[ssiguy2]

If the line was automated using complete grade separation the stations themselves could be half the size of what Metrolinx is building them as and still have higher capacity.

Also LRT elevation is not cheaper than standard subway and more expensive than SkyTrain or m monorail. Yes, the support structures are less expensive due to the lighter weight of the vehicles but those costs are negated by having to build much taller overhead catenary connections. SkyTrain doesn't have that issue as the vehicles are as light as LRT but don't require those overhead connections and of course elevated monorail is the cheapest of the all.

I love how, again, Metrolinx doesn't even consider the option and time and money savings of elevation from DM to Kennedy. Also, even with these 2 fewer stations there are still too many along the line and the line should avergae one stop per km.

 

[nfitz]

LRT is more expensive to tunnel than subway because of the wider diameter required for the overhead canary.

In theory, though only what somewhat. The actual tunnelling costs are only a fraction of the project price. The first tunelling contract that has been awarded for Eglinton is only $320 million for the 6.2 km from Black Creek to near Eglinton ($51.6 million/km). That would be 12.4 km of tunnel, given the twin tunnels, and two drives (one from near Black Creek to the Eglinton West-Allen station box and the second from Eglinton West-Allen to the Yonge-Eglinton station box).

There are other factors, such as the cheaper cost for the overhead catenary, compared to the more complex 3rd rail system, the track having less loading requirements, and even the back-up signalling system (presuming that ATC is the primary system), which is much simpler on the current underground streetcar segments compared to the expensive system in the subway.

The experts are saying that overall that tunnelled LRT is cheaper. I wouldn't immediately assume they are wrong without doing a detalied analysis.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

If the line was automated using complete grade separation the stations themselves could be half the size of what Metrolinx is building them as and still have higher capacity.

What is the point of building for highest capacity, if a line won't ever reach that limit? This idea that lines should be built to the highest capacity is just an excuse to waste money needlessly.

 

[k10ery]

I don't disagree that it's dumb but here is a rather interesting (and likely very false) quote from Metrolinx:

"Metrolinx disputes Mr. Parker’s assertion that his idea is more affordable because LRT vehicles, designed to run on the surface, are more expensive. On a per-kilometre basis, according to the transit agency, a tunnelled LRT still costs less than a subway."

What's "dumb", the Metrolinx plan? If they can speed up the line and eliminate a couple of middle-of-nowhere stations for the same cost, then why not?

This seems to me like the test case of whether we can do good transit planning through a provincial agency, instead of leaving it to smallminded local councillors like Parker.

 

[BurlOak]

What is the point of building for highest capacity, if a line won't ever reach that limit? This idea that lines should be built to the highest capacity is just an excuse to waste money needlessly.

You seem to be misunderstanding what ssiguy2 was saying - not sure if it was deliberate. He says (I hope I am not putting words in someone elses mouth) that smaller stations (which will be less expensive) would have a higher capacity. He was not trying to achieve the highest capacity. He is actuallly proposing spending less money on stations than the LRT plan. If all 12 underground stations were reduced in size - would the savings offset the additional costs of elevating the line through Scarborough? I am not sure, but it I would not be surprised if the overall cost was less.

 

[innsertnamehere]

If the line was automated using complete grade separation the stations themselves could be half the size of what Metrolinx is building them as and still have higher capacity.

Also LRT elevation is not cheaper than standard subway and more expensive than SkyTrain or m monorail. Yes, the support structures are less expensive due to the lighter weight of the vehicles but those costs are negated by having to build much taller overhead catenary connections. SkyTrain doesn't have that issue as the vehicles are as light as LRT but don't require those overhead connections and of course elevated monorail is the cheapest of the all.

I love how, again, Metrolinx doesn't even consider the option and time and money savings of elevation from DM to Kennedy. Also, even with these 2 fewer stations there are still too many along the line and the line should avergae one stop per km.

I struggle to beleive that a couple of metal poles spaced 20 meters apart and some wire running along them will add hundreds of millions of dollars to a line.

 

[datamouse]

In theory, though only what somewhat. The actual tunnelling costs are only a fraction of the project price. The first tunelling contract that has been awarded for Eglinton is only $320 million for the 6.2 km from Black Creek to near Eglinton ($51.6 million/km). That would be 12.4 km of tunnel, given the twin tunnels, and two drives (one from near Black Creek to the Eglinton West-Allen station box and the second from Eglinton West-Allen to the Yonge-Eglinton station box).

There are other factors, such as the cheaper cost for the overhead catenary, compared to the more complex 3rd rail system, the track having less loading requirements, and even the back-up signalling system (presuming that ATC is the primary system), which is much simpler on the current underground streetcar segments compared to the expensive system in the subway.

The experts are saying that overall that tunnelled LRT is cheaper. I wouldn't immediately assume they are wrong without doing a detalied analysis.

Yeah, I always thought the the tunneling was relatively cheap (the boring itself) and it was the installation of track, electrical, signaling, etc. that drives up the cost.
I found this from an article regarding Sheppard's construction from 2000:

All tunneling was completed in June, 1999 at a cost of $102-million, not counting the boring machines themselves ($18-million in 1992) and paying for the 39,400 concrete tunnel liners ($26-million).

 

[gweed123]

In theory, though only what somewhat. The actual tunnelling costs are only a fraction of the project price. The first tunelling contract that has been awarded for Eglinton is only $320 million for the 6.2 km from Black Creek to near Eglinton ($51.6 million/km). That would be 12.4 km of tunnel, given the twin tunnels, and two drives (one from near Black Creek to the Eglinton West-Allen station box and the second from Eglinton West-Allen to the Yonge-Eglinton station box).

There are other factors, such as the cheaper cost for the overhead catenary, compared to the more complex 3rd rail system, the track having less loading requirements, and even the back-up signalling system (presuming that ATC is the primary system), which is much simpler on the current underground streetcar segments compared to the expensive system in the subway.

The experts are saying that overall that tunnelled LRT is cheaper. I wouldn't immediately assume they are wrong without doing a detalied analysis.

Hmm interesting. It would be interesting to see a detailed analysis of all of those costs totalled up and compared. Ie: a total estimated cost for Eglinton (Mt. Dennis to Don Mills) as LRT vs the same stretch as an HRT subway.

 

[rbt]

What's "dumb", the Metrolinx plan?

The amount of compromise, political, and timing difficulties around the line are approaching insanity. Having the peanut gallery throwing out remarks of disapproval while simultaneously voting in favour makes me want to donate to his opponents in the next election.


The plan TTC/Metrolinx has put together is fairly reasonable given the complexities of the situation.

Waterloo's plans have been going very smoothly by comparison. Ottawa/Toronto politicians seem to create their own difficulties.

If the line was automated using complete grade separation the stations themselves could be half the size of what Metrolinx is building them as and still have higher capacity.

What makes you believe it will not be automated? It's sharing a control room and signalling system with the Yonge line.

Think of the surface component as a lower frequency branch of the service.


Of course, Eglinton running full trains with 90 second frequencies would completely overwhelm the Yonge line and cause massive backups at Bloor/Yonge station.

If you boost service on Eglinton, then service on Bloor/Danforth would need to be artifically reduced. Having 10,000 people waiting on the platform to squeeze into Yonge trains is not an option.

 

[nfitz]

What makes you believe it will not be automated? It's getting the exact same signalling and control system as is being installed onto Yonge. Having a branch going out to Scarborough does not prevent automation in the core segment.

It's getting an automatic control system, like Yonge. But have they confirmed it will get a heavy-rail type signalling system like the new system being installed on Yonge?

 

[gweed123]

Waterloo's plans have been going very smoothly by comparison. Ottawa/Toronto politicians seem to create their own difficulties.

Ottawa's transit problems are soooo 2006 . It was a deeply flawed plan, and my only regret with it is that it didn't die sooner than it did.

The current incarnation has been relatively smooth. Yes, you get the natural opposition that you get with any major infrastructure project, but realistically it's gone pretty smoothly. It survived the 2010 election unimpeded (more than can be said for Transit City), and the plan has been modified to be made more cost and design effective when needed. The DBM contract came in on-budget, with only a few very small corners cut in order to make it fit. I'd say so far Ottawa's transit plan has been a pretty good success.

 

[rbt]

It's getting an automatic control system, like Yonge. But have they confirmed it will get a heavy-rail type signalling system like the new system being installed on Yonge?

We won't know for certain until the tender is placed (2020?) but the original intention was to fully signallize the tunnel.

Eglinton will not have the legacy work-car or occassional shared trains with BD line issues so it would likely be a simpler (partial) implementation of what the subway is getting. The new subway system is rather complex due to legacy issues rather than a necessity of being heavy-rail.

 

[snowystar]

Also LRT elevation is not cheaper than standard subway and more expensive than SkyTrain or m monorail. Yes, the support structures are less expensive due to the lighter weight of the vehicles but those costs are negated by having to build much taller overhead catenary connections.

Light rail vehicles are actually heavier than the ones for heavy rail because they're built to withstand the impact of collision. Comparing the vehicle of same length, the TransitCity LRV is acutally 10% heavier than the much wider Toronto Rocket, and 35% heavier than Vancouver's SkyTrain vehicle with the same width. The word "light" in light rail have more to do with the carrying capacity than the weight of vehicle.

 

[nfitz]

We won't know for certain until the tender is placed (2020?) but the original intention was to fully signallize the tunnel.

Might be safer that way. I'd assume the tender would be well before then. We're supposed to see service in 2020 according to their recent schedule. Wouldn't it be finalized when they issue the RFP, which according to the latest Infrastructure Ontario schedule is Spring 2013?

 

[BurlOak]

Light rail vehicles are actually heavier than the ones for heavy rail because they're built to withstand the impact of collision. Comparing the vehicle of same length, the TransitCity LRV is acutally 10% heavier than the much wider Toronto Rocket, and 35% heavier than Vancouver's SkyTrain vehicle with the same width. The word "light" in light rail have more to do with the carrying capacity than the weight of vehicle.

Thanks, I was looking for that info.

It an elevated transit line has support columns at 50m spacing, then it if the length is any more than 75m or so, it would have no impact on the design of the supporting structure. Also, about half the supporting structure (beams, truss) are to carry the self-weight so the actual weight of the vehicles is not directly related to costs - it is a small effect.