Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[felix123]

When will a new completion date actually be set? Or is it just "idk, whenever" at this point?

 

[crs1026]

When will a new completion date actually be set? Or is it just "idk, whenever" at this point?

I imagine there will be a negotiation.

Considering that the date won't be prior to June 2, 2022.... it may not matter as much to QP.

- Paul

 

[ARG1]

Oh I am acutely aware of the move towards "alliance" model - with risk sharing back to the government - that pretty much puts an end to the whole "transfer risk to the private sector" P3 argument in the transit context in the GTA.

AoD

I think at this point it might be wise to abandon P3s altogether, or to rethink strategies. Right now Metrolinx can easily hit a wall where P3s become to unviable to pursue since they troubled contractors so much that costs will be even more expensive (since the private sector knows how much risk they're putting on themselves, and how strict ML is with suing companies that underdeliver), and it might be cheaper to just go back to the old way of government run construction.

 

[ssiguy2]

The crosstown would not be elevated through the central part. The grade level portion is straight forward and started way later as it's much faster to build (see Finch LRT).

An elevated Crosstown would still be below grade through the centre of the route and hit the same problems.

Yes I know the central part will be underground as it should be but the rest should have been elevated. The CT has too many stations both at grade and underground adding to the costs for little return. Also the underground stations themselves had to be made significantly larger than needed than if the system was grade separated because the system will suffer from much lower frequency capacity.

Miller proclaimed that LRT would offer the best of both worlds.......... high capacity, high frequency but lower costs and faster construction than subway but as Torontonians are quickly realizing instead it offers the worst pf both world.............high costs, lower capacity, less frequent service, less reliable but coming in a subway costs and timetables.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yes I know the central part will be underground as it should be but the rest should have been elevated. The CT has too many stations both at grade and underground adding to the costs for little return. Also the underground stations themselves had to be made significantly larger than needed than if the system was grade separated because the system will suffer from much lower frequency capacity.

Miller proclaimed that LRT would offer the best of both worlds.......... high capacity, high frequency but lower costs and faster construction than subway but as Torontonians are quickly realizing instead it offers the worst pf both world.............high costs, lower capacity, less frequent service, less reliable but coming in a subway costs and timetables.

The train station spacing (underground) for Line 5 are about the same spacing as with Line 2. For an underground LRT, it seems appropriate. The surface LRT stops are equivalent to what the "express" bus stops would be at.

 

[ARG1]

Yes I know the central part will be underground as it should be but the rest should have been elevated. The CT has too many stations both at grade and underground adding to the costs for little return. Also the underground stations themselves had to be made significantly larger than needed than if the system was grade separated because the system will suffer from much lower frequency capacity.

Miller proclaimed that LRT would offer the best of both worlds.......... high capacity, high frequency but lower costs and faster construction than subway but as Torontonians are quickly realizing instead it offers the worst pf both world.............high costs, lower capacity, less frequent service, less reliable but coming in a subway costs and timetables.

It might not be cheaper per say, but it would be more cost efficient relative to the service you're getting. The Eglinton Line will have the same hourly capacity as the Canada Line so a lot of money could've been saved building smaller stations, and that money could've been spent elevating the line in the east. Same capacity, while being way faster and way more reliable service, not much more expensive.

 

[Streety McCarface]

The real orthodoxy buster here is the notion that P3 is by default better and cheaper, and transfers risks from the government to the private sector. Pretty much none of that had happened in this case.

AoD

Perhaps transferring all the risk to the private sector, specifically the GC was always a stupid and impossible thing to do, especially when cost overruns are largely caused by things like unknown utilities and traffic control, things Metrolinx should have always taken the risk for.

 

[W. K. Lis]

It might not be cheaper per say, but it would be more cost efficient relative to the service you're getting. The Eglinton Line will have the same hourly capacity as the Canada Line so a lot of money could've been saved building smaller stations, and that money could've been spent elevating the line in the east. Same capacity, while being way faster and way more reliable service, not much more expensive.

When the Yonge Subway opened in 1954, they thought that after the initial passenger rush, they'll be using 2 (Gloucester) car trains. Never happened. They started with 4 (Gloucestor) car trains, growing to 4 (Montreal Locomotive Works and Hawker Siddeley) car trains minimum. Now 6 car trains used on Line 1 are too short.

 

[ARG1]

When the Yonge Subway opened in 1954, they thought that after the initial passenger rush, they'll be using 2 (Gloucester) car trains. Never happened. They started with 4 (Gloucestor) car trains, growing to 4 (Montreal Locomotive Works and Hawker Siddeley) car trains minimum. Now 6 car trains used on Line 1 are too short.

Sure, but that's not a problem that wouldn't occur on Eglinton. When I say max capacity, I mean max capacity. Eglinton can't exactly run 90 second headways due to the at grade segment (Good luck integrating at grade segments where the LRVs can get stuck behind streetlights into 90 second headways), and as a bonus Eglinton is now forever stuck with low floor vehicles, and since most of the line is tunelled, you can't replace it with heavy rail in the future like they did with the Yonge and Bloor Streetcars, so the vehicles themselves will forever be stuck with worse standing space and worse internal circulation.

 

[MrGoose]

Sure, but that's not a problem that wouldn't occur on Eglinton. When I say max capacity, I mean max capacity. Eglinton can't exactly run 90 second headways due to the at grade segment (Good luck integrating at grade segments where the LRVs can get stuck behind streetlights into 90 second headways), and as a bonus Eglinton is now forever stuck with low floor vehicles, and since most of the line is tunelled, you can't replace it with heavy rail in the future like they did with the Yonge and Bloor Streetcars, so the vehicles themselves will forever be stuck with worse standing space and worse internal circulation.

I mean, we could spend another 20 billion dollars to build a Lawrence Crosstown to relieve the poorly designed Eglinton Crosstown

 

[H4F33Z]

Signs up at Science Centre!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Perhaps transferring all the risk to the private sector, specifically the GC was always a stupid and impossible thing to do, especially when cost overruns are largely caused by things like unknown utilities and traffic control, things Metrolinx should have always taken the risk for.

Is it though? It was sold to be a smart move, and I am sure Toronto isn't *that* unique.

Sure, but that's not a problem that wouldn't occur on Eglinton. When I say max capacity, I mean max capacity. Eglinton can't exactly run 90 second headways due to the at grade segment (Good luck integrating at grade segments where the LRVs can get stuck behind streetlights into 90 second headways), and as a bonus Eglinton is now forever stuck with low floor vehicles, and since most of the line is tunelled, you can't replace it with heavy rail in the future like they did with the Yonge and Bloor Streetcars, so the vehicles themselves will forever be stuck with worse standing space and worse internal circulation.

Nothing prevents you from elevating (or even tunnelling) the remainder portion of the existing line that is currently at grade.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The main problem with Yonge isn't that it is at capacity. Instead, it is the lack of alternate lines built over the last 40 years. Most of the ridership comes from feeder buses from the east. I think @ARG1 is correct, building more grade separated lines of smaller station size but higher frequency is the way forward. Especially because it increases network coverage at cheaper cost.

Except the incremental cost of building a new line is *much* higher (nevermind the political friction of starting a new one), and that new lines are invariably extended where existing capacity will be soaked up - just look at Yonge - even RL/OL couldn't negate the need to increase capacity of the existing line.

AoD

 

[ARG1]

Is it though? It was sold to be a smart move, and I am sure Toronto isn't *that* unique.



Nothing prevents you from elevating (or even tunnelling) the remainder portion of the existing line that is currently at grade.

AoD

I really hope that happens sooner than later, although that leaves the question of what we do with Eglinton East. Should we fully grade separate that as well or do we make that a separate line?

 

[ARG1]

Signs up at Science Centre!

View attachment 320775
View attachment 320776
View attachment 320777

God I really wasn't expecting to see the different font. It gives such a strong feeling of visual dissonance, I really don't like it.