That explains my reasoning perfectly. Thank you for that. The difference in cost between doing HRT and LRT (or lack theirof) makes HRT the better bang for the buck.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Rainforest
- Start date
That explains my reasoning perfectly. Thank you for that. The difference in cost between doing HRT and LRT (or lack theirof) makes HRT the better bang for the buck.
$1.86 billion from Kennedy to STC using a Danforth-McCowan alignment, assuming $310 million/km, granted it's 6km. That leaves $540 million to be spread around to other projects, be they in Scarborough or across the rest of the city.
Again, I think this argument is bullshit. You don't get Project A by asking for Projects B, C, D and E, which make Project A even more necessary. If you want the DRL so badly, put it at the TOP of the list, not partway down and hope the political climate will favour it 10-15 years down the road. If the other projects will screw the system over without the DRL in place, BUILD THE DRL FIRST.
Fresh Start
Banned
^ +1
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. What Toronto most needs is two new Relief lines: one east-west suwbay to alleviate Bloor-Danforth (Eglinton) and another north-south U subway to lessen the dependency on YUS (DRL). Placing LRTs along every other corridor only aids in transforming every interchange point in the transit network into new Bloor-Yonge style bottelenecks.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. What Toronto most needs is two new Relief lines: one east-west suwbay to alleviate Bloor-Danforth (Eglinton) and another north-south U subway to lessen the dependency on YUS (DRL). Placing LRTs along every other corridor only aids in transforming every interchange point in the transit network into new Bloor-Yonge style bottelenecks.
Dan416
Senior Member
+2
If the DRL is so important, it should be Prio 1, not 15.
If the DRL is so important, it should be Prio 1, not 15.
GenerationW
Senior Member
Is that still definitely true? When Eglinton was announced, that point was stressed by the TTC. In recent TTC offerings, not so much.
hbl33
Active Member
I don't buy that either. Theoretically, it should, if LRV can be extended to maximum 8 cars! I have not seen any mentions about possible expansion to more than 4-car train! ECLRT is downgrade to what could have been similar to Blue Line in MTL.
kettal
Banned
If this alignment is chosen, it could mean GREAT things for Danforth Road... it could become a real destination if it is redeveloped properly. Time to raze those bungalows... I hope the nimbys don't mind.
Dan416
Senior Member
IIRC that's part of the reason Eglinton is so expensive, but I could be wrong. AFAIK it's still being built with future conversion in mind. Unless this has changed, but I doubt that with Eglinton's ballooning costs.
Fresh Start
Banned
The point with Eglinton is that when you’re building underground, especially with bored tunnels, there’s very little difference in cost between HRT and LRT. HRT carries more passengers per trip and as riders are convinced of fastest travel times thanks to the tunnel, the limited capacities of 3-car LRT trainsets will not keep pace with the demand level > 7.34 passengers/m for HRT vehicles vs. > 4.33 passengers/m for LRT vehicles). They won't be able to run trainsets longer than in 3s because the station pockets will be too short (90m vs. 200m). Lengthening the pockets isn’t a simple matter, because it involves re-engineering vertical alignments as pockets cannot be on slopes steeper than 1% (according to TTC design standards). Furthermore longer trainsets will have great difficulty in clearing intersection within one complete light cycle and creates safety problems for turning movements. Meaning a lot of vehicle standing and in the case of farside stops a delay in off-/ onloading passengers. This equates into longer commute times.
Lastly the added expense and hassle of retrofitting any form of RT to another mode. Because of the political capital required to build one of these systems, once you build it you're stuck with it in perpetuity. Building LRT across Eglinton would be wasting money on something that will never work for its intended use. Cost-effectiveness is not only about initial up front capital costs. It is also about building something that serves its intended purpose well. LRT is "penny-wise and pound-foolish." Taking those $6 billion and adding another $1 billion or so to cover inflation, we probably could build an 18-20 km subway line along Eglinton: Yonge to Pearson, or Jane to Kennedy.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
LRT meets the projected ridership. If it was LRT built underground completely with stations the size required to handle 6-car trains similar in capacity to a subway there would be no savings, the cost would be higher than a subway, BUT they are building smaller stations which are NOT capable of handling 6-car subway trains without significant expense and they are running portions of the line at grade which DOES give them significant savings. The fact that they are building stations the size they are with completely low platforms, not the mixed height platforms seen in pre-metro systems like Brussels, tells me there is no real plan to upgrade to subway ever and it is probably just as likely that a Lawrence-Dixon LRT would be built. With an Eglinton LRT to subway upgrade the cost of expanding the stations and the disruption of service would likely be unpalatable for a capacity improvement which doesn't significantly improve service when compared to a Lawrence Dixon LRT which not only increases east-west capacity but also serves a new route. When given the option of greater coverage with nearly equivalent service OR less coverage with greater capacity I think greater coverage wins.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The Eglinton line stations are roughed-in for a six-car heavy rail train, but unfinished. Like an unfinished basement in a new house.
The structure of the stations are basic for both light-rail and heavy-rail. The finishes are what makes the stations APPEAR to be just for light-rail. The initial design is for two-car trains with quick expansion to three-car trains as needed. If in 50 or 100 years, the station has room to expand to a 5-car low-floor light rail train, or with the addition of high-platforms, to a six-car high-floor heavy rail train, if can be done as one would do with finishing off a basement. (A light rail vehicle is longer than a heavy-train vehicle.) The tunnels are being dug to accommodate BOTH heavy-rail AND light-rail trains, so no structural changes in the tunnels.
Here's the King station in its UNFINISHED state:
Here's the Queen station with its hollow platform:
Added a high platform means adding a hollow platform. Just like adding a partition to an unfinished basement.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Adding the hollow platform is what they do in Brussels as well however the elevator and escalators, prior to raising the platform, stop at platform level and have ramps and stairs to the lower level. This is not in the plans for the Eglinton Line which would mean replacing the escalators and making modifications to the elevators.
Exactly. The redevelopment opportunities around stations on Danforth Rd/McCowan is much bigger than the development potential along the current rail corridor stations. Based on current trends, I don't really think the NIMBYs have too much objections to subways these days.
lafard
Active Member
Changing the level of the platform is irrelevant. This line will operate with low floor vehicles evermore. If it is changed operationally such that the grade separated segment is isolated from the surface sections then we can buy special low-floor metro vehicles, but the platform level will not change.
If, in 50 years, this line is completely saturated then it justifies building another crosstown line. Just as it was somewhat foolish for our ancestors to funnel all traffic through Yonge, it's foolish for us to funnel all traffic through Eglinton, for example building another semi-underground LRT on Lawrence or Wilson/York Mills - win/win because it improves capacity AND coverage. With improved transit on parallels, it reduces the need for funnelling people through one tunnel. We'll see this effect with the Finch LRT in fact, as people in Etobicoke that would otherwise ride the bus down to Eglinton will instead take the LRT to Finch West Stn. Another east-west line in between will only enhance this effect. With some luck we'll have some form of rapid transit (probably BRT) on hwy 7 or the parkway belt by then, and possibly an express service on the North Toronto sub, that means half a dozen east west lines.
If, in 50 years, this line is completely saturated then it justifies building another crosstown line. Just as it was somewhat foolish for our ancestors to funnel all traffic through Yonge, it's foolish for us to funnel all traffic through Eglinton, for example building another semi-underground LRT on Lawrence or Wilson/York Mills - win/win because it improves capacity AND coverage. With improved transit on parallels, it reduces the need for funnelling people through one tunnel. We'll see this effect with the Finch LRT in fact, as people in Etobicoke that would otherwise ride the bus down to Eglinton will instead take the LRT to Finch West Stn. Another east-west line in between will only enhance this effect. With some luck we'll have some form of rapid transit (probably BRT) on hwy 7 or the parkway belt by then, and possibly an express service on the North Toronto sub, that means half a dozen east west lines.