Eglinton-Crosstown Corridor Debate

[kettal]

How nice for people riding Eglinton in Scarborough or Etobicoke, knowing that other people in the centre of the line are getting a red light-free trip, one that lowers frequency on the surface stretches by limiting crosstown trains.

Well that's not very good reasoning. If you're going to say that, then why not go the next step: "a subway all the way to Pearson Airport? We can't do that because then those travelling Ehglinton Ave in Mississauga might get jealous!" And the folks in Durham might get jealous! And the folks on Lawrence Avenue, etc etc etc. Where does it end? I say Jane Street is as good a place as any to surface.

Would riders be told via announcements or signs that the next train is turning back at Laird? If not, there'll be some awkward crowd movements on the platforms as the people going farther than that all have to move out of the way...or they'll have to transfer to continue on in the same direction on the same line, which is the most irritating kind of transfer.

Have you ever ridden a train or a bus anywhere in the world before? Go ahead and wait at any bus stop in Toronto, you will notice some buses come past with their display saying this bus goes to Leslie, or this bus goes to Woodbine. It's not that complicated. LRT and Subways pretty much everywhere do this too.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

From the Globe, by John Barber:

In short, the TTC remembers when the word "visionary" was no compliment, but rather a synonym for harebrained, and planned accordingly. Transit City was a triumph of common sense. But now the visionaries are regrouping for another assault, another Eglinton subway their goal.

The choice is to start digging now or to argue forever about how big the tunnel should be - and risk losing everything.

The main thing Transit City lacks *is* common sense.

And, no, that's not the only choice! If a $3+ billion tunneled streetcar is such a slam-dunk project as far as funding and construction goes, a subway line costing marginally more would be equally a slam-dunk. There's absolutely no difference. City officials adore going on about how we can't build any more subway lines - or even extend existing ones unless they go to York Region - because then every part of the city will want a subway. Well, the Spadina and Yonge extensions will please much of the northern half of the 416, a Danforth extension to STC would have pleased much of Scarborough, an Eglinton subway would please like half the city, a DRL would please the whole city. These lines would not cost more than Transit City and the city could easily have requested funding for alternate transit projects, if only their streetcar fetish wasn't so pervasive.

It is not that difficult to inform the riders where the next train is going. Many city rail lines in the world, even London's tube, operate branches, and it does not seem to be a big problem.

A decent frequency can be maintained on the outer sections of the line, since the tunnel portion can allow very high frequency of the combined service. 5 min headways on the crosstown branch and 2.5 min combined in the central section is doable.

For someone whose source and destination would be near the Crosstown LRT stops, even the Scarborough to Etobicoke trip would be under 1 hour, much better than the use of two Eglinton buses today, and probably better than a detour via Bloor subway. Even though the train would stop at traffic lights in the outer sections, it will run on its ROW and not caught in traffic jams.

Yeah, some of this sounds nice in theory, but the TTC has been unable to put theory into practice on its existing lines...we should make sure we know how to run them properly before spending billions of dollars on a line confident only that, well, at least the Europeans are able to make them work.

Hmm.. the location at Anglesey is pretty close to some of my stomping grounds.. I think I'll go, and constantly add that it should be a subway. Maybe if enough citizens do that, the TTC might take another look in the mirror (or in its plans).

They didn't do it with the RT replacement, or with Sheppard East, and they won't do it here. Miller would have to be voted out of office or Metrolinx would have to intervene first.

 

[kettal]

And, no, that's not the only choice! If a $3+ billion tunneled streetcar is such a slam-dunk project as far as funding and construction goes, a subway line costing marginally more would be equally a slam-dunk.

You should be a car dealer. "Sure you could buy this fuel-efficient hatch back, but for only a slightly higher price, you can get this SUV. Sure it will cost you more to fuel and maintain it but what if you wake up one day and the roads disappear? Can you afford to take that risk?!"

 

[nfitz]

If a $3+ billion tunneled streetcar is such a slam-dunk project as far as funding and construction goes, a subway line costing marginally more would be equally a slam-dunk.

Marginally more? The TTC has estimated that just making the tunnelled section wider will cost a $1 billion (and perhaps that is an expense that might be worth it). But then there are the stations, and grade-separating the bulk of the line that wouldn't be otherwise. It be at least double. ... used car dealer, heck, sounds more like a crack dealer to me!

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Well that's not very good reasoning. If you're going to say that, then why not go the next step: "a subway all the way to Pearson Airport? We can't do that because then those travelling Ehglinton Ave in Mississauga might get jealous!" And the folks in Durham might get jealous! And the folks on Lawrence Avenue, etc etc etc. Where does it end? I say Jane Street is as good a place as any to surface.

There is no next step, except in silly, slippery slope, red herring-laden arguments like yours. I was clearly referring to lowered frequencies on the surface sections due to short-turns in the tunnel, either scheduled or spontaneous. Where does it end? The Eglinton line ends at Kennedy and at two planning arrows around Renforth. An Eglinton subway would also surface east of Jane.

edit - oh, and Lawrence *should* be getting an LRT line.

Have you ever ridden a train or a bus anywhere in the world before? Go ahead and wait at any bus stop in Toronto, you will notice some buses come past with their display saying this bus goes to Leslie, or this bus goes to Woodbine. It's not that complicated. LRT and Subways pretty much everywhere do this too.

You're assuming vehicles won't be short-turning randomly, due to crowds, or due to wonky frequency of the crosstown brances due to messed up surface operations, or for whatever other reason. We don't even know where crossover tracks will be located yet. Bus stops aren't in narrow underground platforms with hundreds of people getting on and off using the same doors.

You should be a car dealer. "Sure you could buy this fuel-efficient hatch back, but for only a slightly higher price, you can get this SUV. Sure it will cost you more to fuel and maintain it but what if you wake up one day and the roads disappear? Can you afford to take that risk?!"

And if the subway is cheaper to build and operate per rider? Why buy a hatch back if you already have a few kids and are pregnant with twins? Mom drives half the kids in one car, dad drives the other half in another car...suddenly you need two cars when a van would have been cheaper.

Not that you or nfitz give a damn about real transit riders in this city...your streetcar fetishes trump such trivial concerns as moving people.

 

[Whoaccio]

Marginally more? The TTC has estimated that just making the tunnelled section wider will cost a $1 billion (and perhaps that is an expense that might be worth it). But then there are the stations, and grade-separating the bulk of the line that wouldn't be otherwise. It be at least double. ... used car dealer, heck, sounds more like a crack dealer to me!

The typical LRV is what, 2.6m wide? Use ~2.6m subway cars, problem solved no?

 

[Rainforest]

Rainforest

They didn't do it with the RT replacement, or with Sheppard East, and they won't do it here. Miller would have to be voted out of office or Metrolinx would have to intervene first.

Metrolinx will likely have the final say, as this is a provincial agency and the province is going to carry the lion's share of the capital costs.

So, Metrolinx should weight all options, and decide what it can afford to fund on Eglinton (and "can afford" stands for "can certainly allocate all funding required to build the whole thing"):

1) Full subway - at least $6B.

2) Mini-metro (ICTS, or LRT on fully separate ROW) - assume at least $4B, if it is 1/3 cheaper than the full subway.

3) LRT as per TransitCity - at least $2.2B.

If it is (2) or (3), does it have to be upgradable to a full subway? That will raise the bar.

If it is (2), is ICTS or LRT technology preferred? That probably won't change the cost much, but will affect compatibility with other lines.

I don't oppose to a full subway on Eglinton, but pretty certain that a completed LRT line will be more useful than an unfinished subway line.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Light rail could work on Eglinton, but there comes a point when spending more on a subway line would reap far more benefits. LRT as per Transit City is already up over $3 billion, and that's not exactly a final figure.

There has been absolutely no discussion in this city about what can be done to lower the cost of subway lines. On the contrary, every effort has been made in recent years to inflate their costs to absurd degrees, like the $58M/km contingency added to the Spadina extension. There has been no debate about using larger TBM machines, or running in trenches or elevated, or not including Tianenman-sized mezzanines, or about how subway lines lure more riders and concentrates more development which would otherwise cost far more to serve with transit and other things, or about how there's a huge empty ROW on Eglinton West that would slash tens of millions of dollars per km off the cost and room for all kinds of non-tunneled options east of Laird that could also slash tens of millions per km.

Everyone here is obsessed with comparing the cost of subway with the cost of LRT..."streetcars are X million dollars cheaper per km, and we can use that money to build other lines in other places." No, we can't...that's not how it works. They don't take a set amount of money and see how much they can get for it...if they really can't afford an Eglinton subway, they won't start building it (which is fine with me as it's not the highest priority, anyway). When funding is given on a project by project basis, there is no such thing as money left over for other projects. A new funding arrangement/Metrolinx era might change how projects are paid for, but that would mean Metrolinx having influence on planning, too, and they may not have a light rail fetish and may not want to cancel Toronto's rapid transit plans and replace with them with streetcars. Everyone goes on about what Mike Harris did to transit in this city, but we'll soon be saying the same things about Richard Soberman and Steve Munro.

 

[nfitz]

The typical LRV is what, 2.6m wide? Use ~2.6m subway cars, problem solved no?

Indeed, I've been saying that for years. Full-size subway trains are great on the YUS and BD - and perhaps the DLR. But narrower trains similiar to Montreal, Paris, London, etc. would make more sense for Shepherd, Eglinton subways.

 

[Voltz]

Just because it is possible to build a subway cheaper than all tunneled is also not a good enough reason to just build one. The fact remains that there is not enough ridership projected to warrant a full subway, and the proposed LRT line is capable of handling the demand.

The nonsense that LRT would be packed like sardines is unfounded. The peak projections are for within the tunneled section, where service would be higher and faster, outside of that section, the demand is lower and the surface lrt is still enough, this includes the fact that some trains would be short turned within the tunneled section

And yes, ridership projections do incorporate future densification

I strongly suspect that the reason for metrolinx pushing a RT line is they want a showcase bombardier P3 design build operate Rapid transit line, not because they thik it is necessary

 

[Rainforest]

Rainforest

Everyone here is obsessed with comparing the cost of subway with the cost of LRT..."streetcars are X million dollars cheaper per km, and we can use that money to build other lines in other places." No, we can't...that's not how it works. They don't take a set amount of money and see how much they can get for it...

That's exactly how it should work: set a fixed amount of money per, say 25 years, and evaluate what's the best use of them. You are right, it does not work like this at present. In a sense, the city / TTC can request $6B for a subway line pretty much same way as it can request $2.2B or $3B for an LRT line.

But at the end, someone (provincial finance minister) has to gauge the impact on the overall finances (extra taxes; or extra debt and its service costs), and make a decision. It is quite logical that, having committed to a $6B project, the minister will be less likely to endorse other costly undertaking (say DRL) than he / she would be after committing to a $3B project.

...if they really can't afford an Eglinton subway, they won't start building it (which is fine with me as it's not the highest priority, anyway).

Nope, this is not a good idea. If they can't afford a subway but can afford an LRT, then build LRT and thus help the existing commuters. Yes, some development opportunities will be forfeited that way, but it is better than to leave the passengers in the slow buses on this congested road.

There has been absolutely no discussion in this city about what can be done to lower the cost of subway lines.

You are probably right. However, note that the public opinion has a better chance to influence the choice of technology (say LRT versus subway) rather than the choice of implementation details within the selected technology. So, if we cannot get the TTC to build more economical subways, then we have to price in the risk that it will keep overbuilding new subway projects.

 

[Dan416]

Just because it is possible to build a subway cheaper than all tunneled is also not a good enough reason to just build one. The fact remains that there is not enough ridership projected to warrant a full subway, and the proposed LRT line is capable of handling the demand.

The nonsense that LRT would be packed like sardines is unfounded. The peak projections are for within the tunneled section, where service would be higher and faster, outside of that section, the demand is lower and the surface lrt is still enough, this includes the fact that some trains would be short turned within the tunneled section

And yes, ridership projections do incorporate future densification

I strongly suspect that the reason for metrolinx pushing a RT line is they want a showcase bombardier P3 design build operate Rapid transit line, not because they thik it is necessary

Honestly given the way the TTC manages transit in Toronto, I'd welcome our Bombardier overlords running a P3 Eglinton line (and I'm usually against P3).

 

[scarberiankhatru]

The fact remains that there is not enough ridership projected to warrant a full subway, and the proposed LRT line is capable of handling the demand.

Why would people aggressively pushing light rail project ridership in subway territory? That would be self-defeating.

That's exactly how it should work: set a fixed amount of money per, say 25 years, and evaluate what's the best use of them. You are right, it does not work like this at present. In a sense, the city / TTC can request $6B for a subway line pretty much same way as it can request $2.2B or $3B for an LRT line.

But at the end, someone (provincial finance minister) has to gauge the impact on the overall finances (extra taxes; or extra debt and its service costs), and make a decision. It is quite logical that, having committed to a $6B project, the minister will be less likely to endorse other costly undertaking (say DRL) than he / she would be after committing to a $3B project.

A transit allowance is a bad idea that does not address the needs of riders and regions and will be subject to the kind of extreme lobbying we see today. Until transit stops being an ideological, factional battle, a minister that supports one subway project will support another...at least, if they're told to do so. A government official could be told that light rail is the future and will support it ferociously, while another could be told that subways are too expensive and will go around opposing them at every opportunity, and another could be told that monorails are the best option (because the guy who told him has a brother that owns the monorail manufacturer or the owns land where stations will be located). Maybe an organization like Metrolinx will have full control over spending, but who's to say there won't be subway fanatics on it, or people that want BRT to Moosonee?

Nope, this is not a good idea. If they can't afford a subway but can afford an LRT, then build LRT and thus help the existing commuters. Yes, some development opportunities will be forfeited that way, but it is better than to leave the passengers in the slow buses on this congested road.

Again, how is it at all constructive to keep creating these imaginary scenarios where the provincial government only has exactly $4.283 billion (or some other random number conveniently midway between the two presented options) available to spend? Waiting a few years is preferable to building the wrong thing now...waiting is also a good idea on Eglinton because its potential ridership is wildly variable depending on what other transit improvements are made. Building the right thing depends on funding but also on the municipality keeping it in the plans and not changing its mind every few years. Sheppard won't be finished, but because the city chose to abandon it, not because of lack of funding.

You are probably right. However, note that the public opinion has a better chance to influence the choice of technology (say LRT versus subway) rather than the choice of implementation details within the selected technology. So, if we cannot get the TTC to build more economical subways, then we have to price in the risk that it will keep overbuilding new subway projects.

Another false choice, this time between light rail or overbuilt subways. The public doesn't know squat about technical or financial details and they don't care (nor should they need to care, because the "experts" whose salary they are paying are supposed to have their transit interests in mind). It's the politicians and the engineers and the planners that are fully responsible for wasting money on huge mezzanines or ispending half a billion dollars on contingencies for the Spadina extension or proposing billion dollar light rail lines that will run almost empty to the middle of nowhere in Scarborough...they're the ones that should know better. Currently, public opinion has zero influence on choice of technology and slight influence on implementation (negligible, but it's there, like stop spacing), so there may be hope. If public opinion can create influential light rail zealots like Steve Munro, public opinion can do the same for saving billions of dollars on subway construction. The TTC has built cheaper lines before...they just need to be reminded.

 

[Dan416]

I'm happy to see subway support has crept up to 62%

I wish I had remembered to enable public voting on this poll when I made it many moons ago.

 

[Dan416]

There's no public vote results this time...I wonder if that'll have any effect on the outcome.

I voted for the LRT but I probably should have voted for 'other' and qualified it by saying build LRT but *not* as per Transfer City because the Eglinton LRT should be treated as a rapid transit line, not a local transit line.

I'm dying to see what they have planned for the tunneled portion. Will there be stations every 400m? How on earth will they keep the cost below $4-5 billion? There may come a point where the projected cost is so high that spending, say, one or two billion more will enable the entire ~30km to be built as a full-fledged subway line...if that point is reached, I think we should take it (even though an Eglinton subway is not near the top of my list of priority projects).

As a side note, it is interesting to see what your position was 4 months ago, Scarberian. I had no idea you voted LRT.