News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.1K     0 

MrGoose said:
In what way would a subway be more expensive to run than what we have right now?

A subway would have the same tunnels, interchanges and tracks.

Is there anything to suggest that trams are cheaper to maintain than high floor trains?

And in terms of personnel , an automated subway would not need to have any drivers whereas we are locked into having drivers for the Crosstown
Click to expand...
The average kilometer of subway cost $7mil to maintain over 10 years ago. (That number is probably closer to $10mil/km today.)

The surface section will cost considerably less to maintain. There are no needs for systems to provide lighting, fire prevention, life safety, passenger elevating, etc., and thus no need to maintain the same. The signalling system is simpler, and therefore less expensive to operate and maintain. No faregates to maintain. The list goes on.

Will the equipment be more expensive to operate? It's unknown, but considering the number of systems that are not required by running it on the surface, I would bet a crisp $100 bill that it will cost a lot less on the whole.

Dan
 
MrGoose said:
Except that the Sheppard Line started at 6km long with only 1 major interchange and the Eglinton line is starting at 18km with 4 major interchanges, with another extension already under construction, and another major line being built to intersect it.
Click to expand...
The original Yonge line (Union to Eglinton) was barely 7km in length and did just fine. It had no interchanges.

MrGoose said:
A similar looking Sheppard Line would look like what the Sheppard Line is supposed to look like once its extension is complete and there is no doubt that such a line would have much higher ridership than what the current Sheppard Line has.
Click to expand...

Sure. But enough to justify the added cost of making it 3x the length? Not likely. Great swaths of Sheppard in the late 90s when the line was being planned was nothing but SFH. Even now it still doesn’t have anything close to the density Eglinton did when they planned the first Eg Subway in the 80s.

You keep pointing out the crosstown tunnels and stations are big enough for subway trains, then it’ll make it super easy to upgrade when the time actually comes and the density truly justifies it and. Then we can tunnel some more.

Throwing money at something right now for the sake of 30-40 years down the line is ridiculous for the sheer maintenance costs, let alone the initial–unjustified–capital. Unless you haven’t noticed, the TTC (as one of the least subsidized transit agencies in North America) emptied the couch cushions long ago.
 
Last edited:
zang said:
The original Yonge line (Union to Eglinton) was barely 7km in length and did just fine. It had no interchanges.



Sure. But enough to justify the added cost of making it 3x the length? Not likely. Great swaths of Sheppard in the late 90s when the line was being planned was nothing but SFH. Even now it still doesn’t have anything close to the density Eglinton did when they planned the first Eg Subway in the 80s.

You keep pointing out the crosstown tunnels and stations are big enough for subway trains, then it’ll make it super easy to upgrade when the time actually comes and the density truly justifies it and. Then we can tunnel some more.
Click to expand...
Thats the problem. The stations are low-floor stations so the conversion is not easy or cheap to do.

And by then you'll be shutting down a major 15kPPDPH line, and causing transit chaos.
 
MrGoose said:
How did we save on construction costs?

The tunnels are wide enough for subway trains and the station boxes are longer than an equivalent station box on the Yonge Line.

The eastern at-grade section is a 27m wide stroad which could have been very easily cut and covered.

We aren't going to be adding more stations if it was a subway, if anything, we'd be removing some of them because of faster operations.
Click to expand...
The Eglinton underground stations are not as long, 90m vs 150m.

An Eglinton Subway would not have made it east of Yonge by now, and we would have been lucky if serious planning was underway to make it to Don Mills,
 
This map is not aging very well.
1719014636748.png
 
I don’t know if everyone forgot. The whole point was originally to build a LRT line on the surface but Eglinton was too narrow in midtown with a higher ridership projected. So the tunnel was selected between Keele to Brentcliffe. The rest of the line from Martin Grove to Kennedy would be in the surface. The alignment beyond Martin Grove was undecided. Either a split with a spur to Renforth and another to Pearson or one line passing both destinations. Eventually they terminated the line at Weston with funds running dry.
ML stepped in and made everything west of Brentcliffe grade separated leading to this discussion of a full subway instead.

If they were to spend money on a subway. It’s better off they spend it to extend OL to Sheppard and extend that to meet Line 2.
 
Metrolinx did propose going underground beneath the Don all the way to Don Mills until a handful of condo owners complained to Jaye Robinson about the loss of a Leslie stop and the plan was somehow scrapped. Once that happened, the Leslie stop should have been on the south side of the street in order to completely avoid car traffic, but we didn't get that either.
 
I find Seton Park to be the most appropriate new name for Science Centre Station. It would be one stop east of Sunnybrook Park (Line 5), and just north of Thorncliffe Park and Flemingdon Park on the future Line 3. The park runs behind the former Science Centre buildings. There's also a Seton Park Road, that intersects with Ferrand Drive twice on the SE corner. Sadly, this name wasn't shortlisted.

I wouldn't mind Celestica either.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top