways. That certainly requires ATO and that means new costs in addition to what they are spending now.

Note that a TTC sized subway can handle 20k without ATO. ATO brings other advantages, but having it as a mandatory new expense doesn't favor LRT.

Furthermore, the fully exclusive section does not reach Jane or Don Mills. Running on 1.5 min headways (each way!) through traffic lights is hardly possible, whereas short-turning at Keele and Yonge would cause a gross imbalance in loads between the short-range and the long-range trains. If we have to extend the fully exclusive section and reach Jane and Don Mills, it is a major new expense in addition to the hassle of a partial line closure.

And even if the line could handle 20k, what about platforms, stairs, emergency exits etc? If they are designing with 8k or 10k max in mind, it might not suffice for 20k. Modifying those elements would add to costs as well.

All in all, it might cost significantly more to handle 20k with LRT than 30k with HRT.

 

[rbt]

With LRT, and with the way they are designing it, 20k will be quite difficult. The capacity of one car is 150 - 170 riders, a 3-car train can carry roughly 500 riders. To reach 20k, you'll need 40 trains per hour, on 1.5 min headways. That certainly requires ATO and that means new costs in addition to what they are spending now.

ATO is being installed on the Eglinton line using the exact same system and control room as the subway.

I understand there is consideration for platform doors on that line as well though it is unlikely they will be installed on launch day.

Note that a TTC sized subway can handle 20k without ATO. ATO brings other advantages, but having it as a mandatory new expense doesn't favor LRT.

ATO is probably the cheapest signaling option to install from scratch simply due to being in highest demand (mass production). Aside from that, TTC has the control center built (for Yonge line), will have spare parts on hand, decreased wiring requirements (tunnel lights not required), and familiarity with the kits.


Converting from one system to another in an actively used tunnel is very expensive due to work time restrictions and having both systems active simultaneously. Installing any signalling system from scratch is roughly the same price.

ATC was installed on Sheppard for the same reason. It was simply cheaper to put in modern equipment than to custom order a matching older system. BTW ATC on Sheppard never worked correctly, which is why Yonge is being upgraded to ATO instead of just ATC.

Furthermore, the fully exclusive section does not reach Jane or Don Mills. Running on 1.5 min headways (each way!) through traffic lights is hardly possible

It is possible and practical to maintain 90 second headways in the tunnel and 5 minute headways on the street portions.

And even if the line could handle 20k, what about platforms, stairs, emergency exits etc? If they are designing with 8k or 10k max in mind, it might not suffice for 20k. Modifying those elements would add to costs as well.

Station design is a valid concern. From what I've seen of the diagrams, they appear to have similar exit capacity as Sheppard stations.

 

[gweed123]

I still don't understand why people are insisting on LRT for Eglinton. I mean, the cost for the tunneled section is nearly identical to what a subway would cost, yet with 2/3 of the potential capacity. And trenching for LRT vs trenching for HRT is nearly the same cost as well. Why buy a medium pizza when you can get a large pizza for the same price?

 

[SimonP]

Having Eglinton built to TTC subway standards would cost a good deal of extra money. Following the current scheme it would also add two extra transfers at either end of the underground section.

Why spend extra money and add unnecessary transfers when the estimates show that Eglinton will be fine at LRT capacity for at least the next few decades?

 

[GraphicMatt]

I still don't understand why people are insisting on LRT for Eglinton. I mean, the cost for the tunneled section is nearly identical to what a subway would cost, yet with 2/3 of the potential capacity. And trenching for LRT vs trenching for HRT is nearly the same cost as well. Why buy a medium pizza when you can get a large pizza for the same price?

Because the large pizza is hypothetical and the medium pizza is on the way to our house right now. And god dammit, we're hungry.

 

[SimonP]

Given that Bloor's peak ridership is 24,000 today, one can expect Eglinton West attracting 12,000 or 15,000. This is close to the upper limit of LRT implementation they are designing for Eglinton.

People keep throwing out numbers like that for Eglinton. According to the transit analysts at the city, the peak ridership for the Eglinton line in 2031 will be 5,400 per hour. (For references see here or page 7 of here)

These are estimates by people who have spent their lives learning how to do studies like this. Why would their numbers be so wrong? Is it an active conspiracy by socialist Illuminati?

 

[spider]

I recently had an opportunity to stand on Eglinton Ave E. at Mt Pleasant Rd. (my wife had a doctor appointment) for a half hour in Mid day and observe the seemingly endless parade of busses going to and coming from the Yonge Street subway. Good lord!

Are all of these routes going to continue as is or be terminated at the point were they join the trunk route to the Yonge subway on Eglinton and have their riders transfer to the Eglinton Streetcar or Subway? Can a Streetcar replace the capacity of all these bus routes?

 

[Earlscourt_Lad]

These are estimates by people who have spent their lives learning how to do studies like this. Why would their numbers be so wrong? Is it an active conspiracy by socialist Illuminati?

Need you ask that question? We all know that it's a yes.

 

[TOareaFan]

Because the large pizza is hypothetical and the medium pizza is on the way to our house right now. And god dammit, we're hungry.

Yes, that...and eating large pizas when all you need are mediums will kill you.